34 Dead as Baghdad Bombers Hit Red Cross, Police

[Ned]

Spiffor, I agree. But I was waiting for the reporter to ask the "peace" activist how she knew the fighting would stop if the US withdrew. He never did.

But that was the tenor of yesterday's march on Washington - an immediate US pullout. It also seems that most of the Democrat candidates are now leaning that way since only two of the nine support the 87 billion, including 20 billion aid, for Iraq.

[Dis]

What's wrong with Saddam Husseing getting back into power?

The whole point of removing him was for violating U.N. sanctions and possessing womd. But it appears there were no womd.

Yes I know what would happen in real life. Saddam would kill many, many people upon returning to power. Anyone who helped the U.S. would be dead. But I can't help but think he was wrongfully removed from power.

[SlowwHand]

Bunch of dumb****s.
The U.N. is a Swiss-run aid organization (see followup if you didn't know).
So bombing them, because the U.S. is there, is okey-dokey?

Drop leavlets giving 48 hours notice, then make glass.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dissident
What's wrong with Saddam Husseing getting back into power?

The whole point of removing him was for violating U.N. sanctions and possessing womd. But it appears there were no womd.

Yes I know what would happen in real life. Saddam would kill many, many people upon returning to power. Anyone who helped the U.S. would be dead. But I can't help but think he was wrongfully removed from power.

Saddam Insane NEEDED to be removed from power in Iraq -- that we did so, was a wise move.

That the Bush administration carried out this mission with presentation of misinformation to Americans and for sake of oil guzzling, is wrong.

[Jac de Molay]

Originally posted by Ned
According to a dark haired, bespeckled, makeupless "peace activist" who just appeared on CNN to comment on yesterday's march on Washington, the solution to Iraq would be for the Unites States to pull out now and turn Iraq over to the UN. According to her, the attacks on the UN and other international agencies are solely motivated by their "perceived" support of the American occupation. She said that once the UN was in charge, Saddam would surrender, or at least stop fighting, and support a democratic regime in Baghdad.

Really?

This person is a prime example of why so many of us opposed to the war avoid the so-called "movement" like a plague. It's basically a confused shambles of people who harbor conspiracy theories or spout off crap like this.

Obviously, we can't pull out no matter what. And the UN, while useful in many respects, are lousy military peacekeepers. Bush sucked us into this money pit, and we're gonna be stuck for a least 6-7 years.

[Giancarlo]

This attack was horrible and I hope those responsible are brought to justice for their crimes.

Also a reminder: The US and its coalition will not pull out until the job is done. Don't even try to use this to further your agenda.

Those terrorist bastards don't give a crap about their own people.. rather they bomb the institutions that will provide security and help.

[Kropotkin]

Of cource she's delusional. But I can't see what her apperence has to do with anything...

Then again, once my girlfriend looked over my shoulder and thought Ned must be a nice guy, I think Vin Diesel had something to do with it. So maybe apperence has something to do with it.

[Ned]

Can you imagine what would happen if we did withdraw? Saddam would quickly resume power and a bloodbath beyond measure would start. After he was done in Baghdad, he would turn his eyes on the Shi'ite South, then later on the Kurdish North.

Imagine the killing an raping and the potential use of the hidden WMD.

Clark, where are you my boy. You said it was right for the US to act without a UN resolution in Kosovo to protect the people against genocide. Where are you today on Iraq? Why are you against the $87 billion to support our effort to liberate its people. Is our cause not just? Or was your position on Kosovo a sham lie?

[Giancarlo]

If Saddam didn't resume power if the US pulled out, there would total anarchy and thousands would be killed in a absolute bloodbath. But hey, the liberals want that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Everyone knows the RC is off-limits. The question is, is it the Ba'athists of al-Qaeda that's doing this?

Assuming its AQ (or somebody inspired by AQ with a similar Qutbist ideology) why would you think they consider the AQ off limits? They dont consider ANY Kufrs offlimits, and in fact about 80% of muslims are not offlimits to them. International conventions mean nothing to them.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

It is completely delusional to believe that an immediate withdrawal from Iraq by the US forces will be any helpful to the Iraqis.

If the UN took over the process with the US firepower, it wouldn't change much for the Iraqis, except that their wealth would be a tad less sucked by foreign companies, and would be much less sucked by American companies. A UN-sponsored regime may potentially also be more independent in the end, and result in a government that listens more to the wishes of the population than to those of Washington.

But there would be no immediate changes to what the Iraqis are experiencing. Things would most probably be even worse if the UN couldn't rely on US firepower.

Stopping the occupation now is the best way for a restauration of Saddam, or for the arrival of the civil war

In general i agree with Spiffor - theres no alternative to american firepower - there simply isnt enough other deployable firepower available in the world. Everybodys got strategic overstretch.

Re sucking the wealth - can you say "odious debt"?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MrFun
SlowwHand, it's unAmerican to post any bad news about Iraq.

shame on you

I hope ive never said that its unamerican to post bad news on Iraq. Its certainly perfectly legitimate. While I may from time to time have tried to post what I see as good news, to put it all in context, I did not mean by that to impugn anyones patriotism (well at least not for that!)

[Ned]

Originally posted by Fez
If Saddam didn't resume power if the US pulled out, there would total anarchy and thousands would be killed in a absolute bloodbath. But hey, the liberals want that.

Fez, I am not sure that the liberals want a bloodbath in Iraq. They simply want the US out and will do and say anything to achieve that objective including the statement that all will be peaceful in Iraq if the US, the cause of all evil in the world in the liberal view, would simply leave.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ned


Fez, I am not sure that the liberals want a bloodbath in Iraq. They simply want the US out and will do and say anything to achieve that objective including the statement that all will be peaceful in Iraq if the US, the cause of all evil in the world in the liberal view, would simply leave.

Well, it's fun to charicature your political opponents -- I do it too -- but this is wrong, or at least only applies to some liberals. Liberals right now are furious that, having proceeded with Iraq to begin with, the Bush administration has done such a half-assed job of it. Liberals are furious that they were ignored when they said "it's going to be a bloodbath," and are still being ignored when they say, "see? We told you so. This should have been handled differently." Liberals are furious that Bush & Co. keep changing their story about why we're in Iraq and what we expected the occupation to be like, and getting away with it.

But we are, most of us, sensible enough to know that a US pullout at this point will just turn Iraq into that other shining star of Bush foreign policy, Afghanistan. Nobody wants that.

Still, even though we too ar committed to seeing this thing through, it doesn't chang the fact that the Bushies were wrong, wrong, wrong: wrong about the WMD, wrong about the way our "liberating" troops in Baghdad would be treated, wrong about how many troops we would need, wrong about how much it was going to cost, wrong about how long it was all going to take. We are like passengers in a plane being piloted by a drunk; of course we can't just get out, but don't expect us to be happy about the situation.

edited for typos

[Ned]

Rufus, I may have mispoke. I was quoting the anti-war leader who appeared on CNN. From here appearance and rhetoric, I think she was far to the left of most liberals.

If you ask most Democrats what they want to do now, they would agree with you that we have to see things through in Iraq. But the anti-war marchers and the extremists, like Shapton and Kucinich, want the US out now, damn the consequences.