I am not shocked that the US govt does things like this, but I don't want our govt accusing others when it is know that the US govt does the same thing. The US govt acts like they never do anything bad. In fact, I don't care what we give, that still doesn't give the US govt the right to put in rulers of our own on other countries. Then we wonder why "blowback" happens??? Idiot, you just meddled with another country, what do you expect???
Don't tell me we support as much as Israel, that is a bold faced lie. Who is the innocent when we meddle in other countries to contribute many deaths? FYI: I served in this recent circus that we call this operation.

You wrote, "WHY HAS NO ONE NOTED THE FACT THAT THE US INSTALLED THEIR OWN RULER IN IRAN IN 1953?"

Yes, The US and England helped put into power the Shah of Iran. Prior to this the western-friendly Prime Minister had been assassignated, parliment quickly passing changes to nationalize the oil industry, and the leader (Mossadegh) became Prime Minister.

Absolutely in the 70's the Iranian conflict arose had roots in resentment from the Shah's rule. However militants were equally angry about the "westernization" of their country (ala women not covering as islamic law proscribes), and the economic struggles Iran was facing.

Today terrorists cite any and all reasons for jihad: western influences, the crusades, our support of Israel, their economic struggles, etc.

With ALL the reasons one might point fingers at the US – we are one of the largest provider of foreign aid (food, money, provisions), we support Palestine AND Israel, we support dialogue and peaceful means to end conflict, and have use forced only when necessary and attempted to incorporate a social conscience into our military efforts.

We are not perfect, but we are not the great satan. And we will not stand quietly while terrorists plot, plan, and execute actions which injure and kill thousands of innocent men, women, and children.

And yes – we WILL operate and support policies that act in our (USA) best interests.

SHOCKED?

Thanks! At least someone on this board knows of this information! It is rather sad that only two of us can point this out. Do any of the neocons and lefty wackjobs know this???? I dare any of you in that camp to refute this!!!

It was called "Operation Ajax".

But most people (especially Bushies) are too stupid to look that up.

People who say if the military was allowed to do what it takes to win, the US would have won Vietnam and this war. Those people know nothing about military history. A professional standing army will never win a guerilla war. Why don't you ask the Brits how we did it early in the Revolutionary War.
How come people cannot get that through their head!!!???
We have been over in the Middle East since we formed as a country, the US installed OUR OWN RULER in IRAN in 1953!! How come no one takes that into account of why there is "terrorisim"? MOST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES MEDDLE IN OTHERS, accept it. The US does that same things that the white house accuses Iran of

Again!! WHY HAS NO ONE NOTED THE FACT THAT THE US INSTALLED THEIR OWN RULER IN IRAN IN 1953!!!!! Would you be pissed if this happened to us???

PLEASE ANYONE!!!

Posted By Paul, New Orleans, LA :
August 16, 2007 6:17 pm

Geez Paul you must have missed World War II when a standing army survived the guerilla warfare in Germany after occupying the country. Of course you would probably care to forget the fact that our ways of dealing with the German guerilla fighters were not the most civilized. You probably also would care to forget the fact that winning required inflicting large numbers of civilian casualties.

We won the Revolutionary war when we adapted to the situation. Early on we got our assess handed to us on a platter because we thought the European way of fighting was the way to go. At one time the Revolutionary war was all but lost and yet we see how that turned out.

We refused to bomb military targets in heavily populated civilian areas when we fought in Vietnam. We also conducted only limited bombing against areas where the North Vietnamese was being re-supplied from. Vietnam would probably look much like Korea if not for the fact we didn't fulfill our promise to the South Vietnamese.

If your main concern is being the "bigger man" your best off not fighting the other guy because you will lose. Just because technology has advanced dramatically does not mean that war is no longer hell. It just means less civilians get killed in the process.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." - Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." - Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." - Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." - John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." - John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." - Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." - John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America?s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." - John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

I would like to thank you for your comments. Your "shoot-em-up" "take no prisoners" "my way or the highway" "might is always right" approach to diplomacy illuminates better than my words ever could exactly how our current President has utterly destroyed decades of good will our previous leaders have built across this planet. It's easy to feel smug in a gun battle as long as you have the biggest gun. But history has shown time and again what happens to nations that get arrogant. There is not a single nation in the history of the world that has not fallen. I would love for us to be the exception. But the only way that is going to happen is for us to either take over the entire planet, or learn to coexist with other nations. And since I don't see anyone calling for Option 1, then we should probably focus on Option 2. And while I know cowboys like our President don't get their jollies through diplomacy and compromise, it is the way REAL men get things done.

I don't understand what your problem is with what I said? Victory was declared by this President 4 years ago...It's time to bring the troops home my friend. As the best friend of 2 marines who have bravely sacrificed their lives for this war...Is it too much to ask for the safe return of our military personnel ASAP? (Especially in light of the recent video of Dick Cheney that has surfaced)

I’m all for American military victory. But how do we win someone else’s civil war? Just whose side are we on? The Shia? The Sunni? The Kurd? What does this victory of yours look like? To think we can just summon up our resolve and go wipe out the bad guys like Rambo is naive both politically and militarily. But then again, so is believing anything that comes out of this disgraced and incompetent administration.

We can win against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and in the hearts and minds of Muslims around the world. But in Iraq all we can do is lose.

I think you're the reason why they no longer keep score at my kid's ball games and why there are more trophies than players in our athletic contests!

Keep this straight – our armed forces are responsible for winning America's wars not simply showing up, getting the T-shirt that says "hero" and coming home. The objective in war is never bring ‘em home safe and as soon as possible – it's to win, win, win. And you do that by destroying the other guy/gal's will to fight – unfortunately with Harry Reid's continued statements from the hallows halls in our nation’s capitol, I think that somehow this has worked in reverse ... or he's playing for the other team? Seems we threw Tokyo Rose in prison for saying some similar things. What did our grandparents know that we don’t?

Thanks,

Rich

Welcome to the dynamic world of Realpolitik A.K.A. – “the real world!” You bet we have a right to invade a country whether the leadership is duly elected or not. Check your history books – it’s been that way since the dawn of time regardless of your liberal enlightenment. If we (or any other country BTW) deem any foreign state or organization to represent a threat to our citizens, our way of life, our national interests or if it just plan upsets the balance of world order, you bet we’re going to act! Enough of this “Suddam has nothing to do with 9/11” – poor Saddam – bad guy to his people but no threat to anyone else – real nice, Steven. Well, I guess the next time we ask a dictator for some answers and confirmation, they just might consider we’re serious … because we need that information to get folks like you on board before we lay the wood to ‘em.

It comes down to leadership. While intell is never perfect and always has been an imprecise science made up of: 3 parts information, 2 parts intuition, and 5 parts a combination of hearsay, gossip, and nonsense – we compensate for that with leaders who aren’t afraid to act. People who must wait until all the information exists aren’t leaders – and shouldn’t be the leader of the US – those folks are the know-it-alls that go on the radio and news programs to show us all how smart they are and what we should have done. Bush didn’t lie, he took action and I absolutely agree that history will judge us better than if we had sat back theorizing of while at the same time hoping and praying the worst wouldn’t come to pass. There are many examples of that happening throughout history too – and not one of them is celebrated.

I’m getting real tired of the great enlightened ones wanting to travel back in time and change their position about supporting taking action against Suddam. Well, the results haven’t been what we would have hoped, but just because you don’t like where we are right now, doesn’t mean you can cop out and go back to ease your conscience. I know Bush makes it easy and offers all of you “do-over” types an opportunity to cop out like Al Gore and claimed the only reason you supported it was that you too were “duped.” We’re there and fighting a war of attrition, which BTW no one has every won, but it’s a success even if the only thing that comes out of our time in Iraq is that the next time the US says “knock it off or we’re coming” that these people or leaders realize we’re serious and that we’re bringing a tank to a gun fight!

Thanks,

Rich

Good now lets declare victory a second time and support the soldiers by bringing them home. They won the war, they are heroes! They deserve better from our Commander-In-Chief.

Absolutely there are times when our enemie's enemy is our friend. Saddam was seemingly "controllable" until he unilaterally invaded Kuwait – elevating his status from territorial bad guy to Middle-Eastern Menace and Predator.

Your attempt to equate Isreal to Saddam is laughable. IF you were to look into the UN Resolutions you would see the vast majority are the rantings of Islamic countries bent on the destruction of Israel... countries which harbor terrorists groups that blow up innocent men/women/children in buses, malls, and discos. Israel maintains an open dialogue and has made progress in pulling out of occupied territories.

We broke international law by invading Iraq?? LOL Which law was that, Pixie? UN Resolution 1441 required Saddam to comply or face "serious consequences". But if you think the US violated "international laws" you go ahead and lead up the charge for President Bush (and our congress) to be tried at the Hague.

Sorry the application of your isolationist rhetoric fails when applied to the attrocities of Hitler. But I'll tell you what ... the NEXT time the UN is unable to reign in a brutal dictator – we'll send you and Sean Penn over to "reason" with them and ask them not to hurt others.

And we don't LOVE war – we love freedom and peace. And SOMETIMES – peace comes at the price of killing those that plot/plan to kill you.

Keep in mind, he was a brutal dictator that we were more than happy to support when he worked in our best economic & strategic interests. We still maintained diplomatic relations w/ him after the gassing of the Kurds. To turn around now and claim that we were right to invade because he was a Very Bad Man, we would also have to acknowledge that we were perfectly happy to look the other way as long as he was friendly to our interests.

"We WILL respect the sovereignty of RESPECTABLE nations that abide and respect the rights/value of other nations."

Riiiight, so who determines who and what is respectable? I guess we have the biggest toys so we make that choice, correct? Your talk about violation of UN resolutions is absurd. If we are going that as an excuse for our invasion, then we have to also explain why we remain staunch allies w/ Israel who has violated 68+ UN resolutions. Oh wait, that's right, there's one standard for our Respectable Allies, and quite another for the other countries out there.

"IF/WHEN a country acts aggressively (invading Kuwait) and defies the world (UN Resolutions) – then YES we can take action to remove these dictators/and or brutal regimes (Al Qaeda)."

So I guess by your logic that means since we broke international law by invading Iraq who was neither attacking us or presented a threat, then other countries can feel free to invade us and remove our dictator? (Why did you even throw Al Qaeda in there? you do realize that Al Qaeda entered Iraq *AFTER* we invaded, don't you?)

"Germany was a sovereign nation under Hitler. Based on your arguments we should have never invaded their country??"

GG: "Is the curriculum for history classes in some American states restricted to learning about Hitler and the Nazis and 1938 and Hitler and Germany? It must be, because there are many right-wing fanatics whose entire understanding of the world is reduced in every instance to that sole historical event - as though the world began in 1937, ended in 1945, and we just re-live that moment in time over and over and over:

Love war? You are Churchill, a noble warrior. Oppose war? You're Chamberlain, a vile appeaser. And everyone else is Hitler. That, more or less, composes the full scope of "thought" among this strain on the right."

You said, "We invaded a sovereign nation and overthrew a duly-elected leader despite the fact that he presented absolutely no immediate threat to our safety and security."

Duly-elected?? Are you refering to the "vote" Saddam held and told the world 100% of the votes were for him?? Good lord – he was a brutal disctator that held power through the military. Any "opposition" was either tortured/killed or gassed (hundreds of thousands of kurds).

You then go on to ask, "The question is: Are we going to respect the sovereignty of other nations or not? "

We WILL respect the sovereignty of RESPECTABLE nations that abide and respect the rights/value of other nations. That WASN'T Iraq/Saddam. Let me remind you: UN Resolutions 660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, 1284, and 1441 – ALL called for Saddam to de-arm, provide documentation of the destruction of arms, and cooperate with UN inspections.

IF/WHEN a country acts aggressively (invading Kuwait) and defies the world (UN Resolutions) – then YES we can take action to remove these dictators/and or brutal regimes (Al Qaeda).

Germany was a sovereign nation under Hitler. Based on your arguments we should have never invaded their country??

Congress (inlcluding Hillary) completely authorized the action and the only people who were against it were the same anti-war crowd that would be opposed to ANY military action, NO matter what he circumstances.

People supported it because it was the RIGHT thing to do.

Since the quick WIN, things have not gone as smoothly as SOME would have like but you don't just go in and topple a dictatorship and have a perfect democracy the next morning.

Unfortunately, we in this country have a VERY low tolerance for pain and we tend to turn our backs when things get tough (thanks largely to media outlets such as CNN who cherrypick the news and only report things supporting their agenda).

Anyone in the their right mind, who has ANY clue of what is going on over there knows that it is not a realistic goal for us to just pick up and leave. CNN's own Michael Ware (not a supporter of America in the slightest) has reported repeatedly that if we left, the region would likely go up in flames and we here in America would face a great deal more terrorism on our lands.

You ask where I was on 9/11/01. I was in Manhattan, just a few blocks uptown from where 2 friends of mine perished at the hands of intolerance and hatred. Where were you?

And what, I have to wonder, does that have to do with the topic at hand? Because no matter how hard this President tries to wrap his illegitimate war in the flag and the blood of 9/11, the two things are completely unrelated.

If he had REALLY been serious in erradicating terrorism, we would have sent our entire military force to the hills of Afghanistan and turned over ever single rock until we found Osama bin Laden. We would have been relentless in conducting surgical strikes to take out the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we would have sent the CIA into Saudia Arabia to assasinate the wealthy Sheiks funding the attacks.

But he wasn't serious and we didn't do that. Methodically tracking down a madman and conducting covert strikes wasn't sexy enough for our Cowboy King, so he had to find something good to blow up. Someplace where he had a personal score to settle. Someplace where he could justify running up our defense spending to levels never before seen, bankrupting our nation and enriching his friends in the process, knowing that all he would have to do is say "9/11" and millions of Americans would swoon, give him whatever he wanted, and buy into the idea that anyone who disagreed was being "unpatriotic" or, in your lovely words, Kristy, a "communist."

You ask why I think this war was illigitimate.

We invaded a sovereign nation and overthrew a duly-elected leader despite the fact that he presented absolutely no immediate threat to our safety and security.

Was Saddam Hussein an evil man who treated his citizens attrociously? Absolutely. Is his country better off without him? Perhaps, although given the fact that Iraq is experiencing all-out civil war, that position is certainly debatable. But at the end of the day that point is irrelevent.

The question is: Are we going to respect the sovereignty of other nations or not? If we are, then we have to acknowledge that going into Iraq was a mistake - they had no WMDs, and we had the intelligence to know they didn't. And if we aren't going to respect the soverignty of other nations, and are just going to do whateverthehell we want, then we have absolutely NO standing to object when China decides to invade Tiawan, North Korea decides to invade South Korea, and India and Pakistan decide to blow each other to oblivion. If WE get to do what's in our best interest on the world stage, then so does everyone else.

But Hillary and Barack and the Breck Girl are all for losing. It's actually in their favor for us to lose a war!

Harry Reid sent these kids to go fight the war, then he said we're losing it.
The bottom line here is that the Democratic Congressmen undermined the troops and actually threatened to hold back funding our brave men and women and for that patriotic Americans will never forgive them.

Seem to remember our military going in and liberating Iraq in about the same amount of time it takes to order a Big Mac.

The fact that some yahoos continue blowing themselves up in an effort to turn American public opinion against the war does not equate to a "loss" by our military.

There will be crime in the streets of Iraq (just like there will be crime in the streets of the USA)) for many years to come and I don't think we should back down just because the operation hasn't gone as smoothly as some would have liked.

The fact that the Democratic candidates have tried to USE this in order to curry public favor is REPREHENSIBLE and they will MOST DEFINITELY pay for it come election time.

Posted By xtina chicago IL : August 16, 2007 5:54 pm

This is typical ignorance demonstrated over and over again by many conservatives. So what's this "vested interest" in losing xtina? You and your kind are so simple minded to think that people who are against the war are against America.

But this argument has been the same for years. Guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks. There will always be people like you who cannot look beyond the small picture in front of you.

Killing terrorists is fine with me. Creating millions of new ones with thoughtless and reckless arrogance is not.

We grew up knowing the Government lies!

Polls and statistics give the air of scientific reasoning and legitimacy, which is the basis of peddling this silliness. In that same spirit, please CNN, run a test group where you poll the same group in parallel with a "do you think Elvis is alive?" question. That way we can really see just how much political extrapolation is going on via the news manufacturing process.

Thanks,

Rich

You know, every time I hear of some kid being killed or raped for no good reason, I get upset. So, by your logic, we should just leave NY, Washington DC, or every metropolitan area where there's lots of crime?

You lament the people being killed, but you apparently have forgotten the hundreds of thousands murdered by Saddam and his sons. Do you think Iraq would have been better off with him still in power? Or is it that you just hate BushMcHitlerBurton more than anything else?

You say that "I AM anti-illegitimate war", so tell me, what about this war is illegimate?

And to those of you who insist on blaming CNN, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic presidential candidates, the blogosphere, and "liberals" in general for the poor poll results, have you ever considered that Americans just might be able to accurately weigh the objective evidence? Thousands of American soliers killed. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians killed. Abject poverty for millions. Civil War. The Iraqi government apparently trying to make arms deals behind our backs. How exactly can those FACTS be spun to suggest that things are going well?

And to all of you who seem to believe that those of us who oppose the war WANT things to go badly, what kind of people do you think we are? Are you so unable to believe that intelligent, compassionate, serious people could actually disagree with you, that you have to believe us to be monsters? Every time I hear of soldiers or Iraqi civilians being killed, it hits me like a knot in my stomach. This is a war that should NEVER have been started. And every day we are there, no matter how well things are going, death will occur. And as long as we pretend that we have any right to be there, the blood that is flowing will be on our hands. I am not anti-war. I AM anti-illegitimate war.

Our troops need to get out in VICTORY! Just getting out in one piece is not going to get the job done. We got out too early in Vietnam, and look at the bloodbath that followed.

The endgame must be victory, not just "getting out."