<p>The youth in Iraq are NOT growing to hate the US. If we win this fight with the terrorists, spread freedom, and bring democracy to a free Iraq they will love us even more. And by the way, the vast majority of the people do love the US and the American troops, talk to any returning soldier and he will tell you. The only picture we have of Iraq is filtered by the media, which mainly reports all of the sensational stories such as bombs and such.</p>
<p>Another thing, many of the terrorists in Iraq are foreigners from other countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. Just more proof that they are throwing all of their resources into the fight. We are a magnet for all of the terrorists in the area, and if we stay, fight, and kill them it will be a huge step forward in the global war on terror.</p>
<p>Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran do not have to be attacked to bring about change. When the citizens of those countries see a free, democratic, prosperous Iraq, they will throw off the repression of their Islamic goverments. This will lead to the downfall of the terrorist groups in those countries because it is the Islamic goverment that allows them to operate. The young people in those countries will see the prosperity of Iraq and desire it for their own country - and they will know that they can't get it by becoming terrorists, but by destroying the terrorists themselves. You have to look at the big picture, if we win here, we won't anger more Islamic people, but bring more of them to our side.</p>
<p>Angrod...while I respect your opinion, it is completely wrong.</p>
<p>The new independent report specifically discusses the new generation of Iraqi youth that have taken up the cause against the United States. They do not want us there. That is why there is so much violence in the country. Currently, there are many foreign as well as domestic terrorists. I don't honestly believe that freedom for every country is a good thing. What makes our way of life more correct than theirs? Just because we are the US doesn't mean what we do is correct or that our way of life is any better than any other nation.</p>
<p>What makes you think that Saudi Arabians, Persians and Pakistanis will want to change their governments if the US is successful in Iraq (a big if)? Since they are the largest supporters of terrorism in the world, they would have no reason to change. The people in those countries right now view the US as a bunch of bullies, imposing our will on others. I can't blame them...because that is what we are doing. </p>
<p>The mass media is also making you think, angrod, that Iraqis love us being there. They don't. Once again, they see it as the bully theory. We are there because we are bigger and stronger..which doesn't make us right. People in the US media would like us to believe that Iraq is going to be one big happy democracy with freedom for all. This is just not going to happen. Even if, once again a big if, the elections take place this month (with a massive amount of voter fraud, I am sure), that doesn't mean the terrorists will just give up and say "Oops...couldn't stop it in time...lets just leave." In fact, they will heighten their attacks now that there is an elected leader of the country who has the responsibility. It will only provide more chaos.</p>
<p>"This is just not going to happen. Even if, once again a big if, the elections take place this month (with a massive amount of voter fraud, I am sure), that doesn't mean the terrorists will just give up and say "Oops...couldn't stop it in time...lets just leave." In fact, they will heighten their attacks now that there is an elected leader of the country who has the responsibility. It will only provide more chaos."</p>
<p>it's people like you, that had this type of mindset in the 80s, and all during the 50 years of the Cold War.</p>
<p>the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. all those US/Reagan-critics were mind-boggled. Especially the media. Nobody thought it was POSSIBLE. </p>
<p>Afghanistan had flawed, yes, but free elections in October of 2004...have they EVER had an election? nope? was there a thought in anyone's right mind that 10 million people would register and a woman would be the first to put her ballot in? </p>
<p>
[quote]
so Jaug, basically you're saying they were better off with Saddam in power...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Than they are right now? Clearly they were better off with Saddam in power. At least they had drinking water and houses that weren't being reduced to rubble. </p>
<p>In the long run, they might be better off, but tell that to the tens of thousands who have died in this war.</p>
<p>And you can't really compare the Cold War to this type of terrorism. An "Old War" required massive popular support. This new style of war requires only a very small faction of people, whose goals are not to attack and conquer, but simply to kill.</p>
<p>I bet there were people in Martin Luther King Jr's time that didn't believe segregation would end...but it did. </p>
<p>is Iraq ever giong to be a perfect place? will the US? no! but it takes time and struggle to get things going and for people to win their freedoms. </p>
<p>It took OUR country years and years to get independence, to end slavery, to give women rights, to end segregation and we STILL have stuff to gain and improve. </p>
<p>We've only been in Iraq for what? two years? Of course it's not a perfect place...there aer PEOPLE (such as the terrorists) that want to see a free Iraq fail. LOOK AT WHERE THEY TARGET! They target places where lines and lines of Iraqi men and women are signing up for/training to be national guards to protect the country. </p>
<p>Liberals want to appease the terrorists/insurgents. They want the terrorists to be happy. So that we don't have to do any more dirty work.</p>
<p>Ultimately, a peaceful/free Iraq is up to the Iraqi people themselves, but that doesn't mean it's not worth our efforts to help in the process. A free Iraq would be better for us and better for the Middle East.</p>
<p>But what is the use of elections that are rigged and fraudulent? I don't get it. Just because women put votes in a ballot box (the Bush hallmark line) doesn't mean that it was tallied due to the massive voter fraud. We need to revamp the US election system first before we start dealing with other countries because the past 2 elections have had mass voter fraud.</p>
<p>I don't see why everyone thinks Reagan was such a great President. He crippled the economy with supply-side economics and tax cuts and the reason why the Berlin Wall fell was because in Russia, Gorbachev instituted Perestroika and Glasnost, both of which made the Russian economy more compatible with free trade ideals, not having to do with any of Reagan's policies. Frankly, I can't see why people think Reagan was so great besides him being charismatic.</p>
<p>Reagan is one of the top five worst presidents in US history, right down in the Hall of Shame with Grant, Coolidge, Hoover and Jackson.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I bet there were people in Martin Luther King Jr's time that didn't believe segregation would end...but it did.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The difference is that what we're trying to do now is like ending racism. Sure, you can end segregation, but you can never end racism, just like you can never end Terrorism. It's a joke, just like the War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Hunger... it's all BS. I can't wait for the War on War.</p>
<p>Than they are right now? Clearly they were better off with Saddam in power. At least they had drinking water and houses that weren't being reduced to rubble.</p>
<p>ANDREW D. are you KIDDING me? So you're saying good infrastructure is what makes a country well off? wht makes a leader justified to stay in power? </p>
<p>wow this is how liberals think? so basically say one day our freedsoms were under threat---i guess it wouldn't be worth fighting for cuz that woudl mean war, violence, blood, and sweat. but as long as the leader gives us drinking water and electricity. then we can jsut sit back and let everything slide? </p>
<p>do you know how many people Saddam Hussein is responsible for torturing and slaughtering and oppressing? What primitive ways he used to punish people who spoke otu against the government? How many palaces he had??? </p>
<p>but then you're gonna say something like "oh but America is jsut as bad" </p>
<p>yeah i don't even want to debate with people like you. you embarass our country. </p>
<p>get the pictuer: this world isn't perfect. there are wars, and sometimes peace is something we need to fight for. Ghandi was peaceful. Martin Luther King Jr. as well, but even THEY both were assassinated and ended up giving their lives fors omething they strongly believed in.</p>
<p>This is a problem I have with you Pixie. You fall for every Conservative line in the book. "Democrats and Liberals sympathize with the terrorists..." GIVE ME A BREAK. All we are saying is that our presence there makes the more inflamed and it wasn't a necessity to attack Saddam when we did, until we had cleared up evidentiary mistakes and gotten to the real story. </p>
<p>You gave the exact reason why we are there Pixie "A free Iraq would be better for us..." OF COURSE! That way, when we want the oil in Iraq, we don't have to deal with illegal trade issues...we can just take it because we already occupy the country. And again, you and angrod have not given one solid piece of evidence that a free Iraq would change the sentiments of other arab nations.</p>
<p>
[quote]
ANDREW D. are you KIDDING me? So you're saying good infrastructure is what makes a country well off? wht makes a leader justified to stay in power?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, but when you trade one oppressive regime for a new oppressive regime AND destroy infrastructure, the people are worse off. If histroy has taught us anything, it's that the people will decide when the want democracy, and only bad things will happen if you try to jam it down their throats.</p>
<p>hey now...Saddam Hussein would have had NO problem giving us oil if we said "okay we dont' care what u do anymore, but we need ur oil and we'll pay u this much for it" </p>
<p>we don't have problems getting oil from Libya either---another very repressed country, but that leader was actually smart enough to conform to UN inspectors' wishes and revealed everything about hsi potential WMD programs (he probably got the drift that if he didn't listen, he might have a similar fate to Saddam's)</p>
<p>
[quote]
wishes and revealed everything about hsi potential WMD programs (he probably got the drift that if he didn't listen, he might have a similar fate to Saddam's)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>SADDAM HUSSEIN HAD NO MOTHER****ING WMD'S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY DON'T PEOPLE GET THIS?</p>
<p>And don't tell me "potential" WMD programs. Everyone has a potential to make a WMD. Luxembourg has a "potential" WMD program. Let's invade!</p>
<p>Oh good. Let's involve Libya...their government hasn't ever gassed and killed its own people in order to crush rebellion, and they never gave away nuclear arms secrets to any other nation...</p>
<p>Libya may be a worse country than Iraq if you really wanted to discuss it, but we haven't invaded them...why...because they give us THEIR oil. Iraq didn't want to use the dollar to trade oil. What happens? We invade them. Venezuela didnt want to use the dollar to trade oil. What happens? We sponsor an attempted assassination and coup.</p>
<p>SADDAM HUSSEIN HAD NO MOTHER****ING WMD'S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY DON'T PEOPLE GET THIS?</p>
<p>um well we did know he HAD them becuase he's USED them and tested them on his own poeple-- and UN inspection reports throughout the 90s claimed so as well....yeah our intelligence about the CURRENT weapons situation (as of 2001-2002) was funky when we went in and the scary thign is there's no proof they're destroyed...for all we know they could ahve been moved to Syria or something.</p>
<p>eh but even though Bush said we went in for WMD i don't think that was the real focus becuase we could have gone to other places in the world for thes ame reason. ....i figure we went into Iraq for the very PURPOSE of fighting the terrorists there because we knew they would come into the region if we went in. Better to fight haev Iraq as a front and fight them THERE than somewhere else? </p>
<p>Also, it's a job left unfinished. We were supposed to have gotten Saddam out of power a decade ago, and to let him stay in power and get richer --then potentially become a bigger terrorist funder than he was (hey he might have not funded Bin Laden, but he did fund HAMAS and Islamic Jihad publicly---this is a War on TERROR not a war against Osama) isn't exactly the best policy if we have the power to take him out. </p>
<p>i think by taking Saddam out it has plenty of implications---maybe the surrounding Arab countries won't believe the possible successful of democracy till they SEE it happen. but the fact is...we destroyed a part of terrorism's FINANCIAL network by taking Hussein out of power. therefore terrorist infrastructure as a whole is weaker.</p>
<p>if Iraq had nothing to do with terrorists, and if a Saddam-less Iraq wouldn't make terrorism weaker, and if Saddam really had nothing to do with terrorists...than all the Al Quaeda related people wouldn't waste all their efforts beheading citizens of other countries, and their honchos liek Al Zarqawi wouldn't waste their time or breath and stay there to force the US out.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i figure we went into Iraq for the very PURPOSE of fighting the terrorists there because we knew they would come into the region if we went in. Better to fight haev Iraq as a front and fight them THERE than somewhere else?
<p>Look at Saudi Arabia:
Oppressive government: Check
Massive popular hatred of America: Check
Terrorist breeding ground: Check
Terrorist funding operations: Check
Give us oil: Yep, so we're best buds!</p>
