IMO. To answer some of you, Why
Iraq was beatable. we choice a geographical and logistical location to stage a war on Terrorism and that was IRAQ.
not to mention Saddams criminal record made it expectable.
by any reasonable person.
We have fought many wars over Humanitarian reasons, in fact WWII was a war for humanitarian reasons but not for the ones you all think. The Germany holocaust was not known until after the US was involved. We fought because we were protecting the CHINESSE from Japanese rape of Manchuria. Japan responded by bombing Pearl Harbor we entered the war.
We went to Iraq for a few reasons. One was to stabilize the worlds oil reserves. Saddam invaded Kuwait and began to move into Saudi Arabia, He would have moved into the Emirates next but he was stopped.
Secondly we are there to put pressure on IRAN and Syria. We will be there forever, that’s right, 2 years with a full force and then a permanent base forever, just as we have them in Cuba, Germany, South Korea etc.
Third the ties to 9/11 and AL-Quaida will be proven. WMD's where there he used them. Do you realy think he developed them used them once then decided (that was nice now let's not make any more) and we will find evidnce of that and more in time.
US was also sending a mesage to other leaders. Stop the terroist train.
GScholz
“who looked up to Hussein and saw him as a good leader, albeit a bit "harsh".
A bit harsh? Were do I began to respond to this stupid statement?
Article Title: "Separate Realities "
Author: Section: Issues & Insights Date: 12/15/2003
Media: Thousands of Iraqis have marched to condemn terrorism and demand a halt to the violence. We're still waiting for the networks to offer their full reports.
And they're probably waiting, too. But not to report on Iraqis coming together against the loyalist insurgents who are trying to sabotage the construction of a liberated society.
They're likely waiting for a handful of Iraqis to demonstrate against the coalition or march in support of Saddam Hussein.
Now that would be real news, wouldn't it? The anti-insurgent rallies haven't gone totally unnoticed by the media. There has been some light coverage.
Otherwise we would have never known that "5,000 to 10,000 Iraqis tried to send terrorists a cease-and-desist message Wednesday from downtown Baghdad," as a Knight Ridder News Service reporter described it.
Or that 4,000 or so chanted "death to terrorists" in Baghdad on Nov. 28. The Media Research Center tells us the rallies were ignored, though, by two of the major broadcast network news shows while ABC gave it a cursory treatment.
And, as far as we can tell, not a single major daily newspaper had a march story on its front page.
However, should a subsidiary of Halliburton, the former employer of Vice President Dick Cheney, be accused of charging the U.S. government too much for its contract services in Iraq, well, then that's front-page news for The New York Times and Washington Post, and an instant obsession for the broadcast media.
(CBS News anchor Dan Rather suggested that the "overcharges" were evidence of some nasty "war profiteering.") Never mind that this alleged overcharging has nothing to do with Cheney. Forget that it's a dispute between accountants. Don't even consider that nothing criminal or illegal has transpired.
And disregard the fact that Halliburton isn't likely to profit from the "overcharges" and that they were the outcome of Halliburton paying a subcontractor too much for gasoline. Just remember when it's time to vote next fall that in some vague way, Cheney did something wrong.
Frankly, we're a little weary of having to continue to point out that the media are dwelling on the negative and largely dismissing the positive in Iraq.
Yet we understand. Focusing on death and dismemberment and looking for dirty deals while downplaying progress is an effective way to poison public opinion on the war and the Bush administration.
Oddly, the media's inconsistencies have actually been captured by a small corner of the press. In a Dec. 5 dispatch from Baghdad detailing the accomplishments of the Army's Civil Affairs soldiers and regular troops,
Tara Copp of Scripps Howard News Service writes: "What Iraq looks like on TV, and what Iraq looks like for the 130,000 troops living here, sometimes feels like two different realities."
Is there a better description than that? Copp, possibly without knowing it, summarized the entire issue in less than 25 words. But, like the progress Copp was writing about, those words, too, will be sidestepped by the mainstream media.
