The Iraq Thread

[Sam Samson 0]

saddam is a wily fox. he's been playing the west for suckers for a long time...

whaddaya think he'd a done with all that fine equipment and those soldiers intact?

regroup and attack again.

or did you think he'd sit and twiddle his dictator thumbs.

(never underestimate you foe. )

[Longinius 1]

"The U.S. did not sign that specific geneva convention and is not recquired to abide by it. The vehicles/troops that were engaged were technically combatants and were engaged as such.

I don't see what the problem is."

Ah, so as long as you don't sign something, you don't have to abide by it? That means many nations are in fact allowed to use weapons such as nerve gas, bio weapons and so on. Since they never signed any convention, the rules does not apply to them. And since I never signed any papers binding me to follow the laws of the country I live in, I can do whatever I want. Well, I am not quite sure that is how it is intended to work...

[Balschoiw 0]

Fact is:

- the irakis were retreating without regrouping or engaging incoming aircrafts.

- they surrendered and a lot got out of their vehicles to do so

- the convoi was blocked at front and at back to cut ways to get away

- 60 miles of road filled with vehicles were bombed, no matter if the targets were civilians or armored

- the death count is assumed at nearly 10 thousand people

- Saddam Hussein did accept UN treaty 660 before the massacre

- Bush said he will not accept a retreat of Saddams forces

- The massive violence that was set onto the convoi can be seen

- As ran already said there are barely crates

You can look at it from the front, from the back, frome the left side or right side. It stays what it was. A massacre on unarmed civilians and retreating troops that wanted to surrender as soon as the planes showed up.

The intentional blocking of escape ways does clearly show that they first pinned the targets and then eliminated all of them. No exceptions were made. It would be good if even hardcore US freaks would sometimes be a bit more honest to themselves. Wearing stars and stripes on your banner doesnt mean to worship anything that is done under the stars and stripes banner.

[Balschoiw 0]

to the DU ammo. I will open up a new thread on it, as it looks like there are some things that are worth talking about.

[FSPilot 0]

Retreating forces are still open to attack. What happend to the U.S. in Korea when China got involved?

Whether they were running or not doesn't make any difference. They were running, or they were standing still with their rifles, making them combatants.

Did this UN treaty end any of the hostilities between U.S. and Iraqi forces?

This was a war, people were going to die. Everything the U.S. did was completely legal. Don't get me started on the illegal things saddam has done.

[brgnorway 0]

Okay - I'll have to do some moderating now

Keep to the thread! This is not about right- or wrongdoings during Desert Storm! The only way these occurences can belong to the threads theme is in what way they might affect the view of "liberating americans".

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Retreating forces are still open to attack. <span id='postcolor'>

They had surendered and showed no sign of aggression towards the attacking airplanes. They were out of war.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> What happend to the U.S. in Korea when China got involved?<span id='postcolor'>

So someone has to pay for that decades later ? Dont mix things up.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Did this UN treaty end any of the hostilities between U.S. and Iraqi forces?<span id='postcolor'>

Bush said he will not accept a retreat of Saddams forces.

Take into account that there were very much spread Iraki units that actually didnt have communication to their HQ at all. How should they know it was over ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Everything the U.S. did was completely legal.<span id='postcolor'>

I sincerly doubt that. Massacres on unarmed civilians and surrendering units are never legal.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't get me started on the illegal things saddam has done.<span id='postcolor'>

Sure but you claim to be more civilized than Irak but you actually use the same methods. The line is very thin here.

EDIT : Yeah last one on this from me. Still the same oppion as at topic start. If Saddam is taken out of power let the Iraki people decide. This is called democracy

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Dec. 06 2002,07:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They had surendered and showed no sign of aggression towards the attacking airplanes.<span id='postcolor'>

Prove it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So someone has to pay for that decades later ? Dont mix things up.<span id='postcolor'>

*sigh* I was using it as an illustration that retreating forces are still enemy forces and open to attack.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bush said he will not accept a retreat of Saddams forces.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, so whats the problem? The U.S. CinC said they were still at war, so they were still at war. At least the U.S. was.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I sincerly doubt that. Massacres on unarmed civilians and surrendering units are never legal.<span id='postcolor'>

I haven't been shown any evidence that there were civilians on that highway.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sure but you claim to be more civilized than Irak but you actually use the same methods. The line is very thin here.<span id='postcolor'>

We were fighting a war, he gassed innocent civilians. Granted, we may have accidentally killed civilians, but he did this on purpose.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If Saddam is taken out of power let the Iraki people decide. This is called democracy <span id='postcolor'>

The Iraqi people have been lied to by Saddam for a very long time. They don't have the correct information to make a good judgement call.

One of the reasons I think this is nowhere near a war crime is that there's absolutely no motive. More often than not there's a motive for a crime. Why on earth would a bunch of pilots all spontaneously and unanimously decide to commit a war crime? There's absolutely no reason.

[Balschoiw 0]

As you seem to have missed it:

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-death.htm

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They don't have the correct information to make a good judgement call.

<span id='postcolor'>

So you think they will believe anyone that wants to make profit with their natural ressources. Is this the truth you want to sell them ?

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 06 2002,02:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Iraqi people have been lied to by Saddam for a very long time. They don't have the correct information to make a good judgement call.<span id='postcolor'>

Realy? Why would they not be able to make a good judgement call? When Norway was occupied people still talked about what was happening not only in Norway - but the rest of the world. Even if he's a tyrant with total control of the public sphere doesn't mean people are stupid. Ok, they might not know about what happened on "the highway to hell", but they certainly know about the results of the great "oil for food" programe and the sanctions. They also know that US supported Saddam for years and thus are partly responsible for him still being in power. They might also know US also encouraged the iraqi opposition to fight him during operation Desert Storm took place. Unfortunately, US never did more than that and Saddam could easily brake down all opposition. This especially applied to the Kurds in the north. They were also called "freedom fighters" by Bush sr. but as Turkey protested (US ally) they were later called terrorists.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that most iraqi's wont cheer when you bomb your way into Iraq?

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Dec. 06 2002,08:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Balschoiw

As you seem to have missed it:

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-death.htm<span id='postcolor'>

That site only produces heresay, no evidence.

And if you want to talk about conspiracy theorys about bush and oil, I think there's a thread on that already.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why would they not be able to make a good judgement call?<span id='postcolor'>

Because all the information they've received is controlled by Saddam Hussein, who is lying to them.  They don't have USA today or CNN in Iraq.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why is it so hard for you to understand that most iraqi's wont cheer when you bomb your way into Iraq?<span id='postcolor'>

It isn't, I know they won't.  But they've been lied to, they think they won desert storm, they think they have a great leader, they believe all the anti-U.S. bull that they're being fed.  Including the stuff about oil.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">USA today or CNN in Iraq.

<span id='postcolor'> are you serious with that news being neutral ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That site only produces heresay, no evidence.<span id='postcolor'>

So what would be evidence ?

The case is very well documented. Or do you seriously think all the different reporters of serious newspapers are lying or constructing a conspiracy theory ? Jeez...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">they believe all the anti-U.S. bull that they're being fed. Including the stuff about oil.<span id='postcolor'> They dont really need to be pushed into this hard as they have eyes and see that bombs dropped on their shelters during war. This is homemade US.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 06 2002,03:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Because all the information they've received is controlled by Saddam Hussein, who is lying to them.  They don't have USA today or CNN in Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, my point of using the example of Norway during occupation was that even though the press was controlled and cencured by the german authoroties people still knew what was going on. People are not stupid even if they are living within a dictatorship but that's perhaps hard for you to understand since you have never been occupied. I have no illusions about the iraqi people - I'm quite certain that they know Saddam lost the war in Kuwait and had to retreat. Funny thing is that no matter how much a tyrant tries to control information - it always ends up where he doesn't want it to end - with the people.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So what would be evidence ?<span id='postcolor'>

That's up to the people making the case to find out.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The case is very well documented. Or do you seriously think all the different reporters of serious newspapers are lying or constructing a conspiracy theory ? Jeez...<span id='postcolor'>

I find it much harder to believe that a vast amount of military pilots would all willingly commit war crimes. Especially when we're comparing them to the media, hehe. But that's a different story alltogether.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They dont really need to be pushed into this hard as they have eyes and see that bombs dropped on their shelters during war. This is homemade US.<span id='postcolor'>

That was an accident and you know it. The Iraqi people, however, are probably being told that it was a purposeful attack.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm quite certain that they know Saddam lost the war in Kuwait and had to retreat.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, I disagree. But neither of us can prove ourselves. Even if we could it's not like anybody could prove that all of Iraq believes one thing.

Anyway, let's agree to disagree and drop it.

[Balschoiw 0]

It is in fact always hard to make speculations on future developements without taking history in. History is the base of future so it´s hard to talk about one thing only.

The goal for Iraki people is however to get them into a good starting position for democracy. Influences from abroad should only be in a very little way. Let´s say election watchers and controllers that make sure the elections are done proper. Furthermore the candidates should be selected by people not from 3rd party countries wherever based.

[Longinius 1]

"I find it much harder to believe that a vast amount of military pilots would all willingly commit war crimes. Especially when we're comparing them to the media, hehe. But that's a different story alltogether."

Soldiers follow orders. If a soldier is told to bomb a road filled with enemy vehicles, he will do it. Because that is his job. His job is not to question why, it is but to do or die. Or something to that effect. Very rarely will soldiers try and investigate why they have been ordered to do what they do and who they are doing it against.

As for the Iraqi people and what they know about past and present. They KNOW they lost the war. There is no doubt about it. They dont have any illusions about victory, they dont think they won any wars. Even the brass below Saddam admits to losing in Kuwait. They also admit that if the US attacks again, they will lose again. But as long as the US, the UN and the rest of the world keep medicines, food and supplies from the Iraqi people they will be the enemy and not Saddam. If the sanctions disappeared and nothing changed for the better of the people, then the people might actually start to thinka bout going against Saddam. As it is now, the US is helping Saddam stay in total control.

[brgnorway 0]

Listen up all Iraqi people - your savior has come:

http://www.talkingpresidents.com/sample.htm

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Dec. 05 2002,12:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Listen up all Iraqi people - your savior has come:

http://www.talkingpresidents.com/sample.htm<span id='postcolor'>

Brainwashing alert! BRAINWASHING ALERT!

Dear god, please tell me that isn't real!

[ultimategamerdobert 0]

i think that america will be even cockier and go after another country who poses a threat

[PitViper 0]

UK report on abuses in Iraq

http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/hrdossier.pdf

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ultimategamerdobert @ Dec. 06 2002,11:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i think that america will be even cockier and go after another country who poses a threat<span id='postcolor'>

"poses a threat"? Please explain this. A threat to what? NATO? World markets? UN?

[Frisbee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Dec. 06 2002,21:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ultimategamerdobert @ Dec. 06 2002,11:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i think that america will be even cockier and go after another country who poses a threat<span id='postcolor'>

"poses a threat"?  Please explain this.  A threat to what?  NATO? World markets?  UN?<span id='postcolor'>

What are you saying,iraq isn't a threat?

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frisbee @ Dec. 06 2002,15:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Dec. 06 2002,21:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ultimategamerdobert @ Dec. 06 2002,11:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i think that america will be even cockier and go after another country who poses a threat<span id='postcolor'>

"poses a threat"?  Please explain this.  A threat to what?  NATO? World markets?  UN?<span id='postcolor'>

What are you saying,iraq isn't a threat?  <span id='postcolor'>

*blinks furiously*

*puzzled*

[Schoeler 0]

This argument is ridiculous.  We all know we can take as the complete truth everything we read on the internet right?  

The truth is as it always has been, there is propaganda being put out by both sides, and the media is typically antimilitary so you can pretty much take that as a form of propaganda as well.

As a veteran of that era, I can tell you that the Gulf War did not officially end until 1993!  At the time of the bombing of the highway, the Iraqi army was in a tactical retreat.

The operative word here is tactical.  This means they were still armed and combat capable.  In fact, don't be fooled by the fact that many of the destroyed vehicles are civilian vehicles.  The Iraqi Army stole, looted and killed for those vehicles.  I doubt very much that many of the victims of this event were Kuwaitis as any American military member who has been to Kuwait post-Gulf War has seen how appreciative the Kuwaiti people are of Americans and particularly the American military.

Think about the strategic situation from a U.S. commander's point of view.  The plan was to enter Iraq until Bush called it off.  Despite the fact that the Iraqi Army was fleeing in disarray from Kuwait, there was no guarantee, especially since they were still armed, that they would not regroup and turn and fight just inside the Iraqi border.  The smart strategy is to destroy your enemy and deny him the ability to regroup or continue fighting.  It may seem harsh, but it is a part of war and always will be.  The Iraqis would have done the same thing were the situation reversed.

It seems to me that many of you have never served in the military, so from your eyes this might seem like overkill.  It is not.  When you are facing an enemy whose sole purpose and motivation is to see to it that you do not make it home to your family alive or intact, you kill him.  You kill him without mercy, and you continue to kill until your survival and safety are ASSURED.  There was no such assurance at the time of the bombing.  Don't confuse a tactical retreat with a general retreat, they are very much not the same thing.

The U.S. prior to the war engaged in an extensive psyops campaign.  the Iraqis were informed that they would recieve decent treatment and food if they surrendered to the American military.  However, their own dictator told them the Americans were butchers who would kill and eat them if they were captured, and then their own officers shot them if they tried to surrender.  Who seems inhumane now?  War is horrible because of man's inhumanity to man, its an inescapable fact which is why I am loath to see another war.

The objective of the Gulf War was to remove the Iraqi Army from Kuwait, but it was also to prevent Iraq from being able to invade either Kuwait or Saudi Arabia in the future.  Don't forget that Saddam had one of the world's largest armies prior to the war and he was obviously not hesistant to use it.  Would it have been wise for the American military to leave that force combat capable or intact?  If you think so, you are lying to yourself.  

American servicemen despite whatever propaganda you have been subjected to are not butchers.  They are family men who believe in what they are doing and just want to get home alive.  While America's foreign policy has a checkered history, it is also a the only one in the world where invasions have most often been in the name of liberating a people from oppression.  No other nation in the world can make that claim.  History is filled with invasions in the name of expanding empires or conquering and subjugating peoples, but it is only until recently that it contained any examples of wars of liberation.  The U.S. could have avoided both World Wars altogether.  It could have maintained its isolationist stance and focused instead on getting its economy recovered from the Great Depression.  Hitler wasn't going to invade America.  Instead it got invloved in both wars and TWICE played a major role in the liberation of Europe from brutal goverments.  As I said, American intentions are usually good, and the methods used often leave something to be desired.  We do not have the gift of foresight.  However we care enough to shed the blood of our own young men in the attempt to help someone else enjoy the freedoms we enjoy.  Look at the casualty rates America suffered in both world wars.  They are substantial, and what did we get from that but a free Europe and years of spending our own money to bail out the European economy.  Don't believe me?  Read about the Marshall Plan and for God's sake get the info from a book and not the internet will you?  Chances are, your very own nations benefitted from billions of dollars of U.S. economic assistance which in large part has still not been repaid.

We helped put Saddam in power, we armed him and we shared intelligence with him because we feared the Iranians more and he was their own enemy.  Any person with a hint of knowledge in the field of political science knows that in an unstable world, the enemy of your enemy is your friend.  Now, whatever our underlying motivations, America has the opportunity to right that wrong.  We have the opportunity to free a people from a murderous dictator bent upon power at any cost.  We have the opportunity to help establish a new Middle Eastern democracy and perhaps eventually restore a region to the flower of knowledge, thought and culture that it once was by stabilizing it.  Sure, there are probably a lot of back-room deals being cut for oil, but who really cares if the Iraqi people will benefit in the long term by a little short term destabilization?  American military planners are not stupid.  Just look how rapidly they achieved victory in the first Gulf War and in Afghanistan.  I'm sure the Iraqi people are not going to resist for very long to support the regime of a brutal dictator.  I doubt many civilians will be killed (by this I mean more than ordinarily are killed in any war).  I hope it will all be over quickly and done the right way finally, so peace can be restored to a region that has known only chaos and warfare for decades.

America has established a goverment that is the most promising available in Afghanistan and they have committed troops to insure its survival.  Just like in Europe and Japan after the Second World War.  Is America still in either of those places?  Are there puppet goverments established there, that bow to our every whim?  Just look at the facts and read your history before you go off half-cocked and believe the first thing you hear.  A scholar looks at issues from both sides and appreciates the arguments of the opposition because they make his own that much stronger.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The smart strategy is to destroy your enemy and deny him the ability to regroup or continue fighting.<span id='postcolor'>

Not right as 100 percent as the convoy of vehicles moved in lose order and without any sign of resistance to US aircrafts.

They were not in combat anymore.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> The Iraqis would have done the same thing were the situation reversed.

<span id='postcolor'>

How do you know ? There has never been a massacre like this from Iraki troops on US forces. Massacres of this extend are NOT known from Irak.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the Iraqis were informed that they would recieve decent treatment and food if they surrendered to the American military.<span id='postcolor'> Most of the convoi´s people DID surrender, but were slaughtered.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It seems to me that many of you have never served in the military, so from your eyes this might seem like overkill. It is not. <span id='postcolor'> I am active in military service all over the world and I DO say it was an unnecessary and oversized attack. If you would have done this right, it would have looked like that:

1. Immobilize convoi (was done by attacking front and back of convoi)

2. Move in with regular ground forces and imprison the soldiers.

There was no need to wipe out all vehicles and humans. There was no fire laid on the planes. There was no resistance. And yes this was definately a massacre. I was taught that an enemy that surrenders has rights. I was taught to respect that they are doing the same job as I do. I was taught that they have to follow orders like I have to do. And the uphold of human rights was written on my flag the day I joined armed forces. It is not on my flag to slaughter people the way it was done on "Highway to hell".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't forget that Saddam had one of the world's largest armies prior to the war and he was obviously not hesistant to use it.<span id='postcolor'> Untrue. The army may have had a big mancount, but was outdated like hell. Also an army is not jugded by it´s mancount, but by it´s threat in sum. This threat was a minor one.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> They are family men who believe in what they are doing and just want to get home alive.<span id='postcolor'> So are Iraki or any other nations soldiers.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Read about the Marshall Plan and for God's sake get the info from a book and not the internet will you? <span id='postcolor'>

Better shape up and read about the original US plans for germany after WW2. It is called "Morgentau plan". Again this is not an US propagande threat on military history. So keeep with Irak.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Any person with a hint of knowledge in the field of political science knows that in an unstable world, the enemy of your enemy is your friend.<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly this opinion lead to some major conflicts that are still rising. In fact gambling with states and their people never made the people there benefit, but the 3rd party states that enforced the conflicts. Do not think people are stupid. They find out when they are being abused in global theater and will react like they decide to react. Action makes the reaction.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We have the opportunity to help establish a new Middle Eastern democracy<span id='postcolor'> Negative. This has to be done by the inhabitants, not a 3rd party power. If you force something in although the people do not want it, you´ll get problems all the way. Check Afghanistan.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sure, there are probably a lot of back-room deals being cut for oil, but who really cares if the Iraqi people will benefit in the long term by a little short term destabilization? <span id='postcolor'> They do ? I doubt they will. And "short term destabilization" is a nice phrase to describe human killings in large extends.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I doubt many civilians will be killed <span id='postcolor'> As war is taken into towns this time, which is necessary to get Saddam out of power I think civillian casualties will be much higher than during desert storm.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">America has established a goverment that is the most promising available in Afghanistan and they have committed troops to insure its survival.<span id='postcolor'> This government is not accepted by Afghany people. It is only a matter of time, till it´s swept away. If you need military forces to strenghten a local government against it´s own people, something can´t be right. Leave it up to the people that live there. They are the ones to decide which leadership they want. Not anyone abroad that has doubtfull interests.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is America still in either of those places?<span id='postcolor'> Sure they are.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> A scholar looks at issues from both sides and appreciates the arguments of the opposition because they make his own that much stronger.

<span id='postcolor'> Do so. As far as have read I only see the US point in this post.