"Wizard's First Rule: People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all easier to fool." - Terry Goodkind

ANSWER is unwittingly calling for a mass influx of "murderous" people into the country? Now that's funny.

So just because you don't think troops should be deoployed in a certain area means that you hate America and our troops??? You dumbass.

hey Rev kiss my ass. They celebrated "the resistance," the people KILLING our troops, and called our troops war criminals. Learn how to read, jack-ass.

It's not double-talk at all, Bill. The US military men and women on the ground in Iraq are not the enemy. The Iraqi civilians protecting their homes from colonial are not the enemy either.

The enemy is the war profiteers in and out of the White House who are raking in billions from this conflict.

There are plenty of atrocities on both sides to go around here, Bill. Perhaps you should focus on the people who gave the orders, lied about their reasons, and reaped the benefits.

The war in Iraq is NOT a war against terrorism, nor is it a war to free the Iraqi people. It is a war of colonial conquest, oil industry profits, and cold hard cash. EVERY death in this war is a tragedy, and the war profiteers should be forced to answer for them.

Don, I'm sorry, you are seriously misguided. Ask yourself this: why is it that me, little old Bill from INDC, came to the conclusion that we needed to invade Iraq in oh, 1996 or so?

Why? What was I concerned about?

Was it for war-profiteering?

Or do I just read quite a bit about foreign policy - under various administrations and from various sources? Perhaps because I was concerned about humanitarian issues that were unresolvable without regime change? Or worried about widely held intelligence estimates about WMD?

You are projecting fire where there is smoke - there are shady dealings go on, I'm sure - there are shady dealings that take place during most large enterprises - where's your outrage at the UN's oil-for-food scandal?

Iraq was a reasonable decision made by many extremely sober and reasonable people. This problem was not manufactured - you just weren't paying attention.

as for this:

"Iraqi civilians protecting their homes from colonial are not the enemy either"

Men that murder and mutilate contractors that protect FOOD-AID shipments are NOT people protecting their homes!

The world is not one big noble struggle or conspiracy theory - I'm sorry.

This is likely my last post debating this with you, because I suspect that the fundamental basis for our value judgements is irreconcilably different.

News flash Don, the US is not a colonial power. The US is the result of colonialism.

Also, if we're planning on colonizing Iraq, who are we sending over to colonize? It'll take hundreds of thousands of American colonists to turn Iraq into a functioning arm of the American economy, why havent we started to recruit them yet? Even the most Orwellian nightmares of the conspiracy theorists dont allow for a few hundred thousand American workers to just up and disappear, surely one would have told his friends "guess what, I'm getting oil plantation land in Iraq, and my own village of Iraqi peasants!"

Nope, Don, you are offically a moonbat. I know thats not likely to help convince you you're wrong, but I'm not up for the years of deprograming thats likely to require.

"Men that murder and mutilate contractors that protect FOOD-AID shipments are NOT people protecting their homes!"

Did all Iraqis murder contractors? I was just checking.

People who profit from war are indeed the enemy, but so are the people who profited from tyranny before we did anything. I don't know if this war met the ethical criteria for waging war, but it would have been immoral not to get involved and liberate these people just as it is immoral for us NOT to get involved in Africa, N. Korea, Myanmar, and any other situation where people suffer under ruthless governments. Too bad there's no oil in Rwanda or we would have prevented a genocide there. Although that one's on Clinton and Kofi to regret.

Hey Tim - ARE ALL IRAQIS INSURGENTS? Just checking, smart-ass.

Look at the estimates of how many are fighting, and WHO they are.

"People who profit from war are indeed the enemy" - HORSESHIT!

McDonnel Douglas is not the enemy. Halliburton and KBR are not the enemy. Security contractors are not the enemy.

When they reap HUGE MOTHER FUCKING PROFITS ABOVE AND BEYOND THE BOTTOM LINE AND INFLUENCE NATIONAL POLITICS, they are indeed part of the problem. They may not be the only enemy, but they are not part of the solution.

Ah, your post was clarified, wasn't it? I guess I must have interpreted it wrong ... sort of like your selective interpretation of my point that 'Men that murder and mutilate contractors that protect FOOD-AID shipments are NOT people protecting their homes!"

Funny how that works. Don't dish out the sarcasm if you can't take it, big boy.

Hi guys, just wanted to say I like the new commenting style hereabouts. Keep it up, DUMBASSES.

Tim the Soldier,

Please enlighten me; if the United States went to Iraq solely to get oil (that we were purchasing at a discount to begin with, Iraq being the second largest source of Mideast oil before the war) then why in the holy fucking hell am I now paying two fucking dollars for every goddamned gallon of gas?

That would seem to run counter to your profiteering logic, such as it is.

My question is, how can I put up a post opining that a bunch of Communists who call American soldiers criminals are jerks, and get attacked in the comments thread?

What kind of moonbats are crawling out of the woodwork here?!

You cannot say that US military personnel are murderers and root for the people killing them, and then claim that you are advocating for their best interests. It's disgusting.

PERIOD. Anyone who diagrees with that is an asshole. PERIOD. I am flexible on many things, but I will not bend on that point.

The insurgency is NOT a popular uprising, and it is not something to be respected as the will of the Iraqi people. Disabuse yourself of that notion.

Oh, you freakin' people drive me crazy. It seems so damn simple...if you look at the situation, without the blinders on, the blinders of ideology, I mean.

Here we have a country (Iraq) cowed into submission, after 30-some years of rule by a murderous dictator; supported by his terroristic minions (ok, the "minions" I refer to here are NOT al-Quaeda; but the active and governmentally-encouraged smuggling warlords the former regime encouraged and supported in Fallujah and other places in Iraq; but who support and supply the terrorism of an otherwise innocent population)who've made the "common man" completely afraid - AFRAID - to speak out against that which they hate. They hate the idea of being held, face down in the toilet, in the vicious yoke of 14th century religious oppression.

But they have few choices. Side with the "Colonial Occupiers", and get a bullet, or even worse.

Does any thinking person in the entire world really believe this is about OIL? My gas isn't cheaper. I personally would LIKE cheaper gas.

No, this is about saving our culture from fanatical, suicidal, totally insane UNI-cultruralists - these people have one, stated - STATED, read their literature - desire - the total subjugation of the entire WORLD. Love 'em or hate 'em; if you don't toe their line, you are less than human, and therefore, kill-able.

Research. Learn. Beware. Understand. The US is not the bad guy here. We are kind and careful; we very rarely hide behind children in a firefight, for Christ's sake.

Hell, maybe we occasionally strap on suicide bomb-belts and blow up innocent people, but - well, nobody's perfect.

Lsst year, Tulsa had a pro-war rally. Among those in attendance were homphobes, racists, xenophobes, anti-Semites, Muslim-haters, people who favored wiping Iraq from the map entirely, etc., etc. Which proves exactly what?

Anti-war rallies have been polite and tame compared to what went on in the 60's and 70's. If the rallies were composed entirely of grandmothers in tennis shoes who handed out baked cookies to everyone, some on the other side would still attack their means and motives.

If a pro-war rally was populated with overt homophobes and racists, I would disassociate myself from the rally - especially if the offending parties were organizing it.

"I don't know if this war met the ethical criteria for waging war, but it would have been immoral not to get involved and liberate these people just as it is immoral for us NOT to get involved in Africa, N. Korea, Myanmar, and any other situation where people suffer under ruthless governments."

While I don't have a problem with liberating a people from oppression, I fail to see how doing something we are incapable of doing is immoral. Do you have any idea what kind of time, money, soldiers, and other resources liberating every oppressed country in the world would require? Iraq alone will end up costing us hundreds of billions of dollars, and our military forces are already strecthed as it is. Now, while liberating the Iraqis was indeed a good bonus to this war, really the Iraq war was about protecting our own asses from a madman with WMDs(whether that was founded or not, that was the biggest reason). We do need to fix Iraq up since we destroyed their government and military, such as it was, but going on a crusade will do more harm than good(just imagine how many extreme leftists would arise, they may even become a majority *shudder*). I say instead we continue to build up our own country and become a beacon of freedom and prosperity for the rest of the world. The Soviet Union fell for many reasons, and one of the prime reasons is that once the people there found out how well we, the 'evil capitalists' were doing, and not just our bigwigs but the average Joe, dissent was created. Granted, the areas that were formerly part of the USSR are by no means fully liberated, but they have more liberty than before, and they are making progress. Attaining liberty is a constant process, and even we are still working on it here in our own country. People who liberate themselves appreciate their freedom more than those who have it handed to them. If it was the Iraqi people who overthrew Saddam, do you think they would tolerate the insurgents? No, they would crush them outright.

Hmmmm... I posted a poser over on my weblog last night to stimulate the brain. From my reading of the comments here, it might be appropriate, if only to stimulate the conversation towards real discussion instead of dissing:

Do nation-states with greater power have a greater responsibility to act ethically?

And here's another for good measure:

Is any act that a nation makes in its own self-interest ever moral?

Here's yet another question: Is there any limit to the audacity with which people will demonize people with whom they disagree? I think we all know the answer to that one.

Here's a simple break-down of the anti-war position:

1) Love America, don't want to see our soldiers dying.

2) Unhappy with America's government and military leadership, who are sending our soldiers to die for a cause we don't believe is fruitful.

3) Would love to see soldiers come home so their lives can be spared until they have to be spent doing something more fruitful, like securing our borders and taking out actual terrorists.

Any of you can disagree with my position; but for many of you, that isn't enough. You have to say I hate America, and you have to say I'm with the terrorists. That's okay, because I'm not in the habit of defining myself by the intellectual and moral limitations of others.

War isn't always bad. I think this one is. We should have stayed in Afghanistan and spared that country further chaos, and we should have threatened Saudi Arabia with the utter annhilation of their monarchy in repayment for the men they sent here to kill our people.

But I could give Dick Cheney a hummer and it wouldn't be enough, because I didn't get in line with the line was drawn. And that is the thinking of a pack, not a person.

Heather, I'm making a post on your query.

John, the position that you outline is a fra creu from those who are with the terrorists. i think that your dead wrong, but i don't think that you are on the other side. Perfectly reasonable people can come to the same conclusions that you express ...

I'll say this though - how do you think the "root causes" of terrorism are going to go away in time to beat armageddon?

The law enforcement and tactical military approach to terror is a losing proposition.

Actually, I think John's position is one that many Americans feel (I'm not saying I'm one of them... or not). They just aren't out demonstrating about it. They are also not siding with the terrorists.

I will say that in the beginning, I felt that this was not the time to invade Iraq. This is not to say that I might not have agreed to such an action at another time. What we have to consider is this: What's done is done. Now we had better finish what we have started and hope we leave the place in better shape than when we started.

Bill is right that the fighting going on over there is not a "popular" uprising -- especially in Fallujah. And I believe it is a measure of the desparation of the extremists that we are seeing an increase in the fighting. I do believe that the Iraqi people want a stable Iraq -- democracy or no democracy (and in my opinion that's a whole 'nother discussion). However, the extremists do NOT, whether they are Al-Queda or not.

I do not consider myself bloodthirsty, but I suspect the only way we are going to finish this and get out is to STOMP, and stomp hard. I also suspect that our military has been more restrained than they'd like to be in order to protect the civilians -- which clearly cannot be said for the other side!

"fra creu" was supposed to read "far cry."

Well said, Heather.

I'd just like to comment on the profiteering discussion. I assume that you are referring to Halliburton and oil companies. I've been a stock trader for 9 years and I wouldn't touch any of these stocks. Halliburtons expenses are far exceeding ther revenue which is causing the stock to stagnate and decline compared to the overall market. As a purely business decision it would have been much more prudent for Halliburton to have turned down the contract in Iraq.

As far as the oil companies, the high price of oil is severely squeezing their margins. Many of these companies like Chevron Texaco, Royal Dutch, Conoco Phillips, and British Petroleum are lowering margins by as much as 15%. This will cause pressure on the stocks in the comming quarters. If your looking for war profiteering you'll have to look elsewhere.

John K: I'm going to stay away from this thread after this post, since it's already been ambushed by the extremists on both sides. There's just one little thing I wanted to mention regarding your last comment: even though I believe you are wrong about the war, you generally express your opposition in a sane and rational manner.

This, alas, is not generally the case. Take this thread for example. :) But a tremendous number of the "activists" have expressed their contempt, or hatred of the US armed forces over the past year. Such expressions include statements (including a fair number of celelbrity leftists) who have said that they hoped the US would suffer major casualties so the US "would learn a lesson."

Others have cheered on ex-Baathists or criminal gangs in Iraq while they killed American troops. There's even at least one organization in Europe that collects money for those bastards.

One sign seen in many recent anti-war rallies praises the gangsters in Fallujah, while they're trying to kill Marines.

I can see why Bill reacts the way he does, after he's seen Americans celebrating the death our soldiers. I just think it's counter-productive to any real dialog.

On the other hand, when you read some of the truly offensive things spewed by some of the vicious anti-war left (not all, mind you) it's hard to take them seriously.

The anti-war bigots and trolls are out there, and there's a lot more of them than most liberal/Democrats want to admit.

Bill,

I have to agree with you. Anyone suggesting that our Troops are murderers is a complete useless fuckass. And while I'm not against THIS war, I am against profiting from ANY war, and everyone knows that a largew-scale offensive war is big business. Bassically I'm pissed that neither Bush Sr., nor Clinton took out Sadaam (or OBL) when they had the chance. We've got the intel, the assets, but lack the audacity to take down these dangerous figures in secret hush hush covert actions sparing lives and property, whereas we'll launch an all-out overt war. Funny in a tragic way.

You know, even as a loyal democrat (ala James Carville) I hope that this war in Iraq will lead to peace and democracy in that country. The last thing I want to see is for us to leave and the whole place go to shit. I believe in what we are doing there, but I don't know if there is anything we can do to change that part of the world's thinking. Their reasons for hating us are passionately illogical (as are any fanatical religious ideologies) and unfortunately leave us in an impossibly hopeless situation. I hope I'm wrong.

BTW, if you're paying almost $2.00 for gas, does it look like they are passing the savings along to you?

"While I don't have a problem with liberating a people from oppression, I fail to see how doing something we are incapable of doing is immoral. Do you have any idea what kind of time, money, soldiers, and other resources liberating every oppressed country in the world would require?"

If we can plan a goddamn trip to Mars then I hardly think that we are incapable of anything. Since when does liberty have a preset spending limit? As our diplomatic ties strengthen with other nations, we (as a world of free nations) will be better adept at solving those problems. I'm hardly suggesting that we launch an all-out offensive against Turkmenistan, but it would be nice to be on the right side of this issue. (As opposed to the whole Noriega, Sadaam, Shah of Iran, Pinochet Marcos, etc gang, you know, our "friends.")

Is there room for a fact or three amongst all these 'truths'? First can someone show me a war that wasn't profitable for someone? I didn't think so. 'course, you have to win first.
I'm gonna stay away from the 'Was Saddam supporting Terrorism thingy'. I will point out that it would be very hard for the police to get enough evidence to prosecute if they were not allowed to inspect the crime scence for a decade or so after the crime was committed. Not that evidence is needed during wartime. If Saddam was capable of suporting terrorists, that was enough to merit regime change. Here is a good one. It appears that the domino effect from Iraq is already working. Kaddaffi wants a reset and now the Saudi's are taking about an elected assembly. Small things granted, but every avalanche starts with 1 snow flake. That combined with a total absence of ANY sort of plan by Kerry or the Demonrats, makes this pretty much a freebe. And IMHO anyone that marches while a war (duly authorized by Congress) is in process is a traitor and needs to get the same treatment that the Draft Rioters in New York during the Civil War got. Politics stops once the votes are cast. If that is a problem, immigrate. To close, I forget which numbskull wants to take over the world during their lunch hour, but that is such an emminetly forgetable idea that I had to go with the flow. We CAN end tyranny on this planet. We just have to take our time and do it one despot at a time. Make a list and just get started. 30 or 40 years should get it done. I realize that some of you cannot hold your attention on something for 30 seconds, but that is OK. There are those of us that can think outside the sound bite.
No, when it gets down to the nutt cutting, the anti-war crowd is mostly Anti-Bush. If Bush was against the battle of Iraq (It is NOT A War, but a battle in a war) the same people trying to hammer him now, would be hammering him for not going into Iraq. Remember these are the same moroons that spent months screamimg "Unilateral", but after Spain pulled out are whining, 'the Coalition is collapsiong'. The American public understands that we are in a fight to the death, and the #1 priority is winning. That is why Bush is still leading in the polls after a solid month of bad news. Poor Donks.

ableiter,

I think it is you who needs to emmigrate if you so desire to trample on the 1st Amendment. That 1st Amendment is pretty darn important to alot of people, but it is your right to disagree with it. But wait, you can't use your 1st Amendment right to protest the freedom of speech, that would be goo goo bonkers Mr. Magoo.

I guess it was wrong for Rosa Parks to take her seat at the front of the bus even though is was a city law that blacks were to sit in the back. I guess all those who protested the Jim Crow laws were traitors as well.

"And IMHO anyone that marches while a war (duly authorized by Congress) is in process is a traitor and needs to get the same treatment that the Draft Rioters in New York during the Civil War got."

I hate to say it albeiter, but I have to agree with Tim, that's nuts.

Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If we were to break this sacred amendment,we would be proving those people(who, I'll agree many of, not all however, spout treasonous words) right in calling us fascists. Regardless of these people being nuts(or just extremely misguided and ill informed), if they don't hurt anyone else then they aren't trampling anyone else's civil liberties. When their protests get violent I'll agree to treating them like the Draft Rioters, but until then all we can do is ignore them or try to make them see reason. By your logic, if people in North Korea protest their government's actions they deserve to be thrown into political dissedent camps.

You also imply that just because Congress comes to a consesus on something that it is moral. Consensus does not equal morality. If Congress came to the consensus that it was moral to rape the female members of your family, and you stood against that, does that make you immoral? No, it makes you sane.

In case you are wondering about my stance on the Iraq war, I didn't support it. However, I support our occupation of Iraq until such time that Iraq is capable of self-government and self-protection, as it is us who broke it's ability to do so(though, I'll grant you, it was a horrible government, though I still think it's the Iraqis who should have been the ones to crush it), and thus it is our responsibility to help fix it. Spain should have stayed and taken their part in the responsibility as well.

Now for a little humor, I don't know if anyone here reads The Onion, but here's a pretty good article of theirs http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4016