Originally posted by habilis
Racer: the vast majority of Iraqi's did welcome us with open arms, and still do. A large percentage of these enemy combatants that are firing on US troops right now are from outside Iraq and from terrorist groups.
That is not what the administration is saying. Are you getting information from some other source? The house to house round ups are of Saddam supporters. And these people are not given a trial to prove their innocence. Until we supply support for their basic needs (regardless of money from oil funds) we are not liberators, we are invaders.
A lot of the others are just in a real big hurry to get to the 50 virgins that Allah promises - which we're more then happy to oblige.
That is offensive. Are you trying to be an ugly American?
Afganistan. I think what's happened in Afganistan is a good thing. I think we left it much better then we found it, that is, unless you have a problem with women and children being educated, instead of being publicly beheaded for watching TV.
I brought up Afghanistan with reference to the Soviet Union. As it stands now, women and children are still being tortured the way they were before we got there. Our troops have no orders or mandate to stop any of the acts that are currently happening.
Now, the same goes for Iraq, it's a little bigger though, has a much larger population, so it follows that it will take longer.
We didn't provide security when we went into Iraq. Things went from bad to worse thanks to us.
Oil Fields. About the oil fields being protected; indeed they were protected to preserve oil revenue for rebuilding Iraq...
Iraqis didn't need the funds from oil fields to rebuild Iraq. We are responsible for rebuilding that country. We are responsible for paying for rebuilding that country. We are responsible for their security. We are doing a bad job.
Further we are responsible for what is most likely going to be the next weapon of terror. We didn't secure Iraq's nuclear plant when we came in and a ton of material was lost. We used uranium shells to destroy Iraqi tanks but have no plan for cleaning up those tanks. One pound of that material an a bomb strong enough to vaporize it is all that is needed to contaminate a large city. If we were trying to stop terrorism and keep weapons out of their hands, I can't think of a worse way of doing it then we have done so far.
Lets hope your city isn't the one contaminated by a potential weapon we left lying on the desert in Iraq.
I just watched an unbiased hour long show on C-SPAN, more like a documentary that showed American contractors going in to Iraq to rebuild all the sewage facilities, water treatment plants, pumping stations, and many other water utilities...
There is a major difference between disrepair and destroyed. The plants could have been brought back to full operation if they were protected. They were not. Parts and pieces destroyed are not replaceable, and now totally new plants are needed. That was an incredible waste. We save the oil fields because it was profitable for members of the administration. If the rhetoric they have been handing out was true, then their actions would prove it.
If we were there to stop weapons we should never have used uranium shells without a plan to clean them up. We should have never left the nuclear plant unattended (we did believe that they had nuclear weapons, right?). If we were there to liberate the people, we would have provided security when the government there fell (instead of leaving the country open for looting). We should have protected the things that the people would need the most.
You look at these new and old problems in Iraq like they were created by GW, but in accountable reality, it clearly was not.
Don't turn to the dark side, don't let hatred cloud your vision of reality.
Don't let your love affair with George Bush cloud yours. What I've said about the possible weapons of terror George has let out in this war should be enough to snap you back to reality... then again, with you, maybe not.
