posted March 11, 2004 09:43 AM              

Wait until the list of who gets Purple Hearts comes out...that will be the only way the Pentagon will admit the actual number of our boys injured. What a shame, you should be sickened, not impressed.

Meanwhile, let's here it for the babe conservatives love to hate, Sarah Jessica Parker

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0310-12.htm

posted March 11, 2004 11:56 AM              

Saddam lost because he was completely taken by surprise. He was sitting on his ass waiting around for nasty weapons to come into Iraq in order to remove the Jews of Isreal and fight the U.S.A.

The entire war was really for Isreal's sake, and that is why Bush got so religious for awhile. I think Bush was told that if Saddam Hussien remained, he would have attempted to remove the Jewish people of Isreal with a Middle Eastern alliance, and this would have led to a greater war with U.S.A backing up Isreal. That is what the C.I.A must have known, but figured it wasn't convincing enough to go to war for reasons like prevention. So they had to lie saying that Iraq already had the massive weapons, and Saddam had close ties with Osama Bin Laden.

If Bush had said it like this, the entire war would have made more sense, and more people would have supported it. The war had to be done as a preventitive measure. It had to be done in order to avoid greater loss of life. I think the media is to blame for confusing his message, but he knew what he was doing.

God knew what he was doing when Bush was picked as president. I applaud Bush for dealing with Saddam Hussien, but he must do more for our domestic issues, or else he will be completely hated.

Those soldiers died for a reason, they died because they were preventing a greater war. Prevention is something this world is not used to experiencing.

posted March 17, 2004 01:17 PM              

"It prevented a bigger war"
-the war between the civilizations of the West & Islam

And now Democracy has found a solid foundation to build upon & spread in the Middle East...

SLOWLY the region will diffuse from being the world's GREATEST THREAT to stability and economic growth...

The fruits of this stabilized world in the future and it's STRONG STEADY GLOBAL ECONOMIC GROWTH will be: the extermination world hunger and poverty, the successful destruction of epidemics like AIDS, the development of all 3rd world nations into successful affluent countries with a middle class.

Elimination of human suffering in the world is possible, to evolve this world to a new level of humanity and concern for all of our fellow human beings can be achieved...
(Now isn't this the goal of all of the Leftist Liberals???)

Although those ends can only be achieved thru the Western ways... spreading democracy, guaranteeing ALL peoples basic human rights, and economic growth...

It's unfortunate that the start of this global revolution had to occur by force... but ruthless dictators are not going to freely allow you to oust them from power and offer the PEOPLE the power to reform.

(Funny... they say when you go SO FAR Right you end up being at the same place as the SO FAR Left)

at least that's how I see it from the FAR RIGHT...

I also found this article very interesting:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/17/terror.poll.ap/index.html

Proves the Europeans simply oppose the United States because they lust to again rise to become a world power...

posted March 17, 2004 02:04 PM              

well, world dominance is rather lusty...I think it was Ian Fleming in 1958, in Dr. No that said "It’s the same old dream - world domination"...and you know Europe has a far greater history of ruling all the known world at the time, so don't be mad at them for that, they were used to it far longer than we've even been around, and far more lustily at that We just happen to have snatched the idea of empire from them atthis time, athough look at Prodi, he's kind of like an Emperor...though not as much as Zapatero looks like Mr Bean lol

posted March 18, 2004 11:03 PM              

The occupation is a year old this week, and despite the deployment of overwhelming force, it has failed to achieve any major U.S. goals beyond those won by force of arms. Just about every other breakthrough has turned out to be pyrrhic, whether it be the capture of Saddam Hussein, the killing of his sons, entrusting security to new Iraqi forces -- or the hailing by President George W. Bush and Paul Bremer, the U.S. proconsul, of the March 1 agreement on the interim constitution as some sort of enduring political success in building Iraqi democracy.

Right after the signing ceremony, 12 of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council's 13 Shia members disowned key parts of the interim constitution they'd just signed, and pledged to revise them. What President Bush termed a "historic milestone in the Iraqi people's long journey from tyranny and violence to liberty and peace," Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Taqi al-Modaresi condemned as "a time bomb," which if implemented, would "spark a civil war."

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the de facto Iraqi leader who has turned out to be Mr. Bremer's great nemesis, was the first to reveal the anti-democratic ploy in the interim constitution: a central clause ensured that key elements of the interim constitution written by the council (whose support within Iraq is still minimal) would be hard to undo, because one of its clauses prevents the permanent constitution (to be written by elected Iraqis) from becoming law even if just three of the country's 18 governorates vote against it by a two-thirds margin.

No wonder the United States fought so fiercely against Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani's demand for a democratically elected government when "sovereignty" returns to Iraq on June 30: There's a lot of work that the appointed Iraqis still need to do.

The exquisite irony of an Iraqi Grand Ayatollah showing a sustained commitment to elections and democratic constitution-making, while the American who rules Iraq (in the name of freedom) maneuvers to keep U.S.-appointed officials in power for almost another year, captures the occupation's deep contradictions.