HELP: Democratic friend needs convincing that Iraq war is unnecessary...

[stilladeaniac]

I've tried to convince him time and time again, that the Iraq war was unjust but is steadfast in his beliefs.

So I made the excellent suggestion of having you guys defunk his points.

His points:

#1) Sadamn broke the treaty
#2) Diplomacy for 8 years under Clinton
#3) Iraq is a strategic place in the world to further American interests & to strike out at "misbehaving" countries
#4) He doesn't agree with the way Bush went about presenting the war to the American people, but he still believes it was necessary.

He's going to register to the Forum and see what ya'll have to say about his points and respond.

Note: He is very stubborn, expect much resistance.

Stilladeaniac

[G_j]

1. shouldn't he be a Republican?

"Iraq is a strategic place in the world to further American interests & to strike out at "misbehaving" countries"

or is that also a Democratic value?

[stilladeaniac]

7. Well noone is all Republican or all democrat on the issues...

He happens to disagree with the Democrats on Foreign Policy, but for the most part supports Democratic agenda.

Stilladeaniac

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Well, does that mean he is voting for Bu$h?

Cause on the one hand I'm concerned about his point of view, but if he dislikes Bu$h for other reasons and is therefore voting for Kerry, I don't want to harass him over what he thinks of the war til he switches sides.


--------------------------------------------------------
An open letter to John Kerry, John Edwards, and the DNC:
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/OpenLetter.htm

[stilladeaniac]

13. No...He'll be voting for Kerry. n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

20. Then I hate to say it, but let this ride til after the election.

[lapfog_1]

3. He is not a democrat, he is a NEOCON - EOM

[sandnsea]

4. Here's another approach

Letting the inspectors finish their job with a willingness to listen to what they had to say. Once we found there were no WMD, peacekeepers in the no fly zones, money straight to the NGO's, rebuild those parts of the country that were being hurt by sanctions. Build strong communities and governments there first. Then squeeze Saddam out, like we did Marcos and so many other dictators in the past. We didn't have to go to war and even if we eventually did, strong governments in place in the north and south would have made the task so much easier.

[shoelace414]

5. ok..

#1) Sadamn broke the treaty

you mean the one that said he can't have WMD's?

#2) Diplomacy for 8 years under Clinton

Worked.. he never reconsituted his military, nor did he make more WMD's

#3) Iraq is a strategic place in the world to further American interests & to strike out at "misbehaving" countries

We gave the country back.

#4) He doesn't agree with the way Bush went about presenting the war to the American people, but he still believes it was necessary

why? what did it gain us? was it worth 200 billion dollars and ~1000 american soliders lives.

[whistle]

6. Suggest he go to see F9/11 either on his own or with you....

...You both may see things differently regardless of what he actually decides to do. Remember, we can't change anyone, some people just may not be ready for enlightenment. But, we can do our best to carry the message of truth. The truth will set us free.

[stilladeaniac]

9. He has seen Fahrenheit 9/11...

and he didn't like how Michael Moore portrayed the Iraq war.

[Skittles]

8. tell me where he lives

I WILL KICK HIS ASS.

[stilladeaniac]

10. A little background

A little background:

He is African American, mid 20s, served in the Army/National Guard pre 9/11...

StillAdeaniac

[stilladeaniac]

11. And works for a defense contractor(with me)....building WMDS(fighters) n/t

[gcomeau]

12. My take on it.

#1: That was being dealt with. The UN had inspectors in the country until they were forced to leave BY BUSH when he issued his ultimatum to Saddam. The inspectors called the decision to withdraw them unreasonable.

#2. During which Saddam wasn't a threat to anybody except the occasional plane patrolling Iraqi airspace that he took a potshot at. Don't take our word for it, take Powell's. I'm sure plenty of people have seen this one but it never hurts to bring it up again for those who haven't:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm

"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.

#3: Is hardly the justification you want to use for declaring war. North America is a pretty strategic place too. Does that mean other countries are justified in declaring war on the U.S. preemptively so they can grab the real estate? Kuwait was a pretty strategic place for Iraq in the 90s. What was the reason the U.S. and it's allies had for launching the first gulf war again? Ahh yes... the totally illegal invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Hypocrisy is not the reputation you're striving for with a foreign policy.

#4 should be answered by the responses to 1, 2, and 3.

-Grant

[el_gato]

14. The long and ugly history of western involvement in the mid-east

This is a subject that does not lend itself to cursory
examination. The west has been involved in ruling
the middle east ever since the British Empire decided
they wanted to destroy the Ottoman Empire and engage
in territorial expansion. The turks never attacked the
british but the brits were worried about being cut off
one day by Russian expansion from their holdings in India.
Thus the Prime Minister of England Lloyd George, along
with a host of other brits set about destoying the
Ottoman Empire. France was also involved in this
endeavor because they were seeking territorial expansion
as well. I am referring here to the famous Sykes-Picot
agreement between France and Britain. In this agreement
France and Britain agreed to split the spoils between
them. Supposedly T.E. Lawrence was dismayed to hear
about this agreement as he thought he was fighting
for Arab independence (or at least some of the historians
claim this about Lawrence).

Ultimately the U.S. inherited the british control of the
middle east. Remember the Shah? As well it was the
CIA who supported Saddams rise to power. He was just fine
and dandy with Reagan and Rumsfeld until he started
drilling on the Kuwaiti border.

Maybe if your friend is looking for simple answers he
should reconsider his interest in global politics
all together. However, if he is willing to do some
research he will see that this entire affair is about
U.S. global hegemony on behalf of corporate interests.
Back as far as 1919 Standard Oil (based in New Jersey)
was in talks with the British regarding the oil reserves
in Iraq as if the brits had a right to dole out the
resources that rightfully belong to the people of the
middle east.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[DrWeird]

27. So you're saying you're a crook.

You'll be happy to kill people and steal their land and oil, as long as it benefits you personally.

OK, Osama.

[stilladeaniac]

29. GDOOOGG is the friend in question btw n/t

[DrWeird]

35. So now where'd he run off to?

Is he chicken?

[chiburb]

36. Check the graveyard.... n/t

.

[chiburb]

37. MODS:

Good, quick work. I think you tied the record for fewest posts before the graveyard!
You rock!

[stilladeaniac]

41. WTF...Why did you DELETE/BAN?????

He was a democrat, expressing his opionion within the context of MY POST. I was trying to compile reasons (for him to read and debate) that would show him why the Iraq war was unjust.

Its a sad day when the Underground has become a facist realm where thoughtful opinions contrary to the Mainstream of the Democratic party(but ironically shared by our nominee) are SILENCED. My opinion of DU and its administrators has lessened dramatically as a result.

Sure you may not care...you may look at my post count and say BYE BYE freeper, but I am not a conservative in the least.

After this experience, I am more skeptical of my Democratic brethren. I don't think ANY of those cheering or directly involved in the CENSORSHIP have any right to call W facist without being outright hypocritical.

Stilladeaniac

[stilladeaniac]

39. He left work to goto Louisiana n/t

[DrWeird]

38. Looks like your buddy was no democrat.

In fact, it looks like he was a racist republican chickenhawk.

Tell him I said that.

[stilladeaniac]

42. Just because he happens to disagree on foreign policy....

Doesn't make him a republican.

Let's see, who's pro-Iraq war Mr. Short-Sighted....
Too hard for ya?? Well, our presedential nominee and our vice presidential nominee of course. They beat the drums for war just as much as the rest of them. Do they have a right to call themselves Democrats? Ummm...Apparently so. Even though 95% of Democrats disagree with them on the Iraq War, he is still taking that stance. Isn't he a gun-lover too? Must be a Republican according to your warped logic!!!

He agrees with Democrats on everything besides foreign policy...
Health Care
Minimum Wage
Environment
Etc...

You should rename yourself from Dr. Weird to Dr. Stupid.

And you are the first person I've ever heard call an African American who served in the army a racist chickenhawk. But I guess there is a first for everything. Crap you should contact Guiness and enter yourself in the stupidest person on the face of this earth category. Crap, You might even give W a run for his money.


Stilladeaniac

[DrWeird]

45. Looks like the mods disagree with you.

If Kerry had been president we'd never have gone to Iraq.

Now that your boy is there, Kerry's of the opinion that we've got to stick around and clean up the mess. So I'll hold my nose and vote for him.

And what makes you think I'm for gun control?

Change my name from Dr. Weird to Dr. Stupid? I know you are, but what am I?

You're buddy's a chickenhawk. He supports the war from behind a computer screen, he's willing to send kids there to kill and die, yet he won't go there himself. To old to re-enlist? I hear Blackwater's got a couple positions open. And he's a racist because it's OK when he does it, but not OK when Saddam does it.

African American? Doubt it. He lied when he signed that online agreement not to be a conservative disruptor, that's probably a lie too. In fact, I doubt he ever served in the Army, and I"m betting you and he are one and the same.

[stilladeaniac]

46. Response....

"Looks like the mods disagree with you."
For all I know you are the mod or maybe your friend...

"If Kerry had been president we'd never have gone to Iraq.
Now that your boy is there, Kerry's of the opinion that we've got to stick around and clean up the mess. So I'll hold my nose and vote for him.
And what makes you think I'm for gun control?"

He voted for the Iraq war and believed like all the other soft democrats that . If popular opinion says LET'S GO, Let's GO! He still won't even say he was wrong or even that he cast his vote because he was lied to. Didn't say you were for gun control, just was showing that one issue doesn't EQUATE to DEMOCRAT or REPUBLICAN, but apparently that was too hard for you to follow.

"Change my name from Dr. Weird to Dr. Stupid? I know you are, but what am I?"

I stand by my remark. That was an incredibly stupid thing for you to say.

"You're buddy's a chickenhawk. He supports the war from behind a computer screen, he's willing to send kids there to kill and die, yet he won't go there himself. To old to re-enlist? I hear Blackwater's got a couple positions open. And he's a racist because it's OK when he does it, but not OK when Saddam does it."

So John Mccain is a chickenhawk to then by your logic? Since he advocates war while not currently serving???

"African American? Doubt it. He lied when he signed that online agreement not to be a conservative disruptor, that's probably a lie too. In fact, I doubt he ever served in the Army, and I"m betting you and he are one and the same."

I detailed his background a few minutes after my 1st post...and certainly before you let your hateful allegations sling...
Please see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2102885&mesg_id=2103065&page=

[DrWeird]

48. response response.

"For all I know you are the mod or maybe your friend..."

I'm not a mod. And we're all friends around here.

"He voted for the Iraq war and believed like all the other soft democrats that . If popular opinion says LET'S GO, Let's GO! He still won't even say he was wrong or even that he cast his vote because he was lied to. Didn't say you were for gun control, just was showing that one issue doesn't EQUATE to DEMOCRAT or REPUBLICAN, but apparently that was too hard for you to follow."

No, he voted to give the president authority to invade Iraq. After the president lied and said Iraq was an eminent threat to US security via WMDs. And the vote was pretty much meaningless anyways. Bush would still attack, and Kerry would have looked soft on defense if he hadn't voted that way.


"Change my name from Dr. Weird to Dr. Stupid? I know you are, but what am I?"
I stand by my remark. That was an incredibly stupid thing for you to say.

I stand by my remark too. Compare what I said with, "change your name from Dr. Weird to Dr. Stupid." One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just isn't the same.

"You're buddy's a chickenhawk. He supports the war from behind a computer screen, he's willing to send kids there to kill and die, yet he won't go there himself. To old to re-enlist? I hear Blackwater's got a couple positions open. And he's a racist because it's OK when he does it, but not OK when Saddam does it."

"So John Mccain is a chickenhawk to then by your logic? Since he advocates war while not currently serving???"

John McCain's a worthless racist piece of shit. He's obviously not a coward like your buddy, since he actually saw action. I'll give him that much.

Hey, maybe "your friend" was actually in the army. And maybe I'm seven feet tall and shoot lasers out my eyes. If anybody's hateful it's the nazi who wants to invade other countries and steal their stuff.

[stilladeaniac]

49. Response response response

"I'm not a mod. And we're all friends around here."

I was trying to be friends (I even commented you on your first post) until you called my African American Democratic coworker who served in the military (stationed overseas btw) a Republican Racist Chickenhawk. I can't think of a worse thing to say. Next to being offended, the first thing he asked me when I told him what you said was "How can I be racist"? I'd give you his phone number so you could hear his African American voice if you weren't such a hateful illogical person whom I didn't fear could do something rash.

"No, he voted to give the president authority to invade Iraq. After the president lied and said Iraq was an eminent threat to US security via WMDs. And the vote was pretty much meaningless anyways. Bush would still attack, and Kerry would have looked soft on defense if he hadn't voted that way."

Don't feed me semantics. He did the illogical. He voted for the war. Michael Moore, Dennis Kucinich, Edward Kennedy, and Howard Dean all took anti-War stances pre-War and in the case of Kucinich/Kennedy actually voted against it.

I will hold my nose and vote for him too despite his pro-war stance.

"I stand by my remark too. Compare what I said with, "change your name from Dr. Weird to Dr. Stupid." One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just isn't the same."

Change your name from Dr. Weird to Dr. Stupid is pretty tame compared to calling an Democratic African American who served in the military overseas protecting our country a Racist Republican Chickenhawk. If I offended you I'm sorry, but fuck if ever did you offend my friend.

"John McCain's a worthless racist piece of shit. He's obviously not a coward like your buddy, since he actually saw action. I'll give him that much. Hey, maybe "your friend" was actually in the army. And maybe I'm seven feet tall and shoot lasers out my eyes. If anybody's hateful it's the nazi who wants to invade other countries and steal their stuff."

Didn't like my timestamp on my last post eh? Too hard to come to grips with reality. You're only retort is that I'm lieing in my claim that my friend is who I say he is. Pretty sad actually. I got a timestamp saying this before you even wrote your 1st post, wtf do you got to say that I'm lieing?

[DrWeird]

50. Want to know what a worse thing to say than....

"racist republican chickenhawk?"

It's "I support the war in Iraq."

Which is what your friend said. Worse than that, he tried to defend it by saying how we have some kind of Gods given right to invade, kill people, and steal all their stuff. It's a racist war, and people who support it, whether you're white or African-American, or whether you "talk like an African-American."

Look, we know your buddy is a damn liar. He signed the on-line agreement not to be a disrupter, and he lied. Given that you support him, makes me think you're a liar too.

But maybe you just hate people who are seven feet tall and shoot lasers out their eyes.

[stilladeaniac]

51. Response Response Response Response

Resorting to "laser shoot out you eyes liar" eh?

When faced with the truth (my timestamp) you completly ignore it. It's ok, some people, like Bush and you are ignorant.

"Look, we know your buddy is a damn liar. He signed the on-line agreement not to be a disrupter, and he lied. Given that you support him, makes me think you're a liar too."

Disruptor? How was he disrupting? You knew full well when I wrote the initial post his background(Democrat African American miltary) and that he would be registering and responding to people's viewpoints on the Iraq war for the sake of healthy debate. How come it was OK for you then? I guess that makes you as much an enabler as I am?

And are you really that stupid:

"I support the war in Iraq." is a worse thing to say than "Republican Racist Chickenhawk" to an African American who shares Democratic ideals on everything except foreign policy and who comes from a miltary background

Wow, I feel for your mother. How was it like for her to raise a kid with disabilities?

[DrWeird]

56. What's this "time stamp" business?

How was he disrupting? Ask the mods.

And I've reread your initial post, where do you say he's African American? And what does that have to do with not being a racist?

Support a racist war, you're a damn racist. It's not rocket science.

Look, you claim to be a Dean supporter. Yet you're friends with a guy who supports the war in Iraq on the stupidest of reasons. That doesn't make any sense.

My mom's fine, thanks for asking. How's your mom doing? Is she still sitting on that foam donut since the last time I was over?

[stilladeaniac]

60. RE: What's this Timestamp business

Timestamped before your first post in this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2102885&mesg_id=2103065&page=

I mentioned this before here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2102885&mesg_id=2104942&page=

but I guess you must have ignored it like everything else I've said because you are fully comfortable in your beliefs.

Why am I friends with him? You really show your ignorance in asking this question. Cause friendships transcends politics. I live in Texas, wtf, would you like me to do become a hermit? Michael Moore and Howard Dean at the Democracy Now event just the other day said that we shouldn't stop being friends with people because they support the war. What a coincidence.

I'm done repsonding to you. While I may agree with you on politics you are grossly ignorant on everything else.

StillADeaniac

[stilladeaniac]

52. Please just be a man....

and apologize.

Sure he was guilty of calling you a "flower child" if I recall. But fuck if it's alright to call an African American racist. You don't know the first thing about racism and it offends me that anyone would even think of saying such a thing to a person of color.

Stilladeaniac

[DrWeird]

57. Tell you what.

I'll apologize to him when he goes to Iraq and apologizes to every single Iraqi he's helped rape, torture, and murder.

And since when have African Americans been incapable of being racist?

[DrWeird]

32. Still waiting for a reply.

Look, by your logic, one country can invade another for territory and oil.

Are you saying it was OK for Saddam to invade Kuwait?

[Sparkly]

15. Just two questions

1. What was the reason the Chimp stated for invading Iraq? It wasn't anything your friend said. It was supposedly to defend the U.S. from the "gathering threat" of Saddam's WMD's -- nothing more, nothing less.

2. Did the Chimp do what he said he'd do with the IWR, or did he rush in without even attempting to complete inspections, prove his case, and gather allies?

[ibegurpard]

16. Why?

The rhetoric coming from the party shouldn't give him any reason to question his beliefs.

[Jacobin]

17. The question is backwards

You NEVER ask "why a war is UNnecessary". War is an absolute and total last resort to be avoided unless there is no possible way to avoid it.

The dime is on HIM!! Ask him WHY THE WAR WAS NECESSARY.

You don't go conquering countries for sport or to "further interests" unless you are a Hitler or an empire builder

If he is an empire builder, then he's no democrat, at least not one I'd like to have anything to do with.

The invasion was done on a fucking pretext, he knows, it, the world knows it, Smirk knows it, and NO ONE is fooled.

If he likes it so much, he should volunteer for the army and ask to be sent to IraqNam.

THEN ask him how great an idea it was.

Stupid fucker.

[stilladeaniac]

21. Not any help...

"War is an absolute and total last resort to be avoided unless there is no possible way to avoid it."
He doesn't believe in your assertion so I can't use that.

"If he is an empire builder, then he's no democrat, at least not one I'd like to have anything to do with."
He acknowledges he is an imperialist, so no luck there either.

"The invasion was done on a fucking pretext, he knows, it, the world knows it, Smirk knows it, and NO ONE is fooled."
He acknowledges that Bush misled us, but still believes the war was right.

"If he likes it so much, he should volunteer for the army and ask to be sent to IraqNam."
He served his time in the Army so the argument there is moot.


Stilladeaniac

[Jacobin]

34. Then, what's the point in talking to him?

Sounds like a warmongering republican to me.

[stilladeaniac]

43. He may be a warmonger but he's no Republican....

And yes, I find it hard talking to him, that's why I'm here.

[killbotfactory]

18. Hmm...

1. We used the CIA to spy on Saddam during weapons inspections, then when Saddam got uppity about it, we halted inspections and bombed any and every suspected WMD site during Operation Desert Fox. Neither side was being 100% honest about the situation. That's just reality in international politics.

2. It worked. The no fly zones were cheap to maintain and Iraq was neutralized as a threat.

3. We had military bases all over the Middle East. We have aircraft carriers capable of striking pretty much any ME nation. If a ME nation "misbehaved" we already had the ability to strike them at our whim.

The only strategic advantage occupying Iraq has is for staging a full scale invasion of Syria or Iran, which would just be insane. We could never get any important country to go along with it, and we'd over-extend our military while bankrupting our nation. If you want to see the day when the US is no longer a superpower, then invade those two nations.

Syria and Iran only have significant ties with anti-Israeli terrorists. And nobody in that conflict is 100$% honest (again, just the reality of international politics). It's a messy situation. I'm not comfortable invading other nations for the benefit of Israel, especially when it would mean weakening us militarily and economically, and uniting pretty much the entire ME population against us. If you thought the occupation was bad now, it would become infinitely worse if we went and invaded ANOTHER ME country which posed no threat to us.

I've also heard theories about how we can use Iraq's oil to disengage from Saudi Arabia and then make them change their ways. That's just a laughable fantasy, considering how much the Saudi's have invested in the US and their close personal ties with the Bush family. Want to see the US bankrupted? Want to see the muslim world cry for our death? Want to see moderate muslim's join the side of violent anti-Americanism? Then invade Saudi Arabia. Hey, the world hasn't had a holy war in a long time. It's far past due!

[2Design]

19. tell him to sign up and go participate

[stilladeaniac]

22. He served his time in the Army...

so it would be ridiculous for me to ask him..

[2Design]

47. As I said if he thinks it is necessary ...he should be jumping to go

over there

[rucky]

23. #2 (containment under Clinton) Was Working

that's all you need to know, as far as "was war NECESSARY?"

[DrWeird]

24. Ask him if he thinks 9-11 was necessary.

His points would be:

1) The United States has broken numerous treaties, including nuclear weapons treaties, and a huge number of treaties with Native Americans.

2) Diplomacy for 200+ years under 43 presidents.

3) New York and Washington are a strategic place in the world.

4) He doesn't have to agree with bin Laden, but he still believes 9-11 was necessary.

Hey, it's his logic.

[stilladeaniac]

26. Very good points....

I read this aloud to him in the next cubicle.

Pretty powerful stuff...

I got a "whatever" from him...

think he's gonna respond shortly...

[ieoeja]

28. I'll use language your friend will understand.

I shy away from this topic on this board because, like your friend, I have absolutely no problem with realpolitik when it comes to foreign policy. The first thing I would point out to your friend is that none of the viable Democratic candidates this year were anti-war. Kucinich is anti-war. Sharpton might be, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him unleash our military might as President if he felt it was necessary.

If he is worried that an elected Democrat in the White House will be too reluctant to pull the trigger then I would suggest he stop listening to the activists, pundits and websters and start looking at the record. It might surprise him to learn that even Carter, the closest thing to an anti-war president we have had in modern history, used the military on many occasions. For example, when the Yemeni government was thrown out by a communist backed military coup during Carter's administration, Carter sent in the Marines to back a counter revolution in the south that led to a brief split in the country. If you look at a map of the Red Sea and take into consideration the fact that Ethiopia and Somalia were already communist at this time, you can see why Carter did this.

Now to go where my fellow DUers would be horrified: the real reason this war was wrong. The Islamic Revolutionary Movement is not a figment of the imagination. Just as the Soviets were ready, willing, and (sometimes) able to back Communist Revolutions around the world, the IRM has shown itself to be ready, willing and (considerably less) able to back Islamic Revolutions throughout the world. Ted Rall wrote just prior to 9-11 that the IRM was already beginning to export their agenda to the Central Asian countries north of Afghanistan with the collapse of the Northern Alliance pending.

This is the point at which the Democratic advantage in foreign policy comes to the fore. Your average Republican is likely to quote the above paragraph as the very reason we SHOULD have gone into war in Iraq. Unfortunately, this ignores the fact that Saddam Hussein was actively OPPOSED to the IRM. The bluntly admitted aim of the IRM is the creation of Islamic theocracies. The Ba`ath Party led by Saddam included a coaltion of Muslims and Christians dedicated to running a secular government.

So while Saddam may have been a monster, he was never ideologically opposed to the United States. He was not our friend, but he was only sometimes our enemy. And so I refer your friend to:

#3) Iraq is a strategic place in the world to further American interests & to strike out at "misbehaving" countries

Yes, it is. And since it was already run by a man brutal enough to keep the lid on the forces that ARE ideologically opposed to the secular United States ... why in the hell would we want to have replaced him?!? And who are the people we ultimately called upon to take over when the idiots finally figured out what everybody else in the world already knew, that Chalabi was a con artist? None other than Saddam's general in Fallujah and some of his cabinet in Baghdad. We are now returning power to the same people, minus the figurehead to make it look like we really did something.

A lot of people died. A lot of Muslims who trusted us -- and you will remember that in 1991 the vast majority DID trust us to do what was right vis-a-vis Kuwait and Iraq -- now see us as the enemy. And Iraq is being put back into the hands of the people we took it from with no substantial changes. I see a lot of losses for the United States in this equation and ZERO gains. Maybe your friend can point out some gains we made that this unabashed hawk missed.

[Hoping4Change]

30. Simple rebuttal. It might at some point have been necessary

to eliminate Saddam but not at this time. The war was rushed. Troops were diverted from Afganistan which allowed AQ to regroup and OBL to eascape.

[doctorbombeigh]

31. Easy Peasy.

#1) Sadamn broke the treaty

Treaty breaking, per se, is not enough. Many countries break treaties, not least of all the United States. In the modern world, no country has violated more UN resolutions than Israel, our ally. Beyond that, Kuwait was in violation of a UN resolution (against Kuwait and in Iraq's favor), years ago. Iraq used that as an excuse to invade Kuwait, with many wacky international antics following. This "they broke their promise!" theory of war-justification really doesn't hold up.

#2) Diplomacy for 8 years under Clinton

I have no idea what that means. Yes, we had diplomacy for eight years under Clinton. Eight years of containment. Eight years during which Iraq attacked no one. Looking at the bill for this disaster - diplomacy not only worked better, it was a lot cheaper for American taxpayers.

#3) Iraq is a strategic place in the world to further American interests & to strike out at "misbehaving" countries

I thought that was our excuse for supporting Israel. Anyway, American interests are never furthered when we lose allies and create terrorists. As the world's only super-power, with the largest military force on the planet, we can "strike out at misbehaving countries" and win - any time we have to. Does your friend have any idea just how much military power we've got?

#4) He doesn't agree with the way Bush went about presenting the war to the American people, but he still believes it was necessary.

Okay. He's completely wrong about that - but so be it and let's just stipulate to it. So, in his capacity as commander in chief, Bush has botched both his personal war in Iraq AND the American war against terrorists. Bush had four years to earn your friend's vote, and he has failed. He doesn't deserve his vote, nor the vote of any American who takes the deployment of our troops and/or foreign policy issues seriously. Your friend ought to demand a better commander in chief.

[leesa]

33. Saddam was in compliance with the UN resolution

Is that the "contract" you were talking about. On the other hand Israel, for example has been non-compliant with many, many UN resolutions and we have yet to invade them.

Diplomacy was highly successful under Clinton. Saddam would have probably been ousted long ago if the US had not kept stubbornly insisting on sanctions against the belief of the rest of the world (except Israel, I believe). His opposition was kept impotent because of these sanctions.

What the hell gives us the right to invade and then USE countries for our strategic benefit??? Do you see any foreign bases in our country?? The US is the biggest misbehaving country in the world right now. Does he think we should be struck?

At least this fellow has some remnant of morality in that he thinks Bush's idea to lie his way into a war was disagreeable.

Does he know that he swore to uphold the constitution and that this invasion is violates the constitution and both national and international law??

[stilladeaniac]

54. Thanks Leesa...Good points. I'll make sure he reads this on Monday...

when he returns from Louisina.

Note that he won't be able to respond anymore due to the facist beliefs of a few...

StillADeaniac

[DrWeird]

59. Bit of advice.

The mods don't like to be called facists.

Or fascists, for that matter.

Jesus, what is it with you people and spelling?

[stilladeaniac]

61. Retort

Dr Weird: "To old to re-enlist?"

As you would say "Jesus what is with you people and spelling"

God you're a petty person. Somebody mispells a word and you're suddenly an intellectual.

I don't care if the mods don't like it. Just like Dean himself, I'm not afraid to speak my mind and have my own opinion.

StillADeaniac

[Catscape]

62. Sorry deaniac...

I'm mostly a lurker here, but I've seen this behavior too many times on this board. Dare to disagree with the groupthink and you are labeled a freeper, nazi, not-democrat-enough, etc.

Let's everyone make sure we all agree about something before posting, mmmkay? Common sense and all that.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

40. If he's all happy about the "strategic value" of all this, does the

righteousness of this war reach the level where he would encourage his own son to enlist and fight and die in it? Would he do so himself?

If not, why is it OK for people to be "stop-lossed" (INVOLUNTARILY held in the service past their obligation) or "called up again" (inactive ready reserve), again INVOLUNTARILY, to feed this war machine just because they made the mistake of enlisting/comissioning in the first place, while guys like this, and all the Repub war cheerleaders, sit on the sideline? Is this fair?

[stilladeaniac]

44. Update: He was going to check the posts once he got to LA....

But doesn't look likely anymore, because of the actions of a few.

See:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2102885&mesg_id=2104584&page=

Hope you can contain your glee. Shit, I'm sure you'll look at my post count without regard to any of the content I've said in this thread or in the 12 other threads I've posted in and ban me too.
I guess when I decided to trade in Bush's facist media(watch TV/read www.cnn.com) for DU, I made a mistake. Any remarks (even by fellow democrats) contrary to YOUR opinion are SILENCED.

What were you thinking? Did you hope I'd go away quietly????

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. Actually, he doesn't need to be convinced of that.

I believe the war was unnecessary, but even if I didn't, it is obvious to everyone that Bush fucked it up royally. We need a new leader to fix the mess he caused.

[Zorra]

55. Iraq is a strategic place in the world to further American interests & to

strike out at "misbehaving" countries?

Hey, if your friends house is a strategic place for me to set up my business and wipe out my competitors, would it be ok if I kicked him out and moved in, trashed his house, killed his dog, ate all his food, used his car, and pointed guns at the neighbors?

With all due respect, your friend sounds like a nazi. You just don't go around taking over every country that is strategically profitable for you.

That is what Hitler did.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

58. Is your friend's name Kerry? He's still unconvinced.

And, he still defends his vote for the war and supports the occupation.

[mdmc]

63. he is right, you are wrong. Tell him to enlist!

PEACE