The Iraq Thread

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,00:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,00<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't be surprised if this war sets a pattern for world politics far into the future.<span id='postcolor'>

I find it disturbingly similar to what we Europeans did to the world. We went to America, Africa and Asia and saved the "poor heathens" by converting them to Christianity. The forced conversions were done because we really wanted to help those people, to convert them to the right faith so that they wouldn't burn in hell. Those poor bastard lived in ignorance about the true God. Thank God that we were there to save them and to make use of their natural resources which would have other been exploited for who knows what un-Godly purposes.

Right now the keywords are "poor oppressed people" and "Democracy".

This is neocolonialism baby, nothing more, nothing less.<span id='postcolor'>

Neocolonialism implies that we will occupy and exploit Iraq much the same as you Europeans did last century. I doubt the U.S. intends to do so, and if they did, I doubt the Iraqi people would allow it. Iraq would become a terrorist riddled quagmire. There's also a difference between forced religious conversion and Democracy. Democracy makes the oppressed free to choose, forced religious conversion leaves no freedom of choice.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,00:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,00:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think most Americans supported the war for the sake of the Iraqis.<span id='postcolor'>

And the war with Afghanistan was of course for the sake of the Afghani people.  <span id='postcolor'>

Sort of. But mainly we had to make those fuckers pay.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,00:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,00:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think most Americans supported the war for the sake of the Iraqis.<span id='postcolor'>

And the war with Afghanistan was of course for the sake of the Afghani people.  <span id='postcolor'>

Two different wars, two different reasons. Afghanistan was an obvious threat, unless you are one to ignore the fact that we used to have two thousand foot tall buildings that are now smoking holes in the ground. Don't tell me you don't think the Afghans are better off now than they were under the Taliban. I'm sure there are a lot of Afghanis who would disagree with you.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,00:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,00:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think most Americans supported the war for the sake of the Iraqis.<span id='postcolor'>

And the war with Afghanistan was of course for the sake of the Afghani people.  <span id='postcolor'>

eh? denoir, you know that it was because of OBL.

anyways, didn't you say sometime ago that if WMD were found you would not say decision to goto war was wrong?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,00:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Neocolonialism implies that we will occupy and exploit Iraq much the same as you Europeans did last century.  

 <span id='postcolor'>

Iraqi oil ring a bell? Or how can you explain that of more then a dozen worse dictatorships then Iraq you had to go for Saddam.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I doubt the U.S. intends to do so, and if they did, I doubt the Iraqi people would allow it. <span id='postcolor'>

With US tanks in their back-yard, they would have little choice. After all we have all seen now what happens if you are not compatible with US interests. Saddam has been a dictator for 30 years. 15 of those years he was America's buddy in the region. So him being a nasty dictator does not have anything to do with this current occupation.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq would become a terrorist riddled quagmire. There's also a difference between forced religious conversion and Democracy. Democracy makes the oppressed free to choose, forced religious conversion leaves no freedom of choice.<span id='postcolor'>

It's exactly the same shit. We're forcing our political beliefs on them.

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 10 2003,00:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,00<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Being a European, I would have thought you would be the first person to support such an action seeing as less than 60 years ago, another coalition did this very same thing for the Europeans.<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You are wrong you know! The coalition were called allies and they consisted of men and women from the occupied as well as the still independent nations. <span id='postcolor'>

Isn't the U.S. using former Iraqi citizens and military officers to help with translations, and communication?

And the Kurdish fighters in the north?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is no similarity between the allies and "the coalition of the willing" .<span id='postcolor'>

You know, I've wondered from the start why Bush didn't call his alliance the 'Allies'. Too presumptuous, perhaps?

But let's see

Backed and funded heavily by America:

Allies - check

Coalition - check

Involving men and women from the independent and 'occupied' nation:

Allies - check

Coalition - check

Democracies fighting against a despotic regime:

Alies - check

Coalition - check.

I admit the Allies and the Coalition have a world of differences between them, but they have a world of similarities, as well.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You claim to be a coalition of nations willing to invade Iraq when the allies goal was to throw out an invading aggressor. Or do you imply that US (and possibly Australia and New Zealand) where the only ones saving Europe because you where not occupied yet - as in YOU liberated the european continent?

<span id='postcolor'>

See above.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 09 2003,18:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,005)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 09 2003,23:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm referring to the reason the majority of Americans supported the war, to rid Iraq of a brutal dictator and free the Iraqi people.<span id='postcolor'>

Really? And silly me thought it was about terrorism and WMD. <span id='postcolor'>

The Bush administration will take what it can get.<span id='postcolor'>

But that's it right now, the lost political debate for the U.S. You can't have it both ways. Either it was about WMD's, or necessity to change a regime, or then just freedom. Which...

no matter what, the war was not justified given the circumstances. Hopefully Iraqis will adapt to the change well and form some sort of their own government after a while that is not econimically tied to the U.S. at all.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,00:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's exactly the same shit. We're forcing our political beliefs on them.<span id='postcolor'>

I think the dancing Iraqis in the streets would suggest otherwise, but hey, maybe thats just me!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

*Reposted from DOW

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 10 2003,00:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You claim to be a coalition of nations willing to invade Iraq when the allies goal was to throw out an invading aggressor.<span id='postcolor'>

There weren't exactly a whole lot of cries for an armistice when the Allies started driving into Germany, dig?

[ebud 18]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,00:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,00<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't be surprised if this war sets a pattern for world politics far into the future.<span id='postcolor'>

I find it disturbingly similar to what we Europeans did to the world. We went to America, Africa and Asia and saved the "poor heathens" by converting them to Christianity. The forced conversions were done because we really wanted to help those people, to convert them to the right faith so that they wouldn't burn in hell. Those poor bastard lived in ignorance about the true God. Thank God that we were there to save them and to make use of their natural resources which would have other been exploited for who knows what un-Godly purposes.

Right now the keywords are "poor oppressed people" and "Democracy".

This is neocolonialism baby, nothing more, nothing less.<span id='postcolor'>

OMG. Now your really reaching. When we decide to go into somewhere like France or Spain, or any other country that doesn't mass muder it's own citizens, then I think you may have a point, but until then, your snide comments from the beginning of this thread only show that you'll reach for anything as long as it even comes close to putting the US in a bad light. We'll just have to wait and see if history paints the US to be the evil empire you so hope it to be, or it paints this war as a war for liberation regardless of the initial intent.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,00:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't tell me you don't think the Afghans are better off now than they were under the Taliban.  I'm sure there are a lot of Afghanis who would disagree with you.<span id='postcolor'>

They are under just as bad war lords right now, which the Talibans kept in place. So I'd say that it is sure as hell that in many regions they were better off with the Taliban. After it was bombed, Afghanistan was more or less abandoned. Not even Kabul is under full control. Plus the Taliban are slowly getting back to power.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">eh? denoir, you know that it was because of OBL.

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, the point that I was trying to make. The 'liberation' of the Iraqi people was just as high on the agenda as the liberation of the Afghani people. At the bottom, that is.

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

anyways, didn't you say sometime ago that if WMD were found you would not say decision to goto war was wrong? <span id='postcolor'>

I said that if the UN security council decided that a war was necessary that it would be justified. Anything outside of the UN is illegal. In my view this war is exactly as unjustified as when Saddam invaded Kuwait. It is an illegal war. Period. The results or motivation for it can be whatever you wish, the fact remains that it is an agression on an independent country.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,00:09)</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">Take it as what you want, but thats how most Americans feel, its not bullshit to us, and we can't exactly force our government to enter Burma any more than you can force your government to do so. Don't be surprised if this war sets a pattern for world politics far into the future. Though personally I would like to see any wars avoided at all costs.

<span id='postcolor'>

Well, forgive me for saying this - I don't know what the general US citizen believe in. I do however strongly suspect your government is not pursuing the "free all the world-path" .

Actually, I'd rather claim your country does whatever suits themselves best - especially conserning economic interests.

Or do you honestly believe USA is all about altruism?

You empathy is fine - but where was it when Saddam gassed the kurds in -89?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Edit: On a side note, I'm glad I don't live in a cynical country that doesn't seem to believe in anything, and is unwilling to act upon any of its beliefs. It must be terrible to see emotions like patriotism and the desire to spread freedom throughout the world as "bullshit propaganda".

<span id='postcolor'>

Norway -like most other scandinavian countries believe in a whole lot. Maybe thats why we are among those giving most to the poor in this world compared to any other country in the world (per capita) . We also provide military forces to the ongoing situation in Afghanistan as we did in Desert storm. So you could say we are willing to act upon our beliefs. We also strongly believe in freedom which is why we promote peace and negotiations in many places around the world. My country was and are involved in that kind of work in South Africa, Israel-palestine, Sri Lanka just to name a few.

Oh, you would also find we are very patriotic indeed - it doesn't mean we lack the ability of self criticism though which we regard as a virtue and not a sin!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 10 2003,00:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 09 2003,187)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 09 2003,23:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm referring to the reason the majority of Americans supported the war, to rid Iraq of a brutal dictator and free the Iraqi people.<span id='postcolor'>

Really? And silly me thought it was about terrorism and WMD.  <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

The Bush administration will take what it can get.<span id='postcolor'>

But that's it right now, the lost political debate for the U.S.  You can't have it both ways.  Either it was about WMD's, or necessity to change a regime, or then just freedom.  Which...

no matter what, the war was not justified given the circumstances.  Hopefully Iraqis will adapt to the change well and form some sort of their own government after a while that is not econimically tied to the U.S. at all.<span id='postcolor'>

I hate to be cynical, but yes, yes we can have it both ways. Many Americans felt that the WMD thing was merely a good excuse to finish what we started in '91, so they will in turn accept multiple objectives and causes for the war. And, as I've told you before, the only people that really have a shot at reversing this current policy are the American people; as you can see, the American people seem to be just fine with this war of multi-faceted causes.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,00:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,00:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's exactly the same shit. We're forcing our political beliefs on them.<span id='postcolor'>

I think the dancing Iraqis in the streets would suggest otherwise, but hey, maybe thats just me! <span id='postcolor'>

Yes, like the happy converted black children that were paraded around the salons in Spain.

Baghdad has over 5 million inhabitants. There were a couple of hundred, max a couple of thousand people on the streets. There is a large gap between wanting to kill you and welcoming you. Just because they were not willing or able to fight doesn't mean that they welcome you with open arms!

It's so funny that you think that the majority of Iraqis actually like you!

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 10 2003,00:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">no matter what, the war was not justified given the circumstances.  Hopefully Iraqis will adapt to the change well and form some sort of their own government after a while that is not econimically tied to the U.S. at all.<span id='postcolor'>

I can bet you, although they hate US, they don't mind spending some money on some products from US. a rational person would not say "this is from some country, we don't like it, let's not buy it"(<s>French</s> Freedom fries anyone? ). just as most ppl consider those who don't buy french products because of their stance silly, it's the other way around too.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ ,)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The 'liberation' of the Iraqi people was just as high on the agenda as the liberation of the Afghani people. At the bottom, that is.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't beleive in result justifying the means either, but how about the fact taht 99% supported Hussein and now a far less than that. Is US forcing them to show up in places waving hands at gun point?

edit: i think i remember it more clearly now. denoir's post at the time was that if WMDs were found, he'd agree that inspection was not working.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 09 2003,18:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 10 2003,00:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 09 2003,18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 09 2003,23:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm referring to the reason the majority of Americans supported the war, to rid Iraq of a brutal dictator and free the Iraqi people.<span id='postcolor'>

Really? And silly me thought it was about terrorism and WMD. <!--emo&<!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

The Bush administration will take what it can get.<span id='postcolor'>

But that's it right now, the lost political debate for the U.S. You can't have it both ways. Either it was about WMD's, or necessity to change a regime, or then just freedom. Which...

no matter what, the war was not justified given the circumstances. Hopefully Iraqis will adapt to the change well and form some sort of their own government after a while that is not econimically tied to the U.S. at all.<span id='postcolor'>

I hate to be cynical, but yes, yes we can have it both ways. Many Americans felt that the WMD thing was merely a good excuse to finish what we started in '91, so they will in turn accept multiple objectives and causes for the war. And, as I've told you before, the only people that really have a shot at reversing this current policy are the American people; as you can see, the American people seem to be just fine with this war of multi-faceted causes.<span id='postcolor'>

But when you give reasons to the U.N. you should know first which ones it is you are aiming for. What happened is this shift through all 3 to see if the world would let an attack take place. Basically the world was opposed (aside from the few). It's very bad what has happened, there is now an opening for pre-emtive attacks for any nation. And there is already bitching about weapons preliferation to Iraq, woo hooo. Do you know what the Russians could have done now in Iraq, what the U.S. did in Afghanistan, arm the Stalinist regime of Hussein to it's teeth with Russian weapons, would that not be nice equality.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,00:24)</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">I'm sure there are a lot of Afghanis who would disagree with you.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm sure you would find some afghanis that would disagree with that - that is - the ones living withing a 5 km radius of Kabul. The others live under pretty bad conditions - maybe as bad as before the Taliban came to power. Don't forget that the ones ruling over most of Afghanistan are the same people that made people welcome the taliban rule in the first place.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 10 2003,00:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, forgive me for saying this - I don't know what the general US citizen believe in. I do however strongly suspect your government is not pursuing the "free all the world-path" .

Actually, I'd rather claim your country does whatever suits themselves best - especially conserning economic interests.

Or do you honestly believe USA is all about altruism?

You empathy is fine - but where was it when Saddam gassed the kurds in -89?<span id='postcolor'>

and if US intervened back then, would world give a damn? did any other nations have great concern about it and acted upon? i don't think so.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We also provide military forces to the ongoing situation in Afghanistan as we did in Desert storm. So you could say we are willing to act upon our beliefs.<span id='postcolor'>

says something. your governement thinks just like any other politician. no moral fibers. i'm pretty sure a lot of people opposed US action on Afghanistan, while now, justifying it by sending troops

[Schoeler 0]

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

Being a European, I would have thought you would be the first person to support such an action seeing as less than 60 years ago, another coalition did this very same thing for the Europeans.

You are wrong you know! The coalition were called allies and they consisted of men and women from the occupied as well as the still independent nations. There is no similarity between the allies and "the coalition of the willing" . You claim to be a coalition of nations willing to invade Iraq when the allies goal was to throw out an invading aggressor. Or do you imply that US (and possibly Australia and New Zealand) where the only ones saving Europe because you where not occupied yet - as in YOU liberated the european continent?

Of course, we europeans just sat there doing nothing when all you american boys liberated us all by yourself!

<span id='postcolor'>

No I'm not wrong, you are:

Really, Coaltion/Allies its semantics. We have people from the oppressed countries fighting on our side now, just the same as we did then. What about the Kurds, what about the Northern Alliance, what about the average iraqi citizen risking his life to get American POW's rescued?

How different are these example from the partisans who fought alongside the allies?

I never claimed that the U.S. and Britain were the only people who fought to free Europe from Hitler's grasp, but Americans made up a significant amount of the men and material that were necessary to do so. We were in a depression at the time, and yet we still participated, and not only did we lose 248,000 young Americans doing so, but we financed the rebuilding of Europe afterwards. Talk to your grandparents and ask them what they think about the Americans. I'm sure they don't feel our efforts or sentiments were "bullshit propaganda".

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 10 2003,00:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">edit: i think i remember it more clearly now. denoir's post at the time was that if WMDs were found, he'd agree that inspection was not working.<span id='postcolor'>

The inspections were not finished and there were still some things that were unaccounted for. I would have not made such a statement.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,00:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Baghdad has over 5 million inhabitants. There were a couple of hundred, max a couple of thousand people on the streets. There is a large gap between wanting to kill you and welcoming you. Just because they were not willing or able to fight doesn't mean that they welcome you with open arms!<span id='postcolor'>

and over the rest who do not like US, how many are loyal to Hussein and it's gov't? not many.

so just lumping non-US side into not US side is not a good estimate either.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's so funny that you think that the majority of Iraqis actually like you!<span id='postcolor'>

i don't think many people that way, and neither are the Marines who rushed to correct their mistakes of putting US flag on the fallen statue.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,00:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,00:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,00:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's exactly the same shit. We're forcing our political beliefs on them.<span id='postcolor'>

I think the dancing Iraqis in the streets would suggest otherwise, but hey, maybe thats just me! <span id='postcolor'>

Yes, like the happy converted black children that were paraded around the salons in Spain.

Baghdad has over 5 million inhabitants. There were a couple of hundred, max a couple of thousand people on the streets. There is a large gap between wanting to kill you and welcoming you. Just because they were not willing or able to fight doesn't mean that they welcome you with open arms!

It's so funny that you think that the majority of Iraqis actually like you!<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think the majority of Iraqis like the U.S.  At least, not yet, its early, give it some time.  Also, Iraqis are celebrating throughout the city, just because the media only covered one such demonstration does not make it an isolated incident.  At the same time, it doesn't exemplify how the majority of Iraqis might feel.  Time will tell, but if I were a betting man, I'd bet that most of them are going to be pretty happy just by gauging what I've seen so far.

Edit: Besides, it doesn't seem to me that the Iraqis are being "paraded around", more like they are parading around themselves. Do you honestly think they are being coerced into doing this?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,00:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Really, Coaltion/Allies its semantics.  We have people from the oppressed countries fighting on our side now, just the same as we did then.<span id='postcolor'>

You are making a big mistake by comparing this situation to WW2. If anything, the coalition is similar to the axis powers not the allies. You are occupying another country that hasn't done anything to you. You are the agressors, not the defenders.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

This is just an update on a conversation a few pages back about the actual racial percentages in the US military (taken from the pages of Newsweek):

[note that these are figures for active duty forces only]

Caucasian: 64%

Black: 20%

Hispanic: 9 %

Asian: 4%

Native American: 1%

Other: 2%

[bn880 5]

If anything, what's going throught the minds of most Iraqis in Baghdad is: I think the U.S. may be the lesser of two evils, so let's wait and see.

This is probably the best realistic case scenario.