77 yr old Iraqi Woman says.....
 

lol you can pay anybody to say whatever as long as the price is right.

as someone who has lived through foreign occupation I can tell you that it is never appreciated. ever.

I'm sure that there are many in Iraq that feel exactly the same way. There are many in Iran that pray for a US invasion every day.

And a lot who probably feel the opposite.

This kind of thing really doesn't prove much, does it?

It's not an occupation.

When the rulers ask us to leave, then that's another issue.

-Rudey

We're still in Germany - 60 yrs. later.

We're still in Korea - 53 yrs. later.

We're still in a lot of places for reasons I don't understand (not Iraq or Afg.), and I wish we'd bring the boys home.

So we should just leave the women there?

I hope we're not in Iraq 53-60 years from now.

By the way, besides the deaths and injuries involved, according to news reports if the Administration really asks for another $100 Billion for the war effort early next year, it will bring the total to almost half a trillion dollars.

So 500 billion dollars?

Should we keep all troops in the US?

-Rudey

Yep. $500 Billion.

Obviously we can't keep all of the troops in the US -- but, as should be no surprise to anyone -- I've questioned this Iraq invasion from the start.

Again, only my opinion.

Again, it comes down to a question of when to act.

If the US didn't topple Saddam, and then a year later he did do something stupid I'm sure Bush would have been blamed for that also.

He is in a lose lose situation by the many small minded people that hate him. Nevermind that all anyone can ever do is make the best decision with the information they have at the time.

I'm sure that if FDR launched an invasion against the Nazi's much earlier he would have been in the same position as Bush. However, since he waited until we were attacked it is a much different situation.

I'm sorry but that almost sounded like a "Bluto-esqe" comment :D

I think it comes down to a question of whether to act -- not when.

Funny how we've been supporting a position of acting under several administrations and 2 parties voted to act this time.

-Rudey

Do you have a source for that because I can tell you a different story.

How many of those same people do you suppose would have voted in favor of invasion if they knew that there were no WMD? That there was no discernable link between Sadaam and 9/11?

My strong suspicion is that more than a few who voted now feel they (we) were sold a bill of goods.

I doubt that there is a question in most peoples mind that the world is better off with Sadaam out of power. But, given the above, is it worth 1,000 plus American lives and $500 Billion?

A link? Nope. But a lot of our clients are persian, and that seems to be the sentiment.

I'm sure there are others that feel differently. Please go look up the word "some".

This country has advocated the overthrow of Saddam before there was talks of WMD and before Bush came into the presidency. Our president has accepted full responsibility for this war, but we have been heading down this path for a while now.


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


And here is the Iraq Liberation Act - sponsored by both Democrats and Republicans in 1998:

"Iraq Liberation Act" introduced into Congress
Iraq News, SEPTEMBER 29, 1998
By Laurie Mylroie

The central focus of Iraq News is the tension between the considerable, proscribed WMD capabilities that Iraq is holding on to and its increasing stridency that it has complied with UNSCR 687 and it is time to lift sanctions. If you wish to receive Iraq News by email, a service which includes full-text of news reports not archived here, send your request to Laurie Mylroie .

I. S.2525/HR 4655, "IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998," SEPT 29
II. SEN. TRENT LOTT, STATEMENT ON S.2525, SEPT 29
III. SEN. BOB KERRY, FLOOR SPEECH ON S. 2525, SEPT 29
IV. SEN. LOTT, "WE CAN REMOVE SADDAM," USA TODAY, MAR 3
Congress, on a bi-partisan basis, is fed up with the Clinton
administration's do-nothing policy on Iraq. Today, the "Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998" was introduced into the Senate and House. Those
introducing the bill in the Senate were Sen. Majority Leader, Trent
Lott, [R, Miss], Sen. Bob Kerrey, [D. Ne], Sen. John McCain [R, Az],
Sen. Joseph Lieberman [D Conn] and Sen. Jon Kyl [R, Az]. Those
introducing the bill in the House were Rep. Benjamin Gilman [R, NY] and
Rep. Christopher Cox [R, Ca]
I. S.2525, "IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998"
105th CONGRESS
2D SESSION
S.2525
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. KERRY, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. HELMS,
Mr. SHELBY, Mr. BROWNBACK and Mr. KYL _________________________)
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the
Committee on ____________
A BILL
To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-tives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Iraq Liberation Act"of l998.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an eight
year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops
and ballis-tic missiles against Iranian cities
(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians
from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated
50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.
(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi
Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated
5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town
today.
(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a seven month
occupation of Kuwait, killing and
committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civil-ians, and
setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon re-treat.
(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28,
1991, and Iraq subsequently ac-cepted the ceasefire conditions specified
in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991)
requiring Iraq, among other things, to dis-close fully and permit the
dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to
long-term monitoring and verification of such dis-mantlement.
(6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate
former President George Bush
during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.
(7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the
border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of
or attack against Kuwait.
(8) On August 31 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by
helping one Kurdish faction cap-ture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish
regional govern-ment.
(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny
weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq
(UNSCOM) ac-cess to key facilities and documents, has on several
occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters
transporting UNSCOM per-sonnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern
of de-ception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of
mass destruction programs.
(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all co-operation with UNSCOM,
and subsequently threat-ened to end long-term monitoring activities by
the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.
(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law
105-235, which declared that
"the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations" and
urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the
Constitution and relevant laws
of the United States, to bring Iraq into Compliance with its
international obligations.".
SEC. 3. POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.
It should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the
regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the
emergence of a demo-cratic government to replace that regime.
SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DE-MOCRACY IN IRAQ.
(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE.--The President may provide to the
Iraqi democratic opposition
organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following
assistance:

-Rudey

Very impressive. But "the vote" didn't happen until after all of the WMD and 9-11 stuff were used as catalysts.

If it had happened earlier, it might or might not have passed. We can't know.

I think that it almost certainly wouldn't have passed by the huge margin.

You're right, a full-scale war did not occur until those catalysts entered the pot.

If we had known there were no WMD then nobody from either party would have taken the risk of going in given the political backlash. Bombs are cheaper than American lives.

-Rudey

Can't disagree with that.

The sentiments of Persians in the US can be quite different than Persians still in Iran.

Actually you used the word "many" just an FYI.

WTF? :eek:

We just want the shah and the savak to come back. It's not much to ask for.

-Rudey

http://www.iranian.com/History/2005/...ages/photo.jpg
:)

What is the difference between "some" and "many"?

The Persians that I know go back home on a regular basis. Some of our clients are actually very politically active back home.