nooooo @shu, forget your friend, post your opinions...

joetheblow goes to bed and hopes this ends soon.

perhaps I am wrong and shouldn't try to influence him....
But I did say he is a friend of mine!

Anyone can 'win' if they have something to say and can back it up with facts. The fact is, though, most who are supposedly 'anti-war' rarely have anything to say about what to do with Saddam Hussein.

You see it here, and at devart, and everywhere else. Months of horrible, bloody footage from Palestine, or Chechnya, or the Ivory Coast, or Zimbabwe... and... nothing. Hundreds, thousands, tens-of-thousands die... silence. Then Rumsfeld or Bush or Cheney says one teeny word about 'axis of evil' and the anti-war rants explode; railing that the US is bringing about the Apocalypse. Hurry, let's pillage a McDonald's. How sadly transparent.

I don't wanna go further and describe those who are just anti-war when it comes to their own nation or religion or race. Jafo is watching me... Fact is, though, unless people around here can bash the US about a conflict, or feel they might be drawn into it, they generally couldn't care less. That isn't 'anti-war' in any sense of the term.

**

I'm still waiting to see if anyone is gonna try to put a positive spin on the US soldiers we dug up today. For some reason it is easy to think the worst about the US, and yet we are *required* to think the best of someone like Saddam Hussein when it comes to POWs. Earlier, I got the equivalent of 'WTF?' when i expressed concern when they were taken captive. Now, they might as well be from Rwanda for all the mention they get here.

Oh, and by the way, if anyone wants to dispute with @shnu.. run it by me first or at the same time....
I don't care....
I will support my friend's to make their views even if I should not agree with that view...
key word here being.... "Friend"

Now that's just too rich....
Don't they know that once they check in they can never leave?

yes bakerstreet, I noticed that many of my anti-war friends tend to not have much to say when I mention Saddams record. Or the other places you mentioned are not on thier radar at this time.


I guess the question of the day would be why Saddam first? What about Palestine, or Chechnya, or the Ivory Coast, or Zimbabwe?

I think I know why, but I am not sure if it is realality or not.

I was opposed to the war from the beginning, I didn't want it, but now that we are in the middle of it I hope we mop them up REAL good. Take out Saddam, his sons, and his entire group of loyal followers. Hopefully, God willing, with the least amount of innocent blood shed possible.

Joe:

of the few you mention:

Palestine would mean getting between Israel and Palestinian groups and terrorists there. None of them want us, and nothing we could do would solve the problem.

Chechnya would mean forcefully stopping Russia from attacking them, not a happy idea.

Ivory Coast is a French mess, and would mean getting between the French and the various factions there. Fun thought, huh.

Zimbabwe? actually I have no idea why the UN hasn't taken serious steps to unseat the 'president', Robert Mugabe, or at least protect his citizens from his hate crimes. The US froze his assets and such, but his thugs still murder white landowners and seize their property. He has had numerous political opponents and members of the press killed. One political opponent had to resort to text-messenging people's cell phones to get his message out, but then Mugabe had that declared illegal. He's used this Iraq distraction to imprison hundreds of his opponents, most of which will disappear in prison. An evil man in every sense, much like the others the UN never 'gets around to'.


Those who are 'anti-war', though, have lots to be angry about. Russia has been pounding Chchnya into submission for years, and not a hint, not a whisper from the doves. The US goes to unseat an evil dictator and every 18 year old soccer thug has an excuse to throw stuff at the police, and every high school 'thinker' has a reason to spam messageboards with tirades against the US. Sad for the millions that the fair-weather doves ignore, suffering in other conflicts all over the world.

The part I can't understand about the agressivity this wars brings amoung friends is : why? I mean, really. Why feel so strongly about this? Is it worth it? Is "liberating" a people that doesn't want you there really all that worth it? Is getting thousands of American soldiers killed really worth liberating the anti-American Irakis?
Now they are saying that there are 150,000 shia Iraki rebel soldiers, training in Iran, that may join the fight AGAINST the US, although the very reason they trained is to fight against Saddam. And from the moment those shia Iraki join the fight, it's just a small step from Iran itself joining in. Then probably Siria.
IS anyone else starting to think this could turn into WW3? Cause of course, then France and Germany would step in to help out the US. Europe/US vs Middle East?

In the end, is it really all that worth it? For what again? The liberate Irak, really?

paxx: you'll never understand why, because you refuse to believe any of the stated reasons for doing this. It is the moral equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming really loud. You'll go on believing Al-Jazeera lies, and thinking the worst of the US and the best of Iraq. You'll discount all the Iraqi people who are happy to see us there, just like you discount all those who have suffered for the last 30 years under his rule.

If you didn't discount them, you'd have a reason why the war was justified. With or without this conflict, there would be no peace in Iraq. Without this conflict, though, no one here would utter care.

So it isn't really about 'peace', is it? Like France, many would prefer the Middle East to be a ghetto, where no one ever answers a 911 call, and the people are ruled by criminals. Third world countries should neither be seen, nor heard, they should just export quietly, and how they get it done is none of our business. Those days are happily over, i think.

*******************

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/72224.htm

"I think this time Irak will treat them different. After all, they may want to prove the World that they're not such bad guys after all. That's also why I think that even if they do have chemical weapons, they won't use them, and leave them well hidden. I think they know they'll lose the war, and their only small hope is to show the US was wrong to attack them in the first place."

oh I forgot to ask this question:

How many from countries other than the US think this is a American policy, a American government policy, or just a Bush administration policy?


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/30/nyregion/30FEAT.html

I homeschool my children, and with each history lesson it dawns on me, we've always had battles and wars, and we always will. A recent lesson was the US Civil war and how the people of South Carolina climbed up on their rooftops to watch the first battle, on a takeover of a fort. I thought, times haven't changed that much...instead of our rooftops, we turn on CNN.

Some quotes I like:

I dont know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
Author: Albert Einstein

In time of war the first casualty is truth.
Author: Boake Carter

It is well that war is so terrible, or we should get too fond of it.
Author: Robert E. Lee

The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.
Author: Albert Einstein

bakerstreet: I wonder who is sticking their fingers in their ears. It's becoming quite obvious that the welcoming party for the US army won't happen in Iraq.

So, again, is it worth it to get tens of thousands of US soldiers die to liberate people who are not welcoming you? And even risk starting WW3?
I was afraid of the consequences before the war started, and I'm starting to be afraid I was right, as I hear more scary things from the news.