A toast on the anniversary of the liberation of Iraq

[Dreadsox]

[Q]LAST March, Iraqis were suffering under the thumb of one of the most brutal dictatorships of the last hundred years - a regime that industrialized brutality, tortured children to coerce their parents and raped women to punish their relatives. A U.S. Army commander in Iraq told me last July about the excavation of one mass grave where they discovered remains of 80 women and children - with little dresses and toys.

Today, Iraq's era of systematic savagery is over. Thanks to the dedication and courage of American and Coalition military and civilians, the support of the U.S. Congress and the American people, life in Iraq is improving steadily:

* Electricity reached pre-war levels last October, and is on track to reach 150 percent of pre-war levels, despite an infrastructure devastated by Saddam.

* Oil production has reached 2.5 million barrels per day, well ahead of projections.

* Funding for public health care is up 26 times the level under Saddam.

* All 22 universities, 43 technical institutes and colleges opened on time last fall.

* Some 72 million new textbooks will go to primary and secondary schools by the end of this school year, so children will no longer learn arithmetic from books that say "2 Saddams plus 2 Saddams equals 4 Saddams."

ONE of the most important developments is the increasing role played by Iraqis in providing for the security of their country. Since Baghdad was liberated, Iraqi security forces went from almost none to the 200,000 who currently serve in various security roles.

Today, Iraqis who are fighting and dying for the "New Iraq" are numerically the largest member of the Coalition. While they are not as well-trained or equipped as American forces, they have many advantages because they know the country and the language. They're the "home team" and enjoy tremendous popular support - to the terrorists' frustration.

It is altogether appropriate that Iraqis should fight to defend their country, and it is heartening that they continue to volunteer in large numbers despite the enemy's attempts to frighten them.

A few weeks ago, after an attack on a police station in Fallujah, when the U.S. offered Iraqi Civil Defense Corpsmen help in subduing the attackers, they said, no thanks - we want to do this job ourselves so people will know we can.

Ali, the Iraqi blogger, put such attacks into a larger perspective: "Some people still wonder what would be the relation between the liberation of Iraq and [the] war on terrorism. I think that the fact that nearly all the terrorists are gathered on our land to fight so fiercely should be more than enough explanation." He added: "We are . . . showing [other Arabs] what they can achieve once they are free . . . I see these evil powers show their true and ugly face and play their last card - surer than ever that we are winning." [/Q]

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/17287.htm

 

[Dreadsox]

Here is to the men and women from around the world who have risked their lives to help Iraq.

Here is to the world leaders who showed the courage to do the right thing.

 

[Soul Always]

Agreed

 

[STING2]

God Bless all the men and women who are working and fighting to make Iraq a better place for its people and source of democracy and stability in the middle east!

To add to the statistics, Iraqi GDP has already increased by 33% since last year!

 

[nbcrusader]

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

 

[melon]

* Oil production has reached 2.5 million barrels per day, well ahead of projections.

Should anyone be surprised?

Melon

 

[deep]

Here is to the men and women from around the world who have risked their lives to help Iraq.

agreed

 

[deep]

Here is to the world leaders who showed the courage to do the right thing.

sorry

strongly disagree



Saddam is one

-on a list of many that should be held accountable and brought to justice.


there are other Dictators, murderers, and torturers that are over looked.


no precedent has been set for dealing with them.


the world is no safer, perhaps less


the precedent is that if a U S President misrepresents/ misleads/ uses pressure on other countries he may effect a regime change to suit his agenda.

 

[Dreadsox]

 

[STING2]

sorry

strongly disagree



Saddam is one

-on a list of many that should be held accountable and brought to justice.


there are other Dictators, murderers, and torturers that are over looked.


no precedent has been set for dealing with them.


the world is no safer, perhaps less


the precedent is that if a U S President misrepresents/ misleads/ uses pressure on other countries he may effect a regime change to suit his agenda.

How many other dictators, attacked and invaded 4 different countries in the past 20 years? How many other dictators murdered 1.7 million people? How many other dictators threatened the planets energy supply and the total global economy that depends on it? How many other dictators used WMD as much as Saddam? How many other dictators violated 17 different UN resolutions? How many other dictators amassed as much conventional military and non-conventional military power as Saddam did?

Its rather obvious the world is much safer without Saddam.

 

[ABEL]

...a year later and still no weapons of mass distruction found.

 

[Dreadsox]

...a year later and still no weapons of mass distruction found.

And if that were THE only reason for the war it would be a major issue with me.

The administration has unfortunately allowed this to be the topic before, during, and after the war.


I would really appreciate it if this were a topic for another thread. Maybe the other thread about the One Year Later.....

 

[Angela Harlem]

Here's hoping Saddam ends up in Guantanamo and is treated with the same respect many others are in there.

But then again, he married his cousin so maybe he is just a poor Springer candidate.

 

[deep]

Kerry -- Soft on Defense - refuted by reputable Senators

Kerry Gets Some Help From GOP Senator


From a Times Staff Writer

March 22, 2004

WASHINGTON ? Sen. Charles Hagel of Nebraska on Sunday became the second Republican senator to break ranks with the Bush-Cheney campaign's characterization of John F. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, as soft on defense issues.

Hagel joined fellow Vietnam veteran Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in criticizing ads sponsored by the Bush campaign that call Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts who also is a Vietnam veteran, "weak on defense."

"The facts just don't measure [up to]the rhetoric," Hagel said on ABC's "This Week."

One ad includes video footage of Kerry in West Virginia last week, responding to a charge that he had failed to support U.S. troops in Iraq by opposing the $87-billion military funding bill last fall. "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it," he said ? a phrase the Bush campaign seized upon as showing the Massachusetts senator flip-flopping on issues.

"You can take a guy like John Kerry, who's been in the Senate for 19 years, and go through that voting record," Hagel said. "You can take it with ? any of us, and pick out different votes, and then try to manufacture something around that."

Kerry's staff said he was trying to indicate his support for an amendment funding the appropriation from increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans. When that amendment failed, he voted against the bill.

Discussing the Bush campaign charges, McCain told the "Today" show on Thursday, "I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He's responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he'll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense."

That show of support added to earlier speculation that McCain might bolt the GOP to join the Democratic ticket ? an idea he emphatically shot down Sunday by saying: "I will not leave the Republican Party ? end of story."

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," McCain was joined by Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) in decrying what Lieberman called the "tit-for-tat partisan attack" coming from each campaign last week. In sharp comments from both sides Thursday, Vice President Dick Cheney questioned Kerry's fitness to serve as commander in chief, while Kerry accused President Bush of overextending U.S. troops overseas and alienating U.S. allies.

"If it stays with this tone ? and it is the tone of the campaigns as much as it is specific words ? [if] the tone doesn't change, you're going to see low voter turnout, particularly amongst young Americans, and that's not healthy," said McCain, a primary challenger in 2000.

"Let's keep it civil, so we don't get so nasty that we discourage people from coming out and voting in a very important election," said Lieberman, who sought the Democratic presidential nomination this year. "Don't say that the opposition is evil. They may be wrong, but they're not evil."

 

[STING2]

Charles Hagel despite being a Republican and former Army Officer is a Senator I suspect at being weak on defense as well. Senator Charles Hagel got it wrong on both Bosnia and Kosovo. As a Senator, he went on CNN's crossfire and claimed US action Kosovo was going to start World War III with Russia.


John McCain is different of course and I think if he would take the time to examine his actual voting record and compare it to Kerry's, he would understand what the administration is talking about.

Kerry came into the Senate in 1984/1985 on a ticket that opposed all of Reagans large defense increase in the 1980s that bought the new weapon systems vital to the success's of the US military in the 1990s all the way up to the current war in Iraq. McCain voted for the first Gulf War to remove Saddam from Kuwait. Kerry voted against removing Saddam from Kuwait. The record is there, and it does not show that Kerry has a strong record of voting for defense spending and supporting necessery military action vital to US Security.

John McCain is upset over the tone of the Campaign as well as how the Campaigns are funded. He is upset over what happened in his run against Bush for the 2000 election. He has become friends with John Kerry over the issues in regards to Vietnam.

But the fact remains that Kerry's record on defense and national security is not one of supporting vast numbers of new weapon systems, increases in the defense budget etc. His vote against the first 1991 Gulf War and the 87 Billion dollars to fund our troops should raise questions in everyone's mind.

 

[Dreadsox]

Can I ask...why you felt compelled to put this in this thread? Is this some new thing you have putting articles not related to the threads that they do not belong?

This Kerry article has nothing to do with the thread topic.

 

[deep]

Dread,

If you are referring to me<-


I think I may be getting a little ?senile?.


I should have posted my last post in the Kerry betrays troops thread. sorry

 

[Dreadsox]

I think I may be getting a little ?senile?.

Come on, a guy your age? LOL

I can relate oh boy can I relate.

 

[what a bomb!]

so what about WMD not being found? It made sense to me when you saw the falling statue of Saddam and the way the Iraq people reacted and the icing on the cake was the capture of Saddam lets face it, he IS the WMD!

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

so what about WMD not being found?

So what? The war was sold to people on the basis of that Iraq had WMD, not on the basis of Saddam being a bad person, not on the basis of the Iraqi people being better off without him, but on the basis that Iraq possessed WMD. It is entirely legitimate for people to express concern about the fact that no WMD have been found, given that the supposed evidence of Iraq's possession of WMD was used as a justification for the war.

My government attacked a sovereign state. They claimed their reason for it was that country's possession of WMD. Since the "end" of the war, they have produced not one scrap of evidence for this. I have every right to be concerned about this and to expect that this government produce evidence which proves they did not lie to the people of this country about their reasons for going to war.

 

[tackleberry]

so what about WMD not being found? It made sense to me when you saw the falling statue of Saddam and the way the Iraq people reacted and the icing on the cake was the capture of Saddam lets face it, he IS the WMD!

So it's okay that the Bush administration lied to us? That it went from this being a war for WMD's that have never been found, to a war for liberating Iraq.

Let's say we found WMD's a week after the collapse of Baghdad: Would there have been any mention of the liberating of the Iraqi people? Or was "operation Iraqi Freedom" a cover up for "Operation Can't find WMD's so we'll change the words around and maybe put in the word FREEDOM, cause most of America sympathizes with that word"

Yeah, Let's have a toast. A toast to terrorist bombings, killing American Soldiers every day, killing 200 spaniards, killing thousands of innocent Iraqis for the FREEDOM the LIBERATION. Yeah let's raise our "guiness" to that! It's bullsh*t if you ask me...

"Go and tell the King that the sky is falling in when it's not, when it's not, maybe not"
-Radiohead

 

[STING2]

So what? The war was sold to people on the basis of that Iraq had WMD, not on the basis of Saddam being a bad person, not on the basis of the Iraqi people being better off without him, but on the basis that Iraq possessed WMD. It is entirely legitimate for people to express concern about the fact that no WMD have been found, given that the supposed evidence of Iraq's possession of WMD was used as a justification for the war.

My government attacked a sovereign state. They claimed their reason for it was that country's possession of WMD. Since the "end" of the war, they have produced not one scrap of evidence for this. I have every right to be concerned about this and to expect that this government produce evidence which proves they did not lie to the people of this country about their reasons for going to war.

There are several countries that have WMD. WMD is not the lone reason for military action in Iraq. It was Saddam + WMD.
Saddam was required by the United Nations to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD. Over 17 United Nations resolutions were passed against him and he violated them all. 12 years were spent trying to achieve verifiable disarmament without regime removal and all of the efforts failed. I find it shocking that after Saddam invaded and attacked 4 different countries and murdered 1.7 million people, that there are people unwilling to what is required to remove this threat to the region.

To this day, Saddam has yet to account for mass stocks of WMD that UN inspectors know he had. The fact that these stocks have not been found does not mean they do not exist.

Dr. Kay's team went into Iraq and found over 300 items related to the production and storing of WMD that were in TOTAL VIOLATION of resolution 1441 which authorized the use of military force if Iraq failed to comply.

The only one that has lied through this entire process is Saddam. But it seems some people would rather ignore his serious violations and threats to international security. They protest the war, but offer no NEW alternative that can be demonstrated to be able to solve the problem short of the use of military force.

 

[MrBrau1]

Who will we be liberating next?

 

[STING2]

So it's okay that the Bush administration lied to us? That it went from this being a war for WMD's that have never been found, to a war for liberating Iraq.

Let's say we found WMD's a week after the collapse of Baghdad: Would there have been any mention of the liberating of the Iraqi people? Or was "operation Iraqi Freedom" a cover up for "Operation Can't find WMD's so we'll change the words around and maybe put in the word FREEDOM, cause most of America sympathizes with that word"

Yeah, Let's have a toast. A toast to terrorist bombings, killing American Soldiers every day, killing 200 spaniards, killing thousands of innocent Iraqis for the FREEDOM the LIBERATION. Yeah let's raise our "guiness" to that! It's bullsh*t if you ask me...

"Go and tell the King that the sky is falling in when it's not, when it's not, maybe not"
-Radiohead

It was incumbent upon Saddam to verifiably disarm of all WMD. Saddam failed to do this. While WMD has yet to be found that does not mean it does not exist. Nor does it change the fact that Saddam failed to comply with 17 different UN resolutions.

The invasion was named "Operation Iraqi Freedom" prior to the start of the war.

Well, your entitled to your narrow view of what is going in Iraq, but 25 million people of been liberated from a mass murder and for the first time in history have the opportunity for democracy. GDP is up 33%, schools and roads are being built. Electricty and Power are better than they have been in over a decade. The list of great work men and women from around the world are doing to build the Iraqi nation is huge.

In addition, the Persian Gulf region has never been more secure than it is today with Saddam regime and military removed and destroyed. Building a new Democracy in Iraq will have incaculable benefits for the entire region.

Yep I will raise my glass and toast that. These things would not be possible without the removal of Saddam!

 

[Ft. Worth Frog]

Agreed. A toast to the new Iraq- May democracy flourish and serve as hope to all those in the Middle East who hope for the same. I hope the Iranians do not give up in their struggle. Let's stop thinking about ourselves for a minute and imagine life under such repressive regimes. And for all those relativists out there who say that "democracy is not for everyone" let's find a totalitarian, Communist, autocratic, etc. country out there where people are trying to go instead of wanting to leave.

 

[BVS]

May democracy flourish and serve as hope to all those in the Middle East who hope for the same.

Toast?! How do we know that any of the Middle East hope for democracy? Why is we think we have the answers? Yes many suffered under Saddam, but that doesn't neccesarily mean they wanted this. I just didn't realize that we asked the Middle East what they wanted, but I'm glad we did.

 

[Dreadsox]

The evidence is mounting that the coalition is making Iraq a better place.

 

[tackleberry]

In addition, the Persian Gulf region has never been more secure than it is today with Saddam regime and military removed and destroyed. Building a new Democracy in Iraq will have incaculable benefits for the entire region.

Yep I will raise my glass and toast that. These things would not be possible without the removal of Saddam!

Yeah, I would call terrorist acts every day in Iraq "more secure." And the fact that more people in that regioun are expressing hatred towards the United States, which is gonna help produce future terrorist cells. And saying that his military was destroyed is an overstatement. I guess it's the ghosts of the supposed "destroyed" military that are comitting these acts of violence every day. And I guess your views of the area are much "wider" than mine in saying that we liberated them from mass murder. 500 American Soldiers dying for a false cause: Is that not mass murder? 5000 US soldiers wounded for life: Is that not mass murder? 200 innocent Spanish dying: Is that not mass murder? Not to mention the thosands of other civilians murdered: IS THAT not mass murder?

Violence does not expel violence.

The American public was under the impression that we went into Iraq, ignored the UN, because Saddam posed an "imminent" threat to the United States because of the fear of giving WMD to Terrorists. NOT because we wanted to liberate the people. That became the cause AFTER the evidence of WMD's was not found, or much sparse than thought. So to sit there and raise your little glass to a democracy that isn't there yet, and is not welcomed in the region by a vast majority is just as arrogant as GW Bush landing on an aircraft carrier and declaring the "mission accomplished"

 

[MrBrau1]

The American public was under the impression that we went into Iraq, ignored the UN, because Saddam posed an "imminent" threat to the United States because of the fear of giving WMD to Terrorists. NOT because we wanted to liberate the people. That became the cause AFTER the evidence of WMD's was not found, or much sparse than thought.

I supported the war a year ago under this reasoning. I was lied to by my president.