Comments interspersed...

"This war has gone on a WEEK and you're ready to pull out while we're winning decisively and doing so with what amounts to the least amount of casualties in the history of warfare in the history of the world. "


Yep, we are winning decisively and will continue to do so, but the Iraqi people DONT WANT US THERE. ITS AFTER THE 'WAR' ENDS THAT WILL BE THE PROBLEM!!

Says you. I think they do want us there and that we will see a remarkable attitude shift once Saddam's goonsquad can't kill off their loved ones if they look like they want to revolt or stop fighting.

After the war will come the easy part. The region is very unstable. Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Turkey and Iran all are experiencing political unrest. By conquering the big bully of the middle east they immediately put the fear of Allah into these folks.

No one will shed tears for Saddam and America's welcome mat will be extended for as long as we contribute to the rebuilding and stabilizing process.

Sure Bowser may scoff at the selection of Halliburton to administer the oil fields but it makes perfect sense. Once big business has a vested interest in the region it creates an economic zone almost instantly. This means development money, security and modernization for Iraq.


"I'll tell you what's wrong - you're the victim of the media-spin that says if we have suffered ANY casualties we must be losing and that Saddam really is loved by his people "


Damn, I hate it when you do this juvenile crap, Tech1.



Of course we have not suffered hardly any casualties. OF COURSE SADDAM IS HATED BY THE IRAQIS. But so are we. What idiot dip$#!+ are you that thinks this is a dichotomy- US or Saddam? God! Use your head man!



There you go again. We are hated by Saddam and his extended family in Tikrit and by a percentage of the general populace. The Kurds ARE Iraqis - almost to the last one of them they welcomed us to wage this war - begged us to even. They want Kirkuk and their ancestral lands, they want their freedom to be permanent and not dependant upon a no-fly zone.

The bottom line is: it is a dichotomy - the US or Saddam. For the average Iraqi there are no other alternatives at this point.


"Right?"

Clone your single amoeba-pretending-to-be-Neuron and you MIGHT have 2 brain-cells to rub together.



You know, I think you are wrong just about everytime you crack that mouth of yours, but at least I READ YOUR POST and reply on content, not on fabrication.



Yes, I know you think I am wrong and I think you are often wrong, so we see eye-to-eye there. Maybe we were reading two different posts, but yours sounded like someone holding up a placard that reads: US Forsaken! The end of the world is at hand!


Of course we will win the military conflict by a Oklahoma acre. That is not open for debate. We will probably end up with FEWER casualties than what we had in the first gulf war!

Well I wouldn't go that far. In fact I estimate when all is said and done we will lose up to 10,000 men and women. Most of them due to some form of WMD attacks on the last days.


As for the age, you are light by 50% more than a photons trip to alpha centauri

Let's see...50% more than four would be 2 that would make you 26, if I read that line right, otherwise you are 30.

I remember Carter very well and did not like the man even as a child. I do not trust ANY mainstream media, and get most of my data by reading papers in three different countries and balancing what is said against eachother, plus searching out the original facts for myself. Media research occupies about 1/2 to a whole hour of my day.

Good for you. Multiple sources help to balance views. Google newsis probably the web's best source for tapping up global views in a hurry. Having a search function for news stories blows the mainstream out of the water.


And if you want to avoid the long, extended casualty ridden conflict, you will take a looong look at the politics on the ground and conclude our administration had better get the right idea about what is going on in the 'hearts and minds' of the Iraqi people and act accordingly.

Hearts and minds that despise us can be won over in time, and when they have experienced true US style freedom. Right now they are property of Saddam to kill, abuse or keep in poverty as he builds his 101st palace. The longterm outlook to me looks very good.

You also ignore one of the main reasons Bush has taken the war on terror to Iraq.

Every chess player knows you can't win a chess game by being defensive. You MUST be offensive to keep your enemy imbalanced and weak. Afghanistan and Iraq have shifted the target from America's shores and cities to the backyard of the fundamentalists world. It is damn clever and folks can expend their anti-US hatred far easier by a short trip to Iraq or Afghanistan and the perceived "puppet" government.

Yes, this war serves "regime change" AND serves the "war on terror" simultaneously. Once Saddam falls it really moves the target. Fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia will be busy trying to keep their country from enacting democratic reforms and will be plotting terror in Iraq much as they do in Israel. This is EXACTLY what the think-tanks who advocated such a course of action after 9/11 had suggested.


If you think I am unhinged, you are right.


Are you unhinged? I hope not!


If you think we should move over to flame, you are right.

Flame for this? Heck, Lindy just called me a "vile and hateful" person on the space board. Coming from a lady, that hurts far worse and makes your angry words seem like cotton candy.


I am sick of people responding to something other than what I wrote and trying to have an argument with someone else.

No. I was posting to you. Nobody else.

;-) (overused don't you know)


This happens all too often here. You live in a damn fantasy world, tech1, where everyone who dares disagree is some sort of wild-eyed radical who is too young to know his ass from a hole in the ground.

No, a "wild-eyed radical" OR someone "who is too young to know his ass from a hole in the ground." Seldom do the two converge upon youth. Young radicals are not "wild-eyed" instead are simply heavily pierced. And to be honest they are not radicals at that young age but are really conformists. They have been molded by the commercials and music videos they watch and by the teachers who expose the new, big, wide world in a left of center manner. It is the conservative students or for example the young republicans at Berkeley who are truly "radicals" and face the scorn of their peers - and teachers - for the views they hold. Today the "wild-eyed radicals" are the teachers who lead their students in protest, burn the US flag in class and rant about imperialism or encourage them to march out of class while they look the other way.

SDAI-Tech1