The British Are Leaving.

[Justin24]

You have Kofi and son's in a scandal.

Allowing the Genocide of Rwanda and the congo.

All the conflicts in eastern europe. (Kosova, Serbia,etc....)

 

[Vincent Vega]

Oh, a scandal in an institution, a political even!

That's of course a very good reason to abolish this organization immediately, right away.

I said the UN often is pretty weak at times, and it is very slow. Not everything is perfect within this organization, and it can be blamed for letting genocides happen.
But there are so many more reasons why these genocides happened, and why the UN just stood by.
There has to be made some improvements, some reforms and hopefully some rethinking of the state the Security Council and the military aspect of the UN is in.

But never, ever, would it help the world if the UN disappeared.

You hear UN and think of the UN troops, the endless discussions of the Security Council and all these military aspects, and want the UN to disappear.

Seems you have no clue which organisations belong to the UN, what it is actually doing around the world, and how the UN is helping in so many aspects of the cultural, economical and also military aspects of life.

 

[Justin24]

What good have they done?

 

[Vincent Vega]

What good have they done?

UNICEF, UNESCO, WHO... http://www.unsystem.org/

And again, read something about the League of Nations and why the UN was established.

And think about the difference between reforming/developing/improving and 'get rid of this organisation'.

 

[AEON]

The overall glee with any bad news regarding US forces is absolutely appalling.

It almost seems that many in the thread would actually be disappointed if we succeeded in establishing a stable democracy.

Forget why our troops are sent into Iraq. The fact is - they are there now. Why would you WANT them to fail and have thousand if not millions killed in a brutal civil war? Why would you WANT the coalition to fail? Why would you WANT to post news about how bad things are going for troops? Why would you WANT to post articles about the few soldiers who have committed crimes?

The motivation of some people here seems to be very suspect.

 

[Irvine511]

The overall glee with any bad news regarding US forces is absolutely appalling.

glee?

garbage. is there a touch of Schedenfreude in regards to Bush -- and Bush alone -- in that he has so monumentally fucked up a situation he was once so dick-swingingly smug about? sure. but this does not, repeat: does NOT, have anything to do with the men and women who have been forced to police a Civil War so that The Decider may save face.

what's appaling is continuing to stand by the current leadership -- especially if you thought Iraq was a good idea to begin with, goodness, wouldn't you want something so important to be executed with a degree of competency -- in the face of the reality on the ground.

The motivation of some people here seems to be very suspect.

some of us never wanted them to be there in the first place because we KNEW that the motives of the men in charge were stupendously stupid at best and downright sinister at worst. we KNEW that the troops were being used for political purposes and that the war on Iraq -- an option discarded by the previous two presidents for reasons that are now thuddingly obvious -- has nothing, repeat: NOTHING, to do with Islamist terror and it is in fact inspired much, much more.

 

[BVS]

The overall glee with any bad news regarding US forces is absolutely appalling.

It almost seems that many in the thread would actually be disappointed if we succeeded in establishing a stable democracy.

Forget why our troops are sent into Iraq. The fact is - they are there now. Why would you WANT them to fail and have thousand if not millions killed in a brutal civil war? Why would you WANT the coalition to fail? Why would you WANT to post news about how bad things are going for troops? Why would you WANT to post articles about the few soldiers who have committed crimes?

The motivation of some people here seems to be very suspect.

Your lack of understanding is appalling.

 

[BVS]

Fuck the UN. Move the building to somewhere in Europe or some thirdworld country.

We've had threads on this. It's ridiculous you still have these views, you've been shown countless amounts of info that dispute your views. It's ashame you haven't read any of them.

I think you keep bringing this up just to get a rise out of people.

 

[Justin24]

I don't say it to get a rise out of people they make a rise out of themselves.

For many of you, you find it to be a good organization. For me I see it as a waste, a decider a god on who they want to help and who they want to receive money from or have their soldier rape.

 

[BVS]

Well continue to ignore the facts, no one can help you.

 

[STING2]

'fraid not.

and BVS's point stands: the coalition above is in name only -- are we to see 99 troops as anything other than political -- and it's crumbling.

The British just started withdrawing the 7,200 troops that are stationed in Iraq, it will be several weeks before they are down to 5,500. The Danish are still there currently. Did you read what your own post from the associated press said? Those are projected troop levels once the British and Danish withdrawals are complete. What I posted is what is currently on the ground at the start of February.

 

[MadelynIris]

It almost seems that many in the thread would actually be disappointed if we succeeded in establishing a stable democracy.

I completely agree with you AEON. Not so much this forum, but dissapointed that regardless of the situation we are in, sooo many democrats DO NOT WANT TO SEE SUCCESS in our current plight in IRAQ
I would love to see the DEMS present an alternate plan in addition to full pull out. Something that they can still blame Bush for getting us involved, but claim victory by establishing a thriving democracy in Iraq.

Probably ain't going to happen.

 

[A_Wanderer]

It is politically impossible to succeed in Iraq for the reasons that Bin Laden alluded to in the 1990's.

 

[STING2]

And instead of searching for alternatives to oil to make you less dependent of the Arab region you attack Iraq.

How should Saddam have attacked any other country again? I don't think he had the power to block the oil supplies of Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Besides the incidents of the mass killing after the US pulled out and Saddam took revenge on the Kurds and Shiits most of the deaths occurred due to the sanctions against Iraq.



The interpretation of Resolution 1441 was very different in Germany, France and Russia, furthermore the majority of people all over Europe, in Australia and most over countries read it differently.

It didn't say "Go in and beat the crap out of 'em!", it rather said "Do what you can, and only when there is no other alternative start a war."



Aha, so it's justified again that the public and the UN was told a lie, so that America can go in?
Great



And everybody knows why the guesses about the amounts of WMDs still missing are so accurate.

And again, the UN weapon inspectors said that Saddam was cooperating and said they just needed more time. Of course they knew that Saddam might hide some weapon bunkers, but stll they said that it's is unlikely that there are huge amounts, or even factories.
Why didn't they get the time?



You call that heavy fighting? Everybody was saying that the resistance and the number of Iraqi soldiers was tremendously low.




Don't take "trapped" literally. More of, they can't abandon Baghdad, and the fight is in city areas where it's much harder to fight an enemy, especially an enemy you can't see.

Nobody said that no one would welcome the US, of course.

The strategy how they tried to bring peace to Iraq and establish a stable government failed, and the government didn't make any reasonable attempts to adjust to the new situation. Only some half-hearted steps.

Saddam had a military force of 2,700 tanks, over 2,000 armored personal carrier's, over 2,000 artillery pieces, 300 combat aircraft, and 430,000 men. Kuwait had a military of 10,000, a few hundred US troops, and some pre-positioned equipment. It only took Saddam 12 hours in August of 1990 to overrun Kuwait and because of political constraints, the US was never allowed to have more than a few hundred troops on the ground in Kuwait during most of the containment period after the first Gulf War. In 1994, Saddam sent two Republican Guard Divisions towards the border, and the United States was forced to deploy over 140,000 troops to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, but this took several months to complete the deployment. Saddam's divisions were only hours away from going into Kuwait if they had chosen. CIA analysis had shown that if Saddam was determined he could have at least overrun Kuwait, an event that the United States and its allies did not want to repeat because of the damage and greater risk to the region it would cause.

This is one of the difficult situations caused by the fact that it was not politically possible during this time to have large numbers of US troops stationed in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in the numbers needed to repel the largest most determined attack that Saddam could send into the south.

Much of Saudi Arabia's oil fields are very close to the border area with Kuwait and Iran's are also nearby in their southwestern province of Kuzistan.

Saddam only needed a few dozen miles to do massive damage to the global economy as so much of the planets oil located in this small area of southwestern Iran, Southern Iraq, Kuwait and Northeastern Saudi Arabia.

It was indeed a major concern that only worsened when one took into account the possible use of WMD by Saddam. Verifiable disarmament of WMD was a key requirement for security in the Persian Gulf as it removed that threat as well as would show a change in behavior by Saddam given his past actions.

Most deaths in Iraq were because of Saddam. If Iraq had distributed the humanitarian supplies he was given and allow to buy during sanctions, most of these deaths could have been prevented. Instead, Saddam used it as a way threaten and punish various tribes and communities as well as make money on the Black Market. Humanitarian supplies meant for Iraqi people would often show up on the market in Syria and Jordan.

Interpret resolution 1441 how you like, but its just as much an authorization of the use of military force as resolution 678 was for the first Gulf War in 1991. In fact, the Soviet Union even protested and had the USA remove the words "military force" from resolution 678, so they could make the same arguement that French, Germans and others make about 1441 not being an authorization of the use of military force.

It only took Ukraine, Kazakstan, Belarus, and South Africa a couple of years to verifiably disarm large stockpiles of WMD and thousands of nuclear weapons. In March 2003, it had been 12 years since Saddam had agreed to verifiably disarm of all WMD. It simply does not take 12 years to do that provided those disarming are actually serious about doing so.

The Weapons inspectors failed to resolve ANY of the outstanding issues from November 1998 when they had to leave the country and were unable to return for four years. At no point in late 2002 or early 2003 were they able to make any headway on the issue. Cooperation is turning over or accounting for ALL WMD, and Iraq did not resolve any of the issues from November of 1998 the whole time the inspectors were in Iraq. There are many theories about what happened to the missing stocks of WMD, but that is all they are, theories. Verifiable disarmament does not involve theories. Saddam NEVER complied with the UN resolutions or the requirement to verifiably disarm of all WMD. He had plenty of time to have complied, and it was unwise to wait any longer considering how sanctions, the weapons embargo and other compenents of containment has essentially crumbled.

Again, its not just a matter of what Saddam did or did not have in March 2003 as far as WMD, but also what his behavior was showing(as far as compliance) as well as the fact that even if there was no WMD as many claim, Saddam was never more than three years from having large stockpiles because he still had the infrustructure and the know how to build more WMD, just as he did when he first became the leader of Iraq in 1979. After the war, while inspectors did not find the weapons they were looking for, they did find programs under way that were in clear violation of the UN resolutions and could have easily been shown to UN weapons inspectors in late 2002 if Saddam was really serious about verifiable disarmament.


The US military fired off more conventional rounds from every type of weapons system in the 3 week race to Baghdad than they have done in any other 3 week period since then. There were thousands of coalition airstrikes, multiple tank battles, and all of the Republican Guards tanks, armored vehicles and artillery pieces were destroyed. Just because US casaulties were light does not mean there was not heavy fighting. The United States and it allies killed more enemy combatents during this time period than at any point since then. Operations in Fallujah in April and November 2004, the largest scale US of American combat power since the fall of Baghdad, can come close to comparing to the three week drive towards Baghdad.


Building a new government and society is not something that takes a few weeks or months. Its something that takes well over a decade. Building a new Iraqi military is also something that will take nearly as long. Much progress has been made in both area's. You can't be declaring failure or success 3 years into something that is such a long process.


Abandoning Iraq pre-maturely would risk turning it into a failed state, and more effective base for Al Quada than Afghanistan ever was. Nearly everyone does not want to withdraw from Afghanistan despite the fact that Al Quada attacks there are almost non-existent and only the Taliban is the threat. No one wants to see Afghanistan turn into a failed state, yet a failed state in Iraq would be more of a threat to US and global security than a failed state in Afghanistan. If you believe that US troops can safely withdraw from Iraq without there being severe consequences, then you should be supporting a withdrawal from Afghanistan as well.

 

[STING2]

Hm, I'm rather afraid I will just receive tons of figures and such showing me how dangerous Saddam was to the US, how successful everything went, and how great Iraq is doing.

The last time I've read Resolution 1441 was somewhere around 2003, so I don't know the exact wording anymore.

But to say that the UN supported the attack on Iraq is ridiculous. Germany and France said, they will participate in the war if the UN declares war, or if there is a clear UN mandate.

That never happened, and the UN was not in favor of the war.
The problem was that the UN could declare war with the USA.
They had to accept this war to happen, but they never approved it as the right thing to do.

If the UN was not in favor of the war, why did the UN not issue a protest and pass a resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of coalition troops? Even if it was not possible to pass a resolution, they could have at least attempted one, like they always do against Israel.

Then, why on earth would they approve an occupation every year for the past four years that they were so against it?

 

[Vincent Vega]

Abandoning Iraq pre-maturely would risk turning it into a failed state, and more effective base for Al Quada than Afghanistan ever was. Nearly everyone does not want to withdraw from Afghanistan despite the fact that Al Quada attacks there are almost non-existent and only the Taliban is the threat. No one wants to see Afghanistan turn into a failed state, yet a failed state in Iraq would be more of a threat to US and global security than a failed state in Afghanistan. If you believe that US troops can safely withdraw from Iraq without there being severe consequences, then you should be supporting a withdrawal from Afghanistan as well.

Was this still a response to me?

Sorry, but I'm not in favor of a withdraw yet. It's too late.

And everybody knows that this kind of war isn't aimed at being large scale, or planned on being a short thing.
It's more like Gerry Adams's "Long War"- strategy.

I don't call it a total failure. But blatant mistakes were done, and in deny of any facts Rumsfeld and Bush went on and changed more or less nothing.

For the rest... well, leave it. It's always the same. I think this has been argued over the past five years. It's moving in circles.

I'm amazed at Irvine's perseverance, but can spend my time different. I don't buy into this "Saddam was such a risk we had to kill him better yesterday than today.", and it won't change.

And yes, history has happened, and now you have to lie in the bed you made.

Another question is regarding democracy (Oh, what a success!): Can we really be that arrogant to believe that everyone welcomes democracy as we do and hence we can just go into a country and change a culture so different by means we have seen in Iraq?

 

[Vincent Vega]

If the UN was not in favor of the war, why did the UN not issue a protest and pass a resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of coalition troops? Even if it was not possible to pass a resolution, they could have at least attempted one, like they always do against Israel.

Then, why on earth would they approve an occupation every year for the past four years that they were so against it?

Maybe because of the fact, that the US is such a big power in the UN, and many countries don't dare to oppose to the US, and because many of the countries feel the need to support the USA officially thanks to what the USA have done for them in the past (the former Polnish President Alexander Kwasniewski said in an interview that Poland couldn't say no to the war in Iraq), and maybe because Bush threatened those countries to cut trade with them if they are not with him?

 

[STING2]

Maybe because of the fact, that the US is such a big power in the UN, and many countries don't dare to oppose to the US, and because many of the countries feel the need to support the USA officially thanks to what the USA have done for them in the past (the former Polnish President Alexander Kwasniewski said in an interview that Poland couldn't say no to the war in Iraq), and maybe because Bush threatened those countries to cut trade with them if they are not with him?

Its never stopped them from opposing US policy on Israel.

 

[STING2]

Was this still a response to me?

Sorry, but I'm not in favor of a withdraw yet. It's too late.

And everybody knows that this kind of war isn't aimed at being large scale, or planned on being a short thing.
It's more like Gerry Adams's "Long War"- strategy.

I don't call it a total failure. But blatant mistakes were done, and in deny of any facts Rumsfeld and Bush went on and changed more or less nothing.

For the rest... well, leave it. It's always the same. I think this has been argued over the past five years. It's moving in circles.

I'm amazed at Irvine's perseverance, but can spend my time different. I don't buy into this "Saddam was such a risk we had to kill him better yesterday than today.", and it won't change.

And yes, history has happened, and now you have to lie in the bed you made.

Another question is regarding democracy (Oh, what a success!): Can we really be that arrogant to believe that everyone welcomes democracy as we do and hence we can just go into a country and change a culture so different by means we have seen in Iraq?

Mistakes have definitely been made in the occupation of Iraq, very serious ones in 2003. But that in no way changes the fact that Saddam had to be removed and replaced with a stable government not hostile to its neighbors to the south.

These are not issues that Germany and France should be ignoring as they like everyone else are heavily impacted by energy from the Gulf and global terrorist groups like Al Quada. Helping to stabilize both Iraq and Afghanistan is in everyones interest.

The coalition did not want to install simply another dictatorship in both Iraq and Afghanistan and I don't think France and Germany would have liked that either.

 

[Vincent Vega]

No, we didn't like that.
But we simply don't agree by trying to solve every problem by just going into the country.

The opposition to US's policy regarding it's Israel policy didn't carry the risk of these heavy economical disadvantages, and also this "Friend or Enemy" mentality wasn't existing.

Regarding the oil, at least Germany installed huge depositories for oil (don't know how to call them ) after the oil crisises of the 1970's, so a cut off of Arabian oil wouldn't have such a dramatic impact in short-term.

It might not have that back. A new "oil crisis" might have pushed a support of alternatives much more as the latest findings about climatic change.

Mind the word "might" as my government sucks, and the governments prior to this one haven't been that great either. Especially Kohl in the 1990's

 

[STING2]

No, we didn't like that.
But we simply don't agree by trying to solve every problem by just going into the country.

The opposition to US's policy regarding it's Israel policy didn't carry the risk of these heavy economical disadvantages, and also this "Friend or Enemy" mentality wasn't existing.

Regarding the oil, at least Germany installed huge depositories for oil (don't know how to call them ) after the oil crisises of the 1970's, so a cut off of Arabian oil wouldn't have such a dramatic impact in short-term.

It might not have that back. A new "oil crisis" might have pushed a support of alternatives much more as the latest findings about climatic change.

Mind the word "might" as my government sucks, and the governments prior to this one haven't been that great either. Especially Kohl in the 1990's

The shock from the cut off from energy supply in Saudi Arabia would impact the global economy which would then impact every economy in the world. As long as the country in question did any trade outside its borders, it would be impacted, even if it did not use one drop of oil for its energy. Oh were not talking about an oil crises simply like the 1970s, were talking about a worldwide economic depression worse than the 1930s. That is how dependent the global economy is on Persian Gulf Oil.

The coalition tried multiple options short of regime change to bring about enforcement of the UN resolutions but all of these efforts failed. The coalition tried for 12 years!

If France and Germany really felt the coalition invasion was such a terrible breech of international law, they would have certainly at least tried to get a UN resolution passed and they certainly would not have authorized the occupation 3 months later.

 

[ntalwar]

Regarding the oil, at least Germany installed huge depositories for oil (don't know how to call them ) after the oil crisises of the 1970's, so a cut off of Arabian oil wouldn't have such a dramatic impact in short-term.

The US has the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for the same purpose - about two months worth of oil, with plans to double it. That is in addition to existing oil inventories (by oil companies).

 

[anitram]

The US has the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for the same purpose - about two months worth of oil, with plans to double it. That is in addition to existing oil inventories (by oil companies).

Not to mention you'd probably just invade us in Canada and take what we've got.

I joke, except only sort of.

 

[ntalwar]

Not to mention you'd probably just invade us in Canada and take what we've got.

I joke, except only sort of.

As long as Canada remains the largest oil supplier to the US, no worries .

 

[Irvine511]

Saddam had a military force of 2,700 tanks, over 2,000 armored personal carrier's, over 2,000 artillery pieces, 300 combat aircraft, and 430,000 men. Kuwait had a military of 10,000, a few hundred US troops, and some pre-positioned equipment. It only took Saddam 12 hours in August of 1990 to overrun Kuwait and because of political constraints, the US was never allowed to have more than a few hundred troops on the ground in Kuwait during most of the containment period after the first Gulf War. In 1994, Saddam sent two Republican Guard Divisions towards the border, and the United States was forced to deploy over 140,000 troops to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, but this took several months to complete the deployment. Saddam's divisions were only hours away from going into Kuwait if they had chosen. CIA analysis had shown that if Saddam was determined he could have at least overrun Kuwait, an event that the United States and its allies did not want to repeat because of the damage and greater risk to the region it would cause.

This is one of the difficult situations caused by the fact that it was not politically possible during this time to have large numbers of US troops stationed in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in the numbers needed to repel the largest most determined attack that Saddam could send into the south.

Much of Saudi Arabia's oil fields are very close to the border area with Kuwait and Iran's are also nearby in their southwestern province of Kuzistan.

Saddam only needed a few dozen miles to do massive damage to the global economy as so much of the planets oil located in this small area of southwestern Iran, Southern Iraq, Kuwait and Northeastern Saudi Arabia.

It was indeed a major concern that only worsened when one took into account the possible use of WMD by Saddam. Verifiable disarmament of WMD was a key requirement for security in the Persian Gulf as it removed that threat as well as would show a change in behavior by Saddam given his past actions.

Most deaths in Iraq were because of Saddam. If Iraq had distributed the humanitarian supplies he was given and allow to buy during sanctions, most of these deaths could have been prevented. Instead, Saddam used it as a way threaten and punish various tribes and communities as well as make money on the Black Market. Humanitarian supplies meant for Iraqi people would often show up on the market in Syria and Jordan.

Interpret resolution 1441 how you like, but its just as much an authorization of the use of military force as resolution 678 was for the first Gulf War in 1991. In fact, the Soviet Union even protested and had the USA remove the words "military force" from resolution 678, so they could make the same arguement that French, Germans and others make about 1441 not being an authorization of the use of military force.

It only took Ukraine, Kazakstan, Belarus, and South Africa a couple of years to verifiably disarm large stockpiles of WMD and thousands of nuclear weapons. In March 2003, it had been 12 years since Saddam had agreed to verifiably disarm of all WMD. It simply does not take 12 years to do that provided those disarming are actually serious about doing so.

The Weapons inspectors failed to resolve ANY of the outstanding issues from November 1998 when they had to leave the country and were unable to return for four years. At no point in late 2002 or early 2003 were they able to make any headway on the issue. Cooperation is turning over or accounting for ALL WMD, and Iraq did not resolve any of the issues from November of 1998 the whole time the inspectors were in Iraq. There are many theories about what happened to the missing stocks of WMD, but that is all they are, theories. Verifiable disarmament does not involve theories. Saddam NEVER complied with the UN resolutions or the requirement to verifiably disarm of all WMD. He had plenty of time to have complied, and it was unwise to wait any longer considering how sanctions, the weapons embargo and other compenents of containment has essentially crumbled.

Again, its not just a matter of what Saddam did or did not have in March 2003 as far as WMD, but also what his behavior was showing(as far as compliance) as well as the fact that even if there was no WMD as many claim, Saddam was never more than three years from having large stockpiles because he still had the infrustructure and the know how to build more WMD, just as he did when he first became the leader of Iraq in 1979. After the war, while inspectors did not find the weapons they were looking for, they did find programs under way that were in clear violation of the UN resolutions and could have easily been shown to UN weapons inspectors in late 2002 if Saddam was really serious about verifiable disarmament.


The US military fired off more conventional rounds from every type of weapons system in the 3 week race to Baghdad than they have done in any other 3 week period since then. There were thousands of coalition airstrikes, multiple tank battles, and all of the Republican Guards tanks, armored vehicles and artillery pieces were destroyed. Just because US casaulties were light does not mean there was not heavy fighting. The United States and it allies killed more enemy combatents during this time period than at any point since then. Operations in Fallujah in April and November 2004, the largest scale US of American combat power since the fall of Baghdad, can come close to comparing to the three week drive towards Baghdad.


Building a new government and society is not something that takes a few weeks or months. Its something that takes well over a decade. Building a new Iraqi military is also something that will take nearly as long. Much progress has been made in both area's. You can't be declaring failure or success 3 years into something that is such a long process.


Abandoning Iraq pre-maturely would risk turning it into a failed state, and more effective base for Al Quada than Afghanistan ever was. Nearly everyone does not want to withdraw from Afghanistan despite the fact that Al Quada attacks there are almost non-existent and only the Taliban is the threat. No one wants to see Afghanistan turn into a failed state, yet a failed state in Iraq would be more of a threat to US and global security than a failed state in Afghanistan. If you believe that US troops can safely withdraw from Iraq without there being severe consequences, then you should be supporting a withdrawal from Afghanistan as well.

so many posts, so many words, so many poorly understood facts ... and you've yet to convince a single person of, well, anything, really. and if your reasoning were as blindingly obvious to everyone else as it seems to you, then, goodness, you should have no problems convincing peole in FYM, let alone the far less discerning American public at large. but they think you're full of shit, STING. why do they think that? where do you think you're falling short?

why, then, if you're so certain and smug, is Iraq widely considered a failure by everybody -- including the president. why does Congress not agree, why do the american people not agree, why does the military not agree? how long are you going to continue to lie to yourself? will it be for the next 30 years so you can continue to blame "liberals" -- like, you know, McCain who has said that if the "surge" doesn't work, he's for redeployment, and he says this when he's not bashing Cheney and Rumsfeld -- for undermining Iraq? are you going to be hanging Cindy Sheehan in effigy the same way the military likes to mock Jane Fonda? what scapegoats and boogey men are you going to have to creat ein order to excuse yourself of responsibility for this catastrophe?

 

[deep]

Its never stopped them from opposing US policy on Israel.

and why do you think that is?

 

[deep]

The shock from the cut off from energy supply in Saudi Arabia would impact the global economy which would then impact every economy in the world.

and we all know that if oil is controlled by an anti-American regime they will do this?


just look at Chavez in Venezuela
no one is more anti-American government than he

 

[BVS]

so many posts, so many words, so many poorly understood facts ... and you've yet to convince a single person of, well, anything, really. and if your reasoning were as blindingly obvious to everyone else as it seems to you, then, goodness, you should have no problems convincing peole in FYM, let alone the far less discerning American public at large. but they think you're full of shit, STING. why do they think that? where do you think you're falling short?

why, then, if you're so certain and smug, is Iraq widely considered a failure by everybody -- including the president. why does Congress not agree, why do the american people not agree, why does the military not agree? how long are you going to continue to lie to yourself? will it be for the next 30 years so you can continue to blame "liberals" -- like, you know, McCain who has said that if the "surge" doesn't work, he's for redeployment, and he says this when he's not bashing Cheney and Rumsfeld -- for undermining Iraq? are you going to be hanging Cindy Sheehan in effigy the same way the military likes to mock Jane Fonda? what scapegoats and boogey men are you going to have to creat ein order to excuse yourself of responsibility for this catastrophe?

 

[AEON]

so many posts, so many words, so many poorly understood facts ... and you've yet to convince a single person of, well, anything, really. and if your reasoning were as blindingly obvious to everyone else as it seems to you, then, goodness, you should have no problems convincing peole in FYM, let alone the far less discerning American public at large. but they think you're full of s***, STING. why do they think that? where do you think you're falling short?

why, then, if you're so certain and smug, is Iraq widely considered a failure by everybody -- including the president. why does Congress not agree, why do the american people not agree, why does the military not agree? how long are you going to continue to lie to yourself? will it be for the next 30 years so you can continue to blame "liberals" -- like, you know, McCain who has said that if the "surge" doesn't work, he's for redeployment, and he says this when he's not bashing Cheney and Rumsfeld -- for undermining Iraq? are you going to be hanging Cindy Sheehan in effigy the same way the military likes to mock Jane Fonda? what scapegoats and boogey men are you going to have to creat ein order to excuse yourself of responsibility for this catastrophe?

Actually - STING is always able to back up what he says. I almost always agree with what he posts. It's more objective than the emotional tirades I usually see.

 

[ntalwar]

Actually - STING is always able to back up what he says. I almost always agree with what he posts. It's more objective than the emotional tirades I usually see.

Well I guess he's objective the same way Cheney is. That doesn't mean it's correct. Most of the Bush/Cheney arguments have been proven incorrect.