for America the Good11/27/2004 c2 Matryoshka
Okay, I don't think ANYONE is going to disagree that Saddam Hussein was a dictator and tyrant, cruel, a threat, etc. But personally, and I think this goes for many other people too: We are most unhappy, morality and justification aside, about how we were LIED to. The war happened WAY too fast. We were told that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Did he? No. We were told he was supporting Al-Quaeda. Was he? No. That is what really annoys me, to tell the truth.
You say America has always been the "good guy"; someone you can turn to. I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with that. You say the U.S. has been all for spreading Democracy. Well, what about the Cold War? Communism doesn't mean there can't be Democracy. What I'm alluding to is Latin America-several times, America worked to overthrow Marxist governments. For example, Democratically-elected president Salvador Allende of Chile was overthrown and killed with help from the U.S. and the brutal, very right-wing dictator Pinochet was installed. The U.S. worked to oppose the Marxist Democratically-elected Sandinista party in Nicaragua by funding the training of rebels (Contras) to fight a guerrilla war. How did the U.S. government get money to do this (Congress had forbidden them to interfere with Nicaragua)? They sold weapons to Iran so they could fund a civil war in Nicaragua! Throughout the past, the U.S. has supported brutal dictators just because they would do what the U.S. wanted. Admittedly, America has done good things for the world-given food for starving people, and gotten rid of tyrants like Hussein. So why then, is international opinion always against us?
Okay, I don't think ANYONE is going to disagree that Saddam Hussein was a dictator and tyrant, cruel, a threat, etc. But personally, and I think this goes for many other people too: We are most unhappy, morality and justification aside, about how we were LIED to. The war happened WAY too fast. We were told that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Did he? No. We were told he was supporting Al-Quaeda. Was he? No. That is what really annoys me, to tell the truth.
You say America has always been the "good guy"; someone you can turn to. I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with that. You say the U.S. has been all for spreading Democracy. Well, what about the Cold War? Communism doesn't mean there can't be Democracy. What I'm alluding to is Latin America-several times, America worked to overthrow Marxist governments. For example, Democratically-elected president Salvador Allende of Chile was overthrown and killed with help from the U.S. and the brutal, very right-wing dictator Pinochet was installed. The U.S. worked to oppose the Marxist Democratically-elected Sandinista party in Nicaragua by funding the training of rebels (Contras) to fight a guerrilla war. How did the U.S. government get money to do this (Congress had forbidden them to interfere with Nicaragua)? They sold weapons to Iran so they could fund a civil war in Nicaragua! Throughout the past, the U.S. has supported brutal dictators just because they would do what the U.S. wanted. Admittedly, America has done good things for the world-given food for starving people, and gotten rid of tyrants like Hussein. So why then, is international opinion always against us?
8/16/2004 c1 theworldisround
I actually like the Republican party's ideals: low taxes, small government, some government involvement but not much, fiscal conservatism.
The problem is, I don't think Bush is a Republican. He spends money left and right and I don't like it. We'll eventually have to pay off the debt he created, and that's when taxes are necessary.
In 2008, if a true Republican comes about, I may vote for them. Low taxes and fiscal conservatism sounds good to me. Actually, I think the libertarian party represents my ideas more, but for now, I'm going for John Kerry because I think George Bush is a reckless spender of our money.
I actually like the Republican party's ideals: low taxes, small government, some government involvement but not much, fiscal conservatism.
The problem is, I don't think Bush is a Republican. He spends money left and right and I don't like it. We'll eventually have to pay off the debt he created, and that's when taxes are necessary.
In 2008, if a true Republican comes about, I may vote for them. Low taxes and fiscal conservatism sounds good to me. Actually, I think the libertarian party represents my ideas more, but for now, I'm going for John Kerry because I think George Bush is a reckless spender of our money.
5/23/2004 c2 
34Forest Passant
I have some questions for you.
If we went into Iraq to free the people and topple the evil Saddam, then how come we're still there? And if we're so into saving people from evil dictators, why not Saudi Arabia? How about getting the South American dictators? And you're right, Saddam was never linked to bin Laden. Saddam is just a distraction. The American people like being at war, it makes us feel united. So our president brings in Saddam.
Why does making an attempt on GHWB's life make Saddam a terrorist? Then everyone accused of attempted murder is a terrorist, aren't they? Let's go after them.
As for Saddam's bad health care record, that just seems ironic. The poor people in our country don't have health care either, why don't we declare war on ourselves?
If Steven Lawrence is the most conservative man on this site, you've got to be second.
34Forest PassantI have some questions for you.
If we went into Iraq to free the people and topple the evil Saddam, then how come we're still there? And if we're so into saving people from evil dictators, why not Saudi Arabia? How about getting the South American dictators? And you're right, Saddam was never linked to bin Laden. Saddam is just a distraction. The American people like being at war, it makes us feel united. So our president brings in Saddam.
Why does making an attempt on GHWB's life make Saddam a terrorist? Then everyone accused of attempted murder is a terrorist, aren't they? Let's go after them.
As for Saddam's bad health care record, that just seems ironic. The poor people in our country don't have health care either, why don't we declare war on ourselves?
If Steven Lawrence is the most conservative man on this site, you've got to be second.
3/17/2004 c2 2ESC's escapes
Notice oil prices have gone up? Anyone who argues that this is a war for oil is ignorant and cannot understand truth.
They are finding WMDs, but don't expect the darned Liberal Democrat media to tell you that. They've found biological weapons, and as for his missiles? He buried them in the sand. They're digging them up now.
2ESC's escapesNotice oil prices have gone up? Anyone who argues that this is a war for oil is ignorant and cannot understand truth.
They are finding WMDs, but don't expect the darned Liberal Democrat media to tell you that. They've found biological weapons, and as for his missiles? He buried them in the sand. They're digging them up now.
3/17/2004 c1 ESC's escapes
THe French don't want the Americans in there because they were selling Saddam weapons.
However, I cannot stress this enough! President Bush did not declare war, because the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution, clearly states that only Congress can declare war.
Power to declare war was specifically denied to the President.
THe French don't want the Americans in there because they were selling Saddam weapons.
However, I cannot stress this enough! President Bush did not declare war, because the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution, clearly states that only Congress can declare war.
Power to declare war was specifically denied to the President.
11/20/2003 c2 James Jago
"Wouldn’t it have been far easier and less expensive for the American government to make a deal with Saddam for cheap oil?"
Not really. The USA would have to compromise then. What postwar Iraqi government is going to stand up to Bush with more troops than most European countries posess stationed there ready to blow them to hell? And let's face it, there are plenty of people with close ties to the Republicans who'd cajole them into doing just that; Shell, BP and the other oil companies can make or break the party at the next election by their campaign contributions.
There really shouldn't be any debate in Western military circles about WMDs because we sold him the damn things back when Iran was the big scary enemy. Nobody gave a damn about Saddam's humAn rights record back then, so what's changed?
"Wouldn’t it have been far easier and less expensive for the American government to make a deal with Saddam for cheap oil?"
Not really. The USA would have to compromise then. What postwar Iraqi government is going to stand up to Bush with more troops than most European countries posess stationed there ready to blow them to hell? And let's face it, there are plenty of people with close ties to the Republicans who'd cajole them into doing just that; Shell, BP and the other oil companies can make or break the party at the next election by their campaign contributions.
There really shouldn't be any debate in Western military circles about WMDs because we sold him the damn things back when Iran was the big scary enemy. Nobody gave a damn about Saddam's humAn rights record back then, so what's changed?
10/3/2003 c2 150SpawnMeister666
Oh My God!
Where the HELL do I start?
Lets start at the beginning...
Case and point, who protected Western Europe from the Communists for the last fifty years? It certainly wasn’t France.
Hey, you know what...it wasn't America either. For a start, your not now, and never have been, a part of Western Europe.
Okay, admittedly, you did help patrol a wall that split Germany in 2 pieces. That'll be the Germany that the Americans and the Russians agreed at the end of World War Two needed to be broken up so they couldn't form up and attack the rest of the World again anytime soon.
Oh look, you just made an agreement with the Communists that you apparently spent 50 years protecting Europe from!
Next up...let me see...
Before that World War II was fought to keep fascists and dictators from taking control of the world.
Indeed it was. And on behalf of EVERYONE in Europe, I'd sure like to thank America for joining in halfway through. What? You mean you didn't know the war started in 1939? Or was it not a WORLD war until 1941 when you decided to play a part after all?
That makes sense actually. Because, after all, America is the only REAL country in the World. Anything America cant be bothered with obviously isn't important!
And the next point...
In World War I, America fought to spread democracy around the globe, along with understanding and compassion of others.
Hey, guess what. America didn't fight World War One to spread democracy around the globe. World War One was all about stopping an evil dictator dude, who as it happens was German, from taking over the whole of Europe.
I've no doubt you were pretty damn late joining in this one too.
And on we move...
In World War I America also had its trade threatened by Germany, in World War II she was attacked by the Japanese before becoming involved, in the Cold War it was a matter of ideological survival that kept us from capitulating.
What the hell is all that supposed to mean? Both world wars were fought to defeat evil tyrants, and the Americans only joined in when they were threatened themselves.
As for the Cold War, thats the biggest joke I ever heard. Bear in mind your earlier statement about promoting peace and harmony, so why the hell are we against someone just because they have different political beliefs?
Or is that just me? Anyway...moving briskly on...
Today Americans marched into Iraq for a number of reasons: to halt the spread of WMD’s, to destroy and secure a former home for terrorists, to spread democracy to the middle east, and to secure a friendly Oil producing country, to put pressure on Iran, to give leverage to the peace talks in Israel.
Number one...the first people over the border weren't even American, they were British.
Number two...halt the spread of what WMD? Where are they? I cant see any...can anyone else?
Number three...to destroy and secure a former home for terrorists. That'll be the terrorists that there is no evidence of a link to then will it. Or did we accidentally confuse Iraq for Libya, which has one hell of a record for supporting terrorism, but is currently one of our 'friendly' nations. Go figure...
Number four...to spread democracy to the middle east...why? why cant we leave them alone to govern themselves in whatever way they see fit as a nation? why do we have to spread democracy everywhere?
Oh, right, because its the fairest system. Of course. How silly of me. Can anyone else think of a major world power whose last DEMOCRATIC election was rigged? Or is it just me?
Never mind...lets continue...
Number five...to secure a friendly oild producing region. You know what, I cant think of an argument against this reason for invading Iraq. I really believe this was a genuine reason.
Whats next? Oh yes...
Number six...to put pressure on Iran. What sort of pressure? Why? What has Iran done that it needs pressure put on it? You never actually got round to explaining that one...
Number seven...to give leverage to the peace talks in Israel. What leverage? On whose side are we trying to lever these talks? Is it to give Israel a stronger hand at the table? Or is it to give the Palestinians who have been persecuted and driven from their homes and butchered and brutalised since 1948 an ally in the region? You weren't too clear on this one either.
And you know what else you missed out on? How about removing a tyrannical dictator who pissed off George Dubya Bush's daddy, and used to be pretty nasty before he got cancer?
No, silly me. I'm sure it was nothing to do with that.
Okay...moving swiftly on...what shall I rip apart next?
To say that Bush declared war on Iraq for only oil would be like saying Wilson only declared war on Germany for money
Bit of a difference mate. By the time Wilson declared war on Germany, Germany had invaded Poland. And they'd been warned in advance that stepping over the border would result in war.
Remind me again what it was exactly that Iraq did wrong just before being invaded.
Thought so...
Hm...interesting. So far your whole case is looking something resembling whatever the exact opposite of watertight is. But I'm sure you'll win me over in a few minutes.
Lets have a look shall we...
Those who wish for peace, and only peace, are wishful thinkers.
Unfortunately, I find I have to agree with you on this statement. Although not on the reasons you give to back it up. Basically, war generates a hell of a lot more money than peace ever will. Which is a shame...whats next on the agenda?
The UN has shown itself to be a purveyor of the theory of peace at all costs.
Incorrect. The UN has backed a lot of conflicts over the years, including the first Gulf War and the war on Afghanistan. They just believe, and I agree with them, that war should be the last resort, not the first.
And next up we have...
Those who consider a Saddam Hussein in charge better then an American occupation force are the most uncompassionate people this world has ever seen to say the least. Preserving the status quo strictly to maintain peace is not only horribly uncaring, but irresponsible.
No-one in the western world believes Saddam should have been left alone to do what he wanted. And you know who the main objectors right now to the US occupation of Iraq are? The Iraqi people. They're the ones attacking the occupation forces, carrying out suicide attacks, ambushes, even demonstrations of stone throwing. For which they usually end up getting shot. Obviously something the Americans have learned from the Israeli's!
Moving on...
Those who oppose the liberties of the people they rule over should never be given the responsibility of running a nation. They should be removed immediately,
Try telling that to the people that are being held in Cuba by the American military. That'll be the people captured in Afghanistan. Who have yet to be charged with anything.
Who are being held in direct contravention to the Geneva Convention. Which was set up to give basic human rights to prisoners of war. Which, incidentally, America refuses to this day to sign.
Never mind the millions of people who are denied basic rights like education and health care in the great nation that is America.
Okay, now whats next?
Putting the rhetoric aside for a moment and consider what Saddam was actually doing: killing those who stood up against him, torturing athletes who weren’t good enough to win medals, dictating to twenty five million free thinking people, and invading smaller surrounding countries.
I agree, you cant allow someone like that to continue in office. Unless its in Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan immediately prior to 9/11. Or how about Zimbabwe? Where the ruler, Robert Mugabe, is continuously calling upon the oppressed blacks to rise up against the white farmers and kill them and steal their land.
Thats the BLACK ruler, Robert Mugabe. And thats the farms, run by white people, that were successfully feeding the entire nation. A nation that is now full of derelict farm buildings and starving black people, and the occasional still burning corpse of a white farmer who tried to stay and feed the natives, even when the government wanted him out.
Oh, no, only Saddam whose a problem really. Honest.
So, can there possibly be any more mistakes? Lets have a look...
If anything America is at fault for not finishing the job during the Gulf War.
I agree. Totally. Then it would have been justified completely. Now, I'm not even remotely convinced.
Next point...
It seems that the most outspoken critics of American Foreign policy are critiquing the Iraq war strictly because it was fought by America.
Hang on, it wasn't fought JUST by America. And as a British person I feel I have a right to criticise any decision the British Government take if I think it is wrong. And as we were there with America all along on this one, and as I believe there was absolutely no justification to go to war at the time we did, I have a right to criticise MY government. And by association, YOUR government. We were in it together, we should face condemnation together.
Okay, thats page one pretty much dealt with. Except for one, final point, then I can move on to page two of your ill informed diatribe.
I urge all of you who may read this to do your own investigation of the war and what is currently being done. Americans are still dying to insure the safety of Iraqi’s.
Indeed they are. And its a shame. But think also about who it is who's killing those Americans. You know what, its the Iraqi people. The ones we all went in to save. The ones that dont want us there and never did.
Now I'll move on to the next page...
The first stage of this offensive against the axis of evil was the Afghan war shortly following the 9/11 attacks. That war, fought against the people who organized the horrible terrorist attack was completely justifiable and caused little to no protest around the world.
Those organisers being mainly, and led by, people from a country going by the name of Saudi Arabia of course. But, having said that, intelligence reports suggested the Taliban knew where Osama and his friends were hiding, and as they wouldn't tell us, they had to be taken out themselves.
Although I agree to a certain extent, they were a nasty bunch of people and it was right and just that they no longer be allowed to continue.
Saddam Hussein has been one of the most destructive dictators of the twentieth century. He has held a people with the resources to be the richest country in the Middle East back into poverty and ignorance.
Partly true. Although I have no doubt the sanctions against Iraq since the first Gulf war had absolutely NOTHING to do with the country being taken to the brink of ruin. Even though none other than the Right Honorable Tony Blair seems to think they actually played a pretty major part in things...
Hussein is known to have murdered Shi’a clerics, executed 2,500 since 1997, destroyed over 3,0 Kurdish villages, and used the largest amount of chemical weapons on any civilian population in the history of the world, all in an effort to maintain his control over the country.
Badly worded. Trying to imply ALL of the above happened since 1997, when there is no evidence anywhere to suggest that chemical weapons for example have been used in the last 10 years at least.
the other 60% was spent on the massive Iraqi military
That would be the invisible massive Iraqi military would it? The one that offered very little resistance when invaded.
conducting war on one of the largest armies in the world,
I thought this war was against Iraq, not America, China, Russia, or Britain. I think you'll find thats the top 4 armies, and that theres probably another 20+ countries with more soldiers than Iraq had at the start of the invasion.
and its destruction of the local environment to create revenue for the government.
Lets not mention a certain country building a huge oil pipe in Alaska against one the biggest amounts of opposition ever seen for environmental reasons then I take it...
World War II was certainly justified, as was the Civil War. Both served a higher purpose then just the random destruction of peaceful countryside.
I'm curious...do you even know the main reason behind the Civil War? Just wondering. Because everyone THINKS they know this one, although very few people actually do!
(fought with the best interest of the civilian population in mind, i.e. smart weapons, reliable intelligence reports, with the intent to draw the military away from population centers, and keeping the infrastructure of the country together as much as possible.
Lets not mention a certain policy known as Shock and Awe then shall we not...
Wouldn’t it be morally wrong to sit back and allow a dictator to execute political prisoners and plunder an otherwise wealthy country?
If the Saudi's can execute political prisoners, along with a host of other countries, including Israel, why should Saddam be any different?
The truth is the war on Iraq was justified and its justifications were heralded by the leaders of the current US administration. WMD’s are in Iraq because Saddam’s used them before.
Guess what...I've used fireworks powder before. Doesnt mean I've got some now though does it?
Perhaps during the length of time the US spent trying to convince the rest of the world that Iraq was a threat and a menace Saddam moved the weapons of mass destruction out of country, into Syria, Lebanon, and the hands of Al-Queda.
And I'm sure he would have been able to do all that without any of these super intelligent guys who knew for a fact he had the weapons and also where he was hiding them noticing them being moved over the borders right? Silly me, of course he could. I mean, if you have weapons like these, and your about to be attacked by a vastly superior force, it makes perfect sense to use all the time available trying to HIDE them, instead of using them to defend yourself!
Think for a moment...forgetting all of America’s past transgressions, its mistakes and its successes, its defeats and victories, its culture, history and heritage, was the War on Iraq, just the war, not those who committed it, justified? I think you’ll find the answer is yes
Not from where I'm sitting I'm afraid. I think the war on Iraq happened mainly because we couldn't find Osama, so we went after the next easy target, because George Bush needs something to show for his much hyped war on terror. And so far he's got nothing really worthwhile.
One final note, I think you'll have noticed I've now responded to pretty much all your political items. And I'm sure you also noticed that I disagreed with them all as well.
One thing I may not have mentioned though, at least they were all well written. Its clear that these are beliefs you hold very strongly, and for that I can have nothing but respect.
Even if I think your wrong!
But I think, in essence, this pretty much sums up the state of the world. Just because someone's beliefs dont match your own, that doesn't mean you cant respect the other person.
Maybe if more people adopted the same attitude, we really could eventually have a world of peace.
We can but hope...
Spawny
150SpawnMeister666Oh My God!
Where the HELL do I start?
Lets start at the beginning...
Case and point, who protected Western Europe from the Communists for the last fifty years? It certainly wasn’t France.
Hey, you know what...it wasn't America either. For a start, your not now, and never have been, a part of Western Europe.
Okay, admittedly, you did help patrol a wall that split Germany in 2 pieces. That'll be the Germany that the Americans and the Russians agreed at the end of World War Two needed to be broken up so they couldn't form up and attack the rest of the World again anytime soon.
Oh look, you just made an agreement with the Communists that you apparently spent 50 years protecting Europe from!
Next up...let me see...
Before that World War II was fought to keep fascists and dictators from taking control of the world.
Indeed it was. And on behalf of EVERYONE in Europe, I'd sure like to thank America for joining in halfway through. What? You mean you didn't know the war started in 1939? Or was it not a WORLD war until 1941 when you decided to play a part after all?
That makes sense actually. Because, after all, America is the only REAL country in the World. Anything America cant be bothered with obviously isn't important!
And the next point...
In World War I, America fought to spread democracy around the globe, along with understanding and compassion of others.
Hey, guess what. America didn't fight World War One to spread democracy around the globe. World War One was all about stopping an evil dictator dude, who as it happens was German, from taking over the whole of Europe.
I've no doubt you were pretty damn late joining in this one too.
And on we move...
In World War I America also had its trade threatened by Germany, in World War II she was attacked by the Japanese before becoming involved, in the Cold War it was a matter of ideological survival that kept us from capitulating.
What the hell is all that supposed to mean? Both world wars were fought to defeat evil tyrants, and the Americans only joined in when they were threatened themselves.
As for the Cold War, thats the biggest joke I ever heard. Bear in mind your earlier statement about promoting peace and harmony, so why the hell are we against someone just because they have different political beliefs?
Or is that just me? Anyway...moving briskly on...
Today Americans marched into Iraq for a number of reasons: to halt the spread of WMD’s, to destroy and secure a former home for terrorists, to spread democracy to the middle east, and to secure a friendly Oil producing country, to put pressure on Iran, to give leverage to the peace talks in Israel.
Number one...the first people over the border weren't even American, they were British.
Number two...halt the spread of what WMD? Where are they? I cant see any...can anyone else?
Number three...to destroy and secure a former home for terrorists. That'll be the terrorists that there is no evidence of a link to then will it. Or did we accidentally confuse Iraq for Libya, which has one hell of a record for supporting terrorism, but is currently one of our 'friendly' nations. Go figure...
Number four...to spread democracy to the middle east...why? why cant we leave them alone to govern themselves in whatever way they see fit as a nation? why do we have to spread democracy everywhere?
Oh, right, because its the fairest system. Of course. How silly of me. Can anyone else think of a major world power whose last DEMOCRATIC election was rigged? Or is it just me?
Never mind...lets continue...
Number five...to secure a friendly oild producing region. You know what, I cant think of an argument against this reason for invading Iraq. I really believe this was a genuine reason.
Whats next? Oh yes...
Number six...to put pressure on Iran. What sort of pressure? Why? What has Iran done that it needs pressure put on it? You never actually got round to explaining that one...
Number seven...to give leverage to the peace talks in Israel. What leverage? On whose side are we trying to lever these talks? Is it to give Israel a stronger hand at the table? Or is it to give the Palestinians who have been persecuted and driven from their homes and butchered and brutalised since 1948 an ally in the region? You weren't too clear on this one either.
And you know what else you missed out on? How about removing a tyrannical dictator who pissed off George Dubya Bush's daddy, and used to be pretty nasty before he got cancer?
No, silly me. I'm sure it was nothing to do with that.
Okay...moving swiftly on...what shall I rip apart next?
To say that Bush declared war on Iraq for only oil would be like saying Wilson only declared war on Germany for money
Bit of a difference mate. By the time Wilson declared war on Germany, Germany had invaded Poland. And they'd been warned in advance that stepping over the border would result in war.
Remind me again what it was exactly that Iraq did wrong just before being invaded.
Thought so...
Hm...interesting. So far your whole case is looking something resembling whatever the exact opposite of watertight is. But I'm sure you'll win me over in a few minutes.
Lets have a look shall we...
Those who wish for peace, and only peace, are wishful thinkers.
Unfortunately, I find I have to agree with you on this statement. Although not on the reasons you give to back it up. Basically, war generates a hell of a lot more money than peace ever will. Which is a shame...whats next on the agenda?
The UN has shown itself to be a purveyor of the theory of peace at all costs.
Incorrect. The UN has backed a lot of conflicts over the years, including the first Gulf War and the war on Afghanistan. They just believe, and I agree with them, that war should be the last resort, not the first.
And next up we have...
Those who consider a Saddam Hussein in charge better then an American occupation force are the most uncompassionate people this world has ever seen to say the least. Preserving the status quo strictly to maintain peace is not only horribly uncaring, but irresponsible.
No-one in the western world believes Saddam should have been left alone to do what he wanted. And you know who the main objectors right now to the US occupation of Iraq are? The Iraqi people. They're the ones attacking the occupation forces, carrying out suicide attacks, ambushes, even demonstrations of stone throwing. For which they usually end up getting shot. Obviously something the Americans have learned from the Israeli's!
Moving on...
Those who oppose the liberties of the people they rule over should never be given the responsibility of running a nation. They should be removed immediately,
Try telling that to the people that are being held in Cuba by the American military. That'll be the people captured in Afghanistan. Who have yet to be charged with anything.
Who are being held in direct contravention to the Geneva Convention. Which was set up to give basic human rights to prisoners of war. Which, incidentally, America refuses to this day to sign.
Never mind the millions of people who are denied basic rights like education and health care in the great nation that is America.
Okay, now whats next?
Putting the rhetoric aside for a moment and consider what Saddam was actually doing: killing those who stood up against him, torturing athletes who weren’t good enough to win medals, dictating to twenty five million free thinking people, and invading smaller surrounding countries.
I agree, you cant allow someone like that to continue in office. Unless its in Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan immediately prior to 9/11. Or how about Zimbabwe? Where the ruler, Robert Mugabe, is continuously calling upon the oppressed blacks to rise up against the white farmers and kill them and steal their land.
Thats the BLACK ruler, Robert Mugabe. And thats the farms, run by white people, that were successfully feeding the entire nation. A nation that is now full of derelict farm buildings and starving black people, and the occasional still burning corpse of a white farmer who tried to stay and feed the natives, even when the government wanted him out.
Oh, no, only Saddam whose a problem really. Honest.
So, can there possibly be any more mistakes? Lets have a look...
If anything America is at fault for not finishing the job during the Gulf War.
I agree. Totally. Then it would have been justified completely. Now, I'm not even remotely convinced.
Next point...
It seems that the most outspoken critics of American Foreign policy are critiquing the Iraq war strictly because it was fought by America.
Hang on, it wasn't fought JUST by America. And as a British person I feel I have a right to criticise any decision the British Government take if I think it is wrong. And as we were there with America all along on this one, and as I believe there was absolutely no justification to go to war at the time we did, I have a right to criticise MY government. And by association, YOUR government. We were in it together, we should face condemnation together.
Okay, thats page one pretty much dealt with. Except for one, final point, then I can move on to page two of your ill informed diatribe.
I urge all of you who may read this to do your own investigation of the war and what is currently being done. Americans are still dying to insure the safety of Iraqi’s.
Indeed they are. And its a shame. But think also about who it is who's killing those Americans. You know what, its the Iraqi people. The ones we all went in to save. The ones that dont want us there and never did.
Now I'll move on to the next page...
The first stage of this offensive against the axis of evil was the Afghan war shortly following the 9/11 attacks. That war, fought against the people who organized the horrible terrorist attack was completely justifiable and caused little to no protest around the world.
Those organisers being mainly, and led by, people from a country going by the name of Saudi Arabia of course. But, having said that, intelligence reports suggested the Taliban knew where Osama and his friends were hiding, and as they wouldn't tell us, they had to be taken out themselves.
Although I agree to a certain extent, they were a nasty bunch of people and it was right and just that they no longer be allowed to continue.
Saddam Hussein has been one of the most destructive dictators of the twentieth century. He has held a people with the resources to be the richest country in the Middle East back into poverty and ignorance.
Partly true. Although I have no doubt the sanctions against Iraq since the first Gulf war had absolutely NOTHING to do with the country being taken to the brink of ruin. Even though none other than the Right Honorable Tony Blair seems to think they actually played a pretty major part in things...
Hussein is known to have murdered Shi’a clerics, executed 2,500 since 1997, destroyed over 3,0 Kurdish villages, and used the largest amount of chemical weapons on any civilian population in the history of the world, all in an effort to maintain his control over the country.
Badly worded. Trying to imply ALL of the above happened since 1997, when there is no evidence anywhere to suggest that chemical weapons for example have been used in the last 10 years at least.
the other 60% was spent on the massive Iraqi military
That would be the invisible massive Iraqi military would it? The one that offered very little resistance when invaded.
conducting war on one of the largest armies in the world,
I thought this war was against Iraq, not America, China, Russia, or Britain. I think you'll find thats the top 4 armies, and that theres probably another 20+ countries with more soldiers than Iraq had at the start of the invasion.
and its destruction of the local environment to create revenue for the government.
Lets not mention a certain country building a huge oil pipe in Alaska against one the biggest amounts of opposition ever seen for environmental reasons then I take it...
World War II was certainly justified, as was the Civil War. Both served a higher purpose then just the random destruction of peaceful countryside.
I'm curious...do you even know the main reason behind the Civil War? Just wondering. Because everyone THINKS they know this one, although very few people actually do!
(fought with the best interest of the civilian population in mind, i.e. smart weapons, reliable intelligence reports, with the intent to draw the military away from population centers, and keeping the infrastructure of the country together as much as possible.
Lets not mention a certain policy known as Shock and Awe then shall we not...
Wouldn’t it be morally wrong to sit back and allow a dictator to execute political prisoners and plunder an otherwise wealthy country?
If the Saudi's can execute political prisoners, along with a host of other countries, including Israel, why should Saddam be any different?
The truth is the war on Iraq was justified and its justifications were heralded by the leaders of the current US administration. WMD’s are in Iraq because Saddam’s used them before.
Guess what...I've used fireworks powder before. Doesnt mean I've got some now though does it?
Perhaps during the length of time the US spent trying to convince the rest of the world that Iraq was a threat and a menace Saddam moved the weapons of mass destruction out of country, into Syria, Lebanon, and the hands of Al-Queda.
And I'm sure he would have been able to do all that without any of these super intelligent guys who knew for a fact he had the weapons and also where he was hiding them noticing them being moved over the borders right? Silly me, of course he could. I mean, if you have weapons like these, and your about to be attacked by a vastly superior force, it makes perfect sense to use all the time available trying to HIDE them, instead of using them to defend yourself!
Think for a moment...forgetting all of America’s past transgressions, its mistakes and its successes, its defeats and victories, its culture, history and heritage, was the War on Iraq, just the war, not those who committed it, justified? I think you’ll find the answer is yes
Not from where I'm sitting I'm afraid. I think the war on Iraq happened mainly because we couldn't find Osama, so we went after the next easy target, because George Bush needs something to show for his much hyped war on terror. And so far he's got nothing really worthwhile.
One final note, I think you'll have noticed I've now responded to pretty much all your political items. And I'm sure you also noticed that I disagreed with them all as well.
One thing I may not have mentioned though, at least they were all well written. Its clear that these are beliefs you hold very strongly, and for that I can have nothing but respect.
Even if I think your wrong!
But I think, in essence, this pretty much sums up the state of the world. Just because someone's beliefs dont match your own, that doesn't mean you cant respect the other person.
Maybe if more people adopted the same attitude, we really could eventually have a world of peace.
We can but hope...
Spawny
9/30/2003 c2 26wordpainter241
On the subject of WMD's: you fought a war for WMD's that weren't there.
I really didn't have a problem with them getting rid of the Taliban, because they oppressed everyone under their contol. Likewise with Hussein, however I disagree with your argument that because they should've done in last time, they should've done in now. The thing I really have issues with is that they lied, all of them: Bush, Blair and Howard. They lied to the civillians that elected them, and no one even cares. There was a need for regime change in Iraq, everyone knew that. The administration didn't need to make up some lies about weapons of mass destruction to justify their war. Yes, America is SO good, that their President sells us sexed up stories about the threat of chemical and biologial attacks... very good, don't you think?
26wordpainter241On the subject of WMD's: you fought a war for WMD's that weren't there.
I really didn't have a problem with them getting rid of the Taliban, because they oppressed everyone under their contol. Likewise with Hussein, however I disagree with your argument that because they should've done in last time, they should've done in now. The thing I really have issues with is that they lied, all of them: Bush, Blair and Howard. They lied to the civillians that elected them, and no one even cares. There was a need for regime change in Iraq, everyone knew that. The administration didn't need to make up some lies about weapons of mass destruction to justify their war. Yes, America is SO good, that their President sells us sexed up stories about the threat of chemical and biologial attacks... very good, don't you think?
9/30/2003 c1 wordpainter241
If you really want to me to justify why the war is against moral principles and therefore wrong/should never have happened, why Bush is just as bad as bin Laden, if not worse, then e-mail me. If you don't want to hear the other side, then go become a Republican speech writer because your rhetoric is a little hollow.
If you really want to me to justify why the war is against moral principles and therefore wrong/should never have happened, why Bush is just as bad as bin Laden, if not worse, then e-mail me. If you don't want to hear the other side, then go become a Republican speech writer because your rhetoric is a little hollow.
9/22/2003 c1 12Carmen Noriko
*claps* Very good. Structured, well-organized persuasive essay. I think I need to stop posting stuff I wrote two years ago. ^^
One thing I really liked was the point you made about wishing for "peace, and only peace," because it really is true. I have a play I wrote once based on the question "how far is too far?" in regards to peace. You're very correct when you say that there has never been a time of total peace. I suppose one thing human beings are attempting is to reach the point where they ARE at peace, and there aren't any more wars or fighting. I think that might be related to religion in some way, but I'm not going to commit to that.
All in all, I thought it was a good essay that adequately expressed your opinion without seeming too biased.
- hasapi
12Carmen Noriko*claps* Very good. Structured, well-organized persuasive essay. I think I need to stop posting stuff I wrote two years ago. ^^
One thing I really liked was the point you made about wishing for "peace, and only peace," because it really is true. I have a play I wrote once based on the question "how far is too far?" in regards to peace. You're very correct when you say that there has never been a time of total peace. I suppose one thing human beings are attempting is to reach the point where they ARE at peace, and there aren't any more wars or fighting. I think that might be related to religion in some way, but I'm not going to commit to that.
All in all, I thought it was a good essay that adequately expressed your opinion without seeming too biased.
- hasapi
8/5/2003 c2 4my two centavos
The second part of this one was again like the first. It was well written but filled with the wrong ideas. The next time you look at these issues, look at it from a global standpoint.
Being Filipino, I can say that America only wanted Iraq for its own reasons and not for liberating the people. Why you may ask? The Americans did the same to us when we were under Spain and promised to leave us alone after our independence was attained. That was then a big joke followed by the Philippine-American War which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Filipinos and us being colonized by the US.
1. Sure Saddam was evil but invading another country because of its government is not good either. How much lives were lost and how much property was destroyed? Do you think that was worth kicking out an opperssive government? Iraqis may have their freedom but now they've lost everything else.
2. The reason why America supported Saddam against Iran was because of the embassy incident during the 1970s. Lesser of two evils? Saddam killed thousands of Kurds using chemical weapons. That doesn't seem to be the lesser of two evils?
3. Don't get confused with World War 2 and this war. Hitler made the first move by invading Poland. You may think that Saddam had a hand in 9/11 but really had nothing to do with it nor its planning.
Just another point to add. While Britain and France went to war with Germany in 1939, America was sitting and waiting while the French were being conquered. The US only went to war after Pearl Harbor.
4my two centavosThe second part of this one was again like the first. It was well written but filled with the wrong ideas. The next time you look at these issues, look at it from a global standpoint.
Being Filipino, I can say that America only wanted Iraq for its own reasons and not for liberating the people. Why you may ask? The Americans did the same to us when we were under Spain and promised to leave us alone after our independence was attained. That was then a big joke followed by the Philippine-American War which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Filipinos and us being colonized by the US.
1. Sure Saddam was evil but invading another country because of its government is not good either. How much lives were lost and how much property was destroyed? Do you think that was worth kicking out an opperssive government? Iraqis may have their freedom but now they've lost everything else.
2. The reason why America supported Saddam against Iran was because of the embassy incident during the 1970s. Lesser of two evils? Saddam killed thousands of Kurds using chemical weapons. That doesn't seem to be the lesser of two evils?
3. Don't get confused with World War 2 and this war. Hitler made the first move by invading Poland. You may think that Saddam had a hand in 9/11 but really had nothing to do with it nor its planning.
Just another point to add. While Britain and France went to war with Germany in 1939, America was sitting and waiting while the French were being conquered. The US only went to war after Pearl Harbor.
8/4/2003 c1 my two centavos
"Case and point, who protected Western Europe from the Communists for the last fifty years?"
"in the Cold War it was a matter of ideological survival that kept us from capitulating."
The Cold War was a battle between two opposing ideologies and not between good and evil. Just because Capitalism lasted longer than Communism doesn't mean that the US was by standards morally good.
"Before that World War II was fought to keep fascists and dictators from taking control of the world."
No one did like Hitler, even the Communists. Funny how Stalin was one of those dictators and you guys made friends with him.
"In World War I America also had its trade threatened by Germany."
Because even it was secretly supplying Britain and France with arms. America didn't want to break its isolationism even if there was a big war going on across the Atlantic or even if its citizens were being killed by German U-boats. They only joined the war when they intercepted the Zimmerman letter in which the Germans wanted Mexico to declare war to the US with the promise of getting some of the states in the west.
"World War II she was attacked by the Japanese before becoming involved."
Like above, America didn't want to break isolationism and thus, they were asking for the Japanese to hit them first. Not to mention, they were alerted that the Japanese were on the move but didn't really do anything about it.
"Today Americans marched into Iraq for a number of reasons:"
1. To get oil.
2. To "scare" away potential terrorists by showing off his military.
3. To make a statement to the international community that we are strongest and most undisputed country in the world.
"to halt the spread of WMD?s",
Then where are the so called Iraqi WMDs? If Bush and Blair were so determined to purge the world of these weapons, maybe they should start with their own stockpile. After all, the only WMDs I see are the ones that belong to you.
"to destroy and secure a former home for terrorists"
Like mentioned in previous reviews, Al Qaida had no official links with the Iraqi government.
"to spread democracy to the middle east"
Violating a country's sovereignty is not the best way to spread democracy.
"to secure a friendly Oil producing country"
More like conquering it.
"to put pressure on Iran"
Again with how the US should respect sovereignty.
"give leverage to the peace talks in Israel"
Even if peace between governments can be reached, the only way for a lasting peace is for both Israelis and Palestinaians to share the land instead of killing each other for it.
"To say that Bush declared war on Iraq for only oil would be like saying Wilson only declared war on Germany for money."
To continue from the one above. Americans were outraged when they heard about the Zimmerman letter. Public opinion wanted Wilson to go to war with the Germans and that's what he did. Bush, on the other hand, using reasons that have no direct relation with Saddam, went to war with another country.
"In the past several thousand years of human history there has never been a time of total peace, ever. Humans have always fought each other, its part of Human nature."
So are you saying that you wanted war because you felt like it?
"Those who consider a Saddam Hussein in charge better then an American occupation force are the most uncompassionate people this world has ever seen to say the least."
Funny how you said that to us Filipinos a hundred years ago after you helped us throw out the Spanish.
"Justification is the word of our times and America was more then justified for invading Iraq. Putting the rhetoric aside for a moment and consider what Saddam was actually doing: killing those who stood up against him, torturing athletes who weren?t good enough to win medals, dictating to twenty five million free thinking people, and invading smaller surrounding countries. This man shouldn?t be trusted with a piece of string, let alone a large nation with an even bigger army. If anything America is at fault for not finishing the job during the Gulf War. That should be the issue, not the reasons why soldiers are marching in now. He deserved everything he got."
Two wrongs don't make a right and the end doesn't justify the means. Can you justify the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilian and soldiers and even some of your own "coalition" troops? How much money was spent on the bombs and bullets when they could have been used to help fight poverty. How much damage was done to the Iraqi infrastructure and economy?
"so invading a helpless country must be even worse."
You said it yourself...
"It seems that the most outspoken critics of American Foreign policy are critiquing the Iraq war strictly because it was fought by America."
No because what you guys did was wrong.
"To fall prey to this ill informed view is to fall prey to stupidity."
YOU are the one listening to government propaganda like that.
"I urge all of you who may read this to do your own investigation of the war and what is currently being done."
That's what we have done.
"Americans are still dying to insure the safety of Iraqi?s. These American boys and girls are giving their lives for a people on the other side of the world."
They are giving their lives for Bush's political aspirations. Such a waste of good men and women.
"America, despite its failings, has always been a good guy, someone you can turn to when your in trouble."
In the words of my native language, ULOL! We asked for help when we wanted to liberate ourselves from the Spanish and what we got in return was to be colonized by another imperialist nation.
Sorry to burst your bubble like that. The essay itself was good but had the wrong ideas.
"Case and point, who protected Western Europe from the Communists for the last fifty years?"
"in the Cold War it was a matter of ideological survival that kept us from capitulating."
The Cold War was a battle between two opposing ideologies and not between good and evil. Just because Capitalism lasted longer than Communism doesn't mean that the US was by standards morally good.
"Before that World War II was fought to keep fascists and dictators from taking control of the world."
No one did like Hitler, even the Communists. Funny how Stalin was one of those dictators and you guys made friends with him.
"In World War I America also had its trade threatened by Germany."
Because even it was secretly supplying Britain and France with arms. America didn't want to break its isolationism even if there was a big war going on across the Atlantic or even if its citizens were being killed by German U-boats. They only joined the war when they intercepted the Zimmerman letter in which the Germans wanted Mexico to declare war to the US with the promise of getting some of the states in the west.
"World War II she was attacked by the Japanese before becoming involved."
Like above, America didn't want to break isolationism and thus, they were asking for the Japanese to hit them first. Not to mention, they were alerted that the Japanese were on the move but didn't really do anything about it.
"Today Americans marched into Iraq for a number of reasons:"
1. To get oil.
2. To "scare" away potential terrorists by showing off his military.
3. To make a statement to the international community that we are strongest and most undisputed country in the world.
"to halt the spread of WMD?s",
Then where are the so called Iraqi WMDs? If Bush and Blair were so determined to purge the world of these weapons, maybe they should start with their own stockpile. After all, the only WMDs I see are the ones that belong to you.
"to destroy and secure a former home for terrorists"
Like mentioned in previous reviews, Al Qaida had no official links with the Iraqi government.
"to spread democracy to the middle east"
Violating a country's sovereignty is not the best way to spread democracy.
"to secure a friendly Oil producing country"
More like conquering it.
"to put pressure on Iran"
Again with how the US should respect sovereignty.
"give leverage to the peace talks in Israel"
Even if peace between governments can be reached, the only way for a lasting peace is for both Israelis and Palestinaians to share the land instead of killing each other for it.
"To say that Bush declared war on Iraq for only oil would be like saying Wilson only declared war on Germany for money."
To continue from the one above. Americans were outraged when they heard about the Zimmerman letter. Public opinion wanted Wilson to go to war with the Germans and that's what he did. Bush, on the other hand, using reasons that have no direct relation with Saddam, went to war with another country.
"In the past several thousand years of human history there has never been a time of total peace, ever. Humans have always fought each other, its part of Human nature."
So are you saying that you wanted war because you felt like it?
"Those who consider a Saddam Hussein in charge better then an American occupation force are the most uncompassionate people this world has ever seen to say the least."
Funny how you said that to us Filipinos a hundred years ago after you helped us throw out the Spanish.
"Justification is the word of our times and America was more then justified for invading Iraq. Putting the rhetoric aside for a moment and consider what Saddam was actually doing: killing those who stood up against him, torturing athletes who weren?t good enough to win medals, dictating to twenty five million free thinking people, and invading smaller surrounding countries. This man shouldn?t be trusted with a piece of string, let alone a large nation with an even bigger army. If anything America is at fault for not finishing the job during the Gulf War. That should be the issue, not the reasons why soldiers are marching in now. He deserved everything he got."
Two wrongs don't make a right and the end doesn't justify the means. Can you justify the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilian and soldiers and even some of your own "coalition" troops? How much money was spent on the bombs and bullets when they could have been used to help fight poverty. How much damage was done to the Iraqi infrastructure and economy?
"so invading a helpless country must be even worse."
You said it yourself...
"It seems that the most outspoken critics of American Foreign policy are critiquing the Iraq war strictly because it was fought by America."
No because what you guys did was wrong.
"To fall prey to this ill informed view is to fall prey to stupidity."
YOU are the one listening to government propaganda like that.
"I urge all of you who may read this to do your own investigation of the war and what is currently being done."
That's what we have done.
"Americans are still dying to insure the safety of Iraqi?s. These American boys and girls are giving their lives for a people on the other side of the world."
They are giving their lives for Bush's political aspirations. Such a waste of good men and women.
"America, despite its failings, has always been a good guy, someone you can turn to when your in trouble."
In the words of my native language, ULOL! We asked for help when we wanted to liberate ourselves from the Spanish and what we got in return was to be colonized by another imperialist nation.
Sorry to burst your bubble like that. The essay itself was good but had the wrong ideas.
7/15/2003 c1 9fugiguru
well written with valid pints. i do not believe that america is evil or that president bush is a terrible person who brought us into this war for oil or any other singular reason, but the massive loss of life from a war is terrible, not just on the Iraqi side but on the American side too. it is very easy to think of them as soldiers or civilians and nothing else. but you must remeber that whenever someone dies, they are more than a statistic, that they had a life and a family and people who cared deeply about them, from an American POW to saddam hussien himself. when i see the people going off to war, i can't ever believe that anyone is ready for it.
9fugiguruwell written with valid pints. i do not believe that america is evil or that president bush is a terrible person who brought us into this war for oil or any other singular reason, but the massive loss of life from a war is terrible, not just on the Iraqi side but on the American side too. it is very easy to think of them as soldiers or civilians and nothing else. but you must remeber that whenever someone dies, they are more than a statistic, that they had a life and a family and people who cared deeply about them, from an American POW to saddam hussien himself. when i see the people going off to war, i can't ever believe that anyone is ready for it.
7/11/2003 c2 33Tiefling
First off, according to the captives that have been questioned by US officials, there was no connection between the Al Quaeda (sp?) and the Iraqi government because Osama Bin Ladin personally vetoed it.
Yet again you go on about how bad Saddam Hussein was, but this was *not* the stated reason given for going to war. The US claimed to be going to war because they 'knew' Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which was a threat to the rest of the world (or rather to the US). All of this take of 'liberating' came later. You can't turn around after it's all over and change your justification for war. You can't change history.
I would assume that 'backdoor deals' had been tried already. Iraq wasn't too keen on cooperating with the US about anything.
It does not follow that just because war can sometimes be justified that *this* war was justified. It is a very different conflict from WW2. This time, America was the aggessor. 'Pre-emptive strikes' are illegal under International law. Iraq hadn't invaded another country, the US just thought that they *might* attack them.
'Reliable intelligence reports'?
Do you even watch the news?
Bush has had to go on TV and say that at least some of the 'evidence' of WMDs he mentioned in his State of the Union speach was WRONG. Not only that, but the government knew it was probably unreliable and still used it as part of the justification for war. One of the documents used was found to be a forgery. Tony Blair and John Howard are back pedalling like crazy claiming they didn't know.
'The United States only supported Saddam because of his war on Iran at the time' Uh huh. So, was he less 'evil' back then? Is it okay to support an oppressive dictator as long as they're doing something you want?
The US should not have been meddling in Middle Eastern politics like that at all. All it did in the long term was make things worse. I do not believe that the US was truly concerned about Iran's human rights record, considering the human rights abuses they let go in their own country and countless others every day. Back then, as now, it was really about oil.
What acts of terrorism did Saddam Hussein commit against the US? I really want to know.
33TieflingFirst off, according to the captives that have been questioned by US officials, there was no connection between the Al Quaeda (sp?) and the Iraqi government because Osama Bin Ladin personally vetoed it.
Yet again you go on about how bad Saddam Hussein was, but this was *not* the stated reason given for going to war. The US claimed to be going to war because they 'knew' Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which was a threat to the rest of the world (or rather to the US). All of this take of 'liberating' came later. You can't turn around after it's all over and change your justification for war. You can't change history.
I would assume that 'backdoor deals' had been tried already. Iraq wasn't too keen on cooperating with the US about anything.
It does not follow that just because war can sometimes be justified that *this* war was justified. It is a very different conflict from WW2. This time, America was the aggessor. 'Pre-emptive strikes' are illegal under International law. Iraq hadn't invaded another country, the US just thought that they *might* attack them.
'Reliable intelligence reports'?
Do you even watch the news?
Bush has had to go on TV and say that at least some of the 'evidence' of WMDs he mentioned in his State of the Union speach was WRONG. Not only that, but the government knew it was probably unreliable and still used it as part of the justification for war. One of the documents used was found to be a forgery. Tony Blair and John Howard are back pedalling like crazy claiming they didn't know.
'The United States only supported Saddam because of his war on Iran at the time' Uh huh. So, was he less 'evil' back then? Is it okay to support an oppressive dictator as long as they're doing something you want?
The US should not have been meddling in Middle Eastern politics like that at all. All it did in the long term was make things worse. I do not believe that the US was truly concerned about Iran's human rights record, considering the human rights abuses they let go in their own country and countless others every day. Back then, as now, it was really about oil.
What acts of terrorism did Saddam Hussein commit against the US? I really want to know.
7/8/2003 c2 37Guin
Uhh, when was there an attempt on Bush's life? didn't here about it over here. Interesting essay none the less. One point tho- if your trying to get your readers to seperate their views on America and it's past from the whole Iraq war, why have you put this under the title of 'America the Good.' If we follow what you say, isn't this being slightly hypocritical?
37GuinUhh, when was there an attempt on Bush's life? didn't here about it over here. Interesting essay none the less. One point tho- if your trying to get your readers to seperate their views on America and it's past from the whole Iraq war, why have you put this under the title of 'America the Good.' If we follow what you say, isn't this being slightly hypocritical?