Spain - A lesson for the U.S. - Time for Kerry to Demand Iraq Exit Now!

JFK should immediately call for the removal of all U.S. troops from Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. If we do this, maybe we can prevent an attack like Madrid before it is executed before our elections. I would suggest Poland, Japan, Italy, and especially the U.K. do the same. We need to borrow Spanish strategists who helped in the upset - Our Bodies, Your War. As for the Iraqis. They deserve what will happen to them after how they treated those that tried to build a new country with them after toppling their dictator. They'll sort it all out eventually - without our dollars and blood. Maybe they should ask the U.N. for some of the Oil for Food money that was squandered through corruption and buracracy.

. . .its our mess. I am against the war and I am against the occupation. We messed the place up and it would irresponsible for us to leave the place in worse condition than we found it. I opposed to war, but I also understand that we need to take responsibility for making things better. If we left now it would be a disaster. I support Spain's pullout, but they do not have the obligation that we do.

and Spain is not pulling out IMMEDIATELY. Isn't it scheduled for June?

My thoughts are similar to wndycty's... the loss of Spain's 1,300 troops will hurt, but pulling out the 100,000+ American troops would be patently irresponsible unless other arrangements are made. That will be Sen. Kerry's job.

for *. Let Turkey, Syria, Saudis, whomever go in there and take care of the people rather than whistling nervously while americans spend their future and expend their next generation. I am serious. Kerry ought to announce that - elect me and No U.S. Troops in Iraq by X-Mas - no matter what and let the camel droppings fall where they may. The whole world will love us again if we just get the h*ll out of the region and STAY OUT.

So let other countries send their children to die there because the US decided to invade Iraq? That is nice how we want to take responsibility for our deeds, isn't it?

dying for a long time. I do not want to appear heartless but we have NO BUSINESS there and should GET OUT (and stay out). If Bush started it, Kerry does not have to finish it, especially with our $$ and children's blood. See heading of this thread. We have to do something drastic to let the islamopsycho's know that we have changed and do not wish to be attacked again.

we have NO BUSINESS there and should GET OUT

Yes we do. You ever hear "You broke it. You bought it"?

If Bush started it, Kerry does not have to finish it

The *U.S.* did it.

and besides, that was not a concern when we finally had the sense to abandon the vietnam mess. We will save a lot more lives if we get out before we are thrown out/forced out. And we can stop Madrid style attacks that are surely on the way before our elections.

Congress voted on it. Are you going to argue that Congress is illegitimate?

that was not a concern when we finally had the sense to abandon the vietnam mess

VN had a govt. We destroyed Iraq's govt. Not the same, and besides, abandoning the Vietnamese does not justify abandoning the Iraqis. One crime does not justify another.

We will save a lot more lives if we get out before we are thrown out/forced out.

If you do not want to appear heartless and selfish, I advise you to stop making arguments that are hearless and selfish. I see absolutely no concern for the well-being of innocent Iraqis whose lives we have endangered in your posts. All I see is a concern to protect ourselves.

They (and JFK) were mislead by the administration and their (non)intelligence agencies. No declaration of war ever signed. It was supposed to be a last resort, not a showdown at sundown like it turned out to be. And since the premises were faulty (lies), the resolution should be nullified anyway.

And since the premises were faulty (lies), the resolution should be nullified anyway.

A wonderful idea. Too bad it has nothing to do with our laws. According to the Framers of our Constitution, it's the legislators' job to find out the facts. A lie does not nullify legislation

Kerry is obliged to follow international law in this matter, and as a signatory of the U.N. Charter, and other international conventions on war, the U.S. is now obliged to fix whatever mess was caused by Bush, regardless of the legality or illegality of the act of going to war.

One cannot state that one wants to abide by international law in circumstances that lead to the use of force, without abiding by the consequences and obligations brought about by having done so.

So like it or not, the U.S. is stuck in Iraq until a legitimate government is empowered, and that government accepted by the United Nations. The same thing unfortunately, is likely to be applied to Spain, as they did take part in the events that overthrew the existing government of Iraq, and took part in the acts that effected the infra structure.

THe Government of Spain , however, could call for and support United Nations involvement in Iraq, as well as the involvement of Germany, France, and other nations excluded from rebuilding efforts.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

let the camel droppings fall as they may...

i suppose you have nothing in your possesion that runs on gasoline or is made of plastic

i suppose you have not enjoyed the profits of hegemony or the windfall of the end of the cold war

these thigns came at the cost of liberty for iraqis

we owe them so much, far more than turkey

it isnt us vs them as a people, it cant be that, and we cant make it that, if we are going to be there, we need to fix the wrongs we've wrought there going back to the 50's and mossadeqh

but we cannot hide from the looks of it that Muslims want us to all be Muslims or dead....

First of all, MUSLIMS DO NOT WANT US TO ALL BE MUSLIMS OR DEAD. As a matter of fact, the Quran explicitly states that the followers of all monothiestic religions (including Christianity, Judaism, and even Zoroastrianism) are to be respected and treated well by Muslims.

Second of all, contrary to what western history likes to paint Islam as, it is inherantly NOT a religion of violence. The very core of Islam is based on compassion and justice for EVERYONE, even non-believers (non-Muslims). Even history shows this to be true: during the "golden age" of the Muslim Empire (8th-12th c.), both Christians and Jews held very powerful government positions

I myself am not a Muslim, but I have a great respect for this magnificent, peaceful religion that is practiced by nearly 1/5 of the worlds population.

I suggest you do some reading and/or research before making such blatantly slanderous claims about Muslims and Islam.

The reason Osama got pissed off at the US is because we kept troops in Saudi after the Gulf War. Had we withdrawn our troops from the region after the "liberation" of Kuwait, there's a very good chance 9/11 would not have happened (or the embassy bombings in Africa, for that matter).

And nobody is advocating that the US abandon Iraq-- far from it. We made the mess, and we should pay to clean it up. However, we are not the best people to do the job. It's like having somebody trash your house, who then sticks around and fixes it up "his way" instead of the way you want it.

We have no mandate or moral authority to occupy Iraq. Our mere presense there destabilizes the country. Get the UN in, and the US out, and relinquish all US control of the country.

when the CIA orchestrated General Aref's coup and the purges against communists and socialists.

It is time for us to leave!

Of course I'm sure that when Kerry becomes POTUS and mentions how Bush got us into this mess, the Republicans will find some way to blame it on Clinton. Or at least his penis.

Continued US occupation of Iraq will not lead to democracy much less stability in that country. Our very presence exacerbates an already hostile situation, and makes any form of peaceful resolution virtually impossible. What we should do is to foot the bill for the entire cost of rebuilding Iraq, go to the UN on bended knee and beg for them to take over with a multinational force, which the US pays for. The UN comes in, we go home, and Iraq will get better. Otherwise the US is going to be involved in an ongoing quagmire that will wind up with us abruptly pulling out anyway, with no greater good accomplished, much like the ending of the Vietnam war. Iraqis are not going to respond positively to any initiative taken by the US, after all we are the occupying enemy. However if remove ourselves from the equation, then Iraq has a good chance to recover under the auspices of the UN.

Kerry should be making this proposal, but he won't. He has already stated that he wants to up the anty by forty thousand troops. Various pundits and experts are stating that if we continue on our course that we could be looking at a US presence in Iraq of another five to ten years, and that is probably a conservative number. Kerry should get the US out and the UN in next year if he is elected. What greater contrast in policies and actions could he present than to make pulling out his top priority. But he won't. Having voted for the war, and still getting slammed for being soft on terror, Kerry is going to follow the script written out for him by his corporate masters. He is going to continue to call for more money and troops, while trying to outhawk Bushco. And this is one of many reasons he will lose.

If he made a concerted effort to present a comprehensive plan of withdrawl Kerry would win over those progressives and independents who don't want to be in Iraq, which is a very large portion of the US electorate. Instead he continues to go after those centerists and Reagan Dems, and if he continues this strategy will lose him two votes for every one gained. For those people who he is trying to persuade with his Bush lite routine are simply going to go for the real thing once the election comes around. Combine that with the fact that he will have pissed off his base, then who is he going to have voting for him?

well put, thank you Madhound

congratulation to the new Spaniard president. That will be enough to make bushie go crazy, and will give the perception that Kerry agrees with the new Spaniard President.

We should not pull out yet, and I'm sure Kerry has a full workable and winnable plan through the UN and world leaders. World leaders are cheering for a Kerry win and they will cooperate with Kerry.

n/t

Despite the fact that the I opposed the war immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be both irresponsible and strategically would a monumental blunder… the United States is NOT SPAIN 90% of voters do not oppose the war in Iraq here they do in Spain…where US forces to withdraw from France the UN would be hard-pressed to find the forces to replace them a massively accelerated program of democratisation would have to be embarked upon as US forces withdrew in a matter of months the entire of Iraq might well have degenerated into Civil War and Anarchy if Iraq posed a threat under Sadam (ha!) then wait till you see Islamic fundamentalists taking hold in the south of country backed by Iran and other extremist groups recruiting throughout Iraq while Turkey might well invade the north of the country to crush any attempts by the Kurds to create an independent nation…as before a policy of immediate withdrawal would be IRRESPONSIBLE, STRATEGICALLY UNWISE and most importantly would be a massive albatross round the party’s neck to carry into the election Bush hammers us on national security now see what he would do if our plan was an immediate withdrawal from Iraq he would call us weak on defence and irresponsible even deaf to our international obligations and Shrub for once would be right!

The Shiites should rule themselves, with Iran's help if they desire. It's not our country, it's theirs. With the only real stabilizing influence gone (Saddam), nature will correct the obvious imbalances in this nation that was poorly designed by the UK in the forties. As for the kurds, they will have to deal with the turks, and can call the U.N. for help if they can't do it alone. As for the former Baathists, they have the best parts of Iraq already, so they have no real beef once we are gone. As for iraqi oil, it's not ours anyway. As for civil wars, lot's of countries have civil wars - it's not our mandate to intercede in them all. Would have happened already anyway had Saddam not been there. As for looking out for our OWN interest for a change - that's what *** every *** european country has been doing througout this whole GD crisis (since the 80's) and we should feel and be NO DIFFERENT.

You obviously don't give a rat's ass about anyone but Americans.

nature will correct the obvious imbalances in this nation

Umm, civil war are not a part of "nature".

As for civil wars, lot's of countries have civil wars

As for looking out for our OWN interest for a change

I'm sorry, but didn't you say you did NOT want to appear heartless?

... that butchered tens of thousands of 'em

The Iraqis don't want us to leave just yet.

beats the old way they gave us messages: via an RPG.

they're telling news organizations. I'm surprised you'd think they told me.

must be accompanied by either increase of Iraqi control or international forces to at least maintain or improve conditions. It would be irresponsible to allow the country to descend into civil war so soon after we blew it up and overthrew the government.

would take over, but after a whole lot of bloodshed and oppression.

What a mess.

And cost the Vietnamese two million people, a devastated country, and an entire generation of peace. It also cost the Americans fifty thousand lives, many more wounded, some of which never recovered, and this country's innocence.

Would you really want to see the repeat performance? I'm sorry, but the best thing to do is pull out before we get anymore involved. Naturally the US should pay for ALL costs regarding supplying the UN peacekeepers and the rebuilding of Iraq. But if we continue to occupy Iraq, we will only exacerbate the situation, guaranteeing that no fruitful solution will come about. And once again, after the cost in blood is in the millions, the US will be forced to leave, leaving behind a situation no better than it is now. So why wait, why continue to shed innocent blood? We need to get the hell out NOW!

Vietnam had a govt when we pulled out, and the opposition was supported by big powerful nations. Iraq has no govt, and no support from any major nation.

Furthermore, VietNam did not and does not have the ethnic diversity that Iraq does, nor a history of one ethnic group oppressing another.

Unless you don't read your history. Let me give you a brush up

Vietnam isn't one monolithic group of homogenous people. There are ethnic Chinese, Thai, Cambodian, Laotians even Japanese from the WWII occupation. In addition there are many many tribal divisions, hill tribes, jungle tribes etc. If you wish to find out more, go type in "Vietnamese tribes" in your search engine. Better yet, for an overview on how some of these tribes affected the US and the Vietnam war, go purchase the book "The Politics of Heroin" by Alfred W. McCoy, I don't think it is in print though. Another excellent overview of ethnic diversity in Vietnam is Frances Fitzgerald's "Fire in the Lake".

As far as Vietnam having a government when we pulled out, that's a laugher. Much like we're doing now, we continously propped up a figurehead government and didn't allow the people the real tools to form a government. When we pulled out, South Vietnam fell into anarchy for awhile, a vacumn that was soon filled by the invading North Vietnamese Army.

The analogy is apt, the quagmire is real. And the time for us to get out is now. We can turn this over to the UN, pay for the peackeeping and rebuilding. Self governance will come sooner to Iraq without us involved, rather than us continuing to be the occupying enemy and having no self governance evolve. We have to pull out sooner or later, and whenever it happens, there is going to be chaos in it's wake. We can minimize it by pulling out now, rather than later.

Yes, there are different tribes and ethnicities in SE Asia, including Viet Nam. However, VN did not and does not have the history of inter-ethnic strife that Iraq has. There are some examples of anti-Chinese riots, which are not uncommon throughout SE Asia, but these tend to be economically-based, and not ethnically, because the Chinese often dominate the marketplace in many of these countries. IOW, not even close to Iraq.

And as far the weakness of the SVN govt when we left, yes it was a pitiful thing, but again, still far beyond what the Iraqi people have now. It was a year before the NVN took over the South, IIRC. And it was a quick and relatively painless compared to the years of war that preceded it. Do you think the Iraqi Civil War will be quick and relatively bloodless?

The rest of your post is filled with predictions. I won't comment except to say that it's your opinion, not fact.

You're flat out wrong on this one, and are just to stubborn to admit it. Have you read the books I recommended to you? Probably not, so here is a little quick and dirty on Vietnamese history, note this particular point:
"Most of the individual ethnic groups share basic, similar traits in their daily lives and are often most easily identified by differences in language, physical features and traditional dress. They have a rural, agricultural lifestyle and show similarities in village architecture and traditional rituals and have a long history of intertribal warfare." Note that last passage"have a long history of intertribal warfare." <http://www.vwam.com/vets/tribes/ethnicminorities.html> Gee, sounds sort of like Iraq, eh there Sang ol' buddy?

As far as the weakness of the South Vietnamese gov't after the US left, it was quite weak, soldiers deserted in droves. The only thing that kept the North Vietnamese from conquering sooner was their own need to regather their strength, and the fact that they were justly worried about the trouble caused by the CIA client Hmong tribe in the north, and what was happening with the budding Kmer Rhouge regime in Cambodia. Once these issues were settled, the North Vietnamese broke through the South Vietnamese lines like so much wet paper. And by the by, it wasn't "relatively bloodless". It was a nasty, ugly, ruthless bloody conquest, with the pent up fury of the North Vietnamese fully unleashed. Why do you think all of those South Vietnamese fled the country, swarmed the US helicopters as we bailed, and took to the sea in leaky boats? Because they knew what was coming. It is estimated that South Vietnamese casualties in the months after the US pulled out were in the tens if not hundreds of thousands, nobody is really certain.

My next question for you is how can you make any reasonable predictions of what is going to happen in the future if you are not familiar with the past?

So I stand by my statements, the US needs to pull out of Iraq now, pay for UN peacekeepers and the rebuilding of Iraq. This is the only way to prevent Iraq from turning into a Vietnam like quagmire. If the US continues to occupy Iraq, nothing of any great significance will be achieved, except for continued senseless bloodshed. The Iraqi people will not respond favorably to an ongoing presence by a country that they consider an occupying enemy. All that the US will accomplish by this illegal occupation is the looting of Iraq for its oil profits, and the death of hundreds of thousands of people. We need to leave now!

"have a long history of intertribal warfare."

And again, the level of ethnic hostilities is nowhere near what's gone on in Iraq. By trying to misportray my argument in an extreme manner (ie. I have not argued that VN was completely free of any and all ethnic tension) you are using an inherently dishonest technique of argumentum ad absurdum.

And by the by, it wasn't "relatively bloodless". It was a nasty, ugly, ruthless bloody conquest, with the pent up fury of the North Vietnamese fully unleashed. Why do you think all of those South Vietnamese fled the country, swarmed the US helicopters as we bailed, and took to the sea in leaky boats? Because they knew what was coming. It is estimated that South Vietnamese casualties in the months after the US pulled out were in the tens if not hundreds of thousands, nobody is really certain.

And now you are mixing apples with oranges to make it seem like you have more than you do. The people who fled the country while we bailed were not fleeing a war. They were fleeing the retribution from the NVN for supporting the SVN and/or US govt. Your use of those people and the "South Vietnamese casualties in the months after the US pulled out" (which was before the NVN took over the South) were NOT all casualties of war. and they certainly were not numbered in the 100's of thousands. Furthermore, the number of casualties in the years preceding our pullout where several times larger and included a larger percentage of non-combatants.


Iraq is not the same as Viet Nam. While there are important similarities, there are also important differences. Slogans and simplistic ideas will not benefit the Iraqi people or the American people.

And apparently you have none, for you have presented nothing with which to back up your happy ass. I presented books for you to peruse, quick links with which to verify my statements, and yet all you can offer up is simplistic drivel that wouldn't even confuse a freeper. Hell, you can't even get your Latin right:eyes:

Until you present something to back yourself up with, I'm done with you on this thread. I have better things to do than to try and convince somebody of basic history, when that person obviously wants to remain ignorant. Come back and talk when you have received a little better education, perhaps you can do like I did, go and actually talk to some Vietnamese who lived through that time period. Or perhaps read the books I recommended, or any other books on Vietnam for that matter. Something, anything to educate yourself so that you don't continously embarass yourself with your obvious lack of knowledge in this matter.

We disagree on their significance. Both Iraq and VN have had inter-ethnic hostilities. You interpret that to mean that their histories are similar in this respect. I have interpreted the differences in the amounts and severity of ethnic strife in those two countries as an indication of an important different.

When you can find a book that compares the level of ethnic hostilities in Iraq to that of VietNam's, then I'll supply a cite. Until then, our difference is a matter of interpretation and opinion.

WRT "basic history" - it's ahistorical to imply that those who fled SVN while we were withdrawing were casualties of the NVN's invasion of SVN. I'm not embarrased by anything I've said, but you should be embarrassed for having made that argument, and for comparing me to a Freepr. If you really had the facts on your side, you wouldn't have a desire to stoop to name-calling.

actually talk to some Vietnamese

A childhood friend's wife is SVN who fled after the NVN took over the South. She was held captive by the NVN Army and repeatedly beaten and raped. You can talk about how I should educate myself all you want, but your willingness to assume facts demonstrate that your commitment to fact depends on it's convenience.

Judging from your posts, I don't think you do. You just spew out shotgun style, and hope something sticks. Let me refresh you.

"We don't disagree on any of the facts"

Yes, we do, you have stridently disagreed with the facts I've presented, and then when I've sourced them, you slither off to some other topic. Some examples: "VietNam did not and does not have the ethnic diversity that Iraq does" Proved you wrong on that, so you slide off to "However, VN did not and does not have the history of inter-ethnic strife that Iraq has." I've given you a couple of books, and a quick internet site to prove you wrong, but you're still flogging that dead horse, give it up. Then this is in reference to the fighting after we left, " And it was a quick and relatively painless compared to the years of war that preceded it." I gave you figures and cites, yet you let that one slide. This is just three examples of where you disagreed with me on facts. And were proven wrong in each case

Meanwhile, as before, you continue to stick words in my mouth. An examples from your previous post:
"WRT "basic history" - it's ahistorical to imply that those who fled SVN while we were withdrawing were casualties of the NVN's invasion of SVN." I made no such statement, nor even such an implication. If you would bother to read what I've wrote, you will find that I said, " It is estimated that South Vietnamese casualties in the months after the US pulled out were in the tens if not hundreds of thousands, nobody is really certain." Casualties, the numbers I presented were of people killed, not fled. If you can't understand that, then that is your problem, I cannot do anything to improve your comprehension skills. I have asked you before to stop this little habit of yours, sticking words you want to hear into my mouth. It is annoying, and quite frankly shows up how weak your arguements are. Stick with what *I* write, not what you want to hear, OK!

"When you can find a book that compares the level of ethnic hostilities in Iraq to that of VietNam's, then I'll supply a cite. Until then, our difference is a matter of interpretation and opinion."

In other words, you want me to do your research for you. LOL Sang, but I don't do other peoples' work for them. I've provided plenty of books and sources for you to read, why don't you go do that, instead of clogging up a board with posts that demonstrate how little you know about what you're talking about. Perhaps then we can BOTH have an intelligent conversation. Until then, all you are doing is blowing hot air.

"VietNam did not and does not have the ethnic diversity that Iraq does" Proved you wrong on that

I still hold on to that. You showed that VN does have ethnic diversity, but you haven't shown that VN has as much or more than Iraq.

VN did not and does not have the history of inter-ethnic strife that Iraq has." I've given you a couple of books, and a quick internet site to prove you wrong

NO you didn't. You merely showed that VN had *some* inter-ethnic strife. You didn't show that it was comparable to Iraq's, and I stil haven't changed my opinion on that.

Then this is in reference to the fighting after we left, " And it was a quick and relatively painless compared to the years of war that preceded it." I gave you figures and cites, yet you let that one slide.

All you showed was that some people died. You did not refute my claim that it was *RELATIVELY* painless. In fact, you offered no comparison between what happened before we left, and what happened after.

SO again, we agree that there is some ethnic diversity in VN, there is some inter-ethnic strife in VN, and that people died in VN after we pulled out. Those are all facts, and we agree on them.

We do not agree that there is as much ethnic diversity in VN as there is in Iraq, or that there is as much inter-ethnic strife in VN as there is in Iraq, or that there was as much blood spilled by NVNs in VN after we pulled out as they spilled before we pulled out.

Furthermore, you have offered nothing to compare the two. You have only offered evidence for one side and that is not how a comparison is made.

As are periodicals, internet resources, etc etc. I suggest you go read. It is obvious from your posts that you pocess a stunning lack of knowledge about both Vietnamese and Iraqi history. You continue to prod me into giving you more and more information, when I already have given you plenty. GO DO YOUR OWN DAMN RESEARCH!! If you are trying to obtain knowledge, then there are better places to obtain it than an internet chat board. If you are simply trying to irritate me,(which is what I expect is the case from our previous encounters), well you have only partially succeeded. While I am a bit irritated, that main thing that I feel towards you is a combination of amusement and pity. Amusement at how transparent your motivations and arguements are, and pity that you are letting that mind of yours go to waste on a diet of untrue drivel.

Tell you what, when you have something real to bring to the table, let me know. For now I suggest you scurry off and go READ. For if you don't read, you don't have any sources to back your assertions up, and if you can't back your assertions up, then all you can do is what you're doing now, spouting meaningless drivel on topics you know nothing about.

I haven't prodded you into doing anything. Try and take some responsibility. I have offered my opinion that VN does not have the same ethnic diversity and tensions that Iraq does. You disagree and have, on your own initiative, posted some facts that you think support your arguments.

In return, I have agreed with the facts you posted, but disagreed as to their importance and disagree with you that they refute what I've said, both of which are matters of opinion, not fact.

Tell you what, when you have something real to bring to the table, let me know. For now I suggest you scurry off and go READ. For if you don't read, you don't have any sources to back your assertions up, and if you can't back your assertions up, then all you can do is what you're doing now, spouting meaningless drivel on topics you know nothing about.

I am not making assertions. I am posting opinions, my opinions. There are no books to cite for my opinions. There are books to cite for facts, but we agree on the facts.

Political suicide.

Kerry, if he does anything, just shakes his head and says: What a mess Iraq has turned out to be. He says: If * had followed up on getting the UN onboard in the first place - like his daddy did in the first war - we wouldn't be in such a mess. Neither would Iraq.

To do much of anything else would be suicide.

.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It is about the costs this country will pay in blood, lives, money and world regard. It is about the costs Iraq will pay in blood, lives, money, destroyed infrastucture, and a destroyed society.

The longer the US stays in Iraq, the greater the damage done. Iraq is not going to be peaceful or quiesent while a country that for the most part it considers an enemy occupies it. We have the example of Vietnam clear before us, where we overstayed our welcome, and unfortunately all countries involved in that quagmire paid a heavy price. Do we really want to repeat that mistake? Can we really afford to?

I am not saying the the US shouldn't pay for it's current Iraq folly. On the contrary, the US should pay for all of the costs of rebuilding Iraq and keeping the peace. However these projects should be undertaken by the UN, a world organization, rather than the US, an imperial one.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The US invaded an Islamic country in 1991 and then stationed thousands of American troops and tons of military hardware in Saudi Arabia for over a decade afterward which some people viewed as an occupation.

Think there may be a connection there somewhere?

Don

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Can you be more descriptive?

Don

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And I am not saying he didn't do it either. I am just saying that there are many groups who wish ill toward the USA and her allies. bin Laden could have done it. Could have been others. We do know there were 15 Saudis on those planes on 9/11. And that Saudi Arabia is one of the countries where we left thousands of American troops after the Gulf War. I just think there may be a connection there. You may think it is just a coincidence perhaps?

I think al queda is an overused term which covers any Muslim person who dislikes the USA for whatever reason. I suspect if Tim McVeighs license plate had not been blown off his car and he had not been pulled over speeding away from the Murrah Federal building we would have assumed al queda had blown up that building too?

Don

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But I understood the need after 9/11 for the USA to do something. Even if it was wrong. So I am not second guessing anyone who voted to invade. If it were my call after I would have treated the attack on 9/11 as a crime and used any asset available to me, including the military if need be to bring the perpetrators to justice.

My greatest concern would not be for making sure that the criminals get a fair trial either. The reason is that I would want to be absolutely sure as I could be that those who I had caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law were the guilty people.

Don

This is EXACTLY why OBL turned his wrath against the US! He even stated as much after the bombings of US embassies in east Africa!

Until then, he was (ostensibly) on "our side". But when the US insisted on keeping our troops in Saudi after the Gulf War, he changed his tune.

Which is the EXACT reason why we need to get US troops out of the region! Our presense only ADDS to the instability-- it does nothing to "stablize" the region, and only reinforces the words of the radical Islamists that we're there to enforce our will upon them.

It's amazing how fast these things head down the memory hole, isn't it?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Maybe just pulling out the troops sounds too simplistic, but most of Al-Qaida's grudge against the US was that they stationed troops in Saudi, which is the home of the two most important places in Islam: Mecca, Muhammad's birthplace (also where the Quran was revealed to him), and Medina, where Muhammad was exiled when he was driven out of Mecca.

It may not solve the whole problem, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction, along with getting Israel to abide by UN resolutions and return to its pre-1967 borders.

By doing these two things, we could seriously resolve about 90% of the conflict the Arab and Muslim world has with the US.

Will it resolve everything? Probably not. But it will certainly be a giant step in the right direction.

Er, ah, Magistrate, Sir. What do you think should be done? What about some of the other deep thinkers here? What do you guys and gals think is the best thing to do with this Iraq mess? Your input would be greatly appreciated.

Don

shouldn't have voted for the war. Everything that is occuring now was predicted by many, and it doesn't matter whether the UN was involved or not, because if they had supported the invasion, they (the UN) would have been seen as a tool of the US, and lost legitimacy. There is no realistic way that this war could have turned out any differently than it has, and yes, if we pull out now there will be more chaos, but that is going to happen no matter what we do.

he's afraid of us being bombed by Al Qaeda, at this point, he will look very soft on terror. He'd lose.

Kerry needs to be affirmatively anti-Al-Qaeda, and show that his resolve is not affected by them. We have to kill them.


What he REALLY, REALLY needs to do is MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE IRAQ WAR AND THE WAR ON TERROR.

I can only hope that we will eventually get a leader who will be dedicated to taking small steps toward stability and peace in the middle eastern countries. I don't think Kerry is the man who will do this but I think he will take some steps in the right direction. One thing's for sure, if we plan to make any progress we need shrub out of the white house.

let me follow your logic here: 80% of the Spanish public opposes the war. But they should vote for a pro-war government because...?

V