Tendo City

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=st...ard_deck_2

This french guy may be funny making a deck cards like the u.s for Saddam and his boys except its all americans , But his stupid belief that the u.s caused 9/11 on itself so it could have a justification to spread imperalism is absurde.

This guy is crazy, how could you hate somthing so much you have to invent garbage , Say it is fact and actually believe your own bull shit.

It makes me ashamed of being part french , To me this guy is like Hitler lets burn are own buildings and then blaim it on the jews.

There are even people who say shit like the jews caused 9/11,The U.S goverment was responsible for 9/11 and more absurdities.

I am more likely to believe that the U.S has alien corpses in area 51 then this bucket of shit.

How can you still spew this crap, When we have tapes of Bin ladin praising the devil for helping him kill the americans, Plus Khalid Shaikh just admited they working on the attacks for 6 years before 2001.

While I do feel Bush was rash going to war in iraq, As he clearly was unprepared. I also feel the U.S has got to take of itself and its own poor and suffering before they interfere with anyone else unless it is truly a threat.Iraq was not a threat like it was tooted.
but now thousands of americans will go without jobs and children will live in poverty because of it.

While Iraq is better without Saddam in the long run, The Iraqi people are not all thankful and gracious for the fact the U.S failed them in 1991 and allowed 3,000 shites to be slaughterd as they thought Bush senior was gonna help them when he told them to revolt.Alot of Iraqis know Saddam Hussein was once a allie to the U.S agiast iran

I feel for the americans who died on 9/11 I also pity them for the fact their deaths have been used to justify horrible things. The world has not smarten up and untill people everywhere realize war and hate are the enemy . Wars reek terrorism,The greatest advancements agaist terrorism were done by law enforcement not soldiers.

Hold your angry and hate, spare for love and mercy.

Unprepaired? They lost utterly and nothing went wrong. What, you think the occasional skirmish that the media blew way out of preportion (because after all, that's the only thing they had going for them was little things) was an actual problem?

I was refering to post war Iraq, not the actual war, Of course the U.S was gonna win, They had mass surrendering just the momment they cross the border.

I was refering to lack of prepartion in post war iraq.

But going back to this phycho frenchmen from france, I can really see that the europeans as a hole are pretty good at being dick heads and hypocrites. I visit the forums elsewhere alot and I was furious at some of their comments this recent sept ,11, . You had Europeans going on about crap some even said some bull shit they knew was false.

look at some of these comments!

Quote:

"The U.S didnt win the second world war it was europe blah blah blah!"

"Then you had people blaiming the U.S for the dead russians in ww2 when the nazis began a invasion".

" the americans desserved 911"

These people are real fuckers , I am not even american and it gets me angry.Somes of these arnt from the usual suspects and I mean English people from Britain your allies are some of them.

I think everyone can do itself a favour and just watch some good old startrek when all this crap.

Quote:This french guy may be funny making a deck cards like the u.s for Saddam and his boys except its all americans , But his stupid belief that the u.s caused 9/11 on itself so it could have a justification to spread imperalism is absurde.

Wether you approve of what President Bush did or not that doesn't excuse saying things as crazy as that. And I have to say that's possibly one of the craziest things I've ever heard.

That guy deserves to be beaten up by a large group of angry Americans.

Quote:"I found it completely indecent to present a manhunt as a game," said Thierry Meyssan, the man behind the French deck. "We thought this card game would allow us to ... explain why we consider the government of George Bush a threat to international security."

I can dig it.

Boohoo, Americans probably dislike the French a lot more than the French dislike Americans.

Quote:Meyssan is the author of a one-time French best seller, "9-11: The Big Lie," claiming that no plane ever crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, and that the attacks were plotted by a faction within the U.S. military.

That's even stupider than Americans boycotting French products, though.

I laughed my ass off when I saw french people stop drinking coke over Iraq.

Americans buying french wine so they can pour it down the Toilet.

Soon enough you will realize the Statue of liberty was made by french people.

That statue was built back when France had a backbone. They might have still lost most of their wars back in those times, but at least they had the spine to fight them. It was great that they gave us the statue, but it doesn't excuse their behavior today.

And for anyone who believes the media's bullshit about how 'bad' the Iraq situation is, I need only remind you that we've lost more troops in single days in Vietnam or World War II than we have in six months in Iraq. One needs only look back at the Civil War to see some battles where tens of thousands of troops were killed in HOURS. In comparison, we're doing incredibly well in Iraq.

This isn't exactly on subject, but its been quite a long time since I talked politics so I just can't help myself... and this is actually trying to be short. :)

We are in a bad situation in Iraq.

First... this cannot be compared to an actual war like the Civil War. Its got to be compared to other occupations... Vietnam? Interesting comparison in some ways, sure... but there there was a stroing organized resistance, an 'enemy' we could fight... here that isn't there.

Now, are the casualties so high that we should leave or something? No way! We may have been total idiots to go in the way we did, but once we're in we are in. We can't quit now... it would be a total disaster for both the Iraqi people and the world at large.

One comment first. I know I've said it before... but its the obvious truth.

This administration was blinded before the war by its hopes. There is no better way to describe it. They looked at the situation, but did not see what was actually happening... they looked, and were blind. They looked at a Islamic nation with a secular government that was harsh and cruel. They said, 'this is a threat'... and decided to take it out. Of course the ratings boost was a big part too, and the big contracts for friends... but just as much it was about delusions of the people in control of this country. There is no better term to describe their thoughts...

I mean, how could they have thought that the Iraqis would be overjoyed to see us and that that feeling would be the prevalent, long-term opinion? How could they? Now, I admit... Iraq is in many ways better off than it was. And Iraqis DO say that they think they are better off now and that it is good Sadaam fell (66%)... but ever-increasing numbers hate us almost as much. This really should NOT have been a surprise, given all the circumstances! All they had to do was look at the middle east, see how the opinion of the US is about as low as it could possibly go, and see that these people won't stay gratified for long! And especially not when you completely and totally bungle the post-war phase of the war...

See, if you go to war you must be ready for what happens when it is over. For many generations we have known this... for those reasons, we let the Japanese Emperor stay in power when they surrendered in World War II. We didn't force Germany to pay for WWII like we had WWI (with disasterous consequences). And in 1991, we formed a strong cooalition to push Sadaam out of Kuwait.

Now, the first President Bush did many things wrong... but compared to his son, he was actually a good president in some ways. See, he understood the value of international relationships. He did not want to foot the huge bill for the war to come, so he got nearly everyone in the world to help. Now, did we do almost all the fighting? Yes... but the world paid for it! That is KEY. The world paid.

This Bush? He assumed that they would be happy and quickly peaceful... that they would have half this many troops in Iraq by now... that Sadaam had chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons... that Sadaam had strong ties to Al Quaida... that Sadaam helped fund or plan 9/11. As we know now, all of those ideas were totally wrong. Totally and completely beyond any shadow of a doubt.

But he assumed those things, and said for 18 months how all of those things (exceping the 9/11 ties, which he never actually said but just let people imply) were the facts... I'm sure that he eventually convinced himself that they WERE true, though anyone looking at all the facts would know otherwise (as the CIA tried to tell them many times). So what did he do? He spurned the UN, insulted it so many ways so many times, made false accusations of its uselessness... And took almost the whole burden of the war on our shoulders. And now when it backfired and bit us... he asks the UN for money (like the speech last week). But by now he is far too proud to do what it would take to actually get significant contributions from the international community.

See, what sane nation would send its men to fight and probably die, or even its money to build a nation, when the people acceping the money won't let them do so much as have any influence on what that contribution will ultimately do? Why should France and Germany contribute troops and money when we won't let them have the tiniest bit of control over the nation they would risk so much to support? It makes no sense! But by now Bush is far too far on his 'I hate the UN' platform and will never back down... so we pay it all. All $75 or so billion that has already been spent, and all $87 billion that will be spent over the next year, and all of the many, many billions after that...

Yes, ridding the world of Sadaam did us all a favor. But at this cost, it was not worth it. Now, had Bush formed a true international cooalition like his father did, and had a compelling, proven reason to go to war like we usually do when invading a nation, I would probably not have opposed this war... I didn't oppose the first Gulf War, or Kosovo, or Bosnia... but it just met none of the criteria for a sane war, or even a sane peacekeeping operation! Bush has 1) put a massive bill on our shoulders; 2) alienated the rest of the world, making it near-impossible to get their help (that we so desperately need) unless we change our entire government policy on the region; 3) lied consistently to the world for 18 months or more about Iraq when if he had truly investigated the facts and looked at them face on and allowed himself to accept them (I'm sure that he knew the actual truth, but wouldn't admit it to anyone, possibly not even himself...) he would have known better; 4) put a massive occupation on our shoulders, requiring many tens of thousands of men for some uncertain period of time that certainly will be years; 5) abandoned Afghanistan (a much more just war) and allowed it to be completely taken over by the warlords, bringing the chances for that nation to truly change to near-zero, and refused to allow the one thing that would truly help there (international peacekeepers in the whole nation, not just the capitol); 6) given us a gift of the US's biggest budget deficit of all time (and maybe the biggest one percent-wise as well, maybe topping the ones under Reagan); etc, etc, etc...


...


Anyway... the situation in Iraq now. It's dangerous. Our people are dying. Is it as bad as Vietnam? No. But our troops are vulnerable... Iraq is now a magnet to all the anti-American suicide bombers and terrorists in the Middle East! I know we must stay... but its bad. We badly, BADLY need help from other nations to share the burden... and I think that if the Iraqis saw that we weren't just occupiers and were rebuilding their nation in a UN-led international cooalition they would feel better about the situation and the (strong and growing) popular support for the terrorists in the nation would drop. Middle Easterners don't hate Europeans nearly as much of us, and sharing the burden would be a big, big help... to the Iraqis, the Middle Easterners, the Europeans (reaffirming the ability of the UN to work), and the Americans (helping reduce the deficit that we will have to pay off)... the only people it hurts are anti-UN radicals like Bush and Weltall here... and unfortunately they just will never admit the truth when it stares them in the face. So we get speeches about how the UN is useless, and a failed, old relic...


Now, I do admit that the UN has some serious issues. Its current makeup just isn't right for the world as it is. The Security Council is a Cold War relic that desperately needs to be rethought... Germany and Japan should get veto seats, for sure... after that I don't know. Its a sticky issue... should it grow (to better reperesent the world in the rotating seats)? Shrink (more focused power for the big nations)? Stay the same? I don't know... I don't know enough, and the UN has been moving extremely slowly on the issue (over a decade now). I think that they are finally beginning to address the fact that it must change to be able to adapt and survive, however... so there may be hope. We will see if it it fufilled...

Quote: First... this cannot be compared to an actual war like the Civil War. Its got to be compared to other occupations... Vietnam? Interesting comparison in some ways, sure... but there there was a stroing organized resistance, an 'enemy' we could fight... here that isn't there.

There was a strong, organized resistance, true. But they were hardly an 'enemy we could fight', if you knew the war. How many hundreds of times were US soldiers killed by villagers and other percieved non-combatants in that war or by ambushes and boobytraps concealed in jungles? The whole problem with Nam was that there were plenty of enemies to fight, it's just that you never knew who they were. Of course, we do face that problem in Iraq today, but on a comparatively microscopic scale. These post-war occupation blues are peanuts compared to that, and they are a natural part of occupation. These sort of things happened in other wars of occupation as well, though only now are they publicized so thoroughly. Silly people think of this as an oversight or a blunder when that's far from the truth. The only reason it looks so bad is that while we've been through this before, this is the first time that the media is constantly informing us of it, so those who don't know do think this is some strange new pitfall. The rest of us know better.

If Iraq were anything even remotely approaching a disaster, it would involve all-out battles against powerful organized resistance. Instead, we kicked Saddam's ass, destroyed his regime in less than a month with one of the lowest casualty counts of any war in human history, and we are in absolutely no danger of losing control of Iraq, there is absolutely no way Saddam could ever hope to regain power. By my standards that qualifies as an unmitigated success.

An interesting fact, and one that doesn't get much coverage, about what's going on in Iraq: Our troops have already built thousands of schools throughout the country.

Actually, things are going pretty well in most of Iraq, it's really only one area that's causing any trouble: The Sunni Triangle, which included Saddam's hometown.

Oh, and most of the Iraqis are glad that Saddam is gone, a very large majority I do believe, it's only the extremely small minority who are out of job [and foreign fighters] who are causing trouble.

Quote:There was a strong, organized resistance, true. But they were hardly an 'enemy we could fight', if you knew the war. How many hundreds of times were US soldiers killed by villagers and other percieved non-combatants in that war or by ambushes and boobytraps concealed in jungles? The whole problem with Nam was that there were plenty of enemies to fight, it's just that you never knew who they were. Of course, we do face that problem in Iraq today, but on a comparatively microscopic scale. These post-war occupation blues are peanuts compared to that, and they are a natural part of occupation. These sort of things happened in other wars of occupation as well, though only now are they publicized so thoroughly. Silly people think of this as an oversight or a blunder when that's far from the truth. The only reason it looks so bad is that while we've been through this before, this is the first time that the media is constantly informing us of it, so those who don't know do think this is some strange new pitfall. The rest of us know better.

If Iraq were anything even remotely approaching a disaster, it would involve all-out battles against powerful organized resistance. Instead, we kicked Saddam's ass, destroyed his regime in less than a month with one of the lowest casualty counts of any war in human history, and we are in absolutely no danger of losing control of Iraq, there is absolutely no way Saddam could ever hope to regain power. By my standards that qualifies as an unmitigated success.

Did you read the rest of my post? I cover a lot of issues... :)

Anyway... yes, its not nearly as bad as Vietnam. There is no nation funding the resistance like there was there... some nations (in the Middle East) are funding terrorism in smaller and surreptious ways, but not openly and nowhere near the extent that it was in Vietnam. But the guerrilla war aspect is similar... again, less bad in Iraq, but similar -- enemies blend in with the general population (which has widespread support for those radicals), strike when they can with bombs, etc... and like Vietnam we've won all the major battles (we did win every major battle in Vietnam, not that it mattered at all...). But so far, yes, this isn't nearly that bad... the problem is that as the occupation lasts longer hatred will grow, and popular resistance will grow... and with it more popular support of terrorism. Will they want Sadaam back? No! But they are Arabs, so they are very easily convinced that the US is evil... remember, we will never get the Arabs to truly accept us until the Israel/Palestine thing is settled.

And it is a major oversight and blunder because the administration just didn't expect this. If they had expected a long occupation and popular anger the war would NEVER have happened as it did... even this Bush would have admitted that his father had the right idea is securing international monetary support for war. I'm sure he still would have attacked Sadaam, but it would have been done differently, and I am sure that more attention would have been paid to the need to rebuild the infrastructure of the nation (power, water, bridges, police, government, army, etc...) -- they pretty much ignored those silly little niggling issues. Of course they could have seen this coming if they had looked, but they didn't want to see the obvious truth, so here we are...

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Did you read the rest of my post? I cover a lot of issues... :)

Anyway... yes, its not nearly as bad as Vietnam. There is no nation funding the resistance like there was there... some nations (in the Middle East) are funding terrorism in smaller and surreptious ways, but not openly and nowhere near the extent that it was in Vietnam. But the guerrilla war aspect is similar... again, less bad in Iraq, but similar -- enemies blend in with the general population (which has widespread support for those radicals), strike when they can with bombs, etc... and like Vietnam we've won all the major battles (we did win every major battle in Vietnam, not that it mattered at all...). But so far, yes, this isn't nearly that bad... the problem is that as the occupation lasts longer hatred will grow, and popular resistance will grow... and with it more popular support of terrorism. Will they want Sadaam back? No! But they are Arabs, so they are very easily convinced that the US is evil... remember, we will never get the Arabs to truly accept us until the Israel/Palestine thing is settled.

There is no popular resistance in Iraq. There is nothing that even remotely resembles it.

As for Israel/Palestine, they will not accept us once it's settled, because they don't WANT it settled, nor do they even pretend to want it settled. They want Israel gone and they want to kill as many Jews as they can in the process. They will only accept us if we stand back and allow that to happen, and it's amazing how many people here actually like that idea. Their dislike of us is more fundamental than Israel, literally and figuratively: They hate us because we're not them. The Arab world hates us because they are a festering joke of a civilization and it just burns them that Western civilization (and of course, the US is Western Civilization incarnate) dominates the world to a degree that the Islamic Empires could only have dreamed of even at their peak. They're a childish, savage bunch of people, as a whole, and while that sounds like a gross generalization, once you realize that almost ALL of the world's major strife right now is taking place in the Middle East, it only rings truer. They'll come to accept us when and only when we conform to their backwards and insane ways of thinking and living, and God forbid that day ever comes.

Quote:And it is a major oversight and blunder because the administration just didn't expect this. If they had expected a long occupation and popular anger the war would NEVER have happened as it did... even this Bush would have admitted that his father had the right idea is securing international monetary support for war. I'm sure he still would have attacked Sadaam, but it would have been done differently, and I am sure that more attention would have been paid to the need to rebuild the infrastructure of the nation (power, water, bridges, police, government, army, etc...) -- they pretty much ignored those silly little niggling issues. Of course they could have seen this coming if they had looked, but they didn't want to see the obvious truth, so here we are... [/B]

The administration most definitely expected this. It's the news media and people in general that expected it was to be a perfect clean sweep. I recall the adminstration saying countless times that it would be a long and wide effort to solve Saddam and Iraq. And for crying out loud, we still control the nation in almost complete totality and there is absolutely no viable threat to our soveriegnty. All that these attacks accomplish is making the spineless whiners of the left think they have a leg to stand on in criticizing the war. Again, show me any example in history where such a thing was attempted and accomplished with such fast victory and such a minute loss of life.

Quote:There is no popular resistance in Iraq. There is nothing that even remotely resembles it.

As for Israel/Palestine, they will not accept us once it's settled, because they don't WANT it settled, nor do they even pretend to want it settled. They want Israel gone and they want to kill as many Jews as they can in the process. They will only accept us if we stand back and allow that to happen, and it's amazing how many people here actually like that idea. Their dislike of us is more fundamental than Israel, literally and figuratively: They hate us because we're not them. The Arab world hates us because they are a festering joke of a civilization and it just burns them that Western civilization (and of course, the US is Western Civilization incarnate) dominates the world to a degree that the Islamic Empires could only have dreamed of even at their peak. They're a childish, savage bunch of people, as a whole, and while that sounds like a gross generalization, once you realize that almost ALL of the world's major strife right now is taking place in the Middle East, it only rings truer. They'll come to accept us when and only when we conform to their backwards and insane ways of thinking and living, and God forbid that day ever comes.

No popular resistance? Totally wrong. Sure, the majority does think that all they've been through has been worth it, but a sizable group supports the resistance. All kinds of influences turn them against us... Shi'ite mullahs taking orders from Tehran, foreign Arab terrorists blowing things up and making the Iraqis angry at us for the security failures, our total lack of preparation for fixing the Iraqi power and water systems, etc, etc... yes, most think that it was worth it. But as I said, as time passes the number that hate us will steadily go up. It is ineviable, and with the way we are managing it now we are really asking for them to hate us...

As for Israel, sure, lots of them do want Israel destroyed, but not ALL. That is an overstatement, no question about it... and also, its mostly just Arabs that have the hatred because of that. Persians, Egyptians, Pakistanis, etc. don't have that same level of hatred because of it... they have other reasons to dislike us... but as for the Arabs, you are a fool. Yes, the Arab Empire has fallen and the American Empire rules now... but you think they hate us because of that? I doubt it. No. The root and the core of the hatred in the Arab world is Palestine. Without that they'd dislike us some, like the whole world does, maybe more than most because of the way they interpret Islam... but it wouldn't be anything close to the intense hatred of America and all things American that burns in the Islamic world these years. I'm sure that if the Israeli issue could go away it would be very, very significantly better...

Though, not if idiotic right-wing hatemongers (the American ones at least as much as the Arab ones) have their way, of course. None of THEM want anything resembling a popular understanding as your hateful comments make very clear.

Is the Arab world behind us, technologically and in thought? Yes, without a doubt. But does that mean they are stupid? No! It just means that they aren't progressing through the same order of societal progression that we have... it'll be quite interesting to see how the Islamic world adapts to the realities of modern times. They'll have to change... the question is how they will do it and not compromise their religion (something religious types like you should understand...).

Oh yeah, and it takes two sides to make peace. At this time neither Sharon and his hardline conservative party or the Palestinians want peace... I doubt it'll happen until new people come to power.

Quote:The administration most definitely expected this. It's the news media and people in general that expected it was to be a perfect clean sweep. I recall the adminstration saying countless times that it would be a long and wide effort to solve Saddam and Iraq. And for crying out loud, we still control the nation in almost complete totality and there is absolutely no viable threat to our soveriegnty. All that these attacks accomplish is making the spineless whiners of the left think they have a leg to stand on in criticizing the war. Again, show me any example in history where such a thing was attempted and accomplished with such fast victory and such a minute loss of life.

Burned out all the memories of everything the administration ever said before the war started, I see... hardly surprising. I doubt that trying to say that the obvious truth is true will work with you since it never does... but anyway.

The administration DID NOT see this coming. There is NO way to debate that. Why?

They said that by the end of the year, maybe even by fall, there might be 70 or 80,000 US troops in Iraq. There will be 130,000.

They said that the Iraqis would come out in droves upon our victory and cheer us, the liberators. It didn't happen -- the Iraqi reaction was very slow and cautious, and less receptive than the blind people in the administration thought.

Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc... I'll list more later...

Long and wide effort? Sorry, but most of those comments came well after the war... and before it they meant it in a totally different and much more limited sense.

We control the nation? Of course! No threat to our control? I agree there too, we are in control and that isn't changing anytime soon... though I can't see how those facts are relevant to the points I've made...

Do the attacks say that the Iraqi people, a majority of them, want us to leave now? No. They do not. But you COMPLETELY MISSED MY POINT! Completely 100% missed what I was saying... I didn't say that we should leave soon! I didn't say that we should pull out! I didn't say that the Iraqis could throw us out! None of that is true! As I said now that we are in we are in...

Oh, I recommend you go back and read that really long post of mine. Really.

Just go back and read what I actually said... because these comments just don't make sense in comparison...

The Kurds were not effected as Saddam never even ruled their terroritory. The Shites are cooperating as a hole since they want their country back from the sunni Minority that stoled it from them.
Its central Iraq that is the most dangerous place, If all of Iraq was like the sunni Triangle Casualties would be far higher.It is still possible that they could get roused up enough that most of Iraq will turn into the sunni triangle which would disasterous.

But the real casualties in this war have all been Iraqis thousands of them.

But what america could do is better train its troops and stop killing Iraqi police in freindly fire incidents.
You just killed another one recently and the people are begining to feel in Iraq that the U.S doesnt give a shit pass "I am sorry"! In this issue because if it was Iraqi police killing a american troop then they would have more hell to pay then whats happening now vice versa.Iraqis just dont trust the U.S look at the polls in regards to favour toward Bush its only 30% with people in Baghdad.So alot of work needs to be done so they can trust you but I think the only way of doing it is giving them more power for themselves.

The U.S has made progress and maybe the media is focusing on the neagotive , Its true schools are being rebuilt and troops are even organizing activities to teach the Iraqi children some sports.
Thats swell news.

But the main excuss for going to war was Human rights and Saddam Husseins crimes, If you look at Saudi Arabias harshness and brutal laws you would see that your allies Human rights isnt all that different as you can be put to death for talking to a member of the opposite sex that isnt part of your family,Saying bad things agiast the king is punnishable with severe torture.

As for the isreali Palestinians conflict, Alot of people are sick of it ,The Jews decisions were what lead to this madness for decades. When they captured land during the war they never thought about keeping the peace and forgiving their enemy and handing it back. Try to be a peacemaker like god taught Abraham.
So instead they quickly built towns and villages all over it and left the Palestine with almost little shreads of nothing very simular to what the europeans did too the native aboriginals who lived in north america , They put them in resserves and bassicly licked up everything around it.In the orginal agreement the land would be split 50/50 but now its more like 70/30.

The reasons many dislike the Jews is because there are alot of Rich among them,They are asociated with Snubism and greed.
They own alot of holywood and many of the major corporations in the U.S and the world. If it for there control of the U.S congress due to their financial influience the U.S would have been neutral in the conflict and would not have favoured anyone and but instead because they are always biased towards Isreal the palestinians despise the U.S.

So alot of Americans feel that the U.S has dragged themselves deep in mud for Rich Jews at the cost of their favour in the Middle east and 9/11 and other terrorist acts have all followed.

Hmm... the Iraqi people have suffered a lot. Between Sadaam and the US blockade they haven't had much of a chance... before the Gulf War Iraq had very good hospitals. 12 years of blockade completely eroded that... I'm sure that the 500,000 is completely accurate. People there, especially children, have been dying of all kinds of diseases and injuries that they never would here... the blockade completely destroyed their medical capabilities. It really was a tragedy... Sadaam, the supposed target of the blockade, still got richer while the poor people died by the thousands... now I know we needed some kind of blockade but it could have been more humane.

As for now... Iraq desperately, desperately needs money for rebuilding its power, water, roads, hospitals, etc... and since its our fault that they are trashed now we should pay to fix it. Its really only fair... since it IS our fault, without question. Yes, its expensive, but Bush should have thought of these things beforehand! Now we don't have a choice.


The issue of the Iraqis hating us, as many of them do, is a very serious one. While most of them do think that getting rid of Sadaam was good, they also want us to leave. Now. The longer we're there the incrementally more the violence will be... many Iraqis already support the terrorists and their numbers will increase if things continue as they are. So, what should we do. First, we've got to give the UN a mandate. That would go a long way to alleviating the fears of the majority of the popultion. Then, we've got to get more non-US troops in, to share the burden and show we aren't just there by ourselves to exploit the nation. Also, we've got to rebuild the infrastructure. No one will ever like us as long as their power is off and their water mains broken... and then we've got to get them to agree on some kind of government and have elections... without letting them go the way of Iran, which might be tricky. I don't know what to do about that one...

The third one of those is possible, but with this administration I don't think the other three will happen. We'll keep trying to do it by ourselves and it just won't work anywhere near as well as it would with an international alliance... our only real hope is that the situation won't be completely hopeless by 2005 so that once Bush loses (he MUST lose for there to be any chance of a good solution to the Iraq question...) something can be done.

Quote:As for the isreali Palestinians conflict, Alot of people are sick of it ,The Jews decisions were what lead to this madness for decades. When they captured land during the war they never thought about keeping the peace and forgiving their enemy and handing it back. Try to be a peacemaker like god taught Abraham.
So instead they quickly built towns and villages all over it and left the Palestine with almost little shreads of nothing very simular to what the europeans did too the native aboriginals who lived in north america , They put them in resserves and bassicly licked up everything around it.In the orginal agreement the land would be split 50/50 but now its more like 70/30.

Nope. British Palestine was both Israel and Jordan, remember! The Palestinians could have just gone to Jordan, which is well over 2/3rds of the original nation... but they didn't because they hate the Jews and wanted to cause as much trouble as possible. The Arabs could easily have avoided the whole issue had they wanted to, but they wanted (and still want) it bad, not healed, so they don't try.

Sure, Israel is far from perfect, but its doing better than the Arabs are at trying for peace...

...

That is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen.

You DO know that its Bush's absolute certainty that he is right (and that God is always on his side) that is the root of the problem with this administration?

Oh yeah, and I know its supposed to be a joke... its just not funny.

And I love kittens...

It's not even supposed to be a reflection of my views, just so you know, just there for humor. To be honest, if ego is the main problem you have with Bush, then I'd think you would find that pic hilarious for that reason. No one said you have to find something hilarious for the INTENDED reason or not at all.

Oh well, everyone ELSE will find it hilarious.

Ego and extreme stupidity.

President Bush is cool. Just look at my avatar.