Arabs do not trust America, and sadly with Bush’s handling of Iraq we cannot stay in Iraq without the UN. The Iraqi’s will not trust us, and the only way to now give them the quote “democracy”, Bush wanted to give them, after his first reasons failed, is to bring the UN into Iraq. That is why John Kerry should be elected. He wants the UN in Iraq, unlike Bush.

You have heard of the Oil For Food Program right? A great U.N. lead scam that allowed Saddam Hussein to pocket 10 billion dollars while he imported bad food and expired meds for his people.

How about everytime we have gone in at the U.N. request? More Americans die. The U.N. is in dire need of a face lift. And yes I have first hand knowledge, I have worn the blue helmet and have been awarded the MUlti-National Peacekeeping Force Ribbon which is awarded by the U.N.
I don't understand why everyone thinks that foreign politicians are better than ours. they still have agendas and greed.

Allowing the U.N. would say that all of our dead died in vain.

We are the ones who gave him the weapons...so don't tell me that the UN was the only one who made a mistake in helping Saddam.

Ok we gave him the technology because at the time he was fighting Iran, and Khomeni was a much bigger enemy so we assisted him.

The U.N. people who administrated the Oil For Food Program allowed him to sell oil to Russia, China, France, Germany and there are more to come. This was in direct violation of the U.N. resolution that said until he complied with all sanctions imposed upon him that he could only sell oil for food and medicines. But he made 10 billion and his people went hungry and died from lack of medicines, talk about abuse. He abused 25 million Iraqis for money and the U.N. , your knight in shining armor, helped him.

Countries all over abuse their civilians. Why would we just pick Iraq. Saudi Arabia, African Countries , North Korea, Iran etc. Why do we pick Iraq? It is not the job of the US to “liberate” people around the world.

Iraq is not under the “war on terror” it is liberating civilians of a massive dictator. So we have no business in Iraq.

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
Countries all over abuse their civilians. Why would we just pick Iraq. Saudi Arabia, African Countries , North Korea, Iran etc. Why do we pick Iraq? It is not the job of the US to “liberate” people around the world.

Iraq is not under the “war on terror” it is liberating civilians of a massive dictator. So we have no business in Iraq.
If I may list some reasons why Iraq.

1. Hussein violated the terms of a surrender treaty.
2. Al Qaeda was linked to Hussein. (come one they just killed Berg)
3. WMD was and still is a real concern, those delivery shells didnt just grow out in the desert.
4. He threatened us many times including the Assasanation attempt on G H W Bush.
5. His own Regime were considered Terrorists including his sons.
Just ask the French and other women raped by his eldest.
6. He used VX gas on over 5000 of his own people, mostly women and children.

I could go on, I am sure there are reasons that are classified and we will never know.
DO you know why France, Germany,China, Russia and the U.N. opposed the war?

1. Hussein violated the terms of a surrender treaty.
2. Al Qaeda was linked to Hussein. (come one they just killed Berg)
3. WMD was and still is a real concern, those delivery shells didnt just grow out in the desert.
4. He threatened us many times including the Assasanation attempt on G H W Bush.
5. His own Regime were considered Terrorists including his sons.
Just ask the French and other women raped by his eldest.
6. He used VX gas on over 5000 of his own people, mostly women and children.
1. Invalid. (read below)
2. Invalid. Baseless alegations
3. Invalid. Bush admitted that there is little chance they will ever find WMD.
4. Invalid. This one is true, but it is not a reason for a war with Iraq.
5. Invalid. 'Considered Terrorists'? First; by whom? Second; it makes no difference what you label them, it matters what they have done. Third, if they are indeed terrorists, we still have no reason to attack Iraq.
6. Invalid. Not a reason for US presence in Iraq. We are not a global police.

1. The Gulf War ended with a permanent cease-fire when Iraq formally accepted U.N. Security Council Resolution 686 in March 1991 (Washington Post, 3/4/91). That resolution required Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, pay reparations for the damage they caused there and grant access to POWs. Another resolution, 687, was adopted by the Security Council in April 1991 and declared that "a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait." Iraq accepted this as the final cease-fire terms on April 7
Which term did he violate?

4. An individual assassination attempt is not reason enough to start a war with another country. This war with Iraq does not serve in the best intrest of the US in any way.

6. He gassed his people. Tell me how a war with Iraq serves the best intrest of the US people because of that fact?

History will remember this war as a horrible blunder, and Bush as vying for the worst president we have had.

I never said that this war only concerned the US people, I said it was just. If a leader of a country uses chemical weapons on his own women and children then I think the Terrorist label is well applied. As for which terms of the cease fire, he never paid reparations, fired on coalition aircraft, continued to build weapons.
As for the comment that we will never find the WMD, that is hindsight, we had valid intel that said he had them and we based our decision on that.

Just by saying not valid to all of my points doesnt make them go away. They are real and valid points addressed by most of the free world prior to the war. So if you dont think they are valid get on a plane go to Iraq.

I am going to guess that you are a person under the age of 25 and a believer in everything shown on the news or in the papers. Also ask the majority of Iraqi people if they want Hussein back.
Bush will never be a worse president than Kennedy or Johnson.

I am going to guess that you are a person under the age of 25 and a believer in everything shown on the news or in the papers. Also ask the majority of Iraqi people if they want Hussein back.
Taking a stab at my age doesn't prove anything. If you've noticed there are many well informed teenagers on this forum and many over 40 who are uninformed extremists. I am probably more critical of news than most others on this forum. Read my posts, I pay particular attention to the source of news and media.

I don't care if the Iraqis want him back. It's good that he's gone, but the amount we spent on it is worse.
I never said that this war only concerned the US people, I said it was just.
Not to the US citizens. The war is paid for by US taxpayers. Where is our benefit?
If a leader of a country uses chemical weapons on his own women and children then I think the Terrorist label is well applied. As for which terms of the cease fire, he never paid reparations, fired on coalition aircraft, continued to build weapons.
Neither those reasons are ones for why the US should invade.
As for the comment that we will never find the WMD, that is hindsight, we had valid intel that said he had them and we based our decision on that.
This is not a reason. You may have believed that the evidence for WMD was valid, but the UN saw through that. There was no evidence for WMD that would hold up in a US court.
Just by saying not valid to all of my points doesnt make them go away. They are real and valid points addressed by most of the free world prior to the war. So if you dont think they are valid get on a plane go to Iraq.
If they are invalid, then there was not a reason to attack Iraq. It doesn't make your points go away, but the definition of the word invalid does not imply that.
Additionally, most of the free world did NOT agree with us. Most of the world was against our decision.
I still think they are invalid reasons. So tell me, what logic are you following when you tell me to go to Iraq? The same as Bush's about the war? or is it just your own?

The freedom we gave to the Iraqi’s is wonderful. Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator and should have been put out of office. But it is not the job of the United States to get him out of office. He tortured and killed his own people yet; Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and most African Countries all torture their civilians. So if we really wanted to spread democracy and “liberate” everyone under a horrible ruler, we should do so. Sadly, we don’t.

The first reason for the Iraq war was because of the threat Saddam posed to America. No one here cared of the conditions the Iraqis were in, let alone Bush. The United Nations found no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, further proving Saddam did disarm as we asked him. The “imminent” threat that Bush said Iraq was, really wasn’t there.

Now that we have been in Iraq, we have yet to see any WMD and that just further proves Bush’s use of deception after 9/11. So now we are onto the idea of saving the civilians in Iraq.

Although we have liberated them, they have fought against our troops and tried to commit many crimes against us.

A poll was taken in Iraq, and the majority of them to not support America being in Iraq, and want us to leave. We have now tortured the civilians, “several times worse, then imaginable”. They do not trust America and or Bush. Our name is ruined and we have no real reason to justify why we are in Iraq.

They do not fit under terrorism. You can say they are linked to Al Quidea, but yet you have no official proof to support that. If that was indeed the case, President Bush would have used that in his reasoning for this war. He didn’t. The only reason he went into Iraq, was because Saddam has had it out for the Bush family since the 90’s.

We do not go to war, because of this. That is not a justifiable reason to attack a country filled with innocent people.

To say we are saving their country by Nation Building, something Bush long disapproved of just makes you wonder.

Originally posted by WindWip
Taking a stab at my age doesn't prove anything.
Well I will take that as a yes. I never said you couldnt be well informed. What my implication is that you dont have a complete view of the world equal to someone who has to deal with terrorist and militants around the world.


I don't care if the Iraqis want him back. It's good that he's gone, but the amount we spent on it is worse.

How can money compare to relieving the suffering of 25 million people?

Not to the US citizens. The war is paid for by US taxpayers. Where is our benefit?
I am shocked that your only concern is,"where is our benefit". That is one of the most selfish things I have heard.



As for the rest of your post I could and have answered these concerns many times on many threads so I am not going to take space to answer again here. I see what drives your outrage over the war, it might jeopardize your way of life, maybe make you cut back on shopping. Sorry I am being blunt but the comment about what does it do for us really shocked me.

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
The freedom we gave to the Iraqi’s is wonderful. Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator and should have been put out of office. But it is not the job of the United States to get him out of office. He tortured and killed his own people yet; Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and most African Countries all torture their civilians. So if we really wanted to spread democracy and “liberate” everyone under a horrible ruler, we should do so. Sadly, we don’t.

The first reason for the Iraq war was because of the threat Saddam posed to America. No one here cared of the conditions the Iraqis were in, let alone Bush. The United Nations found no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, further proving Saddam did disarm as we asked him. The “imminent” threat that Bush said Iraq was, really wasn’t there.

Now that we have been in Iraq, we have yet to see any WMD and that just further proves Bush’s use of deception after 9/11. So now we are onto the idea of saving the civilians in Iraq.

Although we have liberated them, they have fought against our troops and tried to commit many crimes against us.

A poll was taken in Iraq, and the majority of them to not support America being in Iraq, and want us to leave. We have now tortured the civilians, “several times worse, then imaginable”. They do not trust America and or Bush. Our name is ruined and we have no real reason to justify why we are in Iraq.

They do not fit under terrorism. You can say they are linked to Al Quidea, but yet you have no official proof to support that. If that was indeed the case, President Bush would have used that in his reasoning for this war. He didn’t. The only reason he went into Iraq, was because Saddam has had it out for the Bush family since the 90’s.

We do not go to war, because of this. That is not a justifiable reason to attack a country filled with innocent people.

To say we are saving their country by Nation Building, something Bush long disapproved of just makes you wonder.

I am going to take this on in one shot.
The poll taken today say 87 percent support the coalition, so I will accept the rest as built upon the false poll you reported.
It is simple to see what most of you that represent that younger generation, your concerns are more for your way of life than for the people who have suffered and would be still suffering under the rule of Hussein. I had hoped that my generation had done a better job raising our children. The world is not based on what can it do for me, but it is based on a system of protect those who can not protect themselves.
I know what the response will be to that last comment, why dont we help all of them? Well if we tried there would be an outcry from all of you.
Do any of you remember a loud brash dictator named Qadafi? Before attacking Iraq he didnt want to let inspection teams in but after Hussein fell he opened his doors. Invading Iraq works on may levels, removes one of the more ruthless dictators from power, will show the Arab world that democracy will work(that will send Iran and a few others all the way over), and it sent a message to all nations harboring terrorist that we will not take it any longer. All in all a way to protect the weak throughout the world.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
I am going to take this on in one shot.
The poll taken today say 87 percent support the coalition, so I will accept the rest as built upon the false poll you reported.
It is simple to see what most of you that represent that younger generation, your concerns are more for your way of life than for the people who have suffered and would be still suffering under the rule of Hussein. I had hoped that my generation had done a better job raising our children. The world is not based on what can it do for me, but it is based on a system of protect those who can not protect themselves.
I know what the response will be to that last comment, why dont we help all of them? Well if we tried there would be an outcry from all of you.
Do any of you remember a loud brash dictator named Qadafi? Before attacking Iraq he didnt want to let inspection teams in but after Hussein fell he opened his doors. Invading Iraq works on may levels, removes one of the more ruthless dictators from power, will show the Arab world that democracy will work(that will send Iran and a few others all the way over), and it sent a message to all nations harboring terrorist that we will not take it any longer. All in all a way to protect the weak throughout the world.

This Poll on Yahoo, shows that the Iraqi's want America out of Iraq.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._ea/iraq_poll_2

Saddam opened his doors because he had nothing to hide.

Oh personal note: you annoy me. no offense though :)

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
This Poll on Yahoo, shows that the Iraqi's want America out of Iraq.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._ea/iraq_poll_2

Saddam opened his doors because he had nothing to hide.

And when did Saddam open his doors? maybe you mean Qadaffi?


Thats ok you havent lived long enough to be really annoyed. :)

I followed your link and I don't see a poll anywhere. Go see if you still can find it. I would like to see it.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
I followed your link and I don't see a poll anywhere. Go see if you still can find it. I would like to see it.

The News story is too old...so the link is broken.

Sorry

I will find the the poll I quoted. It was released today or actually last night.

Does it really matter? Of course the Iraqis want us gone. There isn't a country in existance that wants an occupying army. Not one. I'm sure the fact that it's the U.S. causes larger "get out" poll number than you'd see if the occupiers were Canadians, but the difference still isn't going to be significant. My point is that "get out" does't mean "I wish you had never come" or even "I hate you."

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Does it really matter? Of course the Iraqis want us gone. There isn't a country in existance that wants an occupying army. Not one. I'm sure the fact that it's the U.S. causes larger "get out" poll number than you'd see if the occupiers were Canadians, but the difference still isn't going to be significant. My point is that "get out" does't mean "I wish you had never come" or even "I hate you."

They hate us because of the torture...thank you very much.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Does it really matter? Of course the Iraqis want us gone. There isn't a country in existance that wants an occupying army. Not one. I'm sure the fact that it's the U.S. causes larger "get out" poll number than you'd see if the occupiers were Canadians, but the difference still isn't going to be significant. My point is that "get out" does't mean "I wish you had never come" or even "I hate you."

Lionel the poll I quoted was 87% that we do not leave yet. I went to Gallups site but of course it is a pay site. I am looking for it on another site.

OK i have read this whole post and can't do anything but laugh. it is my opinion that we went to war to remove a man that should have been gotten rid of years and years ago, now we are being used as police for a country that wanted hussien out, but dont want us there. our men and women are killed daily for someone elses freedom. i wish you guys and the media would find something to talk about (ie.. dead soldiers familys who cant make it on thier own, mental illness in our soldiers, or finding ways to educate children about this mess) than WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT. it is like children " he did it no no he did it. " BTW i am 25 f and pay attention. so to this post i say WAKE UP

OK so you think that I am arguing? I am explaining a point of view and attempting to explain the actions that some seem to think were criminal.
I am happy that you are well informed, and thrilled that you agree with me. By the way I said they didnt want us to leave.

senses sarcasim..... but is ok. only point i really differ is, i know for a fact that a huge number (maybe not majority) dont want us there. hope you have a great evening.

Honesty there was no sarcasm intended. I am sorry that some percieve my passion as sarcasm or meaness. I have never intended to offend but sometimes the way I feel for supporting our troops and ridding the world of terrorism(even though I know it is not entirely possible) comes out as sarcasm. None was intended.

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
They hate us because of the torture...thank you very much.

Whereas prior to the torture all of the attacks against us were motivated by love? How come you and everyone else was posting how the entire world hates America, and now you're saying it's only because of this event that occurred recently?

My apologies B_V, I wasn't referring to your poll, but rather the one L4L was talking about. It seems obvious to me that no country would want foreign occupiers to stick around for very long.

Lionel no apology needed. I figured that you miss read it kind of the way I miss read Honestys name. LOL Called her Honey. and I have apologized for that.

I agree with your views, I know they dont want us there long kind of like when your boss hangs around you at work.. You are glad you have the job but really want him to leave so you can do your job your way. As always this is IMHO.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Whereas prior to the torture all of the attacks against us were motivated by love? How come you and everyone else was posting how the entire world hates America, and now you're saying it's only because of this event that occurred recently?

My apologies B_V, I wasn't referring to your poll, but rather the one L4L was talking about. It seems obvious to me that no country would want foreign occupiers to stick around for very long.

More people hate us, with more reason. The people who already hated us, hate us even more. Got it?

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
More people hate us, with more reason. The people who already hated us, hate us even more. Got it?

I am sorry that you have such a low view of the world. Maybe you should go outside and explore the world, meet the people and experience the world that doesn't want to kill Americans.

I know people all over the world, still communicate with them, mostly snail mail. They don't hate me, most like Americans and all view the liberation of Iraq as a good thing. Get this, 6 of them are Arabic(4 live in Kuwait, 1 in Egypt and 1 Jordan) and Muslim.

Iraq War- Since you may have missed some of the things I’ve said, I’ll re post them

Saddam WMD Threat:

The proof of destroying something is the fact that you don’t have it. Saddam did not have the weapons Bush said he did. He MAY have weapons, but you do not go to war on an assumption but fact. Bush had no facts, and that is just a huge mistake. We have been in Iraq and we have found no WMD's...funny how that works out.

Saddam wasn’t lying, because the UN was in Iraq and found no evidence of Iraq possessing Weapons, after we told him to disarm. Bush didn’t believe Saddam, so Saddam wanted to debate President Bush to prove to the world and Bush that he did disarm. Bush declined his offer. I wonder why?

He was going to provide proof to Bush, since the UN inspectors’ findings and facts were not enough evidence to show that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Bush declined, because he knew Saddam could give him substantial evidence to prove he did disarm. Another reason why he declined was because it was draw attention to the fact that the UN inspectors found nothing in Iraq, yet Bush still told the American people Saddam did indeed have weapons.

The UN did have justification to take down Saddam for years. Not wanting to start a war, everyone decided it would be best to stop exports and imports from and to Iraq. This was to “teach” Saddam a lesson. The sad fact was, that the Iraqi people suffered massive health and food issues at the hands of Saddam’s poor judgments. That made the world start back up, and help Iraq once again. So really the UN did act, and tried to punish Saddam. But since that plan failed, we decided enough was enough and we were going to ask for Saddam to disarm once and for all.

Knowing the UN would act, this time, Saddam disarmed. The UN inspectors went into Iraq, to make sure he did disarm. The reason they went in was because they knew he had a history of lying, and he was not to be trusted. So the UN went into Iraq, and found nothing. The only reason they got 2 months into the searching, was because we the United States kicked the UN out of Iraq, and then saying the UN couldn’t search all of Iraq? That’s a bit funny, weird, and hypocritical if you ask me.

To say they “couldn’t” search everything, or look everywhere is false. If the UN can’t do it, then how can the US do it…while occupying Iraq? To say the UN is unequipped and then say the US is equipped to fight a war on terror, liberate the people of Iraq and do everything else, plus find the weapons is just plain idiotic. The UN just had to search, and they were well equipped to do so. They used technology, and everything else to try and find anything.

Saddam has no credibility, which is why we sent the UN in Iraq to see if he was lying. He wasn’t lying, and that is how we proved he wasn’t lying. Got it? Even Colin Powell said that Iraq most likely didn’t have the weapons Bush said they did.

Less Safe Now:

We are less safe now. Spain attacks? Summer Attacks? A poll was taken on MSNBC and the majority of Americans feel less safe now, then a year ago. The war in Iraq, is giving terrorists more time to plot against Americans. Saddam had no link to 9/11...and we are still in Iraq. He had no WMD's, so the Iraq war did not make us "safer".

European Commission President, Romano Prodi, stated, "It happens in Iraq as elsewhere - Istanbul, Moscow, Madrid. The terrorism that the war in Iraq was supposed to stop is infinitely more powerful today than it was a year ago."

A poll was taken on MSNBC, and the majority of Americans are still in fear of attacks on America. So in seems to the majority of Americans, which we are less safe now then ever before.

Iraq isn’t stopping terrorism while Afghanistan is. I’m frustrated because, attacking Iraq isn’t doing anything to stop terror…and they have no link to 9/11. I also was expecting we would go after and spend more time hunting Al Quidea, and not spend it in Iraq, liberating people who don’t want to be.
After terrorists bombed our ally Spain the world is no more peaceful than if Saddam was in office. This attack proves that taking Saddam out of power has done nothing to prevent, and effectively stop terrorists’ motives in committing terror around the world.

Plus, President Bush warned us of “summer” attacks, and attacks on the Olympics. In the Oregonian it said that the terrorists will use this (abuse images) to “recruit” more terrorists. Plus, in the Oregonian it said that it has “ruined Americas image in Iraq and Arab World”.

The torture our soldiers have done to the Iraqis has in return made them be able to recruit and cause more a threat to America.

If America had truly spent 100% of it’s energy on fighting terrorism and not in Iraq we would be much farther along in securing America.

Liberation:

The majority wanted to be liberated, but not to go under soldiers in Iraq who torture them. They also wanted to be liberated to a country that isn’t being blown up, and in chaos. Also when fighting is occurring every day, how can they feel better off now? We are doing a horrible job in Iraq. When they are being tortured, I doubt they are being liberated. Being under American Gun, isn’t liberation.

With the limited amount of soldiers we are able to send, we cannot properly occupy two countries (Afghanistan, and Iraq), without world support. We do not have enough soldiers in Iraq, and we need to lessen the burden on us. President Bush is over stretching our army, according to many US military officials. Then he even has the guts to ask the troops to stay longer then originally planned. This all supports we cannot occupy Iraq alone. According To Yahoo News, 21 people were attacked and killed in an Iraqi prison, proving we do not have the manpower or soldiers in Iraq to keep peace.

So then we invade Iraq, to ride a murder. In doing so we bomb buildings that civilians work at, and kill innocent lives (10,000). We have now become no better then Saddam, we are ridding a murderer to become one ourselves. Yes Saddam has killed more then 10,000, but look at the amount of time he has had compared to ours.

We have yet to see all the video, and images of the torture the American soldiers have inflected upon the Iraqi POW’s. Rumsfield, said that the images and video that have not been released is way worse then what the American public has seen. So the anger and frustration most Americans have now, will only get worse. Let alone the Iraqi’s...now we will never be able to give Iraq freedom because no one there trusts us.

Other threats/suffering worldwide, why Iraq?

A lot of regimes are hostile, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, African countries and our own death penalty. We don’t get the right to pick whoever we want, and bomb the hell out of them. At least Iraq had the UN inspect them, while in North Korea and other countries we didn’t even have that. So I could understand other countries, hardly.

Yes he was a bad man, but so our many other dictators around he world. It is not the United States job to go around and rid the world of them and spread the American way of life, just like the Europeans did to Africa.

Countries, in Africa have many more problems then Iraq. With aids, mass murders, and many troublesome horrors. Iraq, on the other hand has a dictator, who kills his own men and women. That in itself is horrid. You should never kill your own people. But just because a country has this going on, does not give us the United States the right to ‘but’ in. That is what the Europeans did to Africa. They used ethnocentric ideas, which is believing your society is better then any other; thus it’s your common duty to change their ways of life. That is something that I long to disagree with. If we were going to be true to that statement we would pick African countries over Iraq. But then the game comes in, raw materials. Africa does not have oil…, which America needs. Making Iraq a prime target for American war.


Many countries deceive the UN:

Israel? They have invaded the West Bank, and that is against their agreement, and resolution with the UN. We don’t attack them? We tell North Korea to disarm and they don’t. In Saudi Arabia they do many illegal activities and we don’t go after them. Or the African countries that stone their women to death. It just all boils down to, we had no evidence and we went to war on a “what if”.

While other countries deal with issues just like Iraq, and we seem to leave them in the dust. Saudi Arabia, and Iran have done illegal activities….why don’t we do anything about them? North Korea defies the UN by building weapons. So does Saudi Arabia.


Overall: On the news it showed Bush at a 41% approval rate for how he has handled the Iraq War
:)

This is just to clear things up for our new friend that is just oh-so- "holy" because of his age and background.

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
They hate us because of the torture...thank you very much.

You can't look at minorities and say it fits the majority.

Most Iraqi's want security - yes theu are angry at the US - but they don't want the US to leave until things are better.

Iraq used to be a well educated, large middle class, relatively wealthy country up until the late 70's. Wars and sanctions ruined the country - but these people know what their life can be like in the future.

Perception is reality. They have hated us forever, and this will only give them more reason to hate us. The perception is on all Americans.

Again, I realize it isn’t all of our soldiers, but the perception in Iraq is that it is all of us. So the only way now, is if we get the UN into Iraq, because they at least trust them.

I agree that the UN should take over. I cannot think of a single good reason why they shouldn't at this stage.

lib4lies & drew

yes, the iraqi's trusted those brave UN folks so much they tried to murder them all with car bombs.

yes, let the UN take over. they'll kick ass and take names. or will they flee at the first sign of trouble? as they did before.

what world do you two live in? try the real one.

cheers,
tgnc

In the real world - there is practically world consensus that the UN needs to be in charge.

Yes, let the UN take over now, and let them continue to skim the pot and fatten their wallets...:rolleyes:
From MSNBC's Scarborough Country show last night (May 13)

SCARBOROUGH: The United Nations oil-for-food scam has cost innocent Iraqis $10 billion. And now the U.N. is dragging its feet on the investigation.

My next guest, Claudia Rosett from “The Wall Street Journal,” has owned this story from the very beginning.

Claudia, thanks for being with us.

And tell our viewers how high up this scandal goes. Does it go all the way to Kofi Annan?

CLAUDIA ROSETT, “THE WALL STREET JOURNAL”: Well, we don‘t know precisely how high up the scandal itself goes, in terms of who might have been paid off. It does go all the way up to Kofi Annan in the sense of who ran the program, who was the boss, who was responsible.

And in that sense, we already know plenty about whose fault it was that this was allowed to take place.

SCARBOROUGH: And his right-hand man is right now under investigation for actually pocketing millions of dollars, is that correct?

ROSETT: He‘s under investigation. Again, on that, we don‘t know whether or not Benon Sevan, who was picked by Kofi Annan to run the oil-for-food program—that is a matter still for investigation.

What we do know is that by estimates of our own General Accounting Office, something like $10 billion was grafted or smuggled out of Iraq‘s oil supposed to have gone for funds to help for relief for Iraqis. And that not only didn‘t happen. It may well have ended up in bank accounts that at this point—secret bank accounts that at this point are funding terrorist groups today.

Certainly, it went for things like attempts by the Saddam regime to buy arms while Saddam was in power. And it definitely went to build things like palaces and provide for the ministry of torture or the ministry of justice, or whatever you wanted to call it under Saddam, minister of propaganda, Baghdad Bob, that kind of thing.

SCARBOROUGH: Yes.

Claudia, the thing that bothers me so much about this story is the fact that as we were leading up to this war, we heard the French, we heard the Russians, we heard other countries who obviously had business people that skimmed money off of this program saying, you can have no credibility in this war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein Saddam Hussein unless you go through the United Nations.

But isn‘t it the height of irony that it‘s the United Nations that‘s skimming $10 billion from the Iraqi people in this oil-for-food program, and it‘s the very countries that are blocking us going to war with Iraq that were profiting from it?

ROSETT: Well, yes.

What the United Nations did was, they allowed Saddam to skim that money out of Iraq‘s oil revenues under the program. And the United Nations—meaning the secretary-general, Kofi Annan, who should have—did not speak up to tell the public that, according to his secret, confidential information—the U.N. keeps a lot of things secret that should not be—enormous amounts of business had gone to France and Russia.

The U.N. has yet to give us in fact the totals or specifics, which are now under investigation. But there seem to be at this point quite a number of investigations, none of them being allowed or slated to produce results until after the U.N. may be dug right back into Iraq, which is something we probably ought to not do or not allow to happen until we actually have a handle on who was guilty, who did take payoffs, what actually happened inside this program.

SCARBOROUGH: Yes. And I‘ll tell you what. Because of your reporting, we have got a lot better chance of finding those—the questions to those out.

Thanks for being with us. We greatly appreciate it, Claudia Rosett.

We‘ll see all of you again Monday night. Good night.

END


Jeez, wonder why the UN didn't want us in there to begin with. :rolleyes: Okay, supposedly there are NO WMD now. Point taken. However, the fact is that Saddam was chemically killing and abusing, etc. his own people! You don't have to be a rocket scientist to find sites to all the destruction he caused the Kurds and others. If you are saying that isn't a reason - alone - to invade him, simply take WWII into consideration and Hitler's regime.

Besides, the fact is we're there now - whether you or I like it or not. We can't go backwards and erase what we've done. NOW, we have a clean up job to do we need to do it...quickly before any other scandal rocks the world. Stop bitching about Bush and his cabinet (we all know it isn't perfect by any means - get over it) and start doing something positive to help out the situation we're in now. Bashing the president, the Iraq war and the abuse of prisioners is doing NOTHING to help the situation.

posted by Liberal 4 Life Iraq isn’t stopping terrorism while Afghanistan is. I’m frustrated because, attacking Iraq isn’t doing anything to stop terror…and they have no link to 9/11. I also was expecting we would go after and spend more time hunting Al Quidea, and not spend it in Iraq, liberating people who don’t want to be.

Hmmm. Al-Qaeda connections (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C119615%2C00.html), specifically Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an ally/lieutenant of Bin Laden is responsible for Nick Berg's horriffic death. Bin Laden = Afghanistan = Iraq = ANOTHER Article. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119922,00.html)

His death was linked to Al Quidea, not Iraq or Saddam. Go after Al Quidea not Iraq, and spend our time trying to shut them done.

Uh...the point is Al-Qaeda is IN Iraq. They are linked to Afghanistan (where our troops are) and Iraq (where our troops are).

They are everywhere...not just in Iraq. Besides we are in Iraq to liberate the people, not fight against them...remember?

We are there to liberate the people against the Saddam regime and terrorists and to give them freedom. Liberating them means delivering them from terrorists too, doesn't it??

UN is to slow with their soldiers
US is to aggresive with their soldiers
That is a shit

Why has it now become accepted that we are in Iraq to liberate them from opression?

This was never the reason why we are in Iraq. Oppressed people? Too bad. The US is not the fixer of world opression. If it was Iraq would be only one of a long list of countries. I don't want my tax $ being used to fund military operations in the name of fixing oppression. Fixing oppression in another country is worth strong diplomatic effort - but its not worth the life of even 1 soldier.

The sole reason to invade iraq was a clear and present danger that WMD in Iraq would be used by terrorists to inflict mass death in US cities. That's the ONLY reason.

Ok - so the WMD thing turned out to be mostly BS and in hindsight the whole operation has probably given free & easy access to terrorists what WMD existed. So, we are certainly in far worse danger now than we were. It's a true shame that US soldiers are dying to make it less safe in the US. This is the true reality of what is happening now.

But, back last year the logic seemed sound and Bush took a bold move that made sense so long as there was no embellishing of the intelligence. If we had managed it better we might be in a better situation now.

Bush had his chance - its a mess. Now it's time for somebody else to try and fix this serious problem - not only in Iraq but in how America is hated across the world.

After 9-11-01 we had the sympathy and support of practically the whole world. We had capital to do great things. What have we done? We have turned the US into the most hated nation on earth. Great job there Mr Bush - that result takes special skills.

Originally posted by DrewM
In the real world - there is practically world consensus that the UN needs to be in charge.
Led by countries who have illegaly purchased oil from Iraq under UN control. The UN would love to go in there for a number of reasons.
1. Cover up the Oil for Food fiasco.
2. Make sure that no WMD's can be found. ooopss too late.

I am sorry I have been labeled with the damn blue helmet. The helmet and peacekeeper title is a bigger target than the US flag.

if any non US led group goes in it should be NATO. A military alliance and one that has no clear agenda to be there.