War With Iraq

[Buzzboy]

I'm sorry, do you watch the news?

Iraqi people, lead by the Imams, are calling for a fundementalist Islamic state (by its very nature opressive) to be set up in Iraq. So it is quite possible that they will vote themselves back into oppression.

Another question, have you been to Israel? I've had the luxury and your lack of knowledge about the region and the Palestinian people suggests to me that you haven't. The Syrians treat their people quite well actually including ethnic Palestinians just like other countries around Israel. It is only the Israeli government that actively persecutes Palestinians and tries to subvert palestinian issues, hence why they are the ones with the problem.

Another point that you may not realise is that a large proportion of Palestinians believe in Christianity, yet they too are involved in the intafada. To say that the palestinian problem is due to Islamic fundamentalism shows you have no grasp on the situation at hand at all.

I've been shelled in a border village by katushas and I've seen a bus bombing, but the most disturbing thing I've experienced was talking to a young Israeli soldier, who I later realised that a day before had shot dead a pregnant palestinian women for no reason at all.

There is deep hatred on both sides of this conflict. I've seen Jewish children spitting on their palestinian counterparts, not a great way to obtain peace. To apportion blame to either side just fuels the problem we need to re-educate and discuss. Talking is the only way to solve this problem.

Of course you will disagree with me and say that the israelis are perfect and that the palestinians should be bomb out of existance, but I thank god that you have no power in the region.

[Al]

There was an interesting bit of information in the papers today. Apparently the US is planning on maintaining an armed presence in Iraq forever. It is reported that they are planning on building at least 4 airbases "to frighten Iran and Syria". If, as it appears, the US administration can't help but lie, they could at least try to tell the same lie consistently. I don't see how building airbases, and so having a permanent military presence, against the wishes of the Iraqi people has anything to do with WMD, liberation, regime change, the "war on terror" (TM) or whatever is today's excuse for the war. It looks very much like imperialism.

[hr]"Stupidity is the devil. Look in the eye of a chicken and you'll know. It's the most horrifying, cannibalistic, and nightmarish creature in this world."

[Andy Bayley]

I'm sorry, do you watch the news?

Iraqi people, lead by the Imams, are calling for a fundementalist Islamic state (by its very nature opressive) to be set up in Iraq. So it is quite possible that they will vote themselves back into oppression.

I take it you watch bbc which has a very clear anti american bias. Just because people are protesting isnt a surprise, in america we have huge protests with all kinds of crazy people but they represent a small minority. That being said Turkey is an example of a muslim country working as a democracy, So I don't think theres a need to be racist against the arabs and think they can't handle democracy.

Another question, have you been to Israel? I've had the luxury and your lack of knowledge about the region and the Palestinian people suggests to me that you haven't. The Syrians treat their people quite well actually including ethnic Palestinians just like other countries around Israel.
No I would like to travel to the middle east. The syrians treat no one quite well from what I've read. Syria has a history of shelling whole villages and the like. That being said from what I've read the whole arab world treats palistineans as second rate citizens they all force them into refugee camps. Israel is forced to be tougher with them because they kill civilians so they need to have security measures but I would much rather live in a free country than any of the arab countries.

It is only the Israeli government that actively persecutes Palestinians and tries to subvert palestinian issues, hence why they are the ones with the problem.

I disagree many doves in the Israel government have offered peace treaties and no one disputes that Palestine should become a state. But very recently Arafat refused to allow the palestinians to have a prime minister appointed police captain who would crack down on militants. Why because he is a terrorist.

Another point that you may not realise is that a large proportion of Palestinians believe in Christianity, yet they too are involved in the intafada. To say that the palestinian problem is due to Islamic fundamentalism shows you have no grasp on the situation at hand at all.
are there christian palestineans blowing themself up if so that's news to me and would like to info supporting that.


There is deep hatred on both sides of this conflict. I've seen Jewish children spitting on their palestinian counterparts, not a great way to obtain peace. To apportion blame to either side just fuels the problem we need to re-educate and discuss. Talking is the only way to solve this problem.

no hate on niether side is right but the hate the jews feel is caused by the palestinians, I'd imagine a lot of brits didnt think to kindly of the Irish a few years back.

Of course you will disagree with me and say that the israelis are perfect and that the palestinians should be bomb out of existance, but I thank god that you have no power in the region.


never said that but I have lost most of my sympathy for the palestinians

[Andy Bayley]

[s]Jeff wrote on 10:40, 21st Apr 2003:
According to the channel 4 news, at least 40% of americans regard themselves as fundamentalist christians. This sounds like an awful lot, but even if it is 40% of christians instead, it still scares me. Fundamentalist anything usually equals little tolerance of other peoples beliefs.


actually 80 percent of america are christians, and for the record a fundamentalist christian is not a problem the kind that would shoot a gay person are but they are such a small minority it doesnt even matter. The difference is in Islam if you take the words at thier fundamental value, they say kill the infadels.

Btw you seem to show not a whole lot of tolerance of christians yourself

[Andy Bayley]

[s]Al wrote on 13:34, 21st Apr 2003:
There was an interesting bit of information in the papers today. Apparently the US is planning on maintaining an armed presence in Iraq forever. It is reported that they are planning on building at least 4 airbases "to frighten Iran and Syria". If, as it appears, the US administration can't help but lie, they could at least try to tell the same lie consistently. I don't see how building airbases, and so having a permanent military presence, against the wishes of the Iraqi people has anything to do with WMD, liberation, regime change, the "war on terror" (TM) or whatever is today's excuse for the war. It looks very much like imperialism.

There will probably be a military presence in Iraq I have no problem with it because I want us to pull out of Saudi Arabia and we will need a base some where in the region. Who said it was against the wishes of the Iraqi people, we will have bases in the dessert, what some of the Iraqis want is us out of thier life but a military base is a fair compromise for liberating the people. You don't think rebuilding a country doesn't require any return of a government do you?

[history buff]

If you believe what you read in most news sources, Palestinians want a homeland and Muslims want control over sites they consider holy. Simple, right? 

Well, as an Arab-American journalist who has spent some time in the Middle East dodging more than my share of rocks and mortar shells, I've got to tell you that these are just phony excuses for the rioting, trouble-making and land-grabbing. 

Isn't it interesting that prior to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, there was no serious movement for a Palestinian homeland? 

"Well, Farah," you might say, "that was before the Israelis seized the West Bank and Old Jerusalem." 

That's true. In the Six-Day War, Israel captured Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. But they didn't capture these territories from Yasser Arafat. They captured them from Jordan's King Hussein. I can't help but wonder why all these Palestinians suddenly discovered their national identity after Israel won the war. 

The truth is that Palestine is no more real than Never-Never Land. The first time the name was used was in 70 A.D. when the Romans committed genocide against the Jews, smashed the Temple and declared the land of Israel would be no more. From then on, the Romans promised, it would be known as Palestine. The name was derived from the Philistines, a Goliathian people conquered by the Jews centuries earlier. It was a way for the Romans to add insult to injury. They also tried to change the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, but that had even less staying power. 

Palestine has never existed -- before or since -- as an autonomous entity. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their homeland. 

There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass. 

But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today. Greed. Pride. Envy. Covetousness. No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough. 

What about Islam's holy sites? There are none in Jerusalem. 

Shocked? You should be. I don't expect you will ever hear this brutal truth from anyone else in the international media. It's just not politically correct. 

I know what you're going to say: "Farah, the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem represent Islam's third most holy sites." 

Not true. In fact, the Koran says nothing about Jerusalem. It mentions Mecca hundreds of times. It mentions Medina countless times. It never mentions Jerusalem. With good reason. There is no historical evidence to suggest Mohammed ever visited Jerusalem. 

So how did Jerusalem become the third holiest site of Islam? Muslims today cite a vague passage in the Koran, the seventeenth Sura, entitled "The Night Journey." It relates that in a dream or a vision Mohammed was carried by night "from the sacred temple to the temple that is most remote, whose precinct we have blessed, that we might show him our signs. ..." In the seventh century, some Muslims identified the two temples mentioned in this verse as being in Mecca and Jerusalem. And that's as close as Islam's connection with Jerusalem gets -- myth, fantasy, wishful thinking. Meanwhile, Jews can trace their roots in Jerusalem back to the days of Abraham.

[Al]

"There will probably be a military presence in Iraq I have no problem with it because I want us to pull out of Saudi Arabia and we will need a base some where in the region. Who said it was against the wishes of the Iraqi people, we will have bases in the dessert, what some of the Iraqis want is us out of thier life but a military base is a fair compromise for liberating the people. You don't think rebuilding a country doesn't require any return of a government do you?"

Oh but I thought they were "liberating" the people because it was the right thing to do. Please don't besmirch such a glorious victory, fought and won in the face of such overwhelming resistance, with the tainted idea that the Americans were doing it for anything other than the very noblest reasons. Liberation? Pfft. All the Iraqi people have achieved through the war is the replacement of one military dictatorship with another. Although the US seems much less competent at, well, everything except blowing the shit out of innocent people.

[hr]"Stupidity is the devil. Look in the eye of a chicken and you'll know. It's the most horrifying, cannibalistic, and nightmarish creature in this world."

[Jeff]

Btw you seem to show not a whole lot of tolerance of christians yourself


Actually you will find that I believe everybody should be allowed to follow whatever religion they want to, as long as it does not conflict with other people's desire to lead their own life. The reason that I disagree with any kind of fundamentalism is that it tends not to allow this, and can in some circumstances have contradictory outcomes. For instance, some people who believe in the death penalty also believe that mothers who abort a fetus are murderers. As they say "God gives life and God takes it away". Then what right do they have to effectively kill someone themselves? Bush believed that his stand on the war was correct because his God gave him moral certainty. Whilst this was perhaps not a religious war, his belief that he must be right because he is a christian is disturbing.

If people wish to be religious then by all means go ahead, I have no problem with it. I do however have a problem with the fact that 80% of the american population do not have access to an abortion clinic. This is not because 80% do not want it, but because a select minority have decreed what is morally right, based on their own interpretation of what God, if he exists, wishes.

Two of my children are christian, my boyfriends parents, some of my closest friends from here, some of my closest friends from back home,...

Be nice to one another. Let people do their own thing. If they want to dance around naked in the moonlight, let them.

[Jeff]

[s]Unregisted User Andy Bayley wrote on 16:25, 21st Apr 2003:
There will probably be a military presence in Iraq I have no problem with it because I want us to pull out of Saudi Arabia and we will need a base some where in the region. Who said it was against the wishes of the Iraqi people, we will have bases in the dessert, what some of the Iraqis want is us out of thier life but a military base is a fair compromise for liberating the people. You don't think rebuilding a country doesn't require any return of a government do you?


Everybody focus on "a military base is a fair compromise for liberating the people". Did I miss the agreement whereby if the allies invaded Iraq, they were given a present of a permanent base? I don't remember that. You mean this was planned all along? But I thought we invaded for altruistic reasons?!?

[flarewearer]

[s]Cain wrote on 10:19, 21st Apr 2003:
[s]Unregisted User wrote on 01:01, 21st Apr 2003:[i]
[s]flarewearer wrote on 00:41, 21st Apr 2003:[i]

thats stalin;

"you can't make an omellette without breaking any eggs"...




Actually Joseph Chamberlin coined the phrase first.

possibly. the point was, it was another attempt to get people to read Get your war on at http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html

And although he may have broken a few international law eggs, i can't imagine Stalin making a freedom omelette
[/i] [/i]

hahar! on closer inspection (and research) it is only *attributed* to stalin and was said by president Taft of the US of A in 1899... sweet poetic justice

[hr]
* 9 out of 10 cannibals agree;
"vegetarians taste BETTER"

[Kelp]

[s]Unregisted User history buff wrote on 18:17, 21st Apr 2003:


In the Six-Day War, Israel captured Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. But they didn't capture these territories from Yasser Arafat. They captured them from Jordan's King Hussein. I can't help but wonder why all these Palestinians suddenly discovered their national identity after Israel won the war.

Palestine has never existed -- before or since -- as an autonomous entity. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their homeland. 

There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass. 

I know what you're going to say: "Farah, the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem represent Islam's third most holy sites." 
Not true. In fact, the Koran says nothing about Jerusalem. It mentions Mecca hundreds of times. It mentions Medina countless times. It never mentions Jerusalem. With good reason. There is no historical evidence to suggest Mohammed ever visited Jerusalem. 




I realise I'm probably on a hiding to nothing here, but I've got better things to do, and so I'm going to waste some precious time disputing a few select assertions from your learned tract.

1) The Jordanian territory issue was dealt with a long time ago. The Jordanians do not, I believe, claim that they should have that land back from Israel, but that the occupied territories are Palestinian land. They 'discovered their national identity' at the point you identify because it was clear by that point that they were not going to be able to live properly under Israeli government, and King Hussein gave them the chance to do so under their own rule. So the West Bank is fundamentally theirs, since the Jordanians did not want to have to deal with the problem within the borders of their own state.

2) Whether 'Palestine' has ever existed as an autonomous nation state is irrelevant. Countless current nation states did not exist until very recently. What is the point is that the people who used to live in a geographical area known as Palestine, and who therefore describe themselves as Palestinians in the absense of any other identity, used, as I say, to live there. Why they should not be allowed to any more I'm not sure.

The British did, arguably, promise a place in Palestine to the Jewish people, just as they did, arguably promise a continued place in it to the Arabs. The definitely promised an independent Arab national state, which they failed to deliver. In any case, I'm not wholly sure that these promises can be used as justification for either point of view in a modern context.

3) The people of many nations share cultural links with their neighbours. This is no reason to move them over the border to live in lands with which the specific people being moved do not have a personal link.

4) As I understand the Koran, it is actually very short, and consequently many of the tenets held strongly by modern Islam are not specifically spelled out within it. Islam is significantly based on interpretation of it. Just because the Koran does not say "so-and-so" does not mean it is not important to the faith spiritually. Many significant aspects of Christianity were added to it long after the death of Jesus. This does not mean they have no right to be respected. But the point is, there Holy sites in Israel that are extremely important to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. That is incontrovertible.

Feel free to disagree, I'm sure you will.

One other point is that people seem to be casually referring to "Palestinians" killing Israeli civilians. This is misleading, as it implies an organised campaign by Palestinians in general, meaning all of them. Specific Palestinians have done so. Palestinians in general, the ones who run market stalls, or drive taxis, etc, are the ones who are victims of state organised retribution. This causes a cycle of violence. No state retribution against people not directly involved in a crime against that state = problem solved, as the incentive for a potentially radical minority to kill would no longer exist.

I'll go back to my essay now.

[harmless loony]

[s]Unregisted User history buff wrote on 18:17, 21st Apr 2003:


What about Islam's holy sites? There are none in Jerusalem. 

Shocked? You should be. I don't expect you will ever hear this brutal truth from anyone else in the international media. It's just not politically correct. 

I know what you're going to say: "Farah, the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem represent Islam's third most holy sites." 

Not true. In fact, the Koran says nothing about Jerusalem. It mentions Mecca hundreds of times. It mentions Medina countless times. It never mentions Jerusalem. With good reason. There is no historical evidence to suggest Mohammed ever visited Jerusalem. 

So how did Jerusalem become the third holiest site of Islam? Muslims today cite a vague passage in the Koran, the seventeenth Sura, entitled "The Night Journey." It relates that in a dream or a vision Mohammed was carried by night "from the sacred temple to the temple that is most remote, whose precinct we have blessed, that we might show him our signs. ..." In the seventh century, some Muslims identified the two temples mentioned in this verse as being in Mecca and Jerusalem. And that's as close as Islam's connection with Jerusalem gets -- myth, fantasy, wishful thinking. Meanwhile, Jews can trace their roots in Jerusalem back to the days of Abraham.





history buff, don't insult our intelligence. It has become clear to me that you yourself have never studied the Qur'an, otherwise you'd know that Jerusalem is mentioned.

As someone who has studied the Qur'an let me quote Surah 17, verse 1:

" Who took his slave Muhammad for a journey by night from Al-Masjid al Haram, Makkah to Al-Masjid-al Aqsa in Jerusalem, the neighbourhood whereof We have blessed."

So if you're going to have the audacity to be ignorant and try to paraphrase a well known religious document at least make an effort to get it right instead of lying through your back teeth.

If you insist that the Jewish people have the right to return to Palestine/Israel, based on someting that occured 5000 years ago, why don't we just all go back to where we came from? Give America back to the Native Americans and Australia back to the Aborigines as they can trace back their roots in these lands from well before the days of Abraham.

ps: before anyone decides to say it - no I'm not anti semetic. I ahve nothing against them as people, I have something against their policies in Israel.

Oh, and before i forget - 50% of Palestinians are Christian and if I'm not mistaken - they too have a certain religious right to Jerusalem. Don't be arrogant in assuming that Palestinian automatically equals Muslim. Although it's not reported in the West, there are also some Christian suicide bombers who have blown themselves up.

[Mr Imperialism]

[s]Al wrote on 23:58, 21st Apr 2003:
[i]"There will probably be a military presence in Iraq I have no problem with it because I want us to pull out of Saudi Arabia and we will need a base some where in the region. Who said it was against the wishes of the Iraqi people, we will have bases in the dessert, what some of the Iraqis want is us out of thier life but a military base is a fair compromise for liberating the people. You don't think rebuilding a country doesn't require any return of a government do you?"

Oh but I thought they were "liberating" the people because it was the right thing to do. Please don't besmirch such a glorious victory, fought and won in the face of such overwhelming resistance, with the tainted idea that the Americans were doing it for anything other than the very noblest reasons. Liberation? Pfft. All the Iraqi people have achieved through the war is the replacement of one military dictatorship with another. Although the US seems much less competent at, well, everything except blowing the shit out of innocent people.[/i]

we have military bases in just about every country we've liberated Japan, North Korea, Germany we have bases on all those countries they arent ruled by military dictatorships Iraq doesn't have to be either. It wasn't the motive to go into Iraq but if we are going to spend upwards of a 100 billion dollars rebuilding Iraq I say they damn well owe us a military base.

[Feminazi]

[s]Jeff wrote on 00:20, 22nd Apr 2003:
[i]
Btw you seem to show not a whole lot of tolerance of christians yourself


Actually you will find that I believe everybody should be allowed to follow whatever religion they want to, as long as it does not conflict with other people's desire to lead their own life. The reason that I disagree with any kind of fundamentalism is that it tends not to allow this, and can in some circumstances have contradictory outcomes. For instance, some people who believe in the death penalty also believe that mothers who abort a fetus are murderers. As they say "God gives life and God takes it away". Then what right do they have to effectively kill someone themselves? Bush believed that his stand on the war was correct because his God gave him moral certainty. Whilst this was perhaps not a religious war, his belief that he must be right because he is a christian is disturbing.

If people wish to be religious then by all means go ahead, I have no problem with it. I do however have a problem with the fact that 80% of the american population do not have access to an abortion clinic. This is not because 80% do not want it, but because a select minority have decreed what is morally right, based on their own interpretation of what God, if he exists, wishes.

Two of my children are christian, my boyfriends parents, some of my closest friends from here, some of my closest friends from back home,...

Be nice to one another. Let people do their own thing. If they want to dance around naked in the moonlight, let them.
[/i]


What the hell are you talking about abortion is legal in every state in america even more so than england. In america we can kill babies up to the moment the baby is born, Im pretty sure you brits cant kill babies in the third trimester.

[Andy Bayley]

[s]Unregisted User Kelp wrote on 00:43, 22nd Apr 2003:
[s]Unregisted User history buff wrote on 18:17, 21st Apr 2003:[i]


No state retribution against people not directly involved in a crime against that state = problem solved, as the incentive for a potentially radical minority to kill would no longer exist.

I'll go back to my essay now.



Yah that radical minority of Palestinians also known as the PLO. I by any means am not saying the palestineans don't need a state but the whole reason they want one is founded on hate of jews. As far as christian palestinean suicide bombers I want to a link before I believe it.

Also for the record the dome of the rock (thats the one where the Jewish temple was right?) which ever one it is I remember reading that Hitler worked out a deal with Arafats Grandfather to make that a holy ground for the arabs as part of his hate of the Jews.

[Oddball]

[s]Unregisted User Mr Imperialism wrote on 18:51, 22nd Apr 2003:
[s]Al wrote on 23:58, 21st Apr 2003:[i]
[i]"There will probably be a military presence in Iraq I have no problem with it because I want us to pull out of Saudi Arabia and we will need a base some where in the region. Who said it was against the wishes of the Iraqi people, we will have bases in the dessert, what some of the Iraqis want is us out of thier life but a military base is a fair compromise for liberating the people. You don't think rebuilding a country doesn't require any return of a government do you?"

Oh but I thought they were "liberating" the people because it was the right thing to do. Please don't besmirch such a glorious victory, fought and won in the face of such overwhelming resistance, with the tainted idea that the Americans were doing it for anything other than the very noblest reasons. Liberation? Pfft. All the Iraqi people have achieved through the war is the replacement of one military dictatorship with another. Although the US seems much less competent at, well, everything except blowing the shit out of innocent people.[/i]

we have military bases in just about every country we've liberated Japan, North Korea, Germany we have bases on all those countries they arent ruled by military dictatorships Iraq doesn't have to be either. It wasn't the motive to go into Iraq but if we are going to spend upwards of a 100 billion dollars rebuilding Iraq I say they damn well owe us a military base.
[/i]

I am not disputing America's right to build bases abroad. They provide stability and the means to react to a threat in a far flung corner of the world. However so far as I know the US only has bases in South Korea, not the North.

[Al]

The vast majority of the Iraqi people do not want any US presence in their country. They have made that quite clear. If the US administration force them to do something against their will they are as bad as Saddam Hussein. Nobody asked the US to invade, nobody has asked the US to spend 100 billion dollars, and nobody has asked them to build their airbases. To say that the Iraqi people somehow "owe" the Americans the right to build their airbases is crass and idiotic beyond belief. (And could well, therefore, be official US policy.) Weren't they supposed to be doing it because it was the "right" thing to do? Although, if you ignore the officially given reasons, it is obvious that the real reason behind the war is that Bush and his cronies are belligerent bullies who won't rest until the parts of the world they can't control lie in smoking ruins.

[hr]"Stupidity is the devil. Look in the eye of a chicken and you'll know. It's the most horrifying, cannibalistic, and nightmarish creature in this world."

[Give it up I'm never wrong]

[s]Al wrote on 23:35, 22nd Apr 2003:
The vast majority of the Iraqi people do not want any US presence in their country. They have made that quite clear. If the US administration force them to do something against their will they are as bad as Saddam Hussein. Nobody asked the US to invade, nobody has asked the US to spend 100 billion dollars, and nobody has asked them to build their airbases. To say that the Iraqi people somehow "owe" the Americans the right to build their airbases is crass and idiotic beyond belief. (And could well, therefore, be official US policy.) Weren't they supposed to be doing it because it was the "right" thing to do? Although, if you ignore the officially given reasons, it is obvious that the real reason behind the war is that Bush and his cronies are belligerent bullies who won't rest until the parts of the world they can't control lie in smoking ruins.

This wasnt the real reason we don't actually need a permanent base in Iraq we could have one in Israel for syria and one in Afghanistan for Iran. But I would like to see your facts that a vast majority don't want the US there. Do you have numbers to support that? If the Iraqis really don't want us to have a base thats fine but then they can pay us back the money we will use to rebuild thier country.

[Al]

Ah! The American way - bomb a country, kill innocent men, women and children, stand idly by while the country falls into anarchy, and then bill them for it.

[hr]"Stupidity is the devil. Look in the eye of a chicken and you'll know. It's the most horrifying, cannibalistic, and nightmarish creature in this world."

[Prophet Tenebrae]

700 posts - and really this thread has gotten nowhere. Would the pro-war people kindly explain how they were "right"? Because as Afghanistan bombing a country back to the stone age does not magically ensure that it's going to be a USA lovin' democracy.