Come on, how could you doubt this face...

http://www.wlu.ca/~wwwpa/campus_upda...ges/martin.jpg


:Graucho

Actually it's nothing like that, nice reference though. Those were troops from a beaten occupying force grouping together to attack the liberators. This is a population that has been broken by a year long invasion, and it's common citizens fighting back against the occupying force. As much as right wingers would love for this to be like WWII in any way, it's not, it's fucking Vietnam.

So you know the people fighting you every day aren't "terrorists" or "insurgents", they're farmers who haven't had water or electricity for a year.

we are just all caught up in a rich mans war.

Rich,

You are the least careful reader I have ever known and once again - even though you bore me - will show you how much of a complete moron you are in front of the GFY audience.

The posts in this thread were about the
evidence as to whether Saddam had WMDs or not. Not once did I mention a connection between 9/11 and Saddam nor have I ever.

Now, ignoring the whole 9-11 connection which is ridiculous, let's get back to WMDs Clinton did mention Iraqi WMDs when he bombed Baghdad back in 1998. Here's the link:

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/16/iraq.strike.03/

And I quote:

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors with nuclear weapons, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said from the Oval Office. Clinton said he decided weeks ago to give Hussein one last chance to cooperate. But he said U.N. chief weapons inspector Richard Butler reported that Iraq had failed to cooperate -- and had in fact placed new restrictions on weapons inspectors."

And John Kerry in 2002 said, and I quote "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security"

Now you say I have a "hard time understanding the difference between not being sure what WMD Saddam may have and wanting to find out" and you use this to counterdict my statement that people like Kerry also believed that Iraqi had WMD. Now using the infinite wisdom gained from your 3 college degrees, please tell me what Kerry meant when he said "I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security".

It's no Vietnam. This occupation would have to go on for more than half a century to get to those kind of casualty numbers. I can only guess that you know very litttle of Vietnam much less know the difference between 50,000 and 900. Iraq is a lot more like the Phillipines.

You have a few small groups being led by clerics who think they are doing the work of Mohammed. That's all.

Colin your oversimplification of everything is laughable. Yes you're right, it is Bill Clinton and John Kerry's fault we're in Iraq right now, they would have done the same thing. Wake the fuck up, Bush made a huge fucking mistake invading Iraq.


Yes, it's ridiculous to talk about the main reason the American people were snowed into supporting the unnecessary war we're talking about.

So Al-Sadr's Al-Mahdi militia are a bunch of farmers without water? Hahaha.

I'll just quote that for the record.

Where am I discussing "fault"? Where am I discussing "what Clinton would do"?

It's funny. As always, every post you make in reply to me is an attempt to change the subject from the one where you were just proved wrong. I've seen this from you since day one. Don't you know you just keep making yourself a target? Sooner or later you'll learn you can't beat me.

Now, please don't make me explain myself line by line to you just to clarify. Do us both a favor. Go back and read my posts 4 times each, read them slowly, and then come back and continue the debate. Until then, you're wasting the time of people who are literate.

You're worse than the highschoolers I used to teach.

I don't think so !

And I'll beat you this with one.

Here's where we are.

Vietnam. Total dead. 58,203
Iraq. US casualties. 837.

At this month's casualty rate, US casualties in Iraq will equal Vietnam in the year 2102. See the difference?

Just because you say you "beat me" doesn't make it true. Go back and find one thing you've said that isn't rhetoric trying to change the subject from YOUR MISTAKEN SUPPORT of an illegal war, and failure to admit as much. Don't make me explain line by line why when jackasses like yourself and 12clicks spit out a bunch of BS, the rest of the world laughs.

Keep quoting Clinton and Kerry on WMD, very relevant since they were the ones who exaggerated the facts and launched the war. Tell me that's not something a highschooler would do and I'll call you a liar. You Bush apologists are very full of talking points, but sadly they don't hold up outside of CNN.

Hate to break this to you, but most people look at a war as more than US casualties. How old are you? If you can't understand how this is a replay of Vietnam, well let's just say that explains a lot of your thought process.

Heh. I tell you to "go back and read my posts" and then you copy with "go back and find one thing you've said". You're in obvious awe of me and trying to emulate. Give it up. Be yourself. You need to develop your own style. Don't be a plagiarist. It's unbecoming.

The excellent and respected military historian John Keegan wrote this recently, "Iraq 2004 is not Greece 1945, not Indochina 1946-54, not Algeria 1953-62 and certainly not "Vietnam". "

In his words, "the war has not done much harm but has broken the power of the state and encouraged the dispossessed and the irresponsible to grab what they can before order is fully restored. What monopolises the headlines and prime time television at the moment is news from Iraq on the activity of small, localised minorities struggling to entrench themselves before full peace is imposed and an effective state structure is restored. The news is, in fact, very repetitive: disorder in Najaf and Fallujah, misbehaviour by a tiny handful of US Army reservists - not properly trained regular soldiers - in one prison. There is nothing from Iraq's other 8,000 towns and villages, nothing from Kurdistan, where complete peace prevails, very little from Basra, where British forces are on good terms with the residents."

What has caused the insurgency, and it is that, at the hand of a few clerics - was a lightning-quick campaign that occupied a capital in just 21 days without destroying much of the Iraqi munitions. It did not leave most Iraqis feeling defeated, certainly not the militias in Najaf and Fallujah. This combined with the police and military apparatus being disbanded has permitted a criminal element to appear.
It is localized to a few cities and organized by just a few clerics.

Now do you see the difference?

I love it when the right wing argues, "Look at all the other countries that support the war!"

Just what exactly is "support"? "The Cayman Isalnds supports the war." from it's Prime Minister. Maybe it sends a few coconuts and some band aids to the "cause.

But in the end, it is the United States that has poured in over 95% of the money, men & material in this material. In reality, it's a one country war with some token help from it's lacked Britain.

When all American troops (and the rest of the "coalition") go home and Iraq is a stable democracy!

Damn right! Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, etc. These "45" countries have only offered TOKEN help in their "support" and are but a SMALL % of the rest of the world's population.

Are there Israeli & Saudi troops fighting in Iraq?
This argument your pushing about "45" countries supporting the war is so full of holes it's laughable.

Ok..you are a stickler for facts, just what is the actual % of the world population represented by these 45 countries (REMOVING the poplulation of the US)??

Who's right-wing? You got me wrong. Most people here know I support Kerry. I don't see everything in terms of liberal vs. conservative or - here in the US - Republican vs Democrat.

As far as Britain, I'd hardly call 40,000 troops "token" help and I think it insults the British soldiers for anyoen to say that.

US had lost this war from the very beginning:ak47:

100 2nd vietnam

Probably the same thing as Clinton..containment and no fly zones.
At least we wouldn't have numerous terror organizations operating in Iraq as we do now.

Saddam was a fucked up dude. But he did NOT allow Al Qaeda & others to operate in the country because quite frankly he didn't trust them and saw them ALSO as a threat to his power.

Ok, so I have to find one of the dozens of respected military historians who do consider it similar to vietnam, wonderful. I have nothing better to do then to argue semantics with a jackass who will argue his incorrect Bush apologies to the death.

How about this to start. 26 former senior diplomats calling for Bush's removal. Simple enough.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...home-headlines

They are mostly poor people that have no jobs!!

In regards to the war in Iraq, you ARE representative of the American right wing who supports the war.

And I see you duck the issue when it's pointed out these 45 nations are just giving token "support". I included the U.K. as the U.S's lackey btw. What about the other 44 nations then? What HUGE support did they give?

In addition, there is huge potential for civil war in Iraq, with several different factions vying for power. This will take a while folks :2 cents:

Don't you know, the clerics had thousands of soldiers ready to fight while the Bathists were in power.

There you again. How does "diplomats calling for Bush's removal" support your position that Iraq is like Vietnam? They don't have anything to do with each other.

Rich's idea of "simple":

Colin: The sky is blue
Rich: No it's not because I have $1.42 in my pocket. Simple.
Colin: Uhhh, ok, Rich.

Actually, I said in this very thread that there was not enough evidence to justify an invasion of Iraq on the WMD issue so I still don't see you where are you coming from - unless you haven't read it all yet.

I didn't duck anything. You changed what I said. I said 45 countries supported the US position. I didn't say "45 countries sent troops". If you read back through the thread you'll see the context. Sad you think of Britain as "lackeys". I see them as a powerful
country making up their own mind about whether to go to war or not.

By your logic, France didn't oppose the US position because it didn't send troops to oppose it. That makes no sense. It's as easy as can be. Those countries agreed in public with the US position. That's that.

Thought Gore would be a do nothing jerk. I mean idot class. Idots are starting to look better and better. There is no question that we needed to build our military and still do. Chances are that is something Gore would not have done. That leaves the question: Would we be safer here? Would there have been a 9/11? Would we of had the fucked up patriot act? (pisses me off that had to use the word "patriot" on that bill).

Actually, you are supporting what I've been saying. Thank you.
So, there are not 45 countries who have sent military troops to fight in Iraq.

So I go back to a question I have asked: What is the BIG support that these other 44 countries (exclusing England) have given the "coaltion" that has proven valuable to the war effort?

P.S. And while you are fond of using the big number of FORTY FIVE countries, that groups doesn't even represent 1/4 th of the number of sovereign countries in the world.

From countrywatch.com:
Below is a list of Independent and Sovereign States of the World
Total count of Independent States: 192

And you haven't answered what is the total % of the world's population from these 45 countries (Excluding the US)?

Sorry..no crystal ball here to give you any answer.
Though it's a bit mystifying when people start playing the "what if" argument when it comes to the war in Iraq.

Gore is irrelevant to the war..Bush is VERY relevant to the war.

Richy boy...your entire post is uttter BS...not a word of truth in it. The voices in your head are lying to you.

In addition there have been thousands more Americans killed by Americans...in America during the same time frame of Afganistan and Iraq combined. 837 casualties are militarily insignificant...no more than an irritant.

Good thing North Korea dosent have any natural resources for the US to expliot.

Cause if they did there might be a reason to go over an make them stop producing WMD and nukes.

But oh wait.. China may not like that and as the last nation to accually threaten the us militaraly why dont we just let that slide. Instead we can go pick on a smaller weak nation with no military but an econamy that can be explioted to suit our needs.


Oh yeah and wile were at is lets give the rich massive tax breaks fuck over the middle class and raise the national debt to an all time high.

But hey.. whats 4 more years.:eek7

It is not similar to Vietnam...in almost anyway you care to present a comparison...buy a clue Richy boy...or get some help for those mis-informed and lying voices in your head.

It would not do any good for Centurion to go back and read anything as his comprehension level is near zero...or below.

"In addition there have been thousands more Americans killed by Americans...in America during the same time frame of Afganistan and Iraq combined. 837 casualties are militarily insignificant...no more than an irritant."


tell that to the famlies of the dead and wounded

and see if that comforts the famlies with sons and daughters yet to go to iraq.

What about the civilian casualties and there famlies who have died to help re build a countire ravaged by the War on there countrie. And for what...

Sadam is out of power.. yippie The next guy will be better..? ort the guy after him?

The world is safer..? More terrorist threats happen now then before 9/11 beacue of the increasing hatred toward the west due to the "Invasion" of iraq.

Im not bashing you im just saying droping an anvil on an ant seems like alot of effort to squash a bug.