Reviews for State of the Disunion
holocaustpulp chapter 4 . 2/28/2005
Because of more than one criticism on the title, I've changed it to "disunion".
Meat-eater Puppysbane chapter 1 . 2/28/2005
Ununion is not a word; disunion is. Using a nonexistent word in the title is not catchy, or cute; it is ignorant. It is wrong. And it is enough to convince me that your essay is not worth reading.
No Trust chapter 3 . 2/8/2005
The elections are meaningless as all such things are. All that matters is who has the guns, and their ability and willingness to use them. The existence of a centralized state in Iraq (or any third world country) ensures that only the very worst possible regime is possible, since whoever rules is stronger and more ruthless than any other group with the desire to do so.

Either the new government of Iraq will have the power and ruthlessness to hold Iraq together under its rule—like Saddam Hussein or moreso—or it will not. In the event of the latter, a variety of outcomes are possible, the better the more unlikely. In the event of the former, the Iraqis are unambiguously fucked.

As for spending, the state is going to spend money wastefully, and always more than it has, one way or another so it’s not really productive to decry the idiocies of any given spending program.
Lafey chapter 1 . 1/23/2005
Thank you! We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view, you ridiculous little carnival freak. I suggest you hone your writing skills before applying borrowed glories as a mere typist.

Why don't you shrink your head and use it as a paperweight? It's not much use for writing intelligent posts with, that's for sure. I understand what you are trying to say, even though you obviously don't. You've got a big hole in your head, now shut it. When you are at a loss for words, your loss is our gain. How true is Stanislaw J. Lec's famous remark: "Every now and then you meet someone whose ignorance is encyclopedic."

You are about as entertaining as watching grass grow in a windowbox. What do you do for a living? You are living, aren't you? You have the warm personal charm of a millipede and about as much class as a bucket of mucous lodged on top of a dumpster in a Blue Light district of New Jersey. Maybe you wouldn't read like such a pathetic loser if you weren't so stupid that even single-celled organisms out score you in IQ tests; if your weren't so fat that the elephants throw you peanuts at your local Zoo, or if you didn't have a face so ugly that Peeping Toms break into your house and close the blinds. No, come to think of it, you would.

Now, if you care to apologize for wasting my shamefully wasted time, I'll consider accepting it.
Calvin Fitzgerald chapter 1 . 12/13/2004
"I wasn’t aiming at being witty when I reviewed your essay; there was nothing more basic than the term stupid to describe its contents."

This essay was drivel but I was nice enough not to point that out. Instead of sorting through the essay and pointing out where I was wrong you simply labelled the entire piece "stupid". As for being witty, perhaps my sarcasm has escaped you. No matter.

"I more interpret this as a precautionary measure, as in Clinton was at least somewhat aware that a full attack on Iraq would have negative repercussions both with the international political situation, if not also with our own military."

Just as I interpret the War in Iraq as a precautionary measure, as Bush must have been aware that at somepoint Saddam could have launched an attack against us, our allies, or our assets.

"Which has resulted in a prolonged US involvement in Iraq and excessive US and Iraqi deaths."

How is this a prolonged US involvement? Did you expected US forces to pull out before the National Elections? It has been the plan all along to keep Iraq occupied until the elections. As for excessive US casulties, this is one of that far less bloody US military engagements of the past one hundred years. Six months in France a little under a hundred years ago resulted in more then fifty thousand American casulties.

"But he never did obtain the proper materials, or the means… At this point, if the Iraqi WMD program had developed thus far, the US would of course have to either negotiate (such as Europe is doing with Iran – negotiation is a good thing) or go to war with Iraq. So I’m not wrong..."

You are wrong. He had obtained the proper materials and had developed a WMD program in the past. What was to stop him this time? Remember, at the time it was widely believed that Iraq had WMD's, not to say that he didn't and still doesn't, but once again hindsight is 20/20. Negotiation is a good thing? We shouldn't have to negotiate with despots and thats why preemptive strikes are a good thing. You see, now we never have to negotiate with Iraq the same way we have to negotiate with Iran and North Korea. That's the point of a preemptive policy, to keep America from ever being blackmailed.

"Actually, President George W. Bush is probably the least American President the US has ever had, but that’s for another essay."

No more so then any other wartime President, from Nixon to Roosevelt to Wilson and Lincoln.

"One example of how Bush and the Republicans can defy the established checks and balances is by having a majority Republican government, of which has unconstitutional leanings."

Democrats controlled the government several times in our history and no one ever accused them of usurping power. Unconstitutional leanings? No wonder you were against the War in Iraq. If you wish to pull the wool over your eyes and scream about how the sky is falling then go right ahead.

"This, in the future, could potentially win Bush his religious campaign."

You cannot seriously believe in this, can you?

"and crush the First Amendment (THAT is being harmful to the country)."

Good God man, where did you get this from? You haven't been taking Al Franken seriously have you?

"We can prevent the first strike by perfecting our coastal defenses, something George Bush has had to neglect due to the increasing war budget."

What are you talking about? Coast Guard? Port Security? Coastal defense is a fairly broad topic to be attacking. How the increasing war budget comes into play, I do not know.

"I don’t believe that a good defense is a good offense only because of its imperialistic demeanor – the stance is subject to cause more unneeded provocations (in this case, Iraq) than a more cautious and self-conscious stance would."

Preemption is not imperialism, and demeanor is neither here nor there. Importing democracy into Iraq is an attempt to stabilize the Middle East and prevent unneeded provocations. History tells us that appeasement has never worked.

"This is another topic as well..." [etc. etc. etc.]

You brought in Lenin as evidence of how the liberalization of nations leads them away from war. This is not so as the communist nation of Russia was actively involved in expanding the "revolution" across the globe during its tenure. As an example it was a pretty poor one and I cannot see why you are digressing on this.

"However, it is indeed arguable."

Indeed.

"Embargoes have stopped poor European countries (in the vicinity and within Yugoslavia) from warring with one another."

Have you ever heard of the Balkans conflict? When Europe was content to sit back and let war break out in Europe for the first time since World War II?

"The economic situation between Europe and former Iraq is not an issue that is good reasoning for the war, though."

Never said it was. I pointed out that Europe only removed itself from our side because it was making money illegally off of the Iraq regime. You cannot showcase their unwillingness to help in the war effort as a reason for why the US shouldn't have gone to war.

"Actually, no one (no foreigner) was threatened by Saddam’s regime."

Isreal, Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia, I could go on and on here.

"Also, the illegal economic moves of Europe did defy an existing embargo, and those nations are to blame for improper actions."

So then how would another embargo, as you gave as a possible solution earlier, work? That was the point I was making.

"You know what I meant."

No I didn't. I don't make assumptions about your argument. If you want me to know what you meant, then write it the first time.

"He did own WMDs - some of which we sold to him – during the Kurdsih purges and Iran-Iraq War."

So you were wrong and I was right. That is all.

"When I say "insurgent," I strictly pertain to all of those of anti-American sentiment, which, like it or not, do compose most of Iraq. Though these dissenters may not do anything against America, they still don’t agree with its being in Iraq."

If you define insurgents the way you do above then most of the world could be considered insurgents. A more practical definition would be anyone who took up arms against United States forces within Iraq. Moving along, how do you know that "...those of anti-American sentiment, which, like it or not, do compose most of Iraq." This is a personal assertion. No factual basis. None.

"I merely wanted to emphasis the term "no war" because wars don’t usually end in stable peace."

I consider early twentieth century America as stable as it gets, and that was the result of a revolution. I also consider present day Germany a stable nation, and that is following a war, two if you count the Cold War. If the war is decisive then generally it will end with a stable peace.

"Okay, but the examples, past the rudimentary reasoning presented, are nothing alike."

You presented Lenin and the Russian Revolution. History is often a very usefull tool to analyze current events. Ignoring that only hurts your argument.

"Concerning spelling, I specifically nagged Calvin Fitzgerald about the spelling because he denied spelling things blatantly wrong."

I never denied spelling things blatantly wrong. I don't generally spell check my reviews and I don't plan on starting now. Your paragraph on my misspelling of volatile was an attempt to one up me as well as insult my intelligence. Needless to say I took offense and implied that you were a jackass. Tit for tat, my friend.
S.T. Lawrence chapter 1 . 12/13/2004
I'll answer this first: "By the way, did you even read my essay, our just my argument with Calvin Fitzgerald?"

Sadly, I did read it. I was thinking about responding to it, but instead took more interest in your argument with Calvin.

Back to the top!

"The UN was not established for obtaining intelligence, but rather for resolving conflicts before they explode."

Something it has failed to do.

"UN investigations could have completely determined that Saddam did not, during a little over a decade, possess any WMDs."

No they couldn't. Why? Because there were no inspectors in Iraq from 1997/early 1998 until 2003. Before that, they were being pushed around, denied access to scientists, etc from 1991 until 1997. So no, the UN could not have determined a God-damn thing. Thats why they had to go back in 2003-when, once again, they were denied access to scientists, palaces, and other locales.

"All right, I was not aware of Operation Desert Fox."

Perhaps researching a topic before arguing about it could have helped you here.

"However, Clinton’s actions not to invade imply, to a certain extent, that he didn’t want to invade Iraq, as you’ve pointed out."

Clinton learned how stupid he was when it came to ground troops in 1993 when he blew, twice, the Somalian operation. When you lose 17 Army Rangers and Delta Force soldiers, you look like a giant dick, which he was. From 1993 until 2001, the US Army saw very little action. It became an era of aerial campaigns only. Let us take a look into history and see how much bombing campaigns worked:

London in World War II: Suffered the Blitz. Ended up on the winning side

Dresden in WWII: Fire bombing couldnt get Germany to capitulate either.

Vietnam: Operations Rolling Thunder and Flaming Dart were enacted to "bomb them into the Stone Age" (as Adalai Stevenson, I believe, said). It didn't work. The North Vietnamese would later take Saigon.

Afghanistan, 1979: The Russians tried bombing the hell out of the mujahadeen. Nothing a few Stingers provided by the USA couldn't handle.

Iraq, 1991: We spent Over a month bombing Iraq before we sent ground troops in. It was the ground troops that won the war in 100 hours. Not bombing them.

The Balkan Conflict (which we'll be returning too), early-to-mid-90s: Under Clinton's happy bombing tirades, we accomplish...nothing. It takes the Russians and NATO to put Slobodan away.

Iraq, 1998: Operation Desert Fox accomplishes nothing

Afghanistan, 1998: Clinton "retaliates" for the bombings of two embassies in Africa. They are largely unsuccessful.

Afghanistan, 2001: We put more new holes into the Tora Bora region than we can count. And it accomplishes little.

Bombing raids rarely work to achieve a goal-they only faciliate them. Clinton didn't display intelligence, he displayed cowardice. He never weighed options concerning a ground war-he feared them, because of Somalia.

"That is, Clinton took an active measure to injure Iraq’s nonexistent WMD program, but Bush just flat out went to take the whole regime down, without consideration of consequences (lack of planning…) which has resulted in a prolonged US involvement in Iraq and excessive US and Iraqi deaths."

So lemme get this right. Clinton too active measures to bomb WMD that didn't exist. Let's re-write that sentence: "Clinton bombed Iraq for no reason." He too caused the deaths of hundreds of Iraqis, and knocked out alot of power and utility buildings. Yet you support him! This is mind-boggling logic!

"The CIA officially announced it never wrote that Iraq was an imminent threat, hence there was no "clear and present danger."

Not in 1998 putz, which is what I was talking about.

" the US would of course have to either negotiate (such as Europe is doing with Iran – negotiation is a good thing) "

LOL...yeah, so good that Iran is building their nuclear arms UNDERGROUND now, instead of out in the open for us to see.

"So I’m not wrong, and it appears Clinton took a more rational step in aiming to injure the Iraqi weapons program rather than arbitrarily knock it all down."

But you JUST admitted the WMD didn't exist. So Clinton simply bombed to bomb! His move displayed a lack of will, not a moment of intelligence. He was a coward who feared another Somalia so much he cut the Army down in order to build new, cool bombs. He also mothballed a ton of Navy ships. Bombs are so impersonal-no wonder he loved them.

"Saddam Hussein specifically housed certain anti-Israeli and anti-Iranian groups, but did not specifically house Al Qaeda (thanks for the spelling correction)."

Ansar al-Islam is a Kurdish terror group that allies itself with the umbrella organization known as Al-Qaida. They've been operating in Iraq for at least four years. The Saddam regime had running communications with them. Furthermore, al-Qaida is not the only group (or, set of groups, really) that want to strike the United States. Hussein harbored terrorists, supported them, aided them-he becomes a threat.

" My point is, the Iraqi tyranny did not even accept Al Qaeda in the country."

Yes he did. He didn't agree with their ideology, but then again, when has that ever mattered when it comes to alliances based around a common enemy?

"by having a majority Republican government, of which has unconstitutional leanings."

Those leanings are...?

"We can prevent the first strike by perfecting our coastal defenses, something George Bush has had to neglect due to the increasing war budget."

Have you seen how big our borders are? It is virtually impossible to keep ourselves protected at all times if we allowed those who want to strike us to run free.

"Plus, holding off on the offense give more time and money to construct a better defense."

The same can be applied to terrorist and terrorist supporting nations.

"And the insurgency’s goals aren’t as much toward dictatorship than they are toward an independent country (that is, anti-American citizens)"

LOL...you seem to believe these are people who are fighting to remove Americans. Have you not noticed the melee attacks that occur at Iraqi police stations? Or other places where tons of Iraqis are killed by...insurgents? They are not out to gain an "independent" Iraq-they're out to stop it from becoming a democracy.

"At least in Iraq, no armed force was really needed outside of the UN and NATO forces."

The UN forces are pathetic and inadequate. NATO will not involve itself in anything unless it is provoked.

"Clinton was also sensible enough to avoid a 200 billion-dollar budget. He also created the surplus that Bush ran dry."

No, because that surplus was never that big. He presided over a economy that wasn't really there-the .com bubble, book cooking-the market was never a true reflection.

"Um, no… we played more of a role in the Iran-Iraq War than the Soviets did."

I didn't say that. I said the WMD you're talking about were not American. They were Soviet.

"First of all, we gave sometimes true, more times false information to the Iranians concerning Moscow’s military interest for that country."

Yes. Reagan believed by playing both sides, he could sit back and watch them crush each other-it was risky, and sadly it didn't work.

"We sold WMDs to both Iran and Iraq, of which both used them on the other, and Iraq did use them on the Kurds."

No we didn't. The Soviets did. We sold the vehicles and armament neccessary to use said weapons.

"and Iraqi ally at the time)"

Kuwait was never an ally-in fact, we had to send ships in the 80's (one of which was "accidentally" bombed by the Iraqis) in order to keep Hussein away from Kuwait. Who feeds you this bullshit?

"Embargoes have stopped poor European countries (in the vicinity and within Yugoslavia) from warring with one another."

LOL...oh? Forget about the Balkans did you?

"Actually, no one (no foreigner) was threatened by Saddam’s regime. "

The Israelis would beg to differ.

"If you are to argue that, then bringing up the fact that Saddam possessed nuclear weapons during the 80s is also as irrelevant."

Who did that? And he never once possessed nuclear weapons.

"I bring up the Iran-Iraq War because it occurred at the height of the Kurdish purges, and was the instance in time when the US was most involved in Iraqi politics"

No it didn't. The purges happened in 1988-the pinnacle of the Iran-Iraq war was almost three years before that.

" It is also the last instance in which Iraq used and had WMDs"

Wrong again. Do you even research? We have confirmed reports of us blasting chemical weapons dumps in the first Gulf War and the UN inspectors found tons of chemical and biological stores in 1997/98.

"But not WMDs – the UN didn’t find WMDs. I can hardly believe that Hussein could have used these to make a WMD, because he would have if he were able."

Yes they did, and he did try, several times. Including building missiles capable of handling chemical warheads.

"However, I do know that the number of anti-American Iraqis is more than the pro-American ones, but there is no set statistic."

Tell me how you "know this"...please. I beg of you.

"And, considering my quote in context (in reference to Abu Graihb), I’d be astonished if you thought that the torturing by US forces is not an atrocity."

Dont be. And they were abuses, not torture.

"The website clearly stated that it verified innocent deaths three times, gave the conditions for an innocent death, and had both a minimum and maximum count."

And it proves this how?

"Then you had to intrude"

Cry me a river.

-S
holocaustpulp chapter 1 . 12/13/2004
Calvin Fitzgerald and S.T. Lawrence: Because both of you have brought up similar arguments, I’ll address both of your reviews in this one. However, individual points (pertaining to either one of you) will also be answered.

CF: "Ah, I just finished taking a look at the review you posted on my Communist essay. Obviously resorting to calling me stupid and my argument stupid. What intelligence I am dealing with here! What cleverness, what wit!"

I wasn’t aiming at being witty when I reviewed your essay; there was nothing more basic than the term stupid to describe its contents.

STL: "Since when? It was the same UN that did not argue WMD-but how to handle Hussein. What makes the UN the "go-to" authority on any kind of intelligence?"

The UN was not established for obtaining intelligence, but rather for resolving conflicts before they explode. UN investigations could have completely determined that Saddam did not, during a little over a decade, possess any WMDs.

CF: "No, he apparently did not plan on invading Iraq, most likely because it wouldn't have polled well with the American people. He did see fit to launch Operation Desert Fox. This quote is taken from a CNN article in 1988. ‘The activity occurred shortly after U.S. President Bill Clinton announced he had ordered a ‘strong, sustained’ series of airstrikes on military and security forces in Iraq, designed to degrade Iraq's ability to develop weapons of mass destruction.’"

All right, I was not aware of Operation Desert Fox. However, Clinton’s actions not to invade imply, to a certain extent, that he didn’t want to invade Iraq, as you’ve pointed out. I more interpret this as a precautionary measure, as in Clinton was at least somewhat aware that a full attack on Iraq would have negative repercussions both with the international political situation, if not also with our own military. Concerning Clinton’s involvement with Iraq, it is then undeniable that he played a lesser role in this situation than Bush has. Yes, both Presidents followed the same faulty intelligence, but then why was it Bush who ultimately capitalized on the situation, and not Clinton? That is, Clinton took an active measure to injure Iraq’s nonexistent WMD program, but Bush just flat out went to take the whole regime down, without consideration of consequences (lack of planning…) which has resulted in a prolonged US involvement in Iraq and excessive US and Iraqi deaths.

STL: "Reason? Hussein had WMD and proved to be a clear and present danger to the United States of America. So guess what dipshit? You're wrong."

The CIA officially announced it never wrote that Iraq was an imminent threat, hence there was no "clear and present danger." It did state however, that, if Iraq were to obtain proper materials, then it had the intention to attack certain powers. But he never did obtain the proper materials, or the means… At this point, if the Iraqi WMD program had developed thus far, the US would of course have to either negotiate (such as Europe is doing with Iran – negotiation is a good thing) or go to war with Iraq. So I’m not wrong, and it appears Clinton took a more rational step in aiming to injure the Iraqi weapons program rather than arbitrarily knock it all down.

STL: "Oh yes it is. It might not have been to the level of the Sudanese or Afghanis, but he provided support to Al-Qaida operatives and/or allies of the group. And don't go citing the 9-11 Commission's report, because their report spoke about no "strong" ties. By the way, it’s either Al-Qaeda or Al-Qaida (as most commonly used)—not "Al Qeada." That’d be a spelling error I believe."

Saddam Hussein specifically housed certain anti-Israeli and anti-Iranian groups, but did not specifically house Al Qaeda (thanks for the spelling correction). The "tenuous ties, at best" that Hussein had with Al Qaeda were probably through the obscure connections you mentioned. My point is, the Iraqi tyranny did not even accept Al Qaeda in the country.

CF: "Even if I were a liberal I could never say that. While Saddam could act unilaterially whenever he felt like it, over here in the United States we have this thing called checks and balances which would keep Bush from doing anything remotely harmful to the country as a whole."

Actually, President George W. Bush is probably the least American President the US has ever had, but that’s for another essay. One example of how Bush and the Republicans can defy the established checks and balances is by having a majority Republican government, of which has unconstitutional leanings. This, in the future, could potentially win Bush his religious campaign and crush the First Amendment (THAT is being harmful to the country). This is why George Washington wanted to avoid political parties in America.

CF: "So in order to act America must first be struck. Of course in an age of nuclear proliferation this could result in the deaths of millions of Americans. That is rather cold blooded."

We can prevent the first strike by perfecting our coastal defenses, something George Bush has had to neglect due to the increasing war budget. Such defense would ensure the safety of the United States in the event of a nuclear attack attempt. I don’t believe that a good defense is a good offense only because of its imperialistic demeanor – the stance is subject to cause more unneeded provocations (in this case, Iraq) than a more cautious and self-conscious stance would. Plus, holding off on the offense give more time and money to construct a better defense. However, when the threat is imminent, then it is the government’s duty to protect its citizens, in some cases offensively.

STL: "Excuse me? How can the rise of insurgency NOT be attributed to achieving goals? You admit the elections are one of their goals. Their "goals" have been the same for over a year: prevent Iraq from becoming a democracy-I know, you cringe at such a flawed system of government; Iraq was so flourishing under a socialist one."

CF: "I happen to the hold the opinion that it is due to the elections simply because this is what the administration has been warning us of for the past year."

First of all, let us not bring my socialist ideals into this argument; they are simply irrelevant when considering this essay. Secondly, I support an Iraqi democracy, and certainly don’t support another dictator. And the insurgency’s goals aren’t as much toward dictatorship than they are toward an independent country (that is, anti-American citizens). Once the elections do take place, and there is a fair or close-to-fair government balance in Iraq, we should soon have little to do with the country.

CF: "I already did. Kindly scroll down and take a gander at my first review. Clinton cut military spending, closed bases, and began relying heavily on NATO and UN for any military actions. This resulted in a breakdown of our own armed forces and their subsequent lack of resources and equipment."

At least in Iraq, no armed force was really needed outside of the UN and NATO forces. Clinton was also sensible enough to avoid a 200 billion-dollar budget. He also created the surplus that Bush ran dry.

CF: "Let me clarify: I never argued this point. I merely said that it freed up American soldiers which could be used better elsewhere in Iraq." Note I said "my argument" – I used this information to support my point, not to convert yours.

CF: "Was Stalin's invasion of Norway won of those reforms? Lenin exited World War One so he could fully complete his revolution (note that I could have used quotation marks there, but I refrained) and if anything was more of a success of the German diplomatic corps of the era then anything else. You see, with the withdrawal of Russia, Germany was free to commit all of its soldiers to the Western front, hence German support for Stalin and his revolution."

STL: "Yes, one he did to show he was different from the Romanov family. Like Spain, it was done for political reasons, more than moral. Don't pretend that these moves by your vaunted socialist/communist governments were done because morally these people are better."

This is another topic as well. However, since I initially brought it up, Lenin exited WWI as a both a moral socialist and to win over Petrograd for the Bolshevik Revolution. No Russian was subsequently pleased when Germany took over the Baltic, among other, territories. And because Russia withdrew from the war, the Allies (British, American…) sent troops during the Russian Civil War to oust the Bolshevik regime. And there was no more Romanov family to separate from; Tsar Nicholas II had already abdicated the throne on March second (old Russian calendar). Thus, Lenin was strictly opposed to what he thought of as the opportunistic Provisional Government, headed by Kerensky and other Mensheviks that kept Russia in the war. And I’m not pretending that exiting WWI was the moral decision of the Bolsheviks – rather I’m arguing for it, because it was in the name of the populace that Lenin wished to pull out of WWI, and it then also secured the Revolution.

CF: "Nothing is ever that simple, and I never made it out to be. However the bombing was arguably the defining moment of the elections and it was unclear which way the Spaniards would have voted had the attacks not happened."

I would say the catastrophic event was very influential, but it was not the definitive factor in the Spanish elections. However, it is indeed arguable.

STL: "Wrong dickhead-that would be Soviets. We gave them the delivery systems for said weapons."

Um, no… we played more of a role in the Iran-Iraq War than the Soviets did. First of all, we gave sometimes true, more times false information to the Iranians concerning Moscow’s military interest for that country. We sold WMDs to both Iran and Iraq, of which both used them on the other, and Iraq did use them on the Kurds. The funds from weapons sold to Iran went strait to the Nicaraguan terrorist Contras, providing a great paradox in the just foreign policy of Reagan. Also, after the Contra scandal was exposed, the US leaned toward Iraqi support, guarding many of their ships and ports, as well as Kuwait’s (and Iraqi ally at the time) ships and ports - something which the Soviets actually declined to do when offered by Iraq.

STL: "When have embargos done anything productive? Those countries might have ignored a threat in lieu of the lucrative contracts they had with Hussein. Greed is a deadly sin for a reason."

CF: "I was simply pointing out that the European objection was not due to the invalidity of the war, but their own economic ties to Saddams regime. You can side step all you want, but you still cannot ignore that."

Embargoes have stopped poor European countries (in the vicinity and within Yugoslavia) from warring with one another. I do not wish to sidestep from the fact that European countries did exploit the Oil for Food program – I was just pointing out that the US is also guilty of illegal measures with the former Iraqi regime. The economic situation between Europe and former Iraq is not an issue that is good reasoning for the war, though.

CF: "Of course they weren't threatened, they were Saddam's business partners. Also, technicly there was already an embargo in place, the economic sanctions placed on Iraq by the much vaunted UN."

Actually, no one (no foreigner) was threatened by Saddam’s regime. Besides, as one can see in WWII, business isn’t necessarily a long-term establishment. For example, the Nazi-backed Japan attacked the US, business partners with Nazi Germany, and in Operation Barbarosa, the Nazis, then still technically an ally of Russia’s, attacked the USSR in spite of the strong economic support Stalin had given Hitler. Also, the illegal economic moves of Europe did defy an existing embargo, and those nations are to blame for improper actions.

STL: "I see. Basically, past transgressions need not apply. So then why bring up the Iran-Iraq war? Your argument would be a good TWO decades outdated. Give me an H! Give me a Y! Give me a P-O-C..."

If you are to argue that, then bringing up the fact that Saddam possessed nuclear weapons during the 80s is also as irrelevant. I bring up the Iran-Iraq War because it occurred at the height of the Kurdish purges, and was the instance in time when the US was most involved in Iraqi politics. It is also the last instance in which Iraq used and had WMDs. I compare America’s involvement in Iraq during the time that the country had WMDs to show we influenced the sale of those weapons, and at the time endorsed the government who made and used them. In turn, arguing that it is good reason that we attacked Hussein a good decade after his last use of WMDs is simply outdated.

STL: "You're absolutely correct. That’s why, in 1997, the UN found a brand new set of chemicals and weapons being created. Which is why Hussein booted them out. And why Clinton told him to put them back in-then he bombed Hussein for three days. HE. BOMBED. THEM. FOR. THREE. DAYS. I just want to make sure you don't get confused about that. You seem to believe Clinton didn't do anything."

But not WMDs – the UN didn’t find WMDs. I can hardly believe that Hussein could have used these to make a WMD, because he would have if he were able.

CF: "Not outdated at all. You wrote, specificly, that Saddam had "ever had WMD's..." He did. Whats left to argue?" You know what I meant – I meant for a decade that Hussein’s program deteriorated. He did own WMDs - some of which we sold to him – during the Kurdsih purges and Iran-Iraq War.

CF: "Hopefuly all of them [insurgents]." When I say "insurgent," I strictly pertain to all of those of anti-American sentiment, which, like it or not, do compose most of Iraq. Though these dissenters may not do anything against America, they still don’t agree with its being in Iraq.

STL: "They've done just that. Even in places where it wasn't before the war." Then why are there up to fourteen hours of blackout periods and sewage in the streets? Or are you referring to the nice chart on the White House website?CF: "Actually there is plenty of opinion to be discussed here. Your entire section on the rising insurgency is nothing more then your opinion, not actually based on any intelligence (in the CIA sense) or any factual data."

Like I said before, it’s hard to put the number of anti-Americans down on paper. However, I do know that the number of anti-American Iraqis is more than the pro-American ones, but there is no set statistic.

CF: "What?" I said "No war" in response to, "I did not use the Revolution to justify the war. I merely pointed out that historicly no war for democracy has ever ended with a stable peace. The Revolution was one example. I could have used the French Revolution, Post-WWII Germany, or any other number of examples." - No war." I merely wanted to emphasis the term "no war" because wars don’t usually end in stable peace.

STL: "How did he imply it Cleo?" What?

STL: There is no ‘one voice’ of the Arab community. So you cannot make the point that the ‘entire’ Arab community was outraged at the abuses in the prison. You cannot speak for them nor can any media source, which is EXACTLY what you're basing your opinion on."

Of course there’s no one voice, but there is the voice of the majority. And, considering my quote in context (in reference to Abu Graihb), I’d be astonished if you thought that the torturing by US forces is not an atrocity.

CF: "You missed my point. You wanted evidence that the growth of American democracy could be applied to Iraq other then the minor rebellions preceeding the ratification of the constitution. I gave the American Civil War as evidence of a major bloodletting."

Okay, but the examples, past the rudimentary reasoning presented, are nothing alike.

STL: So if I made " " I could be authoritative too? Silly boy. No numbers on the "innocent" Iraqi dead are credible-each source takes a different approach to its numbers. The problem, however, always remains the same: of the dead Iraqis, who are insurgents, and who are innocent?

Did you go to that site, because it seemed pretty credible to me. The website clearly stated that it verified innocent deaths three times, gave the conditions for an innocent death, and had both a minimum and maximum count. The approach may be different than others, but I still believe it is the way, did you even read my essay, our just my argument with Calvin Fitzgerald?

STL: " A whopping four for you cupcake. Half of Calvin’s. Change your name to ‘hypocritepulp’—it suits you far better. Me: Zero. But I know you’ll look anyway."

I didn’t look, but you were so concerned about it that you did. Concerning spelling, I specifically nagged Calvin Fitzgerald about the spelling because he denied spelling things blatantly wrong. Then you had to intrude… Anyway, I’m sure I have some errors in this review, but don’t waste your time checking for them. I didn’t waste my time checking for errors in yours.
S.T. Lawrence chapter 1 . 12/13/2004
LOL...whoops, glossed over something.

"but what more control over it."

I meant "want" more control. At least I can catch my mistakes. Oh well, one lousy little error on my part. Still three less than you little guy.

-S
my two centavos chapter 1 . 12/13/2004
More than one and a half year's past and we're still getting it on with this issue...wow.

In any case, Saddam's gone, American troops are there to stay and Iraq is going to be a "democratic" nation whether we all like it or not. As for Bush's true intentions of going into Iraq, no one really knows what he'll do now and I doubt he'll leave too soon especially with all the oil there up for grabs.
S.T. Lawrence chapter 1 . 12/12/2004
OrangePulp: "Thanks to the UN what...?"

Thanks to the UN not enforcing over 17 resolutions.

"I do agree that the CIA report led to false conclusions, but I also believe its findings were so outdated and were more inference than fact that the President could have identified the need for a more extensive investigation, that of which the UN could have easily provided."

Since when? It was the same UN that did not argue WMD-but how to handle Hussein. What makes the UN the "go-to" authority on any kind of intelligence?

"Thus, it is merely bull-headed attitude that could have convinced Bush to throw America into war, rather than a sense of being threatened."

Because you're a psychologist and know these things.

"Clinton received the same faulty intelligence reports, but it appears that Clinton was too smart just to go into Iraq – either he wanted to wait for further evidence, didn’t see a plausible way to invade, or didn’t believe the threat presented by the CIA was imminent."

Yet he decided to bomb Iraq on that SAME FUCKING EVIDENCE YOU GODDAMN MORON-in December of 1998, Bill Clinton unleashed Operation Desert Fox using British and American forces to commence a three day bombing campaign that hit targets within downtown Baghdad (that killed innocent Iraqis), Republican Guard barracks, areas of Tikrit (that killed innocent Iraqis) and various other spots in Iraq. Reason? Hussein had WMD and proved to be a clear and present danger to the United States of America.

So guess what dipshit? You're wrong.

"The reason why I blame Bush for the War in Iraq is because, yes, he received bad intelligence, but also he capitalized on that intelligence."

Like Clinton.

"The man who had lurked in American politics only on an axis-of-evil list was now the man who sponsored terrorism and Al Qeada (THE LATTER IS NOT TRUE)."

Oh yes it is. It might not have been to the level of the Sudanese or Afghanis, but he provided support to Al-Qaida operatives and/or allies of the group. And don't go citing the 9-11 Commission's report, because their report spoke about no "strong" ties. By the way, it’s either Al-Qaeda or Al-Qaida (as most commonly used)—not “Al Qeada.” That’d be a spelling error I believe.

"Iraq was not one of those nations – if there is a nation that is a threat (not something like Iraq or Vietnam), then an American attack is justified."

I see. So what defines a threat then?

"One can’t attribute the rise of insurgency totally toward the upcoming Iraqi elections because there are other goals that the insurgency has; the elections are one of these goals, and may cause some to join the insurgency, but it is not the overall factor determining its rise."

Excuse me? How can the rise of insurgency NOT be attributed to achieving goals? You admit the elections are one of their goals. Their "goals" have been the same for over a year: prevent Iraq from becoming a democracy-I know, you cringe at such a flawed system of government; Iraq was so flourishing under a socialist one.

"Such an event has happened before, as in Russia (which you know so mush about, as well as communism)"

How do you know what Calvin's knowledge of Russian history is? And by the way, hypocrite, I wouldn't go pointing out spelling errors, when you make them in the same review. Mush? You leading a team of snow dogs through the Iditarod? That makes two errors so far...

"Lenin’s exit from World War One was merely one of a few major reforms in the socialist policy established after the Revolution."

Yes, one he did to show he was different from the Romanov family. Like Spain, it was done for political reasons, more than moral. Don't pretend that these moves by your vaunted socialist/communist governments were done because morally these people are better.

"Hey, that’s kind of like how the US sold – yes, you guessed it – WMDs to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War!"

Wrong dickhead-that would be Soviets. We gave them the delivery systems for said weapons.

"Some of which were used to kill the Kurds found in the mass graves!"

Yes, the Soviet nerve gas was used on the Kurds.

"Also, if those countries were really threatened, then they would have instated an embargo for the safety of their citizens rather than maintain illicit (they were illicit) economic ties."

When have embargos done anything productive? Those countries might have ignored a threat in lieu of the lucrative contracts they had with Hussein. Greed is a deadly sin for a reason.

"Outdated concerning this war. Over a good decade outdated"

I see. Basically, past transgressions need not apply. So then why bring up the Iran-Iraq war? Your argument would be a good TWO decades outdated. Give me an H! Give me a Y! Give me a P-O-C...

"I think a good decade or so is enough time to have your whole WMD program deteriorate."

You're absolutely correct. That’s why, in 1997, the UN found a brand new set of chemicals and weapons being created. Which is why Hussein booted them out. And why Clinton told him to put them back in-then he bombed Hussein for three days. HE. BOMBED. THEM. FOR. THREE. DAYS. I just want to make sure you don't get confused about that. You seem to believe Clinton didn't do anything.

"Is it really that hard for the US to at least provide electricity and sanitary conditions for the Iraqi people?"

They've done just that. Even in places where it wasn't before the war.

"You didn’t have to – you implied it."

How did he imply it Cleo?

"I don’t use that incident along to categorize something,"

That would be "alone" sweetheart. You meant to write "alone" not “along.” That’s three so far kiddo.

"And to say mentioning the Arab community hurt my case is just like saying mentioning the American government summed up my case; both are bullshit"

There is no "one voice" of the Arab community. So you cannot make the point that the "entire" Arab community was outraged at the abuses in the prison. You cannot speak for them nor can any media source, which is EXACTLY what you're basing your opinion on.

"How many dead insurgents does that include?"

That number is impossible to determine. But they are not the majority. Furthermore, the majority population of Iraq is not behind them. Insurgencies are only successful when the populace is behind them. This is true in several cases: the American and French Revolutions. The Russian Revolutions of the 20th Century, Vietnam, Burma, etc. Cases where they were not successful: Korea, Iraq, etc.

"But the Confederacy succeeded from the USA. We toppled Saddam and now Iraqis are fighting for their own country."

Succeeded? Where did they succeed? They lost. They did not succeed. Oh! Wait, the spelling champ meant SECEDE! Four now, champ. Yes, the Confederates SECEDED from the Union. So what? And no, the majority of Iraqis are not fighting for their country (if you mean that the insurgents are doing this)-the insurgency is not a majority. Most Iraqis welcome this change, but what more control over it. We Americans will be happy to oblige, as soon as we can guarantee their safety when they took full control.

"And go to . This site presents itself as definitely authoritative enough not to distort facts."

So if I made " " I could be authoritative too? Silly boy. No numbers on the "innocent" Iraqi dead are credible-each source takes a different approach to its numbers. The problem, however, always remains the same: of the dead Iraqis, who are insurgents, and who are innocent?

"Note: There were eight spelling errors in your review."

A whopping four for you cupcake. Half of Calvin’s. Change your name to “hypocritepulp”—it suits you far better.

Me: Zero. But I know you’ll look anyway.

-S
Calvin Fitzgerald chapter 1 . 12/12/2004
Ah, I just finished taking a look at the review you posted on my Communist essay. Obviously resorting to calling me stupid and my argument stupid. What intelligence I am dealing with here! What cleverness, what wit!

"Clinton received the same faulty intelligence reports, but it appears that Clinton was too smart just to go into Iraq – either he wanted to wait for further evidence, didn’t see a plausible way to invade, or didn’t believe the threat presented by the CIA was imminent."

No, he apparently did not plan on invading Iraq, most likely because it wouldn't have polled well with the American people. He did see fit to launch Operation Desert Fox. This quote is taken from a CNN article in 1988. "The activity occurred shortly after U.S. President Bill Clinton announced he had ordered a "strong, sustained" series of airstrikes on military and security forces in Iraq, designed to degrade Iraq's ability to develop weapons of mass destruction."

Didn't believe the threat indeed.

"The reason why I blame Bush for the War in Iraq is because, yes, he received bad intelligence, but also he capitalized on that intelligence."

No more so then Clinton.

"Thus, it was Bush who didn’t take proper precautions on entering Iraq, and his reasoning even now sticks firm in his mind, which scares me more than Saddam ever did."

Even if I were a liberal I could never say that. While Saddam could act unilaterially whenever he felt like it, over here in the United States we have this thing called checks and balances which would keep Bush from doing anything remotely harmful to the country as a whole.

"if there is a nation that is a threat (not something like Iraq or Vietnam), then an American attack is justified."

So in order to act America must first be struck. Of course in an age of nuclear proliferation this could result in the deaths of millions of Americans. That is rather cold blooded. Also, pointing out that Vietnam was not attacked by the US, rather the United States sent in advisors under JFK to prop up the South Vietnamese democracy against the North Vietnamese communist aggressions. For the record it was LBJ who led the charge for American socialism, who also expanded the ground war into what it is remembered for today.

"One can’t attribute the rise of insurgency totally toward the upcoming Iraqi elections because there are other goals that the insurgency has; the elections are one of these goals, and may cause some to join the insurgency, but it is not the overall factor determining its rise."

I can attribute its rise to the proximity of the elections just as much as you can attribute it to a popular swell in support among Iraqi's of all walks of life. I happen to the hold the opinion that it is due to the elections simply because this is what the administration has been warning us of for the past year.

"And, by the way, I think you mean Rumsfeld when you say "Rumsfield.""

I do.

"On the topic of Clinton, I’d like you to explain how he fits into all of this."

I already did. Kindly scroll down and take a gander at my first review. Clinton cut military spending, closed bases, and began relying heavily on NATO and UN for any military actions. This resulted in a breakdown of our own armed forces and their subsequent lack of resources and equipment.

" and I believe I give enough supporting facts to back up my "snide" remarks."

If you consider conjecture, assumptions, rumors and conspiracy theories as facts then yes, yes you do.

"Yeah, and I can spell so well that I know volitile isn’t a word. Volatile, on the other hand, is a word: (adj.) Tending to violence; explosive. If you didn’t mean volatile when you wrote "volitile," then do tell me what it is you wish to say."

I wish to say volatile. Which you understood me to say, but which you still commented on, as if the legitimicy of my arguments depended soley upon my proficiency at typing correctly. The word 'Jackass' also applies here, but mostly in reference to yourself.

"This serves as a point for my argument."

Let me clarify: I never argued this point. I merely said that it freed up American soldiers which could be used better elsewhere in Iraq.

"Lenin’s exit from World War One was merely one of a few major reforms in the socialist policy established after the Revolution."

Was Stalin's invasion of Norway won of those reforms? Lenin exited World War One so he could fully complete his revolution (note that I could have used quotation marks there, but I refrained) and if anything was more of a success of the German diplomatic corps of the era then anything else. You see, with the withdrawal of Russia, Germany was free to commit all of its soldiers to the Western front, hence German support for Stalin and his revolution.

"Likewise, the Al Qeada attack influenced the decision of the Spaniards, but it wasn’t the sole determining factor."

Nothing is ever that simple, and I never made it out to be. However the bombing was arguably the defining moment of the elections and it was unclear which way the Spaniards would have voted had the attacks not happened.

"Hey, that’s kind of like how the US sold – yes, you guessed it – WMDs to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War! Wow! Some of which were used to kill the Kurds found in the mass graves! The US was so eager for business that they even tried to cover up for Saddam’s internal genocide! European nations aren’t the only ones who committed a vice. Also, if those countries were really threatened, then they would have instated an embargo for the safety of their citizens rather than maintain illicit (they were illicit) economic ties."

I was simply pointing out that the European objection was not due to the invalidity of the war, but their own economic ties to Saddams regime. You can side step all you want, but you still cannot ignore that.

" Also, if those countries were really threatened, then they would have instated an embargo for the safety of their citizens rather than maintain illicit (they were illicit) economic ties."

Of course they weren't threatened, they were Saddam's business partners. Also, technicly there was already an embargo in place, the economic sanctions placed on Iraq by the much vaunted UN.

"Outdated concerning this war. Over a good decade outdated."

Not outdated at all. You wrote, specificly, that Saddam had "ever had WMD's..." He did. Whats left to argue?

"How many dead insurgents does that include?"

Hopefuly all of them.

"Also, it must be hard to count an insurgency when there’s no real way of putting it on paper."

It isn't the majority of Iraqi's I can tell you that much.

"And, we can’t leave Iraq because we put ourselves in a bad position."

I know, I've argued this many times. I agree with you here.

" There is no opinion here to be discussed."

Actually there is plenty of opinion to be discussed here. Your entire section on the rising insurgency is nothing more then your opinion, not actually based on any intelligence (in the CIA sense) or any factual data.

"No war."

What?

"But the Confederacy succeeded from the USA. We toppled Saddam and now Iraqis are fighting for their own country."

You missed my point. You wanted evidence that the growth of American democracy could be applied to Iraq other then the minor rebellions preceeding the ratification of the constitution. I gave the American Civil War as evidence of a major bloodletting.

"This site presents itself as definitely authoritative enough not to distort facts."

I took one look at the site and decided that it was definitely biased. The real problem is where do they get their numbers from? Those Iraqi hospitals that claim upwards of ten thousand civilian casulties every time the US launches an air strike?

"Note: There were eight spelling errors in your review."

My own personal spell checker, how nice. There were numerous spelling errors in your rebuttal (Mush? Succeeded?) I just do not feel it a constructive use of my time to point them out to you.

Calvin Fitzgerald
Mbwun chapter 1 . 12/12/2004
Why was it necessary to invent a word? Was "disunion" unsatisfactory in some regard?

You do too much posturing in this essay, and it detracts from your statement. For example, there is nothing alleged White House (and it's two words, not one) Iraqi Home Page-it exists, no doubt about it. ( w w .gov/infocus/iraq/). Also, you spit out too much ideological propaganda, and get pretty wiseass in the end-not that there's a problem with that in general, but it's just that you should keep a consistent voice through the whole piece.

Anyhow, I do agree with you; the current administration should never have gone into Iraq (though I suppose I have much more cynical reasons for saying that than you), and since the intitial invasion ended, the war has been mismanaged left and right.

He Who Walks On All Fours
holocaustpulp chapter 1 . 12/12/2004
Calvin Fitzgerald: "You made mention of a 2002 CIA report, however there was no link or even any address for the report in your essay. Provide those and I'll gladly take a look at it. As for the logic, you presented none in this essay and so I shall disregard it. If you had wanted to apply that previous essay you should have made this a second chapter not a seperate work."

I apologize: I thought you’d take the time to look both of these things up yourself. But, the 2002 CIA assessment on Iraq’s WMD program can be found at .gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_ . If the link fails to show up, then search "Iraq" at – it should be the fourth result. Concerning my essay on this CIA report, it is titled "Disproving Republican Ideology on Iraq." I thought that in the one paragraph provided in this essay I gave a thorough enough overview of why the defense excuse is a bad one to support the logic behind the War in Iraq, but I guess not…

"So you agree that the CIA did provide false information. Based on that information, which painted Iraq and Saddam as a threat to the United States only George Bush decided to act. If anything this only makes the case that President Bush was far more willing to defend America then Clinton ever was."

I do agree that the CIA report led to false conclusions, but I also believe its findings were so outdated and were more inference than fact that the President could have identified the need for a more extensive investigation, that of which the UN could have easily provided. Thus, it is merely bull-headed attitude that could have convinced Bush to throw America into war, rather than a sense of being threatened.

"You just explained to me that Clinton believed, based on faulty intelligence, that Iraq was a threat. Contradictory statements if I ever saw one."

Clinton received the same faulty intelligence reports, but it appears that Clinton was too smart just to go into Iraq – either he wanted to wait for further evidence, didn’t see a plausible way to invade, or didn’t believe the threat presented by the CIA was imminent. The reason why I blame Bush for the War in Iraq is because, yes, he received bad intelligence, but also he capitalized on that intelligence. The threat became an imminent and tangible threat. The man who had lurked in American politics only on an axis-of-evil list was now the man who sponsored terrorism and Al Qeada (THE LATTER IS NOT TRUE). Thus, it was Bush who didn’t take proper precautions on entering Iraq, and his reasoning even now sticks firm in his mind, which scares me more than Saddam ever did.

"You took the quote out of context. Give me one reason why the United States can't go attacking every nation that presents itself as a threat." Iraq was not one of those nations – if there is a nation that is a threat (not something like Iraq or Vietnam), then an American attack is justified.

"I don't dispute that opposition is on the rise, indeed it is, but that is due to the proximity of the National Elections, something the President and Pentagon have been warning us of for some time now. I was pointing out that this is not in any part the fault of the US armed forces, but Clinton and Rumsfield."

One can’t attribute the rise of insurgency totally toward the upcoming Iraqi elections because there are other goals that the insurgency has; the elections are one of these goals, and may cause some to join the insurgency, but it is not the overall factor determining its rise. On the topic of Clinton, I’d like you to explain how he fits into all of this. And, by the way, I think you mean Rumsfeld when you say "Rumsfield."

"Outlandish is your mind. Either way you are being quite snide and there really is no reason for it. It hurts your argument more then anything else." Hmm… well then this is snide only in your mind, and I believe I give enough supporting facts to back up my "snide" remarks.

"Can you spell jackass?"

Yeah, and I can spell so well that I know volitile isn’t a word. Volatile, on the other hand, is a word: (adj.) Tending to violence; explosive. If you didn’t mean volatile when you wrote "volitile," then do tell me what it is you wish to say.

"I never argued this point. I merely said that it freed up American soldiers which could be used better elsewhere." This serves as a point for my argument.

"This has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The Spanish people capitulated to the terrorists by electing a leader who would immediatly withdraw from Iraq and end all assistence with the United States. How is this anything less then giving in to the enemy?"

Actually, change in Spain has a lot to do with the cessation of Spanish involvement in Iraq. Probably along with mourning dead soldiers, Spanish citizens are adapting a more liberal lifestyle, pulling out of the war being one of the consequences. Such an event has happened before, as in Russia (which you know so mush about, as well as communism) Lenin’s exit from World War One was merely one of a few major reforms in the socialist policy established after the Revolution. Likewise, the Al Qeada attack influenced the decision of the Spaniards, but it wasn’t the sole determining factor.

"Actually most of Europe abandoned the war effort because France, Russia and all the rest were selling weapons and supplies to Iraq as well as making money off of the Food for Oil program. Let's not pretend they were consciencious objectors. European governments opposed us because as long as Saddam was in power they were making money."

Hey, that’s kind of like how the US sold – yes, you guessed it – WMDs to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War! Wow! Some of which were used to kill the Kurds found in the mass graves! The US was so eager for business that they even tried to cover up for Saddam’s internal genocide! European nations aren’t the only ones who committed a vice. Also, if those countries were really threatened, then they would have instated an embargo for the safety of their citizens rather than maintain illicit (they were illicit) economic ties.

"Uh...hang on here. In 1982 Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran. Also in 1988 Saddam gassed the Kurdish town of Halabja. So there is valid indication that Hussein ever had WMD's; he used them."

Outdated concerning this war. Over a good decade outdated. The 11 years argument doesn’t even encompass this. I think a good decade or so is enough time to have your whole WMD program deteriorate. Also, see above.

"When I read that piece of the essay, I believe you were making the point that under Saddam Iraq was a better place. Electricity or tyranny? You have to be joking with this." Is it really that hard for the US to at least provide electricity and sanitary conditions for the Iraqi people?

"I never said that." You didn’t have to – you implied it.

"I was outraged, but I hardly think you can use that incident as a way to demonize the entire war. Mentioning the fact that the Arab community was outraged only hurt your case. No, no I don't think I'll drop it."

I don’t use that incident along to categorize something, as you find it fit to sum an event up with one factor. And to say mentioning the Arab community hurt my case is just like saying mentioning the American government summed up my case; both are bullshit.

"Uphold the minority? A few thousand insurgents are not the majority, no matter how you spin it. I too, would be perfectly happy if we could leave Iraq, unfortunatly we cannot."

How many dead insurgents does that include? Also, it must be hard to count an insurgency when there’s no real way of putting it on paper. And, we can’t leave Iraq because we put ourselves in a bad position.

"I skipped over it because it was a personal assertion with absolutely no hard factual evidence to back it up. I don't plan on commenting until you provide some."

Okay. So it’s a personal assertion when even you agree that there are insurgents, those of which are citizens and terrorists, in Iraq. I gave amounting evidence to lead one to insurgency, and plain fact is that there are many insurgents in Iraq. There is no opinion here to be discussed.

"I did not use the Revolution to justify the war. I merely pointed out that historicly no war for democracy has ever ended with a stable peace. The Revolution was one example. I could have used the French Revolution, Post-WWII Germany, or any other number of examples." - No war.

"In that case, the American Civil War makes a better example. Either way you can apply history to the situation."

But the Confederacy succeeded from the USA. We toppled Saddam and now Iraqis are fighting for their own country.

"You've skipped the point for theatrics. Democracy does not just come into existence, blood must be shed for it to take root. This is true anywhere, not just in America or Iraq. As for your numbers, I only trust the death toll of American service men as any other numbers coming out of Iraq are highly, highly distorted, by both sides."

Ever heard of a velvet revolution? And go to . This site presents itself as definitely authoritative enough not to distort facts. And other facts have been in newspapers, not common for the non-partisan media to distort facts (implication towards Fox and its leanings…)

Note: There were eight spelling errors in your review.

- Holocaustpulp
Calvin Fitzgerald chapter 1 . 12/12/2004
"Look at the CIA report referred to..."

You made mention of a 2002 CIA report, however there was no link or even any address for the report in your essay. Provide those and I'll gladly take a look at it. As for the logic, you presented none in this essay and so I shall disregard it. If you had wanted to apply that previous essay you should have made this a second chapter not a seperate work.

"the CIA did provide false information to both the Clinton and Bush administrations, but Bush capitalized on the "imminent" threat that Iraq had in store for Americans, not Clinton."

So you agree that the CIA did provide false information. Based on that information, which painted Iraq and Saddam as a threat to the United States only George Bush decided to act. If anything this only makes the case that President Bush was far more willing to defend America then Clinton ever was.

"Furthermore, Clinton or Bush Senior didn’t attack Iraq because there wasn’t a good exit strategy and that there wasn’t a threat that physically existed."

You just explained to me that Clinton believed, based on faulty intelligence, that Iraq was a threat. Contradictory statements if I ever saw one.

"Also, America just can’t go attacking every nation that harbors "ill will… towards the United States."

You took the quote out of context. Give me one reason why the United States can't go attacking every nation that presents itself as a threat.

"Is not opposition on the rise in Iraq? Is not the amount of dying US soldiers on the rise in Iraq? (signs of struggle…)"

I don't dispute that opposition is on the rise, indeed it is, but that is due to the proximity of the National Elections, something the President and Pentagon have been warning us of for some time now. I was pointing out that this is not in any part the fault of the US armed forces, but Clinton and Rumsfield.

"Oh, and at being snide: I use quotes to show how outlandish some things are, such as liberation (used with quotes because its making Iraqis conform to America’s vision) and coalition of the willing (mostly America on the military and money aspects, even considering Iraqi forces)."

Outlandish is your mind. Either way you are being quite snide and there really is no reason for it. It hurts your argument more then anything else.

"How did you turn this one around?"

I didn't.

"'volitile' (spelling error)"

Can you spell jackass?

"...the coalition still ultimately is deficient in forces when compared to the US."

I never argued this point. I merely said that it freed up American soldiers which could be used better elsewhere.

"Actually, Spain in general is undergoing radical change, such as seeking progress for gay marriages."

This has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The Spanish people capitulated to the terrorists by electing a leader who would immediatly withdraw from Iraq and end all assistence with the United States. How is this anything less then giving in to the enemy?

"Also, much of Europe abandoned the war effort from the very start and is now against the war because of the invalid reasons the US used to fuel its opposition to Iraq."

Actually most of Europe abandoned the war effort because France, Russia and all the rest were selling weapons and supplies to Iraq as well as making money off of the Food for Oil program. Let's not pretend they were consciencious objectors. European governments opposed us because as long as Saddam was in power they were making money.

"There’s no valid indication that Hussein ever had WMDs, so stop disgorging Bush’s deceptions."

Uh...hang on here. In 1982 Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran. Also in 1988 Saddam gassed the Kurdish town of Halabja. So there is valid indication that Hussein ever had WMD's; he used them.

"I put the word "tyranny" in that sentence to specifically imply that I don’t agree with that form of government."

When I read that piece of the essay, I believe you were making the point that under Saddam Iraq was a better place. Electricity or tyranny? You have to be joking with this.

"Oh, and America hasn’t committed any atrocities either."

I never said that.

"Everyone was outraged at the happenings of Abu Graihb, so drop it."

I was outraged, but I hardly think you can use that incident as a way to demonize the entire war. Mentioning the fact that the Arab community was outraged only hurt your case. No, no I don't think I'll drop it.

"US troops are needed in Iraq, to uphold the minority. Stability is only our conception of how much insurgency there is. I, for one, am for the elections, but we should definitely get out of Iraq a.s.a.p."

Uphold the minority? A few thousand insurgents are not the majority, no matter how you spin it. I too, would be perfectly happy if we could leave Iraq, unfortunatly we cannot.

"Aside from that, you seem to have forgotten the explanation of insurgency."

I skipped over it because it was a personal assertion with absolutely no hard factual evidence to back it up. I don't plan on commenting until you provide some.

"And why do all Republicans need to allude to American events to justify this war?"

I did not use the Revolution to justify the war. I merely pointed out that historicly no war for democracy has ever ended with a stable peace. The Revolution was one example. I could have used the French Revolution, Post-WWII Germany, or any other number of examples.

"And you refer to minor rebellions, whereas in Iraq the rebellion against America is major and widespread."

In that case, the American Civil War makes a better example. Either way you can apply history to the situation.

"Your conception of "a little" is horrifying when one considers 15,0 unjustified Iraqi deaths and over 1,0 American deaths."

You've skipped the point for theatrics. Democracy does not just come into existence, blood must be shed for it to take root. This is true anywhere, not just in America or Iraq. As for your numbers, I only trust the death toll of American service men as any other numbers coming out of Iraq are highly, highly distorted, by both sides.

Calvin Fitzgerald
holocaustpulp chapter 1 . 12/12/2004
Calvin Fitzgerald: "First of all any argument against WMD is still a bit premature. One has to recall that thanks to the UN Saddam had more then eleven years in which to hide those weapons. More to a point, it was the CIA which gave the false information to the administration, information which our allies, both in the coalition and not, also believed. "

Thanks to the UN what...? The time that the UN supposedly gave Saddam Hussein to hide WMDs was actually spent on Hussein’s part by letting his WMD program deteriorate. Look at the CIA report referred to, or read my essay concerning the logic behind Iraq for extensive detail. And, yes, you're right - the CIA did provide false information to both the Clinton and Bush administrations, but Bush capitalized on the "imminent" threat that Iraq had in store for Americans, not Clinton.

"Hindsight is 20/20. At the time intelligence indicated that Saddam was a threat to America and to our allies and to our assets within the region. As it was he did sponser terrorism and harbored ill will, to say the least, towards the United States. This constitutes a threat to America, if not its soil then its interests overseas."

But was not the intelligence wrong? Furthermore, Clinton or Bush Senior didn’t attack Iraq because there wasn’t a good exit strategy and that there wasn’t a threat that physically existed. Just a thought. Oh, and concerning sponsoring terrorism, America has done plenty of that too. Hussein more notably did not sponsor Al Qeada, but smaller terrorist groups. Also, America just can’t go attacking every nation that harbors "ill will… towards the United States."

"Not so much proof that America is struggling with Iraq as proof of the long term effects of the demiliterization of the Clinton Administration and the failure of Rumsfields vision of a small, mobile military. If anything it is proof that America will always need a large, strong ground force if it is going to remain a key player in the world."Is not opposition on the rise in Iraq? Is not the amount of dying US soldiers on the rise in Iraq? (signs of struggle…) A large, strong ground force is nothing without experience, as this pertains to the reserves entering Iraq. Also, the "key player" that America is should not be a self-righteous, imposing one.

"That's only if you ignore the fact that Iraq is part of the coalition. I believe Vice President Cheney pointed that out during the debates earlier this year. Nice with the quotation marks again. No need to be snide, come out and say whatever it is you are implying."

Hmm… and the fact that the Iraqi army is not only lacking in training but also in equipment explains why not so many Iraqis have died in comparison to Americans. Oh, and at being snide: I use quotes to show how outlandish some things are, such as liberation (used with quotes because its making Iraqis conform to America’s vision) and coalition of the willing (mostly America on the military and money aspects, even considering Iraqi forces).

"It indicates nothing more then the fact that it is American soldiers patroling the worst part of Iraq. Coalition troops protecting the less volitile parts of the country frees up American soldiers, arguable the finest in the world, to uproot the insurgency. If anything this is an example of the success of our coalition."

How did you turn this one around? First of all, some of the coalition countries don’t even have an army. Secondly, the money that coalition nations agreed to give the US is lacking by the billions. Though protecting the less "volitile" (spelling error) parts of Iraq, the coalition still ultimately is deficient in forces when compared to the US. Triumphant willingness indeed.

"Invalid only in your opinion. Spain only abandoned the war effort after terrorists attacked their populace. If anything this is more of an example of capitulation then anything."

Actually, Spain in general is undergoing radical change, such as seeking progress for gay marriages. The train bombing was merely a factor that was to affect Spain’s involvement in Iraq, and its overall policy. Also, much of Europe abandoned the war effort from the very start and is now against the war because of the invalid reasons the US used to fuel its opposition to Iraq.

"If we pull out of Iraq, cut and run so to speak, then their deaths will have been truly in vain. If we leave Iraq before the country is stabilized then all will have been in vain." I never said we don’t need to finish the war; it is the only palpable solution now. However, when we do leave, Iraq should not be a US colony, so to speak, but its own, self-stabilized country.

"Once again hindsight is 20/20." Your notion of any WMD argument being "premature" is simply bullshit. There’s no valid indication that Hussein ever had WMDs, so stop disgorging Bush’s deceptions.

"Not so. The pentagon, as well as the white house, believe that it is the Iraqi's who must fight for their own government. The United States cannot do all the hard work for them and at some point it is Iraqi soldiers and police who will need to defend the country. This is an extension of that policy. Iraqi special forces have been performing admirably in such combat situations to date. More training and more experience will turn them into a formidable force."

All right, the government and army believe that Iraq needs to develop an independent force, but the idea is especially influenced by the army, who decides on operations.

"Tyranny or sewer systems? You have to be joking with this."

I put the word "tyranny" in that sentence to specifically imply that I don’t agree with that form of government. But my point just proves we haven’t taken all the necessary measures to establish at least electricity in Iraq.

"Indeed, and the Arab community is certainly a stand up group of nations. They've never committed atrocities, now have they?"

Oh, and America hasn’t committed any atrocities either. Everyone was outraged at the happenings of Abu Graihb, so drop it.

"In conclusion: With popular elections the Iraq government will gain legitimacy. US troops are needed in Iraq to ensure the stability of the country during the elections and until the Iraq forces are ready to take over. Insurgents are just that, no need throw quotation marks around that word. They range from former Saddam loyalists, outside fighters, and disgruntled iraqi's, all with one thing in common: anti-americanism. There is no nationalistic base to their opposition, they simply want to kill Americans. As for the "mess" that is Iraq, one must look back to the American situation following the Revolutionary war. Before the ratification of the Constitution Federal troops were raised to put down a number of minor rebellions from Massachusetts to Pennsylvania. Democracy does not flourish without a little bloodshed."

US troops are needed in Iraq, to uphold the minority. Stability is only our conception of how much insurgency there is. I, for one, am for the elections, but we should definitely get out of Iraq a.s.a.p. Aside from that, you seem to have forgotten the explanation of insurgency. It pertains to many Iraqis, who fight for their country, not for ours. If people simply wanted to "kill Americans," then how come many insurgents have joined the effort for their country only after a family member has been unjustly killed by US forces? And why do all Republicans need to allude to American events to justify this war? The American Revolution was our revolution, not someone else’s. And you refer to minor rebellions, whereas in Iraq the rebellion against America is major and widespread. In conclusion: Your conception of "a little" is horrifying when one considers 15,0 unjustified Iraqi deaths and over 1,0 American deaths.
16 | Page 1 2 Next »