Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Bohdi, the only way to win the war in Iraq is the ethnic cleansing of all that oppose the govt that the US supports. This is not a war, but an attempted occupation. There are no terrorists in iraq other than the Bush boogeymen he uses to manipulate the simple minded. Terrorists do not attack military targets, opposing armies do. You get out your browser and read up on what a rebel army is, what a civil war is, what an occupying force is, and what a terrorist is and tell me what terrorists we are fighting in iraq.
BUsh's long term vision is to capture the oil of the middle east, create mayhem and choas driving the cost of oil and gas through the roof. The politically connected corporations will aquire massive power by the loot of the US treasury to buy thier war machines, finance thier war, and value a gallon of gas with the 25% 'fear factor' premium.
You can see where us dumb liberals get confused as the war in Iraq's goal was to dissarm saddam of WMD's. I am glad you have some deep inside info to give you comfort, I am skeptical. Its time to show some results. Killing saddam was pure and simple murder because he was innocent of the charges. You tell us dumb liberals, before the invasion, was the Iraqi people better off? Was there any significant terrorist threat to the US in Iraq? Did the peopel of Iraq give any indication of wanting a western style govt there? Enough is enough, step back and take a look.
I didn't want to get into this thread, but this post is so ridiculous that I just have to refute some of the more silly statements...
1. There are no terrorists in iraq other than the Bush boogeymen he uses to manipulate the simple minded. Terrorists do not attack military targets, opposing armies do.
OK - so when OBL, Zawahiri, and the rest of the Al-Queda in Iraq types tell you in taped messages that Iraq is the central front in the war and call for Jihad against western interests, they are part of the vast global right-wing conspiracy to dupe us into thinking there are terrorists in Iraq when there really aren't any? Oh, and when suicide bombers are blowing up mosques, restaurants, and day-labor centers - those are "military targets" of a rebel army? Yeah, right....
2. You can see where us dumb liberals get confused as the war in Iraq's goal was to dissarm saddam of WMD's.
Hindsight is always 20-20 isn't it? Lets see, Saddam gasses Iranians and Kurdish villages, but you can assume back in 2002 that he doesn't have poison gas anymore. He had 500 TONS of yellow cake uranium being watched over by IAEA inspectors since 1992, some of already highly-enriched, but you can just assume that he's not really wanting to get nuclear weapons. Like Iran, I suppose he was just working on a "peaceful nuclear program". Yeah, right...
3. Killing saddam was pure and simple murder because he was innocent of the charges. You tell us dumb liberals, before the invasion, was the Iraqi people better off?
Innocent? The man gassed Kurdish villages killing women and children, not to mention 300,000 dead Shia, the rape of Kuwait, and a prison-state featuring rape-rooms and children being held as hostages. Innocent? Are you kidding? By your thinking I suppose Hitler would've been innocent too - Gee, he didn't actually gas anyone himself, and I don't think he shot anybody personally, so I guess he would've been found innocent in your court.
Better off? You think you'd be better off living with the threat of some maniacs setting off a car-bomb on the street, or with the threat of the police showing up to kill you and cart your daughter off to a rape-room?
As it is now, most of the violence is confined to just 3 of 18 Iraqi provinces - Baghdad, Al-Anbar, and Salaheddin. 15 of 18 provinces are relatively peaceful and I don't think we're seeing a lot of Iraqis going into mass graves these days. Pull a few internet pics of Saddam's mass graves and then tell me how "innocent" he was, or how the Iraqi people were better off under his regime.
4. Did the peopel of Iraq give any indication of wanting a western style govt there?
Gee, I don't think so - probably because anyone who spoke out against Saddams' regime would end up dead. See #3 above. Of course the Iraqis here in this country seemed to think that we needed to get rid of Saddam, but I guess they were just part of GW Bush's plan to control world oil. Yeah, right....
5. Was there any significant terrorist threat to the US in Iraq?
Was Saddam supporting terrorism? Damn right he was. $25,000 payments to the families of suicide bombers, safe haven for terrorists like Abu Nidal, links to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the plot to assassinate George Bush in 1993 - there was plenty of evidence that Saddam was supporting terrorism, and plenty of provocation for us to step in and remove him.
Wake up and smell what you're shovelin'
