Is Bush winning the war on terror?

[mylexicon]

Well I disagree with those Liberals. The US shouldn't leave Iraq but deploy more ground troops to improve the security situation. When a US commander recommended that before the war, he was dismissed. Then when the State Department warned of the risks of the invasion and created a plan to cope with them, it was also dismissed by the Pentagon.

And Kerry is going to achieve this

Turkey (a longtime US ally) didn't even let the US use it's Southern border with Iraq for the Northern Invasion.

They need a steaming mad emoticon on this board You really need to
read about the Kurds. The Kurds occupy a very large territory in Nothern Iraq
and Southern Turkey. The Turkish government was afraid that America
was going to support the formation of an independent Kurdish state and that
the entire southern chunk of Turkey was going to revolt and try to join them.
READ. READ. READ. READ. READ. READ. READ. READ. I can't say it enough,
learn history and READ. Everyone should read and watch the history
channel, or history international while reading books that deal with history.
Then when they come home from work or school they should turn off CNN and
read history books and modern history essays. They should read in their sleep
and stop watching Fahrenheit 911 because it doesn't set a historical background,
and therefore can't offer any perspective on what is happening. You should
read while you brush your teeth and read while you watch the history channel.
Resist your urge to watch the Herbal Essence commercial breaks and continue
to read some more. Nevermind you can take a break to watch
Herbal Essences

[brakada]

And Kerry is going to achieve this

Yes, I think Kerry will do a better job than Bush did. And you can't say for sure what he will do, because he changes his position all the time, so how can you know whether or not is he going to finish the Iraq campaign better than Bush?

Turkey (a longtime US ally) didn't even let the US use it's Southern border with Iraq for the Northern Invasion.

They need a steaming mad emoticon on this board You really need to
read about the Kurds. The Kurds occupy a very large territory in Nothern Iraq
and Southern Turkey. The Turkish government was afraid that America
was going to support the formation of an independent Kurdish state and that
the entire southern chunk of Turkey was going to revolt and try to join them.
READ. READ. READ. READ. READ. READ. READ. READ. I can't say it enough,
learn history and READ. Everyone should read and watch the history
channel, or history international while reading books that deal with history.
Then when they come home from work or school they should turn off CNN and
read history books and modern history essays. They should read in their sleep
and stop watching Fahrenheit 911 because it doesn't set a historical background,
and therefore can't offer any perspective on what is happening. You should
read while you brush your teeth and read while you watch the history channel.
Resist your urge to watch the Herbal Essence commercial breaks and continue
to read some more. Nevermind you can take a break to watch
Herbal Essences

I am aware of the Turkish fear of the Kurdish state, but still they were not supporting the war.

[evangelion]

...that's why I stick to making a few, short posts per day.

Is there some rule to only write short, ranty posts with no real data in them?

Nah, just seems to me you've got a bad case of Kerryism. Say one thing, do another. Now keep contradicting yourself like a good liberal.

[brakada]

Obviously I'm speaking for the countries. Or maybe that wasn't obvious to you. 90% of people in Italy? Where did you get that poll? Your favorite site BBC, or the Guardian, either way its wrong. Italy HAS TROOPS fighting in Iraq with us. The people fighting were given a choice to do so or not and chose to fight.

And where did you get your information regarding European support?

Please enlighten me and make a list of european countries which supported the American invasion of Iraq.

As for Italian public support, the percantege is that high. So what if their troops are fighting with you? I'm not sure they will for very long.

[evangelion]

So what if their troops are fighting with you? I'm not sure they will for very long.

Yeah, we'll really miss all 50 of them.

The point is someone will always fight with us. But above all...if need be we'll fight on our own, dammit.

[brakada]

Yeah, we'll really miss all 50 of them.

Nope, 20 got killed in that terrorist attack, so I guess there're only 30 left. But Italians never were good soldiers, so why care. :wink:

The point is someone will always fight with us. But above all...if need be we'll fight on our own, dammit.

But why would you? I am sure (I am repeating this for a millionth time) that the United States could get a lot more of international support in funds and in military aid if Bush was a bit more patient and tried a little harder.

I simply can't understand why you like loosing your own money that much? Do you really want to do everything the hard way.

[Galapidate]

Obviously I'm speaking for the countries. Or maybe that wasn't obvious to you. 90% of people in Italy? Where did you get that poll? Your favorite site BBC, or the Guardian, either way its wrong. Italy HAS TROOPS fighting in Iraq with us. The people fighting were given a choice to do so or not and chose to fight.

And where did you get your information regarding European support?

Please enlighten me and make a list of european countries which supported the American invasion of Iraq.

As for Italian public support, the percantege is that high. So what if their troops are fighting with you? I'm not sure they will for very long.

Well there's England

[Jenks]

Well there's England

England = our cute lil bitch.

[face]

i just wish stupid people weren't allowed to post, or speak in general, for that matter.

it just seems like everyone's motives are ill-founded and that man is inherently evil. you can't trust anyone but yourself these days.

liberal this, neo-con that. idealism, realpolitik. democrat, republican. people love to pigeon-hole and stereotype. there are more than two positions on any given subject.

jaded enough for my first post?

[mylexicon]

it just seems like everyone's motives are ill-founded and that man is inherently evil. you can't trust anyone but yourself these days.

It seems that man is inherently evil He is! That's why capitalism is
so good.....it harness the greed of mankind with money....and then obliges
him to behave in order to keep making it. All this noble humanity happy-dappy
bullshit is such a load of crap. Human beings cannot do anything but satisfy
their own desires. You're hungry, you eat. Youre horny, you fuck. You don't
rape someone, only because you don't want jail or to be hated by everyone
in our society. You don't kill someone because blood grosses you out and
you don't want to be a murderer on death row. Even when you help people its
because you feel it is right or because it makes you happy to help
others or because you are proliferating your ideologies. It is so deeply engrained
in humanity that we don't even know it's there. Why do you get up in the
morning? What makes you do homework you don't want to do? What makes
you like blue better than red? A chemical reaction in your brain that your
body works to replicate on a daily basis--its called self-interest. It's why Utopia doesn't exist,
its why war is inevitable, its why people murder, it's why people are
racist, it's why people behead.

You can either harness this power of nature and use it to help other people
or you can harness it to improve only yourself. Life is almost always best when
you exercise a fifty-fifty split imo.

Terrorists use it only for themselves and America uses it for both.
That's why this Iraq debate is so heated in our country and why so many
people get pissed. There are the idiots who believe mankind is good and flawless
and beautiful and they blame the absence of Utopia on a right-wing conspiracy.
There are the chivalrous conservatives who believe that our job is to control
everyone to save them from us. Then there are the people who focus
on inane shit......like whether or not Bush is a Nazi.....or how many days he
spent on vacation. Then their are the emotional nit-wits who say stuff like
"omfg people are dying....stop war now"--like death would stop if only we
dropped everything and listened to simplistic wisdom. And then there are the
5%-10% of people sitting around trying to take in as much as they can and
determine whether or not Iraq is more about us, or more about them, and
then determine for themselves how much it should be for us, and how much
it should be for them......and during their quiet internal analysis their are 6
billion people running around like Jerry's kids.


Get the picture. It's crazy.

[gokada]

But why would you? I am sure (I am repeating this for a millionth time) that the United States could get a lot more of international support in funds and in military aid if Bush was a bit more patient and tried a little harder.

"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has systematically and continually violated 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions over the past decade." http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/12/ira...x.html?related

I think waiting 10 years for Saddam to comply to these resolutions is being patient. France, Germany, and Russia were never going to vote in favor of going to war, so what is the U.S. supposed to do? Remember, a week or so ago Putin stated that Russia gave the U.S. intelligence of Saddam's intentions to attack the U.S. This was after 9/11 and before the war. I've said that about a million times too but no one wants to challenge it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155982/posts

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C123051%2C00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/

[delirious]

...that's why I stick to making a few, short posts per day.

Is there some rule to only write short, ranty posts with no real data in them?

Nah, just seems to me you've got a bad case of Kerryism. Say one thing, do another. Now keep contradicting yourself like a good liberal.

I had some free time last night and decided to write a few longer posts.

Now, again, why is this a big deal to you? Why do you care if I write longer posts?

"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has systematically and continually violated 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions over the past decade." http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/12/ira...x.html?related
I think waiting 10 years for Saddam to comply to these resolutions is being patient.

By invading Iraq, the US was defying the UN charter, the Geneva Convention and Resolution 1441. Do other countries now have the right to invade the US for this non-compliance? Do other countries have the right to invade Turkey and Israel for their non-compliance to far more UN resolutions?

I thought only the Security Council could make those decisions (as per the UN Charter)

# The United Nations Charter and customary international law require States to seek peaceful resolutions to their disputes. Article 33 of the Charter states that "The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall first of all seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their own choice."

# Under Article 51 of the Charter, States are only permitted to threaten or use force "if an armed attack occurs" and only "until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

# In the case of an act of aggression or a threat to the peace, the United Nations Security Council is also required under the Charter (Article 41) to firstly employ "measures not involving the use of armed force." Only when such measures "would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate" (Article 42) can the Security Council authorize the use of force.

http://www.lcnp.org/global/LawyersandJuristsAppeal.htm

To quote the UN Charter:

# To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

# To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

# All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

# All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

Stop carrying on about how Iraq violated UN resolutions and international law. The US did exactly the same thing with this invasion.

I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing.

Richard Perl

[delirious]

Notice how no-one really tackled my original argument and instead ranted about other things.

Let's see some proof that Bush is winning his "war on terror."

[FM]

He got Saddam

I'll see the big one-up when and if Osama is captured...

[maxman]

Holland / The Netherlands have always supported America as well...

Don't like that whole 'lil bitch' thing though!

Is this topic a bit like the war? America against the majority of the world???

I don't understand.... but maybe that's just me