How does the West win the 'War on ******'?

[sjs1220]

mcrocket, I apologize that you thought my comment was directed directly towards you. It was directed towards everyone who has posted anything resembling that Conservatives have lower intelligence. Yes, this includes you, but not just you.

As to your thoughts that I do not think enough... oddly, it proves my point the same. You see, I feel that you don't think enough. You say Bush is practicing colonialism; I think that the majority of the democratic party are endorsing socialism and/or communism and that is wrong too. People can think deeply through a subject and come to differing conclusions. Once again, that is why this country is so great... we can voice our own opinoins and vote to put those opinoins into action.

I do agree heavily with one thing you say... never trust someone until they are proven. That is one of the main reasons why I mentioned George Soros. Om3ga described Soros in a glowing light, but one of the organizations he is highly involved with, NARAL, produced an add saying that John Roberts (the supreme court nominee) tried cases supporting ******** against abortion clinics. This add was proven to be out and out false, by factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/article340.html), and many other organizations... even CNN ended up pulling the add. Now, there's a perfect example of a lie. Oddly, even the organization pulled the add, but Soros never admitted that it was false, just saying that it was attracting the wrong type of attention, and that people did not understand the meaning. You see, instead of him and his organization being wrong, we were just too stupid to understand what he was trying to say... once again, the point that all non-liberals are stupid is trying to be made.

As for Nancy Pelosi, she's one of the heads of the democratic party... the house democratic leader to be exact. Not intending to be mean, and truthfully in no way trying to ****** your intelligence, I have to ask how someone who acts as though they know more about politics than anyone else on this board does not know who leads the party he supports. (and yes, you support this party even if you are don't consider yourself a democrat).

On a side note:
(those who might think factcheck.org is a conservative site should check it out... its one of the few non-biased website and will just as readily call republicans on their shortcommings on the truth of a situation)

 

[om3ga]

sjs1220 - sorry, but I only know George Soros from his financial involvement in my country and in any case, destabilising the UK currency isn't exactly "glowing".

Anyway my :2 cents: :

I agree a lot with hedgehog's analysis (see previous entries on this thread), but these days I don't get involved much with debates about Iraq. Every forum I've been a member of has descended into similar slanging matches between left and right-wingers regarding the current situation in the Middle East, The War on ******, etc., and a lot of forum buddies have fallen out bigtime on this subject.

My only opinion: as hedgehog has stated, every report of ******* (whether real or imagined) in the arabic press, every dead arab shown on Al Jazera (whether innocent or terrorist), just inspires them to return pain and suffering to us. To the Islamic Fundamentalist, our political persuasion is irrelevant. We are all "guilty" in their eyes as decadent heathen invaders, who deserves "punishment" by any means necessary.
Not all of you will agree with me. Fair enough, you're welcome to state your opinions - however I won't be responding further on this subject.

 

[pussy+dickdenice]

sjs1220 - sorry, but I only know George Soros from his financial involvement in my country and in any case, destabilising the UK currency isn't exactly "glowing".

Anyway my :2 cents: :

I agree a lot with hedgehog's analysis (see previous entries on this thread), but these days I don't get involved much with debates about Iraq. Every forum I've been a member of has descended into similar slanging matches between left and right-wingers regarding the current situation in the Middle East, The War on ******, etc., and a lot of forum buddies have fallen out bigtime on this subject.

My only opinion: as hedgehog has stated, every report of ******* (whether real or imagined) in the arabic press, every dead arab shown on Al Jazera (whether innocent or terrorist), just inspires them to return pain and suffering to us. To the Islamic Fundamentalist, our political persuasion is irrelevant. We are all "guilty" in their eyes as decadent heathen invaders, who deserves "punishment" by any means necessary.
Not all of you will agree with me. Fair enough, you're welcome to state your opinions - however I won't be responding further on this subject.

You are so right om3ga. And this report proves it. I know you won't say, "I told You so." You are a gentleman.
dd

 

[Dro50]

By voting me as president.

 

[pussypoppa]

The war on ****** is all bullshit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQFC8AlCVjE

 

[Legzman]

simple answer:
We can't!

 

[pussypoppa]

The West cant win the war on ****** because the terrorists ARE the west

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R65hoa8Ccj4&mode=related&search=

 

[Elpajeroloco]

what need these guys are only some western pornstars to fuck, then they gona forget the rage to the infidels......a C-5 filled with pornstars to be droped in afganistan should be enough :nanner: :nanner:

 

[Roughneck]

"War" on "******"

What a laughable excuse! Just like the other laughable excuses dreamed up by the State - "War" on "Poverty". "War" on "*****".

We'll suceed in this "war" just as we have suceeded in those "wars".


cheers,
R. (Former Army person)

PS: The West isn't "guilt free" when it comes to terrorism. People quote Old Gimlet Eye left, right and center when it comes to "patriotic" quotes and acting "tough". Nobody also quotes the following words uttered by the same man:

Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

It's harder to recognise a pattern when you're a part of it.
As I grow older, I realise just how simple - yet horribily true - that is.

 

[calpoon]

"War" on "******"

What a laughable excuse! Just like the other laughable excuses dreamed up by the State - "War" on "Poverty". "War" on "*****".

We'll suceed in this "war" just as we have suceeded in those "wars".

ok, war on poverty suceeded in cutting all the government aid to the poor and disabled, and then passing legislation to outlaw homelessnes, so in other words, putting all the people who don't directly support the economy in prison.

war on *****, same thing. putting all the people that attempt to make a living outside of the economy in prison.

war on ******, well we can see where this is going... putting all the people that are against the economy all together in prison.

thank god I work for minimum wage and maximum corporate profits, then I don't have to worry. just keep on smiling and paying taxes and telling yourself that's what freedom means- the abilty to successfully go through life with the ease of not having to see the storm troopers in action.

 

[Roughneck]

just keep on smiling and paying taxes and telling yourself that's what freedom means- the abilty to successfully go through life with the ease of not having to see the storm troopers in action.

What do you mean?

cheers,

 

[calpoon]

it means that what we call civil rights progress amounts to the fact that we don't have to resort to lynching black people anymore to get them to work for us. well some of them at least.

the point is that there isn't any difference between the "west" and the rest. all the terrorism commited in the americas wasn't a result of ignorance, it's the same reason that it goes on in the rest of the world today. likewise, we haven't made any movements toward a more humanitarian society, it's just no longer neccesary to commit wholesale acts of barbarism to get people to accept imperial domination because they no longer resist it. in the palces that do resist it, that's where you have financied coups, mercenaries with machetes and chainsaws and outright military invasions.

 

[guy]

That means that we are, and they are, and all of us are either terrorists or terrorist supporters unless we stand up against the ********

And how exactly, with all your wisdom would you do that??? You guys just dont get it....THESE PEOPLE WHAT US DEAD!!! Granted, not all muslims are bad...but the vast majority hold the same believes that **** the western way of life...we are "infadels" because we are not muslim. Whats it goona take? When is this ******** heart liberal view of the world going to finally stand up and say enough is enough??? How many damn 9/11's is it going to take?? You people think it can be solved with sunshine and lollipops..."lets all just get along"...yeah, thats what WE want...but thats not what the TERRORIST want. When I hear people say we shouldnt be in Iraq, and we can Win the war on terrorism...that exactly what the terrorists are counting on....our Liberal..touchy feely views...and us not willing to stand up for ourselves.

No, I dont think Bush is the greatest...in fact, Im a conservative and he's satrting to really **** me off with his spending..among other issues....But im sorry, When it comes to the war in Iraq...the man is right.....pulling out now is exactly the kind of thing the terrorist want.
I swear, If we had the group of liberal pussys we have today, back in WW2, we would have lost the war.

simple answer:
We can't!

Its people like you...and that kind of thinking thats going to run this country into the ground...and thats exactly the kind of thinking the Terrosits are counting on.

the point is that there isn't any difference between the "west" and the rest

Go live in Iraq, or Iran for a year....then come talk your sh*t!! It really pisses me off that I've got ****** over there fighting, and yet theres people like you who sit there at your keyboard running your mouth. Yeah, go live in Iran, where women can get stoned to death for showing their faces in Public....then tell me the West is like the rest.

thank god I work for minimum wage and maximum corporate profits, then I don't have to worry. just keep on smiling and paying taxes and telling yourself that's what freedom means

Yet again, another spoiled american sitting comfortably at his computer typing Bullsh*t about his country....again, go Live in Iran, and see how much better it is...I guess its true what they say, You dont know what you have....until its gone.

 

[Member2019]

There were no WMDs in Iraq in 2003 ...

First off, I agree that Iraq is not Al Quieda. But I'm tired of people saying Iraq was an autonomous nation that we "wrongly invaded." As the Japanese are excellent at pointing out, Iraq LOST A WAR and NEVER abided by the terms of the ceasefire. The international law on this is pretty clear, and I'm tired of people ignoring that. That is fact.

In fact, I think the stupidest thing W. made this about was the WMDs.

So, secondly, I think we all agree there were no major stashes of WMDs in Iraq in 2003. Most intelligent has ventured to say much was destroyed in 1996, and the rest were either dumped or moved after 1998. We, the US, looked like asses for going in 2003. I feared this, but assumed the intelligence wasn't wrong.

Intelligence under-compensated in 1995, then Clinton looked like an ass when Iraq was caught "red handed" in 1996 (why do so many people forget that?) -- especially when France and Russia blocked security council action, actions that were proven with documents siezed by US troops in 2003 that they were "bought off" by Saddam. So it was clear, as late as 1996, Saddam had no intention of disarming.

So then intelligence over-compensated in 1998, even Blix's own estimates. The same intelligence Clinton had in 1998, W. had in 2003 -- including British intelligence on the matter (oh why do so many British citizens forget that?). Clinton didn't read it any different than W., but Clinton decided not to go in. W. did, and he's "stuck with the check" by his own decision. He bears the responsibility, and we all agree that.

But "lie" is argumentative. Many, many Congressmen and women saw the same intelligence. Not "tainted" by the White House, but the same intelligence in Congressional sub-committee. They decided to side with the President, the way the President saw it. W. is responsible for selling the war. But people are still responsible for coming to the same decisions. Again, W. made the final decision, so it rests on him. But the "lie" non-sense is getting old.

I don't like W. for getting us into Iraq. I blame him. But I don't demonize all the factors into the non-sense. That just insults my intelligence. I can intelligently blame W. for many things, including Iraq. But I have to laugh when people get caught up into the "hatred."

Especially Clinton. Man, he's really "gone off the deep end" lately. He had 8 years, the last 2 years he fully knew well, to the same extent as W., that Al Quieda was THE threat -- including behind the 1993 bombing. How Clinton can sit there and say "W. had 8 months" when he had at least 2 years is beyond me.

And I find it rather sad and pitiful that people are still pointing fingers! In fact, the one person who hasn't been pointing fingers is W. -- he's just trying to do his job. Even if he's fucking up -- a lot -- he has not blamed the previous administration. So as much as I never voted for him, I can understand why other people did. Because when you take responsibility for your decisions, it's called "integrity." Even if the majority of people think they were wrong.

 

[guy]

So, secondly, I think we all agree there were no major stashes of WMDs in Iraq in 2003

While I can agree with MOST of what you said, I find It hard to either prove or disprove the WMD. After all, We havent found Bin Laden either...I guess hes a big myth right?? Im sorry, But we only announced (thanks to the f**king media ) that we were going into Iraq MONTHS before we made a move. AND, the fact that our own UN inspectors intercepted a shipment of "Highly enriched uranium" from russia bound for Iraq....I dont think it takes rocket science to figure out what saddam's intentions were.

BUT, BY FAR, I think the biggest thing that people miss, is that what the president was saying was not nessecarily that he in fact HAS WMD...but rather the capability and CLEAR INTENT on making WMD. Saddam himself has threatened to use them on our allies in the past...so It takes a real numb brain moron to sit there and say "He wasnt going to do anything to the United states"....Bullshit!!

I think Bush was right on the fact that we needed to get Saddam out of power...and Iraq WAS a potential threat....and he disarmed that threat before anything else could happen....thats what people miss every time they watch CNN. Now, with that said, I personally believe Bush could have gone about it a little differently. Yes, like I said, Iraq was a threat...but I would have gathered a little more intel before making my move.

Another point that Bush underlined clearly...(and yet people all wrapped up in their anger at him...still didnt catch it) was the fact that we were Liberating Iraq...and by doing so, spreading democracy makes it that much harder for Terrorists to Operate....he's tightening the nuse on them. Yet people trip on a stone in the road and say "Its Bushes fault"....get a flat tire..."Its Bushes fault!" Im sorry, but this country needs to stop putting theyre anger at Bush in the forefront of Issues....Why arent we Focused on the real threat?? Again, Is it going to take a F**king nuke in New york and LA before we **** the hell up???

 

[Member2019]

While I can agree with MOST of what you said, I find It hard to either prove or disprove the WMD.

In 2003? Or earlier? I'm surprised how many people don't realize we were destroying them as late as 1996 -- one year after Iraq, supported by France and Russia with Security Council vetos -- stated it had disarmed. In 2003, we have the proof that both countries were "bought off."

That "**** up call" wasn't just heard in the Bush administration, but also the Clinton administration. People don't realize, W. saw the same intel as Clinton, and W. came to the same conclusions as Clinton. But Clinton decided to use cruise missiles instead of men. And that's the difference.

After all, We havent found Bin Laden either...I guess hes a big myth right??

Frankly, I rather tire of the rhetoric from others that W. could have and should have stopped Bin Laden within the first 8 months he got into office. I think Clinton was a stupid fool for making that statement, and he knows it too. Clinton had no less than two (2), official years to capture him, by his own admissions.

Im sorry, But we only announced (thanks to the f**king media ) that we were going into Iraq MONTHS before we made a move. AND, the fact that our own UN inspectors intercepted a shipment of "Highly enriched uranium" from russia bound for Iraq....I dont think it takes rocket science to figure out what saddam's intentions were.

Yes, it was rather sad when Blix had a meeting at the UN in October 2002, was essentially told he was going to be responsible for a war, and completely reversed his attitude. His entire attitude prior to that meeting was that Iraq never complied and we need to know where those stockpiles went (even if they weren't in Iraq anymore), and that's why inspections will never work until Iraq complies. After that, although he continued to assert Iraq never complied, he said inspections could work anyway.

I think that's when everyone decided that this whole thing was more political than getting to the truth -- regardless of what side you agree/disagree with. The fact of that matter is, we still have absolutely no idea where they are. And that's what I blame both Clinton and W. for, because they were both responsible. W. just made us look like asses by going in and finding nothing.

I think Bush was right on the fact that we needed to get Saddam out of power...and Iraq WAS a potential threat....and he disarmed that threat before anything else could happen....thats what people miss every time they watch CNN. Now, with that said, I personally believe Bush could have gone about it a little differently. Yes, like I said, Iraq was a threat...but I would have gathered a little more intel before making my move.

The thing about Iraq, that is different than both North Korea and, especially so, Iran, is that Iraq lost a war and agreed to terms of surrender. After 9/11, new (actually a return to original) US defense policy dictated that we would no longer tolerate that. It's one thing to be in ********* of UN resolutions. It's another to ****** a soverign nation like Kuwait, and be defeated, agreeing to terms of surrender, and then never abiding by them.

It really goes back to the earlier US policy that we will no longer agree to anything but unconditional surrender. That policy has always worked for the US, and should have not been shortchanged in 1991, because it resulted in a regime that produced tens of tons of new chemical and biological weapons from 1991-1995, possibly later as well (we only have proof from 1991-1995).

Another point that Bush underlined clearly...(and yet people all wrapped up in their anger at him...still didnt catch it) was the fact that we were Liberating Iraq...and by doing so, spreading democracy makes it that much harder for Terrorists to Operate....he's tightening the nuse on them. Yet people trip on a stone in the road and say "Its Bushes fault"....get a flat tire..."Its Bushes fault!" Im sorry, but this country needs to stop putting theyre anger at Bush in the forefront of Issues....Why arent we Focused on the real threat?? Again, Is it going to take a F**king nuke in New york and LA before we **** the hell up???

Unfortunately, W. didn't sell the war correctly. He should have focused on the new (or should I say a return to original) US defense policy that we will not allow aggressors who lose a war to dictate what they will and will not agree to in terms they sign. While it sickens me that people forget their history and the fact that Iraq was no longer a sovergn nation as of 1991, W. did an extremely poor job of selling the war.

Now he was just trying to make the same case of Clinton in 1998. But it's now his folly, because unlike Clinton, W. gave to order to go in. And that's on W., even if Congressmen and women had the same intel and gave him the power. He's stuck with it, just like Johnson.

The one thing that I don't see out of W. that I saw out of Johnson was that Johnson used to blame JFK for many things. W. doesn't blame Clinton. Heck, even when someone suggests such in the media, Clinton goes beserk and shows how little class and how much of a hypocrite he actually is! And that's why W. was re-elected. Americans value integrity over most other things, even if we disagree.

Which is why I find the "lie" word, when applied to W., as laughable.

 

[Roughneck]

Im sorry, But we only announced (thanks to the f**king media ) that we were going into Iraq MONTHS before we made a move.

Actually, the government happily used the media to it's advantage.

Nobody thought about Iraq untill Bush announced his intentions post 9/11.

BUT, BY FAR, I think the biggest thing that people miss, is that what the president was saying was not nessecarily that he in fact HAS WMD...but rather the capability and CLEAR INTENT on making WMD. Saddam himself has threatened to use them on our allies in the past...so It takes a real numb brain moron to sit there and say "He wasnt going to do anything to the United states"....Bullshit!!

Time to break out that old list again:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Cheney (Aug. 26, 2002)
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." - george Bush (Oct. 7, 2002)
"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly." - Ari Fleischer (Mar. 21, 2003)
"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them." - Gen. Tommy Franks (Mar. 22, 2003)

So on and so forth...

I think Bush was right on the fact that we needed to get Saddam out of power...and Iraq WAS a potential threat....and he disarmed that threat before anything else could happen....thats what people miss every time they watch CNN. Now, with that said, I personally believe Bush could have gone about it a little differently. Yes, like I said, Iraq was a threat...but I would have gathered a little more intel before making my move.

Was iraq a threat? Yes.
Was Iraq an imminent threat? No.

If I use your logic - China is a threat too. Maybe we should take on their army.

People who argue for pre-emption in this war dither when it comes to others. I think we are distracting ourselves from the very real thread of North Korea (for example) and our misadventure here is costing our mission in Afghanistan very seriously.

Another point that Bush underlined clearly...(and yet people all wrapped up in their anger at him...still didnt catch it) was the fact that we were Liberating Iraq...and by doing so, spreading democracy makes it that much harder for Terrorists to Operate....

In my generation, the politicians argued that "once Vietnam falls to Communism, all of South East Asia will fall to Communism. A pre-emptive strike there will stop this from happening". After I spent multiple years in that hell hole, we found out that that simple wasn't true.

Today, the same logic is applied - only, in reverse.

he's tightening the nuse on them. Yet people trip on a stone in the road and say "Its Bushes fault"....get a flat tire..."Its Bushes fault!" Im sorry, but this country needs to stop putting theyre anger at Bush in the forefront of Issues....Why arent we Focused on the real threat?? Again, Is it going to take a F**king nuke in New york and LA before we **** the hell up???

Our current actions are inviting that nuke - believe it or not.

In 2003? Or earlier? I'm surprised how many people don't realize we were destroying them as late as 1996 -- one year after Iraq, supported by France and Russia with Security Council vetos -- stated it had disarmed. In 2003, we have the proof that both countries were "bought off."

Yes, and you'll notice that the UN Scandal has completely disappeared from public conscious.

That "**** up call" wasn't just heard in the Bush administration, but also the Clinton administration. People don't realize, W. saw the same intel as Clinton, and W. came to the same conclusions as Clinton. But Clinton decided to use cruise missiles instead of men. And that's the difference.

Bush decided to use men - only in the wrong place.

But yeah - it isn't only ONE adminstration that's to blame. We've freely imposed ourselves for years on end the world over. W've constantly picked and played favourites with many unsavoury charecters and rules around the world. I wouldn't feel has as indignant if the administrations flat out said "it is in our national interest" instead of masquerading this democracy and liberty song and dance.

Yes, it was rather sad when Blix had a meeting at the UN in October 2002, was essentially told he was going to be responsible for a war, and completely reversed his attitude. His entire attitude prior to that meeting was that Iraq never complied and we need to know where those stockpiles went (even if they weren't in Iraq anymore), and that's why inspections will never work until Iraq complies. After that, although he continued to assert Iraq never complied, he said inspections could work anyway.

I think that's when everyone decided that this whole thing was more political than getting to the truth -- regardless of what side you agree/disagree with. The fact of that matter is, we still have absolutely no idea where they are. And that's what I blame both Clinton and W. for, because they were both responsible. W. just made us look like asses by going in and finding nothing.

I honestly think that but for a small remainder - the bulk of those weapons were eliminated. Blix just sold a different story to keep his job.

The thing about Iraq, that is different than both North Korea and, especially so, Iran, is that Iraq lost a war and agreed to terms of surrender. After 9/11, new (actually a return to original) US defense policy dictated that we would no longer tolerate that. It's one thing to be in ********* of UN resolutions. It's another to ****** a soverign nation like Kuwait, and be defeated, agreeing to terms of surrender, and then never abiding by them.

Hey Prof, I don't think this war was about 'enforcement" of resolutions. No American government has ever chastised Israel for blatantly ignoring dozens of resolutions against it.

I never knew we respected the UN anyways

It really goes back to the earlier US policy that we will no longer agree to anything but unconditional surrender. That policy has always worked for the US, and should have not been shortchanged in 1991, because it resulted in a regime that produced tens of tons of new chemical and biological weapons from 1991-1995, possibly later as well (we only have proof from 1991-1995).

Unconditional Surrender worked before because Congress didn't abrogate it's responsibility by letting the Executive decide when and with whom we were at war

Unfortunately, W. didn't sell the war correctly. He should have focused on the new (or should I say a return to original) US defense policy that we will not allow aggressors who lose a war to dictate what they will and will not agree to in terms they sign. While it sickens me that people forget their history and the fact that Iraq was no longer a sovergn nation as of 1991, W. did an extremely poor job of selling the war.

Actually he'd been trying for a while - he made I think 6 speeches which mentioned Iraq in his campaign for election in 1999 and 2000.

But I agree - he's made a bad sell.



cheers,

 

[Roughneck]

By the by:

What does Iraq have to do with the "War on <insert abstract concept here>" ?


cheers,

 

[guy]

W. did an extremely poor job of selling the war.

Agreed!

Was Iraq an imminent threat? No.

Again, people would rather wait until it Happens, or after the fact to do somehting...Look, Bush saw a threat...had he not acted and there WAS an ******...all these damn liberals would be saying "Bush knew about the threat..why wasnt anything done!" Its complete B.S.!!!

If I use your logic - China is a threat too.

hmm...Yeah, I kinda do wonder about China! However, theres a big difference between China and Iraq as already pointed out....

Iraq lost a war and agreed to terms of surrender

.

Our current actions are inviting that nuke - believe it or not.

Bullshit! We didnt do a damn thing on 9/10/01 and look what happened. Again, people dont get it....THEY WANT TO **** US....THEY **** THE WESTERN WAY OF LIFE. If we do nothing, we are even more likely to have a nuke dropped on us. To sit and do nothing after all that has conspired already is blind ignorance.

 

[Member2019]

People who argue for pre-emption in this war dither when it comes to others. I think we are distracting ourselves from the very real thread of North Korea (for example) and our misadventure here is costing our mission in Afghanistan very seriously.

Unfortunately, as the North Koreans are always quick to point out, they didn't lose a war and agree to terms. North Korea defied Clinton's appeasement. And with China so protective of them, we really can't do much at all without involving them.

In my generation, the politicians argued that "once Vietnam falls to Communism, all of South East Asia will fall to Communism. A pre-emptive strike there will stop this from happening". After I spent multiple years in that hell hole, we found out that that simple wasn't true.

Agreed. At the same time, our involvement Vietnam was based on a shaky "incident." Iraq invading another country, lost a war, didn't live up to the terms of its surrender -- so the whole "pre-empt" BS is something that I really think isn't even applicable. Furthermore, there are national security interests in Iraqi resources -- unlike Vietnam.

In fact, if it wasn't for that fact, we wouldn't have the British, Japanese or other countries with so much interest. In fact, it's the selfish reason why the French and Russians prevented much needed inspections in 1995, by blocking UN Security Council actions. The "lack" of an "unified front" on many matters isn't something the US is guilty of -- it's the whole fucking, selfish world well before us! We just take the blame.

Hell, if people think the US can't think about other countries before itself, it should revisit everything in the last 50 years -- from the Suez to the the Kipper.

Hey Prof, I don't think this war was about 'enforcement" of resolutions. No American government has ever chastised Israel for blatantly ignoring dozens of resolutions against it.

And Israel as lost a war? How about North Korea? Or Iran?

Here's the difference from all other instances: Iraq LOST A WAR and AGREED TO TERMS IT NEVER ADHERED TO! Not so with Israel. Not so with North Korea. Not so with Iran. I don't know how many times I have to point that out!

Only North Korea matched Iraq in invading another soverign nation, but unlike Iraq, North Korea sued for peace in terms that were equal -- not near unconditional.