You admirably argue your points in a courteous fashion, and I think that’s a terrific thing, to be able to disagree without referring to your opponent as a traitor.

I am a firm believer in rising above the din. We can have a discussion, a debate, an exchange of ideas without resorting to the least common denominator.

First let me mention that I claimed Hussein’s gov’t was secular in comparison to other neighboring countries; certainly I would not argue that he was entirely and absolutely secular.

Of course you did, however within context it means little that he was in “compared with other nations of the region”. This fact, in context, in no way negates the statement “It has been proven that Iraq was a supporter of terrorists.” as I stated in post 6.

In short- the fact that we was “relatively secularist” in no way counters that he was a supportor of terrorism.

More importantly, while Hussein’s regime may have had financial ties to nefarious organizations other than AQ, the level of his support for these organizations did not rise to the level of requiring an American invasion (i.e. he didn’t house AQ camps, or have direct financial ties to our Saudi-borne attackers).

I absolutely disagree. Lorica’s and NYC Cop’s comments aside (which I agree with) in the speech from President Bush I quoted said:

any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime

There is no degree of support- a nationstae either supports terrorism or it does not. Iraq did, as I clearly pointed out and thus falls under that category

Many other Middle Eastern countries have finincial ties to shady groups, but I trust that no one would argue for a full-scale cage match between the US and the entire Muslim world.

I would state that those countries (including Saudi Arabia) are amoung the regimes that support terrorism. Each nation will be delt with in time during this war. Some will diplomatically cease. Others will not. Each nation must be approached baseed upon it’s individual case.

IMO, Iraq was approached the only way we could approach it.

I will concede that Iraq was a legit target on some level, but it clearly was not smart of the Administration to make Hussein target #1, nor was it smart of Congress to blindly authorize this action.

As I said earlier- highly debatable. We can discuss that later though.

That said, thank you for conceding my main point.

I will finish this post later on.

the level of his support for these organizations did not rise to the level of requiring an American invasion (i.e. he didn’t house AQ camps, or have direct financial ties to our Saudi-borne attackers).

So, it’s ok to support terrorism, a little? Is that what you’re saying?

However, I am firmly convinced that the Iraq War is contrary to America’s long-term interests, due to the hatred that will resonate even in the mainstream Muslim world in response to a non-Muslim protracted occupation of a Muslim population.

The Muslim world has long hated the West, saying that they’re going to hate us MORE because we went into Iraq makes no sense. I seem to recall 9/11 happening before we went into Iraq or Afghanistan, I can’t imagine anything more hateful than that. When Iraq is stabilized and it’s people see better prosperity than it did under Saddam, it doesn’t matter what their propaganda says. I certainly don’t expect Iraq to be a “little U.S.”, however I will settle for a country that does not pursue WMD, does not support terrorism, and does not torture it’s people.

I believe it can be undeniably argued that the Iraq War, by giving extremists around the globe more fuel and more propaganda to spread their hate

So exactly what do we do to combat it? Ignore it? Downplay it? I believe that’s what the previous administration did and it didn’t fare to well for us.

More importantly, while Hussein’s regime may have had financial ties to nefarious organizations other than AQ, the level of his support for these organizations did not rise to the level of requiring an American invasion

Since when is paying people to kill our allies a “nafarious” action?? Seems to me to be out right terrorism and a Hussien was in direct support of it.

I am firmly convinced that the Iraq War is contrary to America’s long-term interests, due to the hatred that will resonate even in the mainstream Muslim world in response to a non-Muslim protracted occupation of a Muslim population.

Since when did we become “occupiers”?? We are not occupying Iraq. The Iraqi people know it, and the President has been trying to get that across to the whole of the world. Yet good people on the left continue to refer to our military has “occupiers”. Amazing!! We liberated Iraq, and the Iraqi people know it. This is why they are turning on AQ.

We know that Saddamn was bribing high officials in other governments and the UN. We know of the torture rooms and the genocide, and we knew about those prior to the invasion. He attacked our military constantly. He was no longer concerned with the constraints of the surrender agreement. We had many reasons to do this, and now that it is done we need to see it thru to it’s completion. – Lorica

You admirably argue your points in a courteous fashion, and I think that’s a terrific thing, to be able to disagree without referring to your opponent as a traitor. That said, please allow me to respond to a few of your points, and then I’ll shut up and let others comment if they wish.

This always confused me- how can one acknowledge that the Sunni’s controlled Iraq but claim in the the same breath that Iraq was purely secular?
…
Hussien’s Iraq and his IIS department had ties with many other terorrist organizations
…
they were a legitimate target none the less.

First let me mention that I claimed Hussein’s gov’t was secular in comparison to other neighboring countries; certainly I would not argue that he was entirely and absolutely secular. More importantly, while Hussein’s regime may have had financial ties to nefarious organizations other than AQ, the level of his support for these organizations did not rise to the level of requiring an American invasion (i.e. he didn’t house AQ camps, or have direct financial ties to our Saudi-borne attackers). Many other Middle Eastern countries have finincial ties to shady groups, but I trust that no one would argue for a full-scale cage match between the US and the entire Muslim world. I will concede that Iraq was a legit target on some level, but it clearly was not smart of the Administration to make Hussein target #1, nor was it smart of Congress to blindly authorize this action.

I’m not one to argue that the President wants to see carnage, or that this is a blood-for-oil conflict, or any of the other outlandish claims that come from the most vocal on the left. However, I am firmly convinced that the Iraq War is contrary to America’s long-term interests, due to the hatred that will resonate even in the mainstream Muslim world in response to a non-Muslim protracted occupation of a Muslim population.

If we can define the War on Terror to be the elimination of those extremists that wish to do us harm, I believe it can be undeniably argued that the Iraq War, by giving extremists around the globe more fuel and more propaganda to spread their hate, is antithetical to the major goal of the GWOT. That is not to say that we should play nice with the bad guys and hope they like us–that is to say we should pick our battles carefully with respect to long-term American interests.

Anyway, thanks for the lively discussion.

Let us not forget the terrorist camp at Salman Pak that U.S. Marines discovered in 2003:

At Salman Pak

Confirming that Operation Iraqi Freedom is an integral part of the war on terror, soldiers of the 7th Marine Regiment destroyed a suspected terrorist camp early Sunday en route to Baghdad. Located a mile east of the Tigris River, the Salman Pak base was exactly where U.S. terrorism experts and Iraqi defectors said it would be.

Key to this objective was an airplane fuselage in which Islamic extremists honed their air-piracy skills.

So we have payments to suicide bombers in Israel, an attempted assassination of a former U.S. president, and a confirmed terrorist training camp.

Sounds like he supported terrorism to me.

How has this been proven? I’m curious as to why you think this to be so, given that Hussein’s regime was adamantly secular in comparison to neighboring states.

“Adamantly secular” is a misnomer. Although Hussein limited Sharia Law and becoming a full flamed Islamic State and thus prevented the Clerics from ruling Iraq and he being a figurehead (such as it is in Iran presently), the Sunni’s still ruled Iraq. This always confused me- how can one acknowledge that the Sunni’s controlled Iraq but claim in the the same breath that Iraq was purely secular? Hussien was only secular in the sense that he prevented Sharia law and the cleric from contrilling it.

While no proven tied to al Queda exists per se (that is if one take as gospel the 9/11 Commision rReport, which I do not), Hussien’s Iraq and his IIS department had ties with many other terorrist organizations such as Abu Nidal Organization, the Egyptian Islamic Group, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the IIP (aka the Muslim Brotherhood, revived in Iraq in 1991) and last but not least, Hamas (which he sent $25,000.00 bounties to the Islamic extremist families).

I respectfully disagree. Many of those opposed to the Iraq War are so opposed because of the proposition that our efforts in Iraq have diverted resources away from the more direct fight against those that attacked us on 9/11

.

The respect is noted and appreciated.

That said, this is a War on Terrorism as President Bush pointed out. It can be debated ad nausem if Iraq was the best target in said war, but the fact is that they were a legitimate target none the less.

I am not condemning those who argue this- but what I don’t agree with is those folks who say the President was not up front about the length and purpose of this war.

Many at the beginning of the War pointed to the installation of a friendly, democratic government in Iraq as the key benefit to American interests, but this idealistic concept has since been proven to be a pipe dream, rather than a realizable goal.

Again, debatable. “Friendly, democratic governement” is a subject ideal. But still, not the point I was making.

While the potential regional instability and the probability of an ensuing genocide prohibit me from thinking that immediate withdrawl is a good idea, I find it exceedingly difficult to look back at this War with the nostalgia and optimism, and with unflinching trust in a the leaders (both Dem and Repub) that drove this country into the intractable situation it is now in.

First off, I am not looking at the war with “nostalgia and optimism”. I can not do that with any war. What I am doing is pointing out how some who oppose this war are innacurate in their assertions that President Bush was not forth coming about how we were going to fight the war and the type of war it would be. The reason given at the time for going to war was acceptable by the vast majority of Americans at the time. Those reasons remain unchanged, and apply to Iraq as well as (the short list) Syria, Iran and at the time Afganistan. These coutries were all state sponsors of terrorism.

Other than that, I agreee with your statement: I have no trust in any of our leaders, to the point that none of them will likely get my votes.

Apparently mnany of the busboys and diswashers in New York’s Chinatown are wealthy enough that they have an extra $1000 or $2000 laying around to donate to her campaign. That’s amazing, since most of them bring home wages that put them below the poverty line.

You might say that accepting Hillary’s campaign finanacing report requires the “willing suspension of disbelief”. Sounds like Norman Hsu all over again.

Some key points:

Of 74 residents of New York’s Chinatown, Flushing, the Bronx or Brooklyn that The Times called or visited, only 24 could be reached for comment…

The rest were…where? Never existed? Names made up so their “donations” could be bundled?

Census figures for 2000 show the median family income for the area was less than $21,000. About 45% of the population was living below the poverty line, more than double the city average.

In the busy heart of East Broadway, beneath the Manhattan Bridge, is a building that is listed as the home of Sang Cheung Lee, also reported to have given $1,000. Trash was piled in the dimly lighted entrance hall. Neighbors said they knew of no one with Lee’s name there; they knocked on one another’s doors in a futile effort to find him.

Salespeople at a store on Canal Street were similarly baffled when asked about Shih Kan Chang, listed as working there and having given $1,000. The store sells purses, jewelry and novelty Buddha statues. Employees said they had not heard of Chang.

Another listed donor, Yi Min Liu, said he did not make the $1,000 contribution in April that was reported in his name. He said he attended a banquet for Clinton but did not give her money.

Curiouser and curiouser. I think a full-blown DOJ investigation is in order here.

In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown.

OK, so it’s not like this is Berkeley or your average Ivy League campus that will mindlessly empty ther wallets for whatever charlatan gets the Democrat nomination.

I’m wondering if this doesn’t go all the way back to Billy Boy getting illegal campaing funds from the Chinese government in exchange for our nuclear secrets. You can’t help thinking that the powers that be in Beijing might see Hillary as their next tool for weakening America.

It has been proven that Iraq was a supporter of terrorists.

How has this been proven? I’m curious as to why you think this to be so, given that Hussein’s regime was adamantly secular in comparison to neighboring states.

In looking at this speech in hindsight, it makes those to object to this war look short sighted and blinder wearing.

I respectfully disagree. Many of those opposed to the Iraq War are so opposed because of the proposition that our efforts in Iraq have diverted resources away from the more direct fight against those that attacked us on 9/11. While everyone must concede that we’ve taken out alot of bad people in fighting the Sunni insurgency and some of the Shi’a militias, the question must be asked: Do we create more hatred towards the US by our presence there? In other words, are our long-term interests (to use your wording) served by getting rid of a few thousand militants at the expense of creating tens-to-hundreds of thousands of displaced Muslims angry at the American presence?

Many at the beginning of the War pointed to the installation of a friendly, democratic government in Iraq as the key benefit to American interests, but this idealistic concept has since been proven to be a pipe dream, rather than a realizable goal.

While the potential regional instability and the probability of an ensuing genocide prohibit me from thinking that immediate withdrawl is a good idea, I find it exceedingly difficult to look back at this War with the nostalgia and optimism, and with unflinching trust in a the leaders (both Dem and Repub) that drove this country into the intractable situation it is now in.

“I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.”

George W. Bush, September 20, 2001

In looking at this speech in hindsight, it makes those to object to this war look short sighted and blinder wearing. For these who are against defending ourselves and harp on every mistake made, I hope that someday you will see the folly of the “gotcha” game you’ve been playing.

There are more important things than politics, but 90% of America just seems to not understand that.

It will be our downfall.

It has come to my attention that many citizens have claimed that when we vetured onto Global War on Terror the President did not declare that this would be a lengthy war. I want to quote the President, formally:

This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.

George W. Bush, September 20, 2001

When we invaded Iraq, it is just a battle within this war. It has be proven that Iraq was a supporter of terrorist. In the same speech, President Bush said:

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

George W. Bush, September 20, 2001

So my question is this: If Mr. Bush was this clear cut about the type of war we are fighting, why is that folks are so confused on this issue?

For several years, the conventional wisdom has been that neoconservatism is on the skids. Vice President Dick Cheney has been sidelined while Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice flexes her diplomatic muscles, and old neocon standbys such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith have largely disappeared from view. But the movement isn’t dead yet. As shown by the announcement this week of former New York Post editorial page editor John Podhoretz’s appointment to head the flagship neoconservative journal Commentary, the movement may be battered, but it is not going away. If anything, it is regrouping.

At the moment, the future of neoconservatism hangs on its unspoken system of dynastic succession, in which the top posts of the movement are handed off to the sons of its leaders. A second generation is taking over from the first to lead the crusade against the liberal traitors at home and the terrorists abroad.

A great read in its entirety – check it out!

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-heilbrunn19oct19,0,1500804.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Putin Belittles U.S. Military’s Troubles
Source: Virginian – Pilot
Publication date: 2007-10-19

The Associated Press
MOSCOW

Vladimir Putin, on his annual TV call-in show Thursday, showcased the booming economy, belittled America’s troubles in Iraq and pledged to modernize the armed forces – projecting himself as the man who has restored Russia to greatness.

Putin, who is to give up the presidency next year, tackled 50 questions directly, none of which asked outright about his plans for the future. He did reaffirm that he would step down as president next May, but he has left the door open to becoming prime minister.

In the latest in a series of jabs at Washington, the Russian leader ridiculed the U.S. military campaign in Iraq, saying it was aimed in part at seizing the country’s oil reserves.

He also again warned against U.S. efforts to put elements of a missile defense system in eastern Europe.

(c) 2007 Virginian – Pilot. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.

Publication date: 2007-10-19

I’d say there are 800 government jobs occupied by these Union Goons that could be eliminated in the budget.

Also, follow the links that a State Union Goon used taxpayer funded email on state work time to get out the goons and to lobby against the tax raise protesters.