I know we have all SOMEWHAT talked about Iraq but there has never been a topic that really got into it in depth.  So here is what I think:

Saddam is gone.  We have found some WMD's and who knows about founding more.  The Iraqi people are free atleast for now.  Al-Qaeda WAS in Iraq.  The entire Al-Qaeda operation will have more trouble now without Iraq, and they can no longer get money from Saddam.  We no longer need the Saudi's air space.


''Al-Qaeda was in Afghanistan, the Philippines, Pakistan, Chechnya, Singapore, Malaysia, Iran, Spain. Al-Qaeda was everywhere, including South Florida, but never in Iraq. This is what we are to believe?" -Rush Limbaugh

Rush is talking through his arse - his use of the word "in" would include pretty much any country in the world, but that doesn't mean you invade and topple the government.  There was no government-level interaction between Iraq and Al Quaeda : Saddam was a secular leader pretending to be a Muslim for his own purposes, and they knew it.

Not to be compared to the Taleban in Afghanistan, who were overtly aiding Al Qaeda and were stupid enough to agree that their aim was spreading radical Islam through terrorism.  The only proven terror connection to Iraq was Saddam paying blood money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers to try and ingratiate himself with an Islam world that didn't want anything to do with him: we should not be thinking about 9/11 and Al Qaeda in a thread on Iraq, it was misdirection by the US government which had nothing to do with invasion.

The UN resolution 1441 used as a reason for invasion: Saddam is not complying, therefore we have the right to go in and take him out... but resolution 1441 explicitly did not contain any clause justifying use of force, because it would not have been passed if such clause were there - however base the reasons the French make have had for using their veto, they would still have used it, much as they threatened to do later on.

To summarize: there was no legal justification for the attack on Iraq.  Whatever moral justification there may have been has been blown up in smoke with civilian casualties and what went on in Abu Ghraib. It's an unholy mess that is going to take many, many years to sort out (if it ever is sorted out).

Saddam was a secular leader pretending to be a Muslim for his own purposes, and they knew it.




Saddam was secular but he was no-doubt muslim, just not a radical.

It's hardly worth arguing over, but... he wasn't Muslim when he became leader of Iraq - the reason he was put there in the first place was precisely because he wasn't a muslim- the US wanted a bastion against Islam and thought he was just the chap.

His televised devotions were for the consumption of the unwashed masses - if he was sincere as a Muslim, then I'm a duck-billed platypus

Saddam is gone.  We have found some WMD's and who knows about founding more.  The Iraqi people are free atleast for now.  Al-Qaeda WAS in Iraq.  The entire Al-Qaeda operation will have more trouble now without Iraq, and they can no longer get money from Saddam.  We no longer need the Saudi's air space.
 



WMD is Iraq?? Where did you hear this from? From what I heard, they have found NONE! I really don't think that Iraqis are free-yes, they no longer have a dictator but now they are an occupied nation. As for Al-Qaeda being in Iraq-they weren't before but they are now. With all the ciaos going on, it is a breeding ground for Al-Qaeda. They are recuiting Iraqis left and right who want to end the U.S. occupation. Al-Qaeda NEVER recieved money from Saddam. There was absolutely no connection-even though this Administration totally denies that fact.

As much as the Bushies want to believe it, the facts are:

-No connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda
-No weapons of mass destruction
-The war was planned BEFORE Bush got into the White House
-Over 800+ American men and women (not to mention how many Iraqi civilians-men, women and CHILDREN) have been killed because of lies.



Cat

I know we have all SOMEWHAT talked about Iraq but there has never been a topic that really got into it in depth.  So here is what I think:

Saddam is gone.  We have found some WMD's and who knows about founding more.  The Iraqi people are free atleast for now.  Al-Qaeda WAS in Iraq.  The entire Al-Qaeda operation will have more trouble now without Iraq, and they can no longer get money from Saddam.  We no longer need the Saudi's air space.


''Al-Qaeda was in Afghanistan, the Philippines, Pakistan, Chechnya, Singapore, Malaysia, Iran, Spain. Al-Qaeda was everywhere, including South Florida, but never in Iraq. This is what we are to believe?" -Rush Limbaugh


There is a decided difference between saying "Al Quida was in Iraq and saying that it was sponnsored, supported, whatever by the Iraqi government.  There were several parts of Iraq that were beyond Saddam's control after the first war (ie the Kurdish region) and there may well have been Al Quida faciltites in those regions.  The point is that, as Cat said, NO WMD's have been found, and there was no CONNECTION between Saddam and Bin Laden.  There were contacts, but no connection.  Our own Gov't has contacts with N. Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, China, N Vietnam and had contacts with the USSR etc.  Do they indicate support, acceptance, hardly.

So, what's the difference between Rush and a blimp?

One is a big bag of hot air, the other is a flying machine  ;)

I don't know why, but I have a bad feeling about the U.S. turning Saddam Hussein over to the Iraqi Provisional Government. I understand the symbolism of it, but I don't know if I can trust the Iraqis' loyalty and/or competence, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone tries to bust Saddam out.

I don't know why, but I have a bad feeling about the U.S. turning Saddam Hussein over to the Iraqi Provisional Government. I understand the symbolism of it, but I don't know if I can trust the Iraqis' loyalty and/or competence, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone tries to bust Saddam out.


We turned Saddam over to the Iraqis, BUT the prison where Saddam is staying is being guarded by U.S. soldiers.

We turned Saddam over to the Iraqis, BUT the prison where Saddam is staying is being guarded by U.S. soldiers.
I guess I didn't know that, that is good. Still I wouldn't be surpsried to see some Baath party sympathizers make an attempt to try and break him out.

Are we, the Americans, the "liberators" expecting the new Iraqi government to be "democratic"?  How are we going to make sure of this?  How are we going to hold a democratic government in place?
Basically, what happens now?

Are we, the Americans, the "liberators" expecting the new Iraqi government to be "democratic"?  How are we going to make sure of this?  How are we going to hold a democratic government in place?
Basically, what happens now?



I really don't know. I am just watching. I hope for the best but I am afraid of the worst. I think only time will tell.




Cat

I really don't know. I am just watching. I hope for the best but I am afraid of the worst. I think only time will tell.




Cat


I know exactly what you mean.  This new found democracy in Iraq is on shaky ground at best and I don't have a really good feeling that it's going to last IMHO.

I know exactly what you mean.  This new found democracy in Iraq is on shaky ground at best and I don't have a really good feeling that it's going to last IMHO.
I agree. With the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds at each others' throats, I honestly don't know if a democracy can work in Iraq. They almost NEED a heavy-handed ruler to keep them from warring against each other.

I agree. With the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds at each others' throats, I honestly don't know if a democracy can work in Iraq. They almost NEED a heavy-handed ruler to keep them from warring against each other.


And why not?  As with several Middle Eastern nation, Iraq is totally artificial.  Before World War I it was part of the Ottoman Empire.  It was created France and England at the Verssise (sp) convention ending that war, just as the colonial possessions of Germany in Africa were divided up.  The boundries are totally artificial and have no relationship to ethnic boundries.  But this is anchient history (which continues to haunt us).

You all MUST READ Kevin Phillips' American Dynasty .  You must understand the centrality of oil in the modern world.  Both Germany and Japan lost WWII for lack of it.  And there is much more that you need to understand if you would make sense out of what is happening right under our noses.

I agree. With the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds at each others' throats, I honestly don't know if a democracy can work in Iraq. They almost NEED a heavy-handed ruler to keep them from warring against each other.


Everyone should hope Iraq goes well.  And new polls from the Washington Post help encourage me anyway:

-68 percent of Iraqis have confidence in their new leaders.
-73 percent of Iraqis polled approved of Allawi to lead the new government,
-84 percent approved of President Ghazi Yawar
almost two-thirds backed the new Cabinet
-Four out of every five Iraqis expected that the new government will "make things better" for Iraq after the handover
-two-thirds of Iraqis believed the first democratic elections for a new national assembly -- tentatively set for December or January -- will be free and fair

Everyone should hope Iraq goes well.  And new polls from the Washington Post help encourage me anyway:

-68 percent of Iraqis have confidence in their new leaders.
-73 percent of Iraqis polled approved of Allawi to lead the new government,
-84 percent approved of President Ghazi Yawar
almost two-thirds backed the new Cabinet
-Four out of every five Iraqis expected that the new government will "make things better" for Iraq after the handover
-two-thirds of Iraqis believed the first democratic elections for a new national assembly -- tentatively set for December or January -- will be free and fair



And yet the bombings continue, at least 2 more reported in this morning's paper, with more U.S., not to mention Iraqi dead.  Further, we now have an unofficial draft, with troops prevented from leaving their units even after their term of service is completed, and people being pulled out of civilian life who have been discharged from active duty.  Yeah, things are going VERY well in Iraq.  And the beat goes on.

Did anyone see the pictures of Saddam from the first day of his hearing? Boy, is he quite the snappy dresser...

More attacks reported in today's paper.  More U.S. and Iraqi dead.  Still limited electricity.  But we will keep that oil flowing. 

AND THE BEAST GOES ON.

And yet the bombings continue, at least 2 more reported in this morning's paper, with more U.S., not to mention Iraqi dead.  Further, we now have an unofficial draft, with troops prevented from leaving their units even after their term of service is completed, and people being pulled out of civilian life who have been discharged from active duty.  Yeah, things are going VERY well in Iraq.  And the beat goes on.


Go tell that to the Iraqis that the poll asked.  They probably like their new found freedoms.

''Give me liberty, or give me death!'' -Patrick Henry.

Go tell that to the Iraqis that the poll asked.  They probably like their new found freedoms.

''Give me liberty, or give me death!'' -Patrick Henry.

Said Patrick Henry who owned 60 slaves. 
In other words, "Give me liberty from the Crown exploiting me, so that I may more profitably exploit others."  That was the de facto philosophy of the elite group of wealthy land-owners who pushed for the American revolution.  The Patrick Henrys of Iraq will inevitably spit in our eye.

Go tell that to the Iraqis that the poll asked.  They probably like their new found freedoms.

''Give me liberty, or give me death!'' -Patrick Henry.


You must read different polls than are reported in my paper, all of which suggest that Iraqis hate the OCCUPATION.  And I  might add that many of them are following up on Pat Henry and are putting their lives on the line to end the imperialist occupation of their country - as THEY see it.  I seem to remember, by the way, that one of the userpations that old Tom mentioned in that document writen to justify revolt was the quartering of foreign troops among us.

Try convieving of a reverse scenario.  Troops of another country are here, trying to impose a political system on US.  By God I'd be in the Green Mountains with MY Kentuky rifle and the Green Mountain boys by my side.  Would you be the modern day Francis Marion (the "Swamp Fox") or would you be a colaborationist tory?

The polls indicate that while Iraqis are glad Saddam is gone (who wouldn't be - and why wasn't he after the first Gulf War?) they also hate the occupation.

You must read different polls than are reported in my paper, all of which suggest that Iraqis hate the OCCUPATION.  And I  might add that many of them are following up on Pat Henry and are putting their lives on the line to end the imperialist occupation of their country - as THEY see it.  I seem to remember, by the way, that one of the userpations that old Tom mentioned in that document writen to justify revolt was the quartering of foreign troops among us.

Try convieving of a reverse scenario.  Troops of another country are here, trying to impose a political system on US.  By God I'd be in the Green Mountains with MY Kentuky rifle and the Green Mountain boys by my side.  Would you be the modern day Francis Marion (the "Swamp Fox") or would you be a colaborationist tory?

The polls indicate that while Iraqis are glad Saddam is gone (who wouldn't be - and why wasn't he after the first Gulf War?) they also hate the occupation.


The occupation/liberation is over.  We gave them power, and the new government doesn't want us to leave Bush has said he would leave now (pull all troops out) if the new Iraqi government asks.

The occupation/liberation is over.  We gave them power, and the new government doesn't want us to leave Bush has said he would leave now (pull all troops out) if the new Iraqi government asks.


The new government that Bush and his cronies hand picked?  Or are you saying that, somehow they have more legitimacy than our Supreme Court appointed admin?  And if you believe that Bush would pull out our troops because Allwai (so) asked him to, you too might believe that pigs can fly.  As long as our troops are in Iraq, patrolling, bombing (as yesterday with, was it 2000 lbs of bombs on ONE building?) the occupation goes on.

Think of it like this.  Its 1779.  Old George III appoints an "independant" gov't to which he yields "sovereignty".  British and Hessian troops still "keep order" in our streets and attempt to disarm the Green Mountain Boys and the Swamp Fox's militia.  Which side would you be on? 

Put it in context...when every day we hear the statistics we react to the moment..if you heard 50 people a day were killed in the US, don't you think there would be outrage...How many die in America? 18-20k!

Those who are saying we are there for nothing are SPITTING in the faces of those Americans who died. And those who are still there.

We went in to oust a desparately dangerous dictator who possiby had weapons...
We also walked in, took over the country, AND GAVE IT BACK to them...when was that EVER done?
The invading country usually takes the country and keeps it!

Check out Eric Weider 'Armchair General'....that's how he sees it! 

Put it in context...when every day we hear the statistics we react to the moment..if you heard 50 people a day were killed in the US, don't you think there would be outrage...How many die in America? 18-20k!

In such context, why did people get so worked up about 9/11, then?  Why should we care about world terror, when many times more people are killed by motor cars than terrorists?


Those who are saying we are there for nothing are SPITTING in the faces of those Americans who died. And those who are still there.

Crap.  Those who sent them in to die for no valid reason are the ones you should be complaining about.


We went in to oust a desparately dangerous dictator who possiby had weapons..

Oh, puhlease... Saddam was not exactly a threat any more to anyone outside his own borders, and absolute zero in terms of a threat to the US.

.
We also walked in, took over the country, AND GAVE IT BACK to them...when was that EVER done?
The invading country usually takes the country and keeps it!

Because however big the invading army in Iraq was, there is absolutely no way they'd be able to hold on to it by force of arms alone - you'd be looking at tens of thousands of troops being killed if Bush tried to be that stupid.  So please don't make a big thing out of "giving Iraq back".

Said Patrick Henry who owned 60 slaves. 
In other words, "Give me liberty from the Crown exploiting me, so that I may more profitably exploit others."  That was the de facto philosophy of the elite group of wealthy land-owners who pushed for the American revolution.  The Patrick Henrys of Iraq will inevitably spit in our eye.


Actually, at the time that Patrick Henry spoke those words, the first Continental Congress was trying to find a way to reconcile with England.  The majority of citizens did not WANT seperation from the mother country.

The majority of complaints were about... taxes.  "The Seven Years War" (We in the Colonies know it as "The French-Indian War") almost bankrupted England, and both the King and Prime Ministers thought the Colonies should pay for most of the expenses.

4 of the biggest touchstones of the Revolution are "Taxation Without Representation" (the colonies did not have a member in Parlaiment), The disolving of local legislatures, The Quartering Act (which forced colonists to house British Soldiers in their houses & at their expense, and the granting of a monopoly in Tea to the "East India Company".

And most of the "Radicals" that forced the Revolution were not rich land owners, but rather the growing "Middle Class" of skilled artaisans and craftsmen in New England.  Samual Adams, Paul Revere, Benjamin Franklin, and the rest.  Not rich land owners, but skilled peope.  Most Southerners did not join in until England offered to arm runaway slaves and turn them against their former masters.  This is the act that scared Georgia (the last colony to join the forming Revolution) into joining the First Continental Congress.

Side note:  Thomas Jefferson wanted to have abolition included in the Declaration Of Independence.  It was included up until the final voted draft, and was only removed because the Southern States refused to vote if it was included in the document.  Thomas Jefferson was also a slave owner, and in the tradition at the time of a slave owner with Abolitionist beliefs, he freed ALL his slaves in his Will.  Freeing them when he was alive would have lead to repriasals, but he can't be blamed after he is dead.

As a matter of fact, slavery was expensive and costly, and a very inefficient way to work the land.  But with the lack of labor, it was the only solution they could think of.  It was already dying in the US at the time of the Civil War, and would have been dead of natural causes in less then a generation even without the war.

The majority of complaints were about... taxes.  "The Seven Years War" (We in the Colonies know it as "The French-Indian War") almost bankrupted England, and both the King and Prime Ministers thought the Colonies should pay for most of the expenses.

4 of the biggest touchstones of the Revolution are "Taxation Without Representation" (the colonies did not have a member in Parlaiment), The disolving of local legislatures, The Quartering Act (which forced colonists to house British Soldiers in their houses & at their expense, and the granting of a monopoly in Tea to the "East India Company".




I know we are getting off the topic a bit but most people do not realize that the colonies were offered to have a representive in Parlaiment. But the colonists refused the offer because it would have been too expensive to send someon to England-and for other reasons. Most of the taxes at the time were "external" taxes-mainly placed on commerce or on the colonies themselves. The Sugar Act was an  "internal" tax that taxed the people themselves. As to the Boston Tea Party, the tea that the East India Company tried to unload in Boston-was apparently something like 7 years old. Because of the Tea Act, the colonists was going to have to pay the taxes on this tea they didn't want. The ship (can't remember the name) was out of the harbor for the amount of days it could be. Because of the law, the ship HAD to make harbor and the colonists HAD to pay the taxes on it-so the Sons of Liberty raided and dumped the tea.

Ok, End of History lesson.  ;D

Back to topic.


Cat

In such context, why did people get so worked up about 9/11, then?  Why should we care about world terror, when many times more people are killed by motor cars than terrorists?
We're talking our territory was invaded. People dying from Gangs are invaded by thugs who are disturbing their life. Car acidents is a matter of safety.

Crap.  Those who sent them in to die for no valid reason are the ones you should be complaining about.
The reasons were valid at the time. Even Kerry was for it. Are you going to sit and wait for Saddam to strike first? Terrorists don't play that way.


Oh, puhlease... Saddam was not exactly a threat any more to anyone outside his own borders, and absolute zero in terms of a threat to the US.
If he had weapons that were dangerous enough to annihilate the US and knew better not to use them, what says he wouldn't have sold them to others who could do more harm?

Because however big the invading army in Iraq was, there is absolutely no way they'd be able to hold on to it by force of arms alone - you'd be looking at tens of thousands of troops being killed if Bush tried to be that stupid.  So please don't make a big thing out of "giving Iraq back".
Bush is either stupid for sending troops in with hard core evidence OR he's smart enough not to get thousands killed. Where else do they 'give back' a country for their own government to run?

Again look up on the web Eric Weider or the magazine(Armchair General) for a more indepth study.
I just was transferring info to consider which is mentioned.   

Actually, at the time that Patrick Henry spoke those words, the first Continental Congress was trying to find a way to reconcile with England.  The majority of citizens did not WANT seperation from the mother country.

Yes true, the establishment rich wasn't fomenting revolution the way the Boston hot-heads were.  The point about Henry relates more to the need to question what we mean by the words "freedom" and "liberty."
Freedom for whom, freedom from whom, freedom from what, freedom to dowhat, these are all important distinctions.
Sean Hannity, the dumb sunoverbeach, loves to talk about freedom.  He's not the only one who abuses the word, but he's particularly obnoxious about it.  When he says we "liberated" the Iraqi people, and they are "free," does he really understand what the daily lives of Iraqis are like these days?  What does freedom and liberty mean to an Iraqi as opposed to an American?  Hannity is putting on another "freedom" concert.  What exactly is he celebrating freedom of?  Freedom for whom, to do what?  These are important philosophical questions.  The right-wing throws the word "freedom" (and "liberty") around pretty callously.

I believe when they talk of "freedom" they're really talking about "power."

Put it in context...when every day we hear the statistics we react to the moment..if you heard 50 people a day were killed in the US, don't you think there would be outrage...How many die in America? 18-20k!

Those who are saying we are there for nothing are SPITTING in the faces of those Americans who died. And those who are still there.

We went in to oust a desparately dangerous dictator who possiby had weapons...
We also walked in, took over the country, AND GAVE IT BACK to them...when was that EVER done?
The invading country usually takes the country and keeps it!

Check out Eric Weider 'Armchair General'....that's how he sees it! 


According to the current admin, we went in to remove weopons of mass destruction that posed a direct threat to our security (WMD's, by the way that the Reagan admin gave him, and helped him make, even though we knew at the time that Saddam was a horrendous dictator and while, paranthetically, we were training and arming Osama and his followers).  These reasons turned out to be BOGUS.

This is not to say that "we are there for nothing", just not the security/humanitarian reasons touted by Mr Bush and his cronies.  Does the word O-I-L ring a bell?  Before we invaded, I and others carried a sign around my campus saying "No Blood For Oil", Thats what its about.

Saudi Arabia is growing unstable, Venezuela has boosted it tax on oil exports, OPEC has, in the past, threatens to limit production because of our support for Isreal. Iraq has some of the largest oil reserves in the world.  Go figure.

As to "gave it back to them", virtually every imperialist power throughout history, going back to King Harod and the Romans in Judea, has always found cooperative local lackies to act as a "sovereign government" of their colony who were willing to protect the "mother" country's interests and had recourse to the imperuim's troops.  This is no different.  Alawii will be allowed to make some limited decisions that might appear to be contrary to Bush's wishes, but certainly not fundamental ones.  Just watch.

I know we are getting off the topic a bit but most people do not realize that the colonies were offered to have a representive in Parlaiment. But the colonists refused the offer because it would have been too expensive to send someon to England-and for other reasons. Most of the taxes at the time were "external" taxes-mainly placed on commerce or on the colonies themselves. The Sugar Act was an  "internal" tax that taxed the people themselves. As to the Boston Tea Party, the tea that the East India Company tried to unload in Boston-was apparently something like 7 years old. Because of the Tea Act, the colonists was going to have to pay the taxes on this tea they didn't want. The ship (can't remember the name) was out of the harbor for the amount of days it could be. Because of the law, the ship HAD to make harbor and the colonists HAD to pay the taxes on it-so the Sons of Liberty raided and dumped the tea.

Ok, End of History lesson.  ;D

Back to topic.


Cat


Actually, the internal tax (directly on colonists) was the Stamp Act, from which came the "no taxation without representation" slogan.  Its interesting to note that in the Stamp Act Declaration, the abuses are attributed to Parliment.  In the Declaration, Jefferson alludes to Parliment, but never names it.

Yes true, the establishment rich wasn't fomenting revolution the way the Boston hot-heads were.  The point about Henry relates more to the need to question what we mean by the words "freedom" and "liberty."
Freedom for whom, freedom from whom, freedom from what, freedom to dowhat, these are all important distinctions.
Sean Hannity, the dumb sunoverbeach, loves to talk about freedom.  He's not the only one who abuses the word, but he's particularly obnoxious about it.  When he says we "liberated" the Iraqi people, and they are "free," does he really understand what the daily lives of Iraqis are like these days?  What does freedom and liberty mean to an Iraqi as opposed to an American?  Hannity is putting on another "freedom" concert.  What exactly is he celebrating freedom of?  Freedom for whom, to do what?  These are important philosophical questions.  The right-wing throws the word "freedom" (and "liberty") around pretty callously.

I believe when they talk of "freedom" they're really talking about "power."


Great questions.  What corporate America and its government employees mean is their "freedom" to make profits anywhere in the world.  Check out the facts surrounding the "privatization" of the Argentine economy or the Chilean "economic miracle".  Both disasters.  Chile did recover, because of Salvador Allende's policies, even though he never lived to see their results.

When these conservatives talk about "getting government off our backs" they don't mean mine or yours, but the corporate elite's.  Restricting peoples' sex lives, investigating their reading habits, arresting them without warrent, detaining them without access to the judicial system all seem to me to be PUTTING government on my back.