Liberals read this.

[Johnno]

repeatedly attacking civilians, police and interfering with the democratic process adn the establishment of a stable country,

Isn't that sort of what America did when they invaded Iraq?
Unlike Hugo, Saddam was an ideal candidate for a 1/2 mile love-letter.

That is a perfect example of the ignorant bullshit that is prevalent on this site. The comparisons of the US under bush to Iraq under Saddam, comparing interrogating terror suspects with loud music to brutally turturing and killing whole families are absurd. Put out by people with little to no knowledge of the subject or situation, but wanting to appear like they can 'think outside the square' and 'look at things from another perspective'.

Well by your own worthless logic Bin laden is a freedom fighter and the 9/11 attacks were justified and if he happened to tell a couple networks beforehand it would have been ok for them not to warn anyone but simply set up for some good footage.

[el3so]

But as far as I understand it, the insurgents are repeatedly attacking civilians, police and interfering with the democratic process adn the establishment of a stable country, while Private Dogface is attacking the insurgents. These motives seem pretty different to me.

Can't see no mention of motives, Buzzsaw, only actions...
I know you know I do not consider members of the US military as neo-crusading, Halliburton-payed baby-killers. In the same way, I doubt all insurgents are blood-crazed, undereducated women-abusers hoping to establish a Caliphate.

History, science (and personal experience for some) show that ordinary people are in the right circumstances perfectly capable of doing terrible things and afterwards return home and be loving husbands, fathers, etc.

When one is pointing a gun and pulling a trigger at a perceived enemy (outside of settling personal issues), I think there is little psychological room left for viewing the target as a human being. IMO most of the folks toting a gun in Iraq are told (and believe) that they are fighting the bad guys.
And since the actual killing is no longer a hands-on affair, the room for error and for shedding responsibility is a whole lot bigger. The bits of metal and the rapidly expanding hot gasses involved don't differentiate between kids, elderly, women, men.
Intel fckued up, I only pushed the button, that wedding sure looked like a political rally, I don't make policy, they were appeasers to the Yankee pig-dogs, you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, etc etc

Plus (and that IMO is a big plus) there is little to no political reasoning (apart from the majority of Shi'ites maybe) nor practical margin on the part of the insurgents to avoid collateral damage.
The Phoenix program during the Second Indo-Chinese war was (however morally repulsive to some) very effective because it targeted the various supporting arms of the enemy.

Like I said in an earlier thread, the folks doing the shooting probably have more in common with each other than with their respective leaders.

[coldharvest]

That is a perfect example of the ignorant bullshit that is prevalent on this site.

Iraq was stable before you invaded.
It may have been a country run by evil using murder and torture as it's social glue but it was stable.
Illogical wanting to kill Saddam the way killing Chavez was put forth?
How so?
Show me how 'unstable' Iraq was before we got there.

[Johnno]

Show me when the US deliberately targeted civilians and iraqs democratic process.

Killing saddam would have left a gap someone else would step into, or the country would degerate, just like it is now. Without the support of the US the country would be in full blown civil war. So please explain to me how you think a succesfull assasination (if possible) would have solved anything?

Like I said in an earlier thread, the folks doing the shooting probably have more in common with each other than with their respective leaders.

Yeah right. Along with cops who beat the shit out of suspects because they beleive they are bashing a bad guy? And the KKK when they were hanging people because they were the wrong colour?

Anyone who compare someone who coldy kills innocent civilians to a professional soldier is clearly an ignorant moron who has never been out of their comfort zone and actually dealt with the realities of war. A person who picks selectively though CNN and BBC broadcasts looking for infomation to confirm that the rose tint is not fading from their glasses.

[coldharvest]

Did Iraqis not 'elect' Saddam? I'd call invading disruptive to that process, fixed or not.
Anyway, the post wasn't comparing Bush to Saddam or their governments I simply stated you destabilized a stable country.
If I had two bullets left I'd shoot them both but I'd shoot Saddam
first.
Eat a Danish pastry and calm down.

[el3so]

a professional soldier

I take it you mean that in a different way than "in it for the money" right?

[Johnno]

Did Iraqis not 'elect' Saddam? I'd call invading disruptive to that process.

Say no more. Like I said at the top of the thread. I didnt really expect anyone to learn anything or think differently. Bush is all things evil, worse than saddam, insurgents are innocent freedom fighters, Bushs human rights record is worse than hitlers, stalins, pol pots, mao's and kim jong ils all compbined yadda yadda yadda, I believe everything chomsky tells me, mainly because he uses big words I dont understand and he sounds smart. Not to mention its fashionable to be against the fascist bush and pro muslim extremest (but only when the kill out soldiers, not my neighbors)
But at the same time I am a free thinker that only addresses the real facts. Dont tell me rebel wars in a third world country: I stayed at the hilton in cartegena last week!

sound familiar? I know your type (sorry, your dont have a type do you?)

Its a broken record with no issues I brought up being addressed and the usual lame responses attempting to parrallell a democraticly elected leader and professional soldiers to dictators, terrorist leaders and their mass murdering lower ranks.

All the while the issue of thread, scumbag reporters filming death that could be avoided for money, is ignored or feebly skirted around

[coldharvest]

Nice rant Johnno but nobody posted any of that.
I was all for the war to kill as many terrorists and dictators as is humanly possible.
That's not what's happening.
George Bush is just a lair not evil, Saddam was evil.
Let's hope that he'll be executed but what do you bet he's not?

sorry, your dont have a type do you

No, I don't, that's the difference between us.

[Johnno]

So now you deny saying:

Did Iraqis not 'elect' Saddam? I'd call invading disruptive to that process,

And once again failure to address any of the points. If I am a type, its not one you have ever heard of or met before. But you are entirely predictable.

[Buzzsaw]

Cold, Iraq was unstable in that it had waged war against three of its neighbors in the previous twenty years. So it was unstable in that it was pereived as a threat to the stability of the region.

Also, it was requiring a great deal of international resources to manage the sanctions and enforce the cease-fire agreement, which Saddam was flaunting. There were quite a few attacks on UN planes in the no-fly zones during the 90s.

So I don't really agree that Iraq was stable. It was more stable domestically, but a bigger threat to the region and the globe.

[Mikethehack]

My whole issue with the press is they are never neutral. Most are anti war.

I'm not so much bothered with neutrality or objectivity, I just want the truth and anyone here who has ever worked as a journalist will know that most people don't have the first clue what neutrality is. Some of us operate within the restrictions (see under 'risk') that comes with the job.
I don't think Prez Bush has much of a concept of neutrality either. Remember the "you're either with us or against us" speech? So why bother?

I would love to go over to Fallujah or Ramadi and film the fighting from the insurgents side,just as I have done from the Coalition's side, but guess what?
I'd either be shot by the Coalition troops,arrested and thrown inside and accused of being a terrorist or else accused and thrown inside and shot by the insurgents for being western and a likely CIA spy,assuming i wasn't shot or blown up by the insurgents while embedded with the Coalition.
This is all Catch-22, but I always accepted that it would be.

I don't take sides because,quite frankly,the only thing I give a damn about is my own ass,first and foremost and after that the most vunerable.i.e. kids and other defenceless types.

Now there has been times where I was totally neutral in certain situations and was seen to give a balanced account of what was going on (neither side disagreed with it on that tiny point) but I was still attacked for NOT taking sides.
So there you are, neutrality is in the eye of the beholder.

"What's the catch?"
"Catch-22"

[mamie]

at the same time, since when did "taking a side" and "telling the truth" become mutually exclusive? the more things change, the more they stay the same. when i came here, you were crying for the Kurds. now you're crying for the Sunni's. whatever the reasons for this clusterfuck, a lot of people have died and the Iraqi's now have a shot at working out their differences politically. i hope they have the will to do what it takes to make this a reality. i hope they stand up to those within their ranks who will resort to any form of violence against their own people to obtain and maintain control. and i hope we can get the fuck out of there much sooner rather than very much later.

[coldharvest]

It was more stable domestically, but a bigger threat to the region and the globe.

Which is why it was fine to invade him and should have been the reason for doing it.

So now you deny saying:

I didn't deny anything. Iraq did have an election before you got there and Saddam was elected, how could I deny a shining historical fact?

And once again failure to address any of the points.

Which of your points did I fail to address?
You seem to be implying that you can't win a war because of
'liberals' when the reason you can't win this one is your leaders
are greedy, self-absorbed assclowns.
Not enough oil in the Sudan, Yeman or Syria I guess.

ps, your new 'personality' isn't much better than your old one.

[Buzzsaw]

It was more stable domestically, but a bigger threat to the region and the globe.

Which is why it was fine to invade him and should have been the reason for doing it.

Yep. Too much shell game from the Bush and Blair admins on this one. They should have just stuck to their guns.

[coldharvest]

If Bush had simply assassinated him and the brothers it would have been over and the lefties would be shitting their pants now.
They didn't have anybody half as mean, feral and crazy as Saddam
in the wings.
It would have sent a clear message to the UN, the fundamentalists
and the rest of the world.
That's not what's happening now and all the screaming in the world won't correct it.
Once again noble warriors are dying to line the pockets of corrupt kings.
Johnno's right in the statement that nothing he can say will change my mind on that, even a broken clock is right twice a day.