It strikes me that most of these questions are so emotion-charged that even when the answers don't make sense, nobody can tell because their views are so emotion-charged as well. I guess that's why we have a governement.

And I just want to respond quickly to the comment about Bush. For heaven's sakes, don't vote against Bush. Vote for the person you want to be president. Remember when America decided to support North Korea because we just wanted to avoid supporting communism? Was what we supported much better? Be reasonable.

~Dan

Reply By: heyhey(Anonymous User)Posted: Sunday, April 11, 2004The US is now in a very difficult situation. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, believing they knew better than the generals, went in with a much smaller force than was recommended

>>
>>



I don’t think Rummy and co. thought Iran and Syria would have the balls to get into the war, well surprise, those guys aren’t about to lay around in recliners while the US builds a western style democracy in their backyard. The concept of a western style democracy is not going to fly with hard line Islamic clerics in Iran who have busy building nuclear weapons to kill, or blackmail us with. More troops will be necessary to guard the Iranian and Syrian borders. Someone has to stem the flow of foreign fighters on the borders, a monumental task as evidenced by the fact that we can’t even keep Mexicans from crossing illegally into the US.

The Vietnam comparison is not realistic. Iraq is nothing like Vietnam for a number of reasons the biggest reason is that the Vietcong had no desire to export the fight to American shores.

As for the cease fire in Fallujah, I don’t see how the hearts and mind thing can work in the Sunni Triangle. The Sunni enemy is hosting thousands of foreign fighters in their region, Al Qaida fighters, Iranian fighters, Hezbollah fighters, which have all arrived to take on coalition forces, the only formula here is brute force.

Hey Dan, why would I vote for a person who lied to me to go to war, a person whos lies have caused the death of 650 of our soldiers...650 Dads (as Shea says) husbands, sons or brothers. A man who was so intent on getting Saddam at any cost that he took troops out of Afghanistan and away from the hunt from Al Qaeda to go and invade a country that was no threat to the US in the first place. In the two years that Bush has spent on this 'adventure' Al Qaeda has gone from strength to strength. To win the war on terror we were going to need a lot of international cooperation and our President has deliberately squandered almost all international good will that we had (apart from a few rogue states like Pakistan of course.) We are in a mess in Afghanistan and Iraq with no exit strategy for either. They said after 9/11 that Bush was the right man for the job...well the 2 1/2 years since has shown that there could not have been a worse person in charge.
I hope you never have anyone close die in Iraq and I pray for those who have.

Anthony R.
Some good points. My only comparison with Vietnam was I feel that if you lose the support of ordinary Iraqis then you really do lose the war.
I also wonder what sort of democracy can be imposed by 'brute force'

I also wonder what sort of democracy can be imposed by 'brute force'

I was wondering the same thing too. How can we force the citizens of a country to adhere to a political system they don't want and don't agree with? How is what we're doing over there (enforcing our way of life and government ie, democracy) any better than Al Qaeda forcing the citizens of the US to convert to their way of life? If recent news reports are anything to go by, we seem to be losing the support of the Iraqi people...they are, as Anthony pointed out, presenting a unified front against the US and Allied forces. They just want us out, plain and simple.

Shea and I had a talk again this afternoon, and she's now wondering how many more dad's are going to have to die in this "worthless, neverending" (her exact words) fight.

Reply By: heyhey(Anonymous User)Posted: Sunday, April 11, 2004
Hey Dan, why would I vote for a person who lied to me to go to war

Hey hey you can debate whether or not you think the removal of Hussein was for the greater good but I am disappointed when you tow the shrill party line, “bush lied” at one time or another just about every government official on both sides of the isle has claimed that Hussein was a threat and possessed WMD. Clinton made statements about Hussein’s WMD does that make him a liar?



Reply By: dharmagrl Posted: Sunday, April 11, 2004
I also wonder what sort of democracy can be imposed by 'brute force'

When I said brute force was needed I didn’t mean among the Shia or peaceful Iraqis, only in the dangerous Sunni Triangle where Batthist, Al Qaida, Hezbollah, Iranian, and every jihad kook who wants to skin an American alive and praise Allah for a good days work.

dharma girl, I dont necessarily agree that ordinary Iraqis do not want a democracy. I think they probably do but it strikes me that one country cannot enforce a democracy on another country, they can only put in place an environment where, given the right conditions, democracy will take root and flourish. But a movement of the people must come from the people. Democracy firstly has to be desired by the country and believed in passionately. Take our own democracy, it was a hard fought and bloody battle but it is a success purely because the people believed in it enough to fight and die for. Are the Iraqis at that stage yet? I dont think so. For them to reach that stage they have to first be convinced that a system of government that they have never experienced is right for them and then for them to work out their own form of democracy.
Good luck with your little girl, she sounds bright and enquiring, you sound like you are doing a good job with her in challenging times. I have 2 children 6 and 4 and I am lucky that they are not asking the hard questions at the moment

Anthony R
There is no doubt that Saddam had WMD at some stage. Prior to the war the UN inspectors were making real progress but our government would not let them finish the job. Before the war the claims were that the intelligence pointed to an advanced WMD programs whereas we now learn that this intelligence was actually saying we dont know. The current hawks in Washington ignored any evidence to the contrary and exagerated evidence to support their desire for war. The only way the world was going to find out if Saddam still had WMD was to go in and find out, and the UN weapons inspectors were finding out the truth i.e. WMDs did not exist. If they had been allowed to continue their job no invasion would have been necessary.

As to your other point, the whole of Iraq is a power play. Al Sadr, causing the US so much trouble, is a Shia.

So According to your information Al-Sadr represents all the Shia?

"Hey Dan, why would I vote for a person who lied to me to go to war, a person whos lies have caused the death of 650 of our soldiers...650 Dads (as Shea says) husbands, sons or brothers."

Etc..etc... first of all, you're eating up the nonsense that the media is feeding you. Do your own research and stay away from the newspapers and TV's. You're the kind of gullible person that gives the media it's oppressive power. If you really think that Bush is a compulsive liar and we "needlessly attacked Iraq" (an innocent, innocuous country that never caused any trouble), then you're beyond reasoning with.

I don't take political tips from pre-pubescents. It's very cute, but hardly holds water.

~Dan

Oh yeah, Jamie Burnside, what on earth does that kooky sit-com have to do with this thread?

I don't take political tips from pre-pubescents. It's very cute, but hardly holds water

Errmm...are you insinuating that Shea was giving out political tips, Dan? Because she wasn't. Shea was asking questions. Heyhey (and Shea, too) is right, those 650 people who died all came from somewhere, were all someone's child, father, brother, friend. The only reason I posted this article is because last night the war came home for me, my kids, and my friends.

Oh, and just so you know, Shea is pubescent, and, much like yourself, precocious and idealistic too.

Dan, Why is it that when people cant refute an argument that they attack the person making it. Calling me 'gullible' and 'prepubescent' does not address any of the issues.
I suspect that you are sitting somewhere in the US and not on the ground in Iraq. Am I right? If so, where do you get your 'unbiased' information from? I am genuinely interested because I really only have the media to get my information from. I find that there is the right wing media, central media and left wing media. When I approach the media I do not take at face value any article but look at the supporting evidence that the article quotes. If there is no supporting evidence I treat it as purely opinion and not fact. I suspect, and it is only a suspicion, that the media for you has only been dishing up nonsense lately. During the war when it appeared that nothing could stop our forces and things were going well for George, I am willing to bet that you believed everything the media had to say.
Anyway, please let me know what sources other than the main stream media that I should consult, but please no conspiracy sites from either end of the spectrum.

I suspect that you are sitting somewhere in the US and not on the ground in Iraq

That's exactly right. It's all idealism still, for too many people. Not for me anymore though....

dharmagirl,
I went searching for teenage newsites for you but any that I found didnt seem to address current affairs. Sorry. I think one problem is that most of these are probably written by adults for kids. Maybe you could encourage Shea to start her own newspaper....she sounds bright and with your help she could write about real stories from a teenage point of view.....I am sure you have heaps of time...hahaha