"If this war was done right..." SHUT UP.

[homelandpunk]

I guess Kerry is using it...I don't know, maybe his camp started it. But it is an ugly use of words. Like saying "If the rapist had shown a romantic side, then...." Rape cannot be done RIGHT. WAR can't be "DONE RIGHT"! And don't say "well we know what he means". This war was an unprecedented, unprovoked, unconstitutional hostile invasion of a sovereign country based on lies and propaganda. So what does "done right" mean: that the lies and propaganda were just executed poorly??? I mean if an unjust war can be done right, then that can only mean that the foundation of propaganda was handled wrong. Meaning there is a "right" way of going about doing that. Oh I know, here it comes: "NO! He means he would have used the UN and built a coalition!" Based on what?? Better, more expertly executed propaganda?? Since Kerry really seems to enjoy answering yes or no FRAMED questions, here is one - Yes or no: Would you still have voted for invading had the UN not bought the lies for invading, and the rest of the world said NO? Would you still have invaded? Yes or no? I guess the answer from the rationalizers of this meme would be, "Well, everyone just needed to be finessed by a pro, and they would have come along."
LOOK: Finessed by a "statesman" to get the rest of the fence-sitters to come along to go wage an unjust war is NO BETTER than a cowboy who rides rough shod over world opinion and gets to wage his unjust war. Not in the end. Saying Saddam is bad would NEVER have been enough to get the rest of the world to go along. Which means SOMETHING ELSE would need to be proffered. Something false, deceptive, and undemocratic. No one could have finessed sane fence-sitters on the only fact - that Saddam is bad - that could have been used to justify invasion and occupation. It would never have been enough.
So when the rest of the sane world said "NO!" after offering your only justification for war (Saddam is bad), would you have still invaded? YES OR NO???? If you think I am FRAMING this question, and that indeed there were better reasons than the weak one I give, please do tell what they are (were)? And if you agree with me, how do you lurch into this "done right" meme?
"Done right". I'm sick of hearing that and the word "war" in the same sentence.

[salinen]

1. You're right

although, the murderer is always the most guilty. Remember, Kerry will bring some wonderful folks into his administration. Maybe even Kucinich and Dean.

[Cobia]

4. I hope so

Carol Moseley Braun too!

[G_j]

2. "aggressive war"

Statement by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson
Chief U.S. Prosecutor
at the Nuremberg Tribunals
August 12, 1945
on War Trials Agreement;

There are some things I would like to say, particularly to the American people, about the agreement we have just signed.
For the first time, four of the most powerful nations have agreed not only upon the principles of liability for war crimes of persecution, but also upon the principle of individual responsibility for the crime of attacking the international peace.

Repeatedly, nations have united in abstract declarations that the launching of aggressive war is illegal. They have condemned it by treaty. But now we have the concrete application of these abstractions in a way which ought to make clear to the world that those who lead their nations into aggressive war face individual accountability for such acts.
<snip>

"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which
their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the
war, but that they started it. And we must not allow
ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war,
for our position is that no grievances or policies will
justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced
and condemned as an instrument of policy."
<snip>

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson
Chief U.S. Prosecutor
at the Nuremberg Tribunals
August 12, 1945

READ THE ENTIRE STATEMENT HERE:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/jack02.htm

[LibraLabSoldier]

3. Since we are there....

We might as well leave Iraq better than we found it. If we continue the way we are going, the Iraqis will owe us a debt.....better than some of our less reliable middle eastern "allies". Turkey wants us to leave so they can carve up Kurdistan...Egypt wants a little peice too...There is no such thing as a good war. But since we are fighting this one, we might as well make things better for the Iraqi people.

A few facts.

Most insurgents are foriegn fighters brought in by outside agitators. Most are jordanian, yemeni,Saudi, and Egyptian.
They are being funded by wealthy middle easterners who are profitting from the murder of fellow muslims.

We are getting the water turned on, the lights turned on. We are training vast numbers of Iraqi men to defend their own country, be they soldiers or police, or paramedics.

Every bombing that kills civilian causes about 50 to join the insurgents, but 500 to join with coalition forces.

I do not agree with why we went. But we should leave it better than it was when we arrived. We are Americans, and still the good guys....!!


A soldier.

[bpilgrim]

6. by stopping the bombing would be a start

then actually living up to our PROMISE of democracy would another but at the end of the day it's about bring our troops home immediately and let the iraqis sort things out instead of KILLING THEM, no?

sailor

peace

[LibraLabSoldier]

8. Most of the killing isnt from us...

It is from insurgents placing car bombs in crowded areas. THey do this for maximum civilian casualties. We dont shoot people unless they shoot first. Part of the rules of engagement. Quit watching so much tv news. It is biased.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

11. How is it biased? I only see a pro-war bias on tv news.

I'm assuming you mean a LIBRUL bias.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[Kathy in Cambridge]

24. No, I did not assume that you were a Winger

but Abu Ghraib (sp?) has all but fallen out of the news. You don't hear about our poor kids coming back injured, nor the thousands of Iraqi civilians that have been killed or maimed. That to me means the media supports Bush.

[LibraLabSoldier]

26. True....

You also never hear about PFC KEith Maupin. He is our only current POW. I quess it was just his tough luck that his isnt cute, blond, and female.....Sorry, I am still decompressing from LNF(similar to freepers) where they all accused me of not being an actual servicemember, a liberal, commie, ect. The media leaves out much more than it puts in. I get my reliable news from other troops, and from NPR.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

31. You're right-poor Keith Maupin

he's not a perky blonde. Jessica Lynch stole media attention away from the plight of her colleagues like Shoshanna Johnson and Maupin. I wonder if there are more POWs than we know about. I agree-the media doesn't really do its job.

[LibraLabSoldier]

34. Thanks.

I am not a hero, combat or otherwise. I just do my job the best I can taking care of soldiers and their families. The media just doesnt seem to have its priorities right.......

[Nordic]

62. dude, take your own advice and quit watching cable TV news

And do a little homework.

There's a great article in The Atlantic last month written by someone who actually had "first hand" experience with the insurgency.

The Iraqis will continue to fight anybody who occupies their land. That is a simple fact.

As long as we're there, they're going to fight us. Fact.

I would expect we would do the same if occupied by foreign soldiers.

[LibraLabSoldier]

67. Ok, hockeypuck

I am trying to tell you....I would rather listen to guys who have been in Iraq actually fighting, than some news organization...But I just dont seem to be getting through to you....

[Nordic]

71. hockeypuck?

:shrug:

I'm glad you know everything. It must feel good.

[Djinn]

77. so how on earth

does a US soldier have the slightest idea about how those fighting in the "insurgency" feel - do you really think they'd know??? Do you think Iraqi's aer lining up to give their honest opinions to people with teh power to shoot them and their families with no consequences??

[LibraLabSoldier]

79. Hows the weather...

In the shiny land of perfect you live in...You are acting like US troops are just riding around Iraq begging people to give them an excuse to shoot. This isnt Vietnam, and you are not gonna make it another vietnam no matter how hard you want it to be. We are helping the Iraqis. They want us to give them the tools and training to take care of themselves, then they want us to leave. The US troops want to come home, but not before the job is finished. Why dont you try talking to a soldier before you try to make us all out to be jack booted thugs......

[Djinn]

81. as opposed to the land of

make beleive in which you live?? The Iraqi's want US out of Iraq - end of story, and unlike you I get my info from IRAQI's not soldiers who know fuck all about Iraqis because as is logical they have very little HONEST interaction with them. The Iraqi's I know either LIVE in Iraq or have the majority of their families still in Iraq. BTW the ONLY person who keeps repeating the "jack booted thugs" line is YOU.

Iraqi's don't NEED US training to teach them to look after themselves, you might want to look into the standards of education, health and industry pre Gulf war one befoer you patronisingly spout the bullshit line about teaching the Iraqi's how to suck eggs.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[Selwynn]

132. This is a fucking free speech zone. :) We don't "resort" to it...

..we embrace it :)

By the way, I know what I have heard from people who are there as well, and guess what, its damn near opposite of what you're saying. Oh shit! I said damn. Aw hell, I said shit while saying damn. For fuck's sake I said shit damn and hell! Son of a.... :)

[Djinn]

138. I assume he was a bit peeved by the language then?

I suppose saying the odd swear word is far more offensive than trying to white wash an imperial disaster in Iraq and the murder of tens of thousands.

BTW I never knew you had such a foul mouth Selwynn - I'm shocked and appalled!! :evilgrin:

[leesa]

113. BS You are parroting what is said on the teevee. You think we haven't

heard the propaganda? Same GOP talking points CNNBCBS and all the other GOP outlets use.

[bpilgrim]

14. ABU GHRAIB

and there's video online of our troops killing wounded soilders and unarmed civilians so don't give me the bs... btw i don't watch the teeVee - thank GORE - and stick your rules of engagement up your ILLEGAL COMBATANT _|_

our military TODAY is behaving like the imperial japanese of wwII with their version of PEACE-PROSPERITY-SECURITY (GEACPS) for ASIA :puke:

bone-up

peace

[LibraLabSoldier]

22. Assuming....

My information comes first hand from fellow soldiers who have just returned from Iraq. They dont have political asperations or agendas. They are glad to be home. They belong to the entire political spectrum. I trust their opinion more than any news outlet.....

[bpilgrim]

25. hear say

i go for sources from respected journalist with a track record, but hey to each his own.

i don't think every soilder is doing these horrible war crimes BUT there are RAPE-TORTURE-MURDER and SHOTING of PROTESTORS and now attacking their HOLY CITY and most SACRED TEMPLE all for a fucking LIE.

now, i'm glad to hear you are back home safe and hope you wont be sent back but but i ain't buying the bright-skies and sunshine story about whats goin on over there.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, OUTSOURCE THE WAR to IRAQIS.

thank you for your service :toast:

peace

[LibraLabSoldier]

28. I didnt go, at least to Iraq.

I was in Saudi Arabia when 9/11 happened. I was injured, so I came back stateside. Most of the soldiers who are coming back are telling horror stories. About the media. How they are all but given rehearsed speaches to say when the cameras are rolling. How scenes are edited to make soldiers look more menacing. Most Iraqis know what will happen when US forces leave, if there is not a strong government and strong military and strong police force in when we leave.

So believe what you like. I would rather get my intel first hand, than after it has been through the editing room.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[bpilgrim]

54. lol

peace

[K-W]

30. First hand means you saw it. Sorry to nitpick but I see this alot.

First hand means you youself saw it. You get your info second hand.

I realize that does lend some credeance to it, but a story can change alot filtered through even one man's perception. Not to mention that alot of soldiers didnt neccessarily see everything they talk about first hand themselves.

[Djinn]

32. You can NOT impose a "strong government"

a puppet government will not be accepted in the long term by Iraqi's and why should it be? The US will NEVER allow free and fair elections because they know what the outcome would be - a religiously based Shiite government - without question.

I too get my info "first hand" but I'll be buggered if I'd get it from soldiers - do you REALLY think that the Iraqi's who join the "insurgents" or who dislike and distrusts US soldiers are telling them what they really think - that's a little naive don't you think?

[Ms. Clio]

87. And I would rather get my intel from real journalists

Instead of purveyors of fantasy and propaganda.

"Horror stories about the media." What bullshit.

[Cheswick2.0]

108. I would rather get my info from those who have not been brainwashed

into thinking they are defending me by killing Iraqi people.

[G_j]

33. I am glad they are home too

now I just wish you all could stay home.

Please take some time here reading, digging and searching. You would be amazed at what you can learn in few weeks scouring DU for information. Also check out www.truthout.org www.commondreams.org www.alternet.org www.tompaine.com daily just for starters, if you don't already know about these sites. I would also recommend reading some articles by Robert Fisk.
If you are going to read a newspaper, I would first look at the guardian.
I expect your outlook may change a bit, or at least expand.
I am not trying to tell you how to think, just suggesting sources of information.
peace

[Kanary]

27. the word "insurgents" is RW spin

People don't like to be occupied by an invading army.

USians wouldn't like it either.

Kanary

[Nordic]

57. HA! Again I say HA! We've killed THOUSANDS

nobody even knows how many THOUSANDS we've killed, the low conservative estimates are way over 10,000 CIVILIANS.

Give me a freakin' break

[LibraLabSoldier]

64. That is war....

We arent going around mowing down civilians for fun. Civilian casualties happen in war. We try to minimize them as much as possible. Dont forget, we arent setting off carbombs in shopping centers, we arent setting up IEDs on busy roadsides. Stop trying to paint a picture of soldiers as bloodthirsty thugs bent on destruction and Mayhem......It is a lie, and it is wrong. Do you want to know how your average soldier feels about the war? Try asking one, instead of watching BLackhawk down too many times.

[Nordic]

70. listen, pal, almost all the men in my family are vets, so

don't start lecturing my ass on what war is and what it's about and how people feel when they go and when they come back.

What we did in Iraq was wrong, it was murder, and it was not a "war" it was a mugging of a crappy little country that was absolutely no threat to the United States.

So don't give me your psuedoromantic warrior platitudes about "well that's war, son, people die" and sit back in your fucking Lazy boy recliner with your scotch.

We napalmed boys on bridges FOR WHAT?

And nowhere, anywhere, did I say that soldiers are bloodthirsty thugs. YOU said that. Soldiers do what they're told, they follow orders because they TRUST THEIR COMMANDERS.

If their commanders are criminals, as our current CEO and company are, it's the soldiers who are victimized as much as the thousands of innocent civilians who got their arms and legs and heads blown off.

[Djinn]

78. no we don't set bombs in shopping centres

we drop from them from the sky - everyone knows that doesn't hurt innocent people. Most dead and maimed people don't differentiate much about the delivery method of their death or disability.

How many Iraqi's have died as a result of IED's - hell make that how many have died at the hands of the "insurgents using ANY methods, now conmpare that to the CONSERVATIVE number of deaths caused by the US and allies.

[LibraLabSoldier]

80. Check your facts.....

We have not been using bombers hardly at all. You just cant do that in Urban warfare. We do sometimes use Blackhawks and Apache gunships, but those are helicopters with eyes on capabilities. And the reason the Iraqis are signing up for the police and the military is the fact that so many are dying from IEDs, and indescriminate car bombings from other muslims....And as far as napalm...check the geneva convention, we dont use it anymore, and havent for some time. You really want the soldiers to turn out to be brainless, and "just following orders?" Unlawful orders are to be disobeyed. Pure and simple. Try getting some information from actual soldiers, rather than just watching too many war movies. And I am not a fat guy in a lazyboy, I AM AN ACTIVE DUTY US SOLDIER!!

[Djinn]

82. sigh

I'm talking about ALL the dead Iraqi's not just those killed since bunnypants declared "mission acomplished"

Second - Iraqi's are signing up for anything that pays because they need to feed their families and most of the other available jobs are taken up by mercenaries. Who the hell mentioned napalm anyway????

And once more for those with limited comprehension skills:

1. How would a US soldier know how the average Iraqi feels - do you honestly think they get honest and frank opinions from Iraqis?

2. How many IRAQI's have you personally spoken to - SFA is my guess

[Nordic]

83. hm, perhaps they're joining the police is cuz there's 75% unemployment

and they need to feed their families.

Glad you're here to give us your "first hand" account

[leftchick]

98. You must have missed the news last week...

US War planes BOMBED... Falluja, Sammara, Kut and Najaf (that we know of!). I am sure all of those HUNDREDS killed were "enemy" and all innocent civillians were spared. As the US weapons are "precision guided"... :eyes: :puke:

[LibraLabSoldier]

99. Putting words...

in my mouth. I never claimed to know all there is to know about our us forces missions. And no, not all of those killed were enemies. Although we did tell them in advance that we were coming...so they did have a chance to leave. I am not gonna argue about it. I am not in charge of combat. I am not in charge of anything, except my one little peice of the army. And I work to save peoples lives, not take them.

[vision]

126. Napalm

Yes we did use napalm in Iraq. I am surprised that you did not hear that. I know I was surprised to hear that we did.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=432201
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4395.htm

[Selwynn]

130. active duty solider not serving in Iraq.

I talk to soldiers coming home too - my opinion is as valid as yours right now unless you can back up what you're saying with something other than hearsay.

I love the line "check the Geneva convention, we don't use that anymore." Yeah, just like we don't torture prisoners, and don't illegally detain "combatants" and don't deny Red Cross access. We also have presidential executive lawyers giving briefings to the president on ways to get around and ignore the "antiquated" Geneva convention....

...oh wait, we do have all those things.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

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

[Cheswick2.0]

107. oh gag me "soldier"

Most of the killing was done by us. They hate us, they don't want us there. They don't want our puppet government. They were better off with Saddam.

[leesa]

112. You are so full of it! Most of the killing isn't from us...are you

serious??? waaaay too much Fox News for this guy!

[Darranar]

140. Have the insurgents killed 15,000+ innocents yet? n/t

[Djinn]

12. why on earth would the iraqi's owe a debt

for the killing of their friends and families, for the instigation of civil turmoil, for the selling of their resources to foreign companies, for the installation of a puppet government???

BTW - before the war they HAD water, electricity etc - you should make that statement "turning back on what we blew up" and there were plenty of trained Iraqi doctors and medical staff before the war - they just couldn't practice properly because sanctions left them without any medicine or equipment.

[K-W]

16. Such statements always give me the mental picture

of a child who ran over a bird with a bicycle and then kills it trying to fix the wing.

How much damage will we do while trying to fix what we broke?

[G_j]

19. I certainly think it a worthy goal

to 'leave Iraq better than we found it'.
I just don't see it happening. If you have some links to back your 'facts', that would be appreciated.
Iraq makes me think of the old saying: "if your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
I'm afraid the situation is starting to look more and more like Israel and we all know that situation is not improving.
No, I don't have a simple solution, but I don't think the solutions are military ones.

[LibraLabSoldier]

23. I dont have links, sorry

Most of my info comes from other soldiers who have returned from tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. I cant provide hyperlinks to real people...sorry.

[bpilgrim]

35. here ya go...

some real people from NH...
http://war.digitalmagicnh.com

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[Nordic]

72. how many people have you talked to? Give us a rough number

that might help.

Also, what were their jobs? Where were they stationed? How is what they're telling you a viable cross-section of the Iraq experience?

In other words, prove it.

[LibraLabSoldier]

88. OF course.

DId i ever claim to be making a scientific survey of all troops returning from Iraq? No. I have talked to fifty or so. Most are medical, with just under half being artillery. They have all returned within the last three to six months, stationed in various parts of Iraq......

[Selwynn]

128. Then your claim is based on nothing but hearsay

[Ms. Clio]

137. Not just hearsay--lies and propaganda n/t

[ljm2002]

20. Okay, I won't criticize Kerry's statement but I will criticize yours...

...You say, "Most insurgents are foriegn fighters brought in by outside agitators. Most are jordanian, yemeni,Saudi, and Egyptian. They are being funded by wealthy middle easterners who are profitting from the murder of fellow muslims."

Just try turning the phrase a little differently: "Most of the occupiers are foreign fighters brought in by the U.S. They are polish, lithuanian, Australian and English. They are being funded by giant multinational corporations who are profitting from the murder of people of all races, creeds and religious beliefs, all over the world."

I'm just sayin'...

[Vladimir]

21. When is a freedom fighter a terrorist?

when he is fighting the US of A.

[kiahzero]

37. More accurate version

When is a combatant a "freedom fighter?" - when you agree with his/her cause.

When is a combatant a "terrorist?" - when you don't.

Then again, at least "terrorist" has a real definition; it's normally ignored, but at least it's a term that once had meaning.

[wtmusic]

45. Bingo

but even the official definition of terrorism is doublespeak:

"the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives"

Sounds a lot like war for those who don't have cruise missiles.

[Vladimir]

101. True n/t

[Norquist Nemesis]

75. "But we should leave it better "

I agree with your last sentence and that's how I feel about it at this point. We can't turn back the clock and have to deal with where we are.

BTW, thank you for your service. :)

[NickB79]

85. Al Sadr's militia is composed of foreigners?

That's surprising, considering how virtually EVERY source lists his militia as being composed mainly of Iraqi Shiites.

The degree of attacks that occurs on a daily basis throughout Iraq would require THOUSANDS of insurgents to carry out. Since we seem to be killing a fairly high number of them, that means they also have to have a high rate of new recruits coming in to maintain their attacks. Then you have to consider how many tens of thousands more who are not actually carrying out attacks would be required to supply, hide, feed, and otherwise protect the foreigners carrying out the attacks. In short, if you believe that foreign fighters are carrying out most of the attacks with NO support from Iraqis, then you would have to believe that there are tens of thousands of foreigners in Iraq at this moment. And, if the Iraqis hate these foreigners so much, why aren't they tipping off coalition soldiers to come and capture or kill them?

Even if the insurgents planting the IED's and firing the RPG's at US forces are foreigners, the local Iraqis are not trying to stop them. In this case, it truly is a with-us-or-against-us situation, and it appears that the Iraqs are on the against-us side by turning a blind eye to aiding us.

[Djinn]

139. You'd also think that if the US were serious

about the "war or terror" and there really were that many foreigners "flooding" into Iraq that perhaps that would indicate a fairly piss poor job of behalf of the "coalition" in protect Iraq??

[clu]

95. most insurgents are not foriegners

I had to reply to a similar post on a diff. message board last week. I don't feel like spending my lunch break finding similar cites from news.google.com right now, but when I get home I'll post what I found.

[clu]

136. meh

Most of you know all of this, but I said I'd post it so here it is.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm

--------------------
It is reported that fewer than 250 of the 9,000 detainees in US custody as of late August 2003 were foreign nationals. This suggests that either the bulk of the attackers are Iraqi, or that the bulk of the detainees were common Iraqi criminals rather than guerilla combatants.
--------------------



http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0712/p01s04-woiq.html

--------------------
Officials at the Iraqi Ministry of Interior say they're mulling terms of an amnesty for Iraq's insurgents. "We are having a dialogue with some of the important figures in Fallujah,'' says Interior Minister Falah Hassan al-Nagib. "We know there are some splits in the city. We think that most of the trouble is being created by foreigners there."

Nonetheless, other interior ministry officials say the overwhelming majority of fighters in their custody are Iraqis, including four men held for with beheading American Nicholas Berg in May.

US and Iraqi officials say Fallujah has become a haven for the country's tiny cohort of foreign fighters, and it's turning out local Iraqis committed to establishing an Islamic state. While the popularity of such views is limited, having established a beachhead with relative impunity has strengthened their movement.
--------------------


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-05-noniraqi-captives_x.htm

--------------------
In recent months, however, it has become clear that the insurgents are overwhelmingly Iraqis. Foreign nationals account for fewer than 100 of the 5,700 prisoners being held by coalition forces in Iraq as security concerns, according to figures supplied by the military.
--------------------


http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/9205941.htm?1c

--------------------
Exactly how many insurgents there are is unknown, though analysts in Iraq say Washington's insistence that they number no more than 5,000 is unrealistic. Just as unrealistic, experts in Iraq say, is Washington's portrait of the insurgency as a force led by foreign fighters. In truth, these experts say, Sunnis are driving the fight to end the occupation.
--------------------


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/18/1090089035893.html?oneclick=true

--------------------
A more realistic picture of the insurgency is emerging. US and Iraqi officials have consistently portrayed it as the foreign supporters of al-Qaeda and so-called Saddam "dead enders", thereby bolstering their argument that Iraq is rightly a part of the war on terror.

But since taking office Iyad Allawi has acknowledged that a significant number of those resisting are secular and nationalist Iraqis angered by the US military presence in Iraq; and recently senior American officials in Iraq have acknowledged for the first time that the make-up and number of insurgents "mean they cannot be defeated militarily".

Putting its numbers at about 20,000, way higher than the usual analysts' estimates of about 5000, a US military officer told the Associated Press earlier this month there was enough popular support among nationalist-minded Iraqis to sustain the insurgents.
--------------------

[Cheswick2.0]

106. It can't be done

90 percent of Iraqis want us out.

[leesa]

111. Silly. The US cannot fix this mess we made. We have no credibility

there or in the rest of the world. It is FALSE that most insurgents are foreigners. Turn off the damn Faux News. They have no water no utilities no jobs. You have been completely conned by the media. Turn your teevee off!

[Selwynn]

127. Provide evidence for those claims please? Especially...

...the for every 50, there's 500 claim. I'd like to you back that up with credible source evidence.

The fact that you're talking about how "we're getting the lights and power on" a year and a half after the fact means maybe we're not doing a great job. What's more there are countless reports from the contractors doing this stuff that they are being totally defunded - money being diverted from these humanitarian efforts you tout and going elsewhere instead. Our "training" of vast numbers of men would actually require a solid year or more to do it right. The slap dash stuff we're doing is a joke.

No one really knows who "most" insurgents are. Obviously I'm sure there are foreign fighters, but the uprising this week wasn't that. The tens of thousands of Iraqis standing with al-Sadr (sp?) were not that. There is a talking point of the republican party that says, refer to all fighters as "foreign insurgents" because it deflects attention away from the fact that there are plenty of Iraqis resisting US occupation, and that number doesn't seem to be going down.

But maybe you can demonstrate how your "facts" are in fact "facts" - by pointing to some credible evidence to support any of the claims you made?

[homelandpunk]

148. Please read my post #147 as a reply to your argument here.

It addresses the "Since we are there" argument.
One question though: So in Iraq who are "still the bad guys", if we are "still the good guys". Are the bad guys the people we are killing, whom Saddam would have killed, were they acting up to him, the way they are acting up to us?

[JHBowden]

5. I agree, that line makes no sense.

It makes it sound like Kerry has effete, aesthetic problems with how Bush arbitrarily occupies countries.

It may be better to express support for the inspections process and plead ignorance as to whether Hussein would be in power or not. I'm not sure if this looks evasive or not, but it is certainly less evasive then the "war done right" stuff.

[bpilgrim]

7. ditto

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2233892&mesg_id=2233892

:hi:

peace

[PretzelWarrior]

9. well it inoculates him from the IWR vote somewhat.

what do you expect him to say? Hell yeah I voted for it but I was a misinformed leader at the time. NOw I oppose the WAR!

THis is politics. The fact that you are hearing it over and over again is because there are so many people out there parroting the lines of Kerry as they try to put up a bulwark defense against all of these accusations the Bush campaign and RNC are mounting.

But we do know they could have done a lot of things more correctly to lead to a more stable and less deadly situation right now. So there is some truth to the "meme" as you called it before you edited.

[K-W]

10. You are wrong on one important point.

Even if Kerry means what you say he means, and IM not so sure he does, he is still better than Bush.

This war, even in all its wrongness, could have been done in a much better way, and it would have saved lives. Where I come from that is better.

Kerry also did not vote for a war. But it seems you are looking for reasons to make Kerry and Bush the same person.

[Vickers]

13. I disagree with your premise, but I like the ""If the rapist had..."

"...shown a romantic side" quote. That almost convinced me, then I reconsidered.

[David Dunham]

15. Most Americans care more about economy/jobs/health care than Iraq.

[Vladimir]

18. 30,000 dead Iraqi civilians don't care shit about motives n/t

[Nordic]

60. Nor were the 14 year old boys handed guns and told to guard a bridge

that we then napalmed.

That hardly counts as a military casualty, but God only knows how many "soldiers" such as this were massacred on the way to Baghdad.

These boys weren't given an option to surrender. They were killed from the air, at night.

They were not a threat to anybody. It was murder. Mass murder.

[kiahzero]

36. Kerry didn't vote to invade

Claiming that he did is deceptive.

I also disagree with your fundamental premise that war can never be "done right" - this implies that war must always be "done wrong." Let's ignore for now the fact that there must exist a correct way to manage a war.

The person who said this (I read elsewhere it was Atrios) made a valid point - if the Bush team weren't completely incompetent, good could have come out of this. The sanction regime was rightly condemned by many - it hurt innocent Iraqis while entrenching Hussein. Meanwhile, if we lifted all sanctions and allowed Hussein back into the world community, he almost certainly would have become a threat. There were two options - reforming the sanctions (a questionable proposition - it's very difficult to get economic sanctions to only affect the ruling class, rather than the general population) and somehow removing the Hussein regime.

If I recall correctly, Kerry's position was undermining Hussein by supporting groups within Iraq - a reasonable plan, since it would simply be hastening an Iraqi effort to free themselves from Hussein. Now, that's not what ended up happening, because Bush wanted war. However, it's not unreasonable to do the best in the circumstances you find yourself in - if the occupation had been handled properly, things in Iraq would almost certainly be better now, and it's possible that Iraq might end up being better off after the invasion than before.

However, because of the incompetence of the Bush Administration, the best we can hope for now is Iraq NOT turning into a failed state terrorist haven.

[bpilgrim]

39. he voted to give his authortiy to the neoCONs and he'd do it again even IF

he knows what we all now know... that iraq wasn't a threat.

that is what has folks peeved... well at least thats the way i feel.

but it's politics right... don't mean a thing as long as he wins :bounce:

peace

[K-W]

41. But that isnt what happened, you are spinning.

He didnt vote to give authority to the neocons. And he didnt say he would do it again knowing what he knows now, not in the sense you say it.

The IWR said that president Bush could use force only if he exhausted all other options in disarming Saddam, had proof saddam had weapons, or had proof saddam was behind 9/11. It wasnt a blank check. Bush didnt follow the IWR. Bush pretended the IWR was a blank check. That is not Kerry's fault.

What Kerry is saying now is that he stands by his vote, and would do it if he had it to do again because he still feels the IWR was a good idea. He felt that had the president followed it, it would have been good policy.

It is stupid to ask him to try and make that decisions as if he could predict the future. And he refused to get caught in that trap. No intelligent person would speculate wildly like that.

[bpilgrim]

44. well he should clear it up

this war was started on a LIE and i submit to canidate kerry...

more...
http://www.mfso.org/

peace

[wtmusic]

46. agree. time for Kerry to take the gloves off

re: why we went to war

[K-W]

47. He made it perfectly clear. You are getting confused by spin.

Kerry has been absolutely clear. The problem is that alot of people bought the spin that dates back to the IWR vote that it was a vote for the war, thus when Kerry stated again that he stands by his vote, they got confused thinking the IWR was a vote for war.

If you had read the IWR, and understood that it said Bush could only use force under very limited circumstances, there would be no confusion and Kerry's statement would be perfectly clear.

It isnt Kerry's fault that alot of people misinterpreted and misrepresented the entire issue.

Kerry does not support this war, he has said that he doesnt. He simply believes that the IWR was a good idea because if it had been followed this war probably never would have happened, and if it had happened it would have only been because Saddam had weapons, was involved in 9/11 or didnt let inspections go through.

[bpilgrim]

52. good

looking forward to hearing him tell it like it is on this subject.

if you had been following this war you would realize that 41's heavys had to PUBLICLY come out and TELL the neoCONs to go to the UN well before the IWR vote.

and believe you me i am well aware of the facts on the ground regarding that vote and i am willing to concede that he had to vote that way considering the post 911 climate and even that he felt oblidged to TRUST 'our' president even though it was as PLAIN AS DAY to anyone who was PAYING ATTENTION... all you needed was internet access. thank gore ;->

PNAC must be CONFRONTED.

peace

[Cheswick2.0]

110. you are the one confused by spin

Nowhere in the resolution does is say he "can not" use force under limited circumstances. It gave bush the power to make war and we knew bush would use it. Kerry voted for the war.

[kiahzero]

135. Perhaps you should actually read the resolution

The relevant portion:

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Kerry did not vote for the war. Bush lies when he claims that Kerry did, and so doesn't anyone else who makes the same claim.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

49. The key word here is intelligent

I see it to be plain and simple. One of three things occured.

1. Kerry truely "believe" Bush would "do the right things" (even know millions of average Joe's protesting in the streets were smart enough to correctly predict what was to come) and blindly voted for the IRW.

or

2. He did it out of nothing but motivation to advance his political career. (which did not help it in the least)

or

3. He was just as gung ho as the right to storm into a country and start blowing things up to make a buck.

Now.. let's look at those choices.

If you say "The President broke his promise to do this the right way so I can't be held responsible". That is a really blind faith he put into someone who by the time the IRW was up for vote had proven time and time again he couldn't be trusted is just plain stupidity. This country, along with the rest of the world KNEW exactly what was going to happen once that passed. For Kerry to try and convince people that he had no idea when he voted "yes" things would go the way they did is a huge insult to me, and if he has no more sense than that, well..... I would like to think a US senator has at least as much common sense as the average person. If not, well looks like we need a new senator with a little common sense.

And the last 2 choices, well they speak for them selves. So- to me, looks like quite a corner to be backed into with no clear way out.

[K-W]

53. You dont understand what the IWR was.

It wasnt about promises. The IWR didnt give Bush the keys to the military, Bush was commander and chief, he already had one.

The IWR simply said that congress would OK the use of force in Iraq under certain specific conditions.

Bush used force outside of those conditions. He did not use the IWR at all, except as a political smokescreen.

Kerry believed the IWR was good policy and still does. That Bush chose not to follow the policy and abuse his positon as commander and chief has nothing whatsoever to do with the IWR.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

59. Thanks for the help

But I am perfectly capable of "understanding" things on my own. I do understand, quite well. So tell me this, if it was never intened to give the go ahead at sole descretion then why was there a need for it a all? Why is permission granted ahead of time a necessity? Why didn't congress simply say, No, this isn'' necessary at this time we have bigger fish to fry? Was there some crucial time line and the clock was ticking and time was running out? Were the paper airplanes loaded and ready to fly across the ocean? Give me one GOOD reason the IRW needed to be passed? Emphasis on the word NEED. It is insane that people actually believe that it was a good thing for congress to give away their constitutional duty to declare war when there was no crisis, no immediate threat no good reason what so ever for the need for it to begin with. Also, I have been waiting patiently for a reasonable explanation as to why the US set it's sight on Iraq in the first place. Does anyone remember Bin Laden? The one who blew up the WTC? When did he become back burner and Iraq became a dire right now issue?

[K-W]

65. I am trying to help you.

If you would just calm down for a few minutes and listen you would understand that the IWR isnt what you think it is.

Do I need to give you an entire history of Iraq since Gulf War 1? I hope not, so lets start with post 9/11. 9/11 happens, and the administration starts circulating information that Iraq has WMD's and saying that Iraq was part of 9/11. Iraq is already under sanctions from Gulf War 1, and already not allowed to have WMD's. There had been previous inspections.

So with all this info, there is pressure to find out if Iraq does have WMD's and does have ties to 9/11. The UN sends in inspectors, Bush is pushing hard for inspections.

The IWR stated that in the event that inspections and all other peaceful attempts fail, and saddam has or is concealing weapons, or if Saddam was tied to 9/11, the president can use force. Congrss did not give up thier constitutional duty, they did thier constitutional duty, they perscribed the exact conditions neccesssary for the US to go to war, as is thier right in the constitution.

Kerry says he voted for the IWR because he felt that it would provide leverage for inspections. If saddam knew that force could be used if he didnt allow inspections, he would be more inclined to allow them. So far Kerry's position is perfectly reasonable. If Saddam is hiding something, or has something, then war is justified.

Bush then, lies to america, lies to congress, lies to the world, subverts the inspection process, and goes to war outside of the conditions in the IWR.

As far as 9/11, it was a part of the IWR, Bush said saddam was part of 9/11, the IWR said that if that proved true, Bush could act.

Kerry acted completely within the law and completely rationally. Bush is the one who misused his office to fight an illegal war.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

68. Ummmm........ok

If that rationale makes one feel ok with it all then I say hey, knock yourself out. As for the history lesson. Well i'll just say no thanks and move along. And just a little tip, when you come across with the "Hey, just calm down and listen because your not as smart as me, I get it an you don't attitude..... well it reminds me a lot of listening to Sean Hannity. And...well.... Sean Hannity can kiss my collective ass. I'm quite certain that I am not alone in not "Understanding" YOUR view of what did and what did not happen. So tone it down a bit on the arrogance and we can all play nice.

On that note I will sign off and get some sleep. However, I will leave you with something my father told me as a child and still tells me today. And that is, "Be very careful who's toes you step on today, for those same toes may be attached to the foot that kicks your ass tomorrow".


Peace!

[K-W]

69. I've tried my best, I guess you can kick my ass then.

I asked you to calm down because your post read as very angry and it seemed to me you might be missing my point because of emotion. That is all. Im sorry if I misread your tone.

Im sorry you got so attached to inaccurate spin about the IWR vote. I know you mean well.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

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

[GodHelpUsAll2]

143. Angry???

I don't see anger in it at all. However, I do see several questions that have been completely avoided and responded to with arrogant condescension. I'm still waiting for answers. Take your time, i'll have dinner while i'm waiting.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

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

[JackDragna]

86. You're the one covering for Kerry

Kerry and his fellow weak-kneed colleagues didn't exactly make too much of a hue and cry over the invasion when it came around, did they? When it was obvious to the public that Bush was going to war, resulting in protests of all sorts, what did Kerry do? Nothing. He knew what the score was just as sure as anyone else did. He knew what his IWR vote meant the moment he cast it.

[Guaranteed]

97. *YOU*....ARE...SPINNING.

The TRUTH is that Kerry was scared SHITLESS to do what he KNEW to be the right thing.

THE END

[kiahzero]

42. The issue was not the "threat" of Iraq

The issue was making sure that inspections were effective - UNSCOM leaders, such as Scott Ritter, argued that a threat of force was necessary for Saddam to cooperate, so the Congress provided a threat of force.

So now, it wasn't "just politics." It was a reasonable public policy decision.

[bpilgrim]

48. but would he do it again? the correct answer is NO

knowing what we all now KNOW then he proceeds to point to the abysmal failures of this crimminal administration and how it CONTINUES to accerbate the many problems THEN talk about how he's gonna fix it and restore HOPE and RESPECT, talk about JOBS, HEALTHCARE, ECONOMY and FOCUS the INTENSITY of the war like a LASERBEAM on the KNOWN TERRORIST and not WEAKEN our military capability by getting them stuck in sands that were already relatively secured.

you don't try and talk about how you would have faught it better all 2nd guessing, you talk about what a FAILURE the actual policy has been and how it has taken our eye off the ball from the REAL TERRORIST.

well, thats what i would like to see but it's like mic said 'you CANT always get what YOU want' =(

peace

[kiahzero]

51. No, he gave the correct answer

If it was good public policy, it was good public policy.

[bpilgrim]

55. and some wonder why we're in this mess

:crazy:

peace

[K-W]

56. Who wonders? It is because of Bush and his cronies.

Kerry was doing his job, Bush is a criminal.

[bpilgrim]

58. kerry giving war authority to a crimminal is the problem

he should just 'admit' he was BUSHWACKED and now it's time to FIX his mess.

:hi:

peace

[K-W]

61. Why do you keep repeating republican talking points?

Kerry did no such thing. He voted to give the president authority under certain circumstances. Since those circumstances were never met,

KERRY DID NOT VOTE TO GIVE HIM AUTHORITY FOR THIS WAR

Had Bush followed the conditions in the IWR, then you would have a point. But he didnt, so you dont. Kerry voted for nothing that gave Bush the authority to do what he did.

He has admitted that he was mislead by Bush, and he has attacked bush for it.

[bpilgrim]

63. that he said he would do it again

just rubs me the wrong way... lets just agree to disagree

peace

[K-W]

66. It rubbed me the wrong way too, then I looked into it.

He stands by the IWR. He doesnt support and never supported Bush's war.

It rubs you the wrong way because you falsely think or at least thought that the IWR authorized the war Bush waged. It didnt. I was terribly surprised to learn that Kerry is actually pretty right on this. At first I was as skeptical as you are.

[bpilgrim]

103. yet he'd do it again

:crazy:

peace

[MadHound]

121. Sorry, but that is bullshit KW, Kerry failed abysmally to do his job

Kerry's job, his number one responsibility, is to represent the wishes and the will of his constituents. At the time of the IWR vote(interesting that it's full name is the Iraq WAR Resolution, shouldn't that be a clue) messages to both houses of Congress were running 280-1 against the IWR. Major polls across the board were showing an overwhelming majority of people in this country were wanting to hold off on doing ANYTHING until the inspectors reported. Millions of people, both around the country and around the world were out in the streets protesting against the IWR. And yet Kerry voted for it, thus flying in the face of the will of his constituents, and failing miserably to do his JOB.

Kerry's vote was wrong on many many levels, and the truth of that will not disappear no matter what kind of spin is put on it.

[K-W]

40. I disagree, but it is certainly a reasonable point.

I dont think Saddam was as much of a threat as he was played out to be. He invaded Kuwait because he thought he could get away with it. As long as we made it clear that he could never do such a thing again without being removed, I dont think he would ever try it again. Saddam wasnt stupid. If our info now shows us one thing it should be that Saddam wasnt in the business of trying to intentionally piss us off. He didnt have anything.

Meanwhile, had we used 9/11 properly to create an international effort to fight terrorism and weapons proliferation, we wouldnt have to worry about him becoming involved in terrorism.

But I certainly can understand your point and Kerry's, and in Kerry's case it is the politically wise stance to take.

[kiahzero]

43. I agree regarding 9/11

I think our major point of contention, after discussing this with you a bit, is whether or not getting inspectors back into Iraq fell under combatting weapons proliferation.

I also agree that he probably invaded Kuwait because he thought he could get away with it... my primary concern with Iraq, before the war, was Saddam thinking he could get away with creating weapons. Even if he didn't proliferate them, eventually his regime was going to fall. When it did, there would almost certainly be enough instability for a non-state actor to get his/her hands on those weapons, and that's when we'd have a problem.

[LibraLabSoldier]

50. I agree, sort of....

I do not agree with why we went to war. Since we have been in Iraq, we have done a lot of good. Also, we made the rest of the middle east sit up and take notice. I have deployed with UN peacekeepers before...they dont keep much peace, and those silly blue helmets make them targets. One thing is for certain, requardless of who gets the wh this fall: We cannot leave Iraq without cleaning up the mess. If we do this right, we will have some strong lifelong allies, hopefully free from Opec pressure...just my two bits..

[Kool Kitty]

76. Thank you for your service and I'm glad you are home and

not in Iraq. Mr. Bush certainly did make the rest of the Middle East sit up and take notice. Invading a country that didn't attack us will make them do that. The mess does need to be cleaned up, but I don't think that we should have messed it up to begin with.

They won't be able to call you back, will they?

[LibraLabSoldier]

90. nope.

I am not getting out for another two years. It seems that some of the people posting here want to hold on to the terrible picture that A)all US Soldiers are morons killing people for fun, B)The media has our best interest at heart, and C)the Iraqis are just killing us because we wont leave their country.

I wish some of these people who are bashing me would volunteer, go to Iraq, then come back and tell me some things. I never said I went. I know lots of people who did. Not all of them came back with all of their arms, legs, eyes, or the ability to sleep at night. I dont have to justify President BUshes war to you guys. I am just trying to give a view of it you dont see on the news.

Sue me.

[Djinn]

141. You keep ignoring a few basics though

1. Not everyone in the armed forces agress with your assesment - you act like you speak for everyone in uniform and that you're the only one that can have an opinion on this.

2. You've spoken to SOLDIERS not IRAQI's - the people I speak to live in Iraq or have family living in Iraq - they see things a little differently than you seem to.

3. You're spiuting EXACTLY what they say on the news "we're there to help" "we'er putting the water back on" "the fighters are foreigners" and it's all crap

[Kool Kitty]

142. I didn't say that the US soldiers are morons, did I?

My Father was a soldier and was hurt on D-Day in the invasion. I fully support the troops. I wasn't bashing you, I thanked you for your service, didn't I?

The mainstream media has Mr. Bush's agenda in their hearts, nothing more.

I didn't ask you to justify Bush's actions, I just don't think that he made the Middle East sit up and take notice in the proper way. What he did is make us here in the US less safe and makes the soldiers that are over there sitting ducks. I am sorry if you misunderstood me.

SUE me, okay?

[Cheswick2.0]

109. he knew bush would invade

he voted to invade

[kiahzero]

134. Show me where the IWR forces an invasion

After all, if he had "voted to invade," the IWR would have had to somehow mandate an invasion.

Kerry voted to satisfy the War Powers Act requirement. That's it. Anything else is a LIE, promoted by the Bush Administration to LIE about Kerry's position.

Funny that so many "progressives" would trust Bush.

[kimchi]

146. I think your assessment is right on.

Iraqis fighting each other would unfortunately be more sensible and palatable than the current situation where we really don't have a dog in this fight. Even the most ardent freeper must stretch their feeble minds to embrace Bush's flimsy justifications to rush recklessly into the fray. We all know Bush and Cheney bet on the outcome long before the fighting ever started.

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[Skittles]

73. Kerry has f***ed up big time

his vote for IWR was a disgrace but instead of admitting it, he is trying to rationalize the impossible and I tell you it is painful to see.

[K-W]

74. That is a lie, and a Bush lie at that.

Why dont you do some reading on what the IWR actually was instead of believing the conservative spin on it?

[Skittles]

91. BS

he voted to give authority to GO TO WAR to a THIEVING WARMONGERING BASTARD. *WE* all knew what would happened and KERRY DIDN'T????? WTF???????

[Gore1FL]

93. I agree and disagree

I was against the vote, because as you said, I didn't believe
Bush would use those powers rationally. If I were in congress I would have voted against it.

That being said, The vote was not what it is being characterized as -- It truly was NOT a vote for war.

Now THAT being said, I honestly believe Bush would have used military force with or without congress. He wanted congress -- he wanted the UN, but he'd have gone with our without the UN (obviously) and with or without congress.

[JackDragna]

84. You're dead-on.

More mealy-mouthing Republican-wannabeism from our horrid candidate.

[Gore1FL]

92. 'So what does "done right" mean?' I have the answer

Done right = war at last resort.

Sometimes a military engagement is called for. I don;t think this was the case in Iraq, and had anyone taken the time to find out rather than rush in at breakneck speeds, then the war would have benn "done right"--it likey would not have been fought at all.

[LibraLabSoldier]

94. I agree.

Most soldiers that participated in the push to Baghdad fully expected to be hit with Chemical or Biological weapons at any moment. They expected to find huge bio labs, and stockpiles. It was a good letdown when it was found not to be the case, but that was followed by the incredulity when the deployments kept being extended. Pressure was put on to find something, anything. Troops have been ground down by this war, pushed and pushed and pushed some more. Our divorce rate is even higher than usual, and troops that come back have been succumbing to alcohol, drugs, and despair. Many lost their wives while in Iraq, and found their finances in shambles. This was not the way to go to war. Those of us in uniform agree. But now that we are there, we might as well make the best of things. Whoever the president is next, he is not gonna be able to walk away from Iraq like it never happened.

[leesa]

116. What happened to your pledge to defend the Constitution??

[Guaranteed]

96. Yeah, but we're not here to tell the truth, apparently.

It's not about leadership, or doing things the right way. It's about getting a (D) in the White House.

[latebloomer]

100. exactly!

I like your romantic rapist analogy.

And I am still waiting for an explanation that makes sense about why "knowing what he knows NOW" Kerry would STILL have voted for the resolution.

Knowing there were no WMDs? Knowing that Iraq was no threat to us? Knowing that Bush is a lying warmongering Halliburton-whoring piece of shit?

[Cheswick2.0]

120. He said it is because "that is the kind of power a President should have"

I don't agree

[Art_from_Ark]

124. Someone needs to remind Kerry of that expression they have

in Massachusetts, well, they have it in Texas, they probably have it in Massachusetts, too, that goes:

"Fool me once, shame on...bu$h? Fool me twice, shame on...bu$h? Fool me three times, shame on...bu$h? Fool me four times..."

[kayell]

102. Damn right!

:yourock:

[Cheswick2.0]

104. I don't think the war could be done right....... I agree with

you 100 percent. If we no longer believe in the idea of "Just War" then I want a new government and that includes new democrats to replace the moldy rotted ones was have in congress.

[noonwitch]

105. I understand what he is saying

Yes, war can be "done right". We did WWII right and saved the world from facism.
I think what he meant was that if we had continued the inspections, waited for definitive proof that Saddam had WMD and gotten all of our allies behind us based on proof that Saddam had broken the UN resolutions imposed on him prior to going to war, than it would have been "done right".

[leesa]

118. But of course Saddam was in compliance so that would have spoiled our

party, wouldn't it. Why can't we confess that Americans are a violent group salivating for a chance to blow things up. We love war.

[Hubert Flottz]

122. I agree 100%!

Saddam had been contained and was no real threat to the US mainland, as advertised by the War Party! Bush lied about everything, because KKKarl thought WAR was good politics!

The control of the US Senate was the GRAND prize in the fall of 2002! Once Bush had control of congress, the judiciary branch and executive branch, he did as he pleased and he does to this day! It was the stampeded voter's, who let the GOP take control of the Senate in the 2002 election! The voters are at fault as much as the Neo Cons! The voters bought the lies too, just like Our Guys and Gals in congress did! Once the GOP did have control of all three branches after November 2002, Bush had the green light for everything!

John Kerry never stood up and lied to the people of America and the world in the SOTU speech, Bush did! Bush and friends had been pushing and shoving the entire country toward the war in Iraq since 9/11 and before! If the "WAR" had been waged "Right" it may never have evolved into the killing phase! We and the world can't afford four more years of trial and error type Texas chain saw diplomacy!

The GOP has taken EVERY advantage of America's "Shock and AWE" since the 9/11 attack! This upcoming election will make or break America!

[GodHelpUsAll2]

145. I disagree

War done wrong, war done right. It makes no difference. We should NOT have gone into Iraq period. Nothing had been done there that warranted a full blown attack, even if he was in violation of a few resolutions. It hasn't mattered much for the past 12 years so there was no reason at all to rush in there. Also, what business did we have paying out billions on a war when the country's economy was/still is sucking hind tit, millions were now unemployed and we still had not finished the mess we started in Afghanistan. 9-11
9-11 9-11 Bush uses it every time he opens his stupid mouth, people freak out and rush out to buy duct tape and plastic sheeting every time the idiotic terror alert gets raised. Is no one cluing in to the fact that we have done virtually NOTHING about Bin Laden? about 80% of Afghanistan is back under Tali ban rule, Bin Laden is still traipsing around out there somewhere plotting and planning North Korea is threatening and having tantrums (potentially deadly ones at that) and this country and it's leaders and potential leaders are bickering about whether or not they were right or wrong to vote for the IRW. And if the us was justified in invading a country that is in my opinion the least of our problems. This is just un-freaking believable to me. I truly believe this country and the majority of it's population has gone completely insane.

[homelandpunk]

147. To do it right, then, means there could not have been a war, given your

criteria:
<<I think what he meant was that if we had continued the inspections, waited for definitive proof that Saddam had WMD and gotten all of our allies behind us based on proof that Saddam had broken the UN resolutions imposed on him prior to going to war...>>

This can only mean war would not have even happened, were it "done right". Why? Because there are no (and never will be)WMD's found...and Saddam had not broken UN resolutions (It is meaningless to argue whether he WOULD have). Which means that "done right" is waiting, holding, holding, holding....UNLESS!!!
Unless something else besides "Saddam is bad" is offered. Hmmmmmm, what could that be? How about LIES. Which means to even GET to the point of war, is to lie the country (and the world) into agreeing to go to war. So done right in this instance can only mean using deception at the outset. Without deception (high crimes and misdemeanors) there would not even be a war. That sounds good to you? Wanna make WW2 comparisons still???
I know what will be said: So "now that we are in it" we should get it "done right".
The only way to get it done right at this point is figuring out how to tell ourselves ALL the dead - our soldiers AND all the Iraqis - somehow did not die in vain. How do you propose doing that?
"Done right" at this point, and at all points leading up to this point, is barren of any "do right" motivations, deeds, actions, and excuses.

[Q]

119. It's very disturbing...

...watching DEMOCRATS try to justify the 'war resolution' because 29 Dem senators voted for it. But seldom do we debate the reasons why 21 Dem senators voted against it. I guess THEY must have actually READ the resolution before casting their votes.

- The Resolution had so many 'loopholes' that it's impossible to believe that any representative could have thought that Bush* wouldn't have taken advantage of them. Did any of the 29 actually believe that Bush* would cooperate with the UN after calling it 'irrelevant'?

- And we saw NO protests from the 29 who voted for it after Bush* broke his 'promise' to use war as a last resort. Instead...they told us 'we must support the president*' in a 'time of war'. But it wasn't a war...it was an attack on country that posed no threat to us. Everyone knew this. Everyone.

- Democrats look like hypocrites as they defend the indefensible.

[G_j]

125. & weren't there already troops amassing at the time? n/t

[vision]

131. There were no checks on Bush's power

The IWR gave the President the power to decide when and how to use force.

IMO these are the really relevant passages:

"SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm

As Byrd said he was given a blank check as it all hinged on "Presidental Determination"

[Generic Other]

133. The Dem senators who voted against the IWR listened to their

constituents. The others listened to daily doses of propaganda.

I suppose their argument was that their vote was a poker move--a bluff meant to put more teeth into US threats against Saddam. Unfortunately, Bush called their bluff. And he had a pair of aces up his sleeve, so he won. And the American people lost.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

144. Very disturbing indeed

Down right frightening.

[blm]

123. Right as in IMPLEMENTING the IWR honestly. There would be NO invasion

because thorough weapons inspections would have proven use of force to be unnecessary.

Funny how so many of you fail to acknowledge that reality. Guess all that foam at the mouth gets in the way.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

129. Kerry won't answer the questions. He's playing it "safe".

He says that he would still have voted for the war knowing what he knows now with the weasley proviso that he would have "done it right".

So, he would have voted the same even though he now knows that Bush was going to war despite there being no cause for it.

With the proviso, that had he been president, he would have still gone to war, despite there being no cause for it.

The apologists can spin it 'til their dizzy, but it still comes out that Kerry backed, and still backs, an illegal invasion and subjugation of a sovereign nation for no reason.