# Does the security of the civilized world depend on victory in Iraq?



## Everness

_"The security of the civilized world depends on victory in the war on terror, and that depends on victory in Iraq," Bush said in a speech to rally support for his unpopular war strategy two months before congressional elections. _

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/09/01/bush_compares_terrorists_to_nazis/

Do you agree with President Bush? Does the security of the civilized world depend on victory in the war on terror and that depends on victory in Iraq? 

By the way, if that were true  --that the victory in the war on terror depends on victory in Iraq-- I'd say, just reading today's news, that the security of the civilized world is going down the toilet... 
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060901/iraq_attacks_060901/20060901?hub=World

It's time to get out of Iraq and regroup. I also think that deep down W. agrees with me. Pay attention to a slip of the tongue in his latest speech.

_Some Americans didn't support my decision to remove quoted material over four sentences, but that's just because, after over a year here, and many reminders, they prefer to ignore copyright law and forum rules in the heat of battle!  (Cuchuflete, wearing Mod hat, wrote the stuff in red, and deleted a long, illegal quote.)
_http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/31/washington/31text-bush.html?pagewanted=6&_r=1


----------



## french4beth

I disagree with Dubya's first statement - it sounds like a lame justification for a continuing US presence in Iraq.



> It's time to get out of Iraq and regroup.


I agree - I also agree with Bush (I can't believe that I'm typing these words) that the US cannot simply abandon Iraq (although it's hard to imagine how things could be any worse than they already are...)


----------



## ireney

Everness my dear you begin to sound like an one string harp 

Haven't we been trhough all this time and time again? Do I have to find the threads in which we have already discussed

a) whether the US should leave from Iraq or not
b) whether there was any justification in what the US did
c) whether Bush and his administration etc lied about Iraq 
d) Iraq and its connection to terrorism and Al-Quaida in particular

I'm sure you remember them since you were an active participant in all the threads discussing the matter


----------



## Jimmy Jazz

lol

"Civilized world"...? 

Can the president of a country pronunce those words? Has anybody the right to say what countries are civilized or not? Oh my god...


----------



## Alxmrphi

french4beth said:


> ]I disagree with Dubya's first statement - it sounds like a lame justification for a continuing US presence in Iraq.[/B]
> 
> I agree - I also agree with Bush (I can't believe that I'm typing these words) that the US cannot simply abandon Iraq (although it's hard to imagine how things could be any worse than they already are...)



Like nearly everything he says, I agree!


----------



## caravaggio

at this time i dont know, who is the terrorist here?


----------



## Everness

french4beth said:


> I disagree with Dubya's first statement - it sounds like a lame justification for a continuing US presence in Iraq.
> 
> I agree - I also agree with Bush (I can't believe that I'm typing these words) that the US cannot simply abandon Iraq (although it's hard to imagine how things could be any worse than they already are...)



I think it's time to revisist the merits of your statement "... although it's hard to imagine how things could be any worse than they already are..." Not only our presence in Iraq isn't helping but it's compounding things. We are sole responsibles for triggering a civil war in Iraq, and the more we try to fix the mess we created, the worse it gets. Iraqis need to figure this one on their own and their new self-imposed daddy needs to stay out of it.


----------



## Alxmrphi

caravaggio said:


> at this time i dont know, who is the terrorist here?



Who mentioned "terrorist" ?


----------



## rocioteag

caravaggio said:


> at this time i dont know, who is the terrorist here?


 
Bush of course!!

Y bueno... aqui unas cuantas consideraciones:
¿Quien define lo que es un "mundo civilizado" y quienes lo integran?
¿Se considera civilizada la pena de muerte? en algunos países eso es un retroceso.
¿es cilivilizado que niños manejen armas para matar otros niños?
¿Es Bush el defensor del planeta entero, o de los intereses americanos?

Si todos y cado uno de los paises se supone son soberanos e independienes, ¿Porqué uno se levanta y se coloca como el salvador del mundo?

Y hasta aqui llego, que no quiero levantar mas polémica, pero me quedo con una duda...

¿Quien fue quien agredió primero a quién?


----------



## caravaggio

read and you will find the word many times in the statments.


----------



## Jimmy Jazz

rocioteag said:


> ¿Es Bush el defensor del planeta entero, o de los intereses americanos?



Neither. He's the defender of the rich american people.


----------



## french4beth

I don't speak Spanish, but here's my best guesstimates:


rocioteag said:


> Y bueno... aqui unas cuantas consideraciones:
> ¿Quien define lo que es un "mundo civilizado" y quienes lo integran? M*any animals appear to be much more civilized than some people; many so-called primitive societies are much more civilized than more 'modern' societies.*
> ¿Se considera civilizada la pena de muerte? en algunos países eso es un retroceso. *I don't agree with the death penalty - my home state of Connecticut recently put a criminal to death - the cause of death on his death certificate was "murder"*
> ¿es cilivilizado que niños manejen armas para matar otros niños? *I don't believe that it's 'civilized' for anyone to kill each other, and it's particularly horrible when children are conscripted as soldiers or any time a child kills someone*
> ¿Es Bush el defensor del planeta entero, o de los intereses americanos?
> *I think that Bush likes to defend Bush's interests - in my opinion, most Americans support the soldiers fighting overseas, but even many hard-core Republicans are starting to question the US presence in Iraq (& Afghanistan)*
> Si todos y cado uno de los paises se supone son soberanos e independienes, ¿Porqué uno se levanta y se coloca como el salvador del mundo? *You've lost me here - all I can say is that war is generally about money; don't forget the golden rule - he who has the gold rules!*


----------



## Everness

ireney said:


> Everness my dear you begin to sound like an one string harp
> 
> Haven't we been trhough all this time and time again? Do I have to find the threads in which we have already discussed
> 
> a) whether the US should leave from Iraq or not
> b) whether there was any justification in what the US did
> c) whether Bush and his administration etc lied about Iraq
> d) Iraq and its connection to terrorism and Al-Quaida in particular
> 
> I'm sure you remember them since you were an active participant in all the threads discussing the matter



Same topic but different angle, my dearest ireney. 

Our trio of professional clowns have just hit the road trying to resell the war in Iraq to Americans and the whole world. Please understand that our congressional elections are around the corner. Therefore, the GOP has decided it's time to instill more fear in Americans. And they are good at that: "As the horror of that morning grows more distant, there is the tendency to believe that the threat is receding and this war is coming to a close. That feeling is natural and comforting and wrong,'' Bush said. 

Republicans know they can lose control of the Congress in the November elections. They have solid reasons to worry. Please check these polls. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm So they want to take advantage of the upcoming fifth anniversary of 9/11 to connect Iraq and the war in terror. If they do it, and I think they can pull it off, Republicans will keep control of the Congress. Let's not underestimate Carl Rove et al. They got W. reelected in 2004 by scaring the American people.


----------



## Alxmrphi

caravaggio said:


> read and you will find the word many times in the statments.



It was typed "3 times", before I questioned "who mentioned it"? There were two, when you mentioned terrorist.. it had only been mentioned once.
Not "many times"


----------



## Everness

rocioteag said:


> Y hasta aqui llego, que no quiero levantar mas polémica, pero me quedo con una duda...
> 
> ¿Quien fue quien agredió primero a quién?



Rocio,

Entiendo la frustracion que muchos tienen con los Estados Unidos. Es mas, nuestra conducta, especialmente en Irak, merece, quizas, ese adjetivo. Pero mis compatriotas no reaccionan muy bien cuando se les cataloga como terroristas. En este momento, poco a poco nuestras mentes se estan abriendo y nos estamos dando cuenta de cosas que el resto del mundo ya sabia antes del 2003, cuando decidimos invadir Irak. El sustantivo o el adjetivo terrorista, merecido o no, podria tener un efecto contraproducente. 

La clave es que el pueblo estadounidense se de cuenta que fueron enganiados por esta administracion y que, en dos tiempos (elecciones parlamentarias del 2006 y las presidenciales del 2008) los saquen del poder. Necesitamos reconocer, como pueblo, nuestro error en reelegir a este presidente y reemplazar aspectos de nuestra politica exterior. Pero eso no va a ocurrir de la noche a la maniana. Es un proceso. Pero insisto, la clave es ayudarnos entre estadounidenses (y, por supuesto, la ayuda de personas de otros paises sera invalorable) a poner este "quilombo de la san puta" (argentinismo) en perspectiva y separar la invasion de Irak de la guerra contra el terrorismo internacional. Y con respecto a este ultimo tema, debemos repensar que hacer y como hacerlo, y nunca mas, cortarnos solos dandole la espalda al resto de la comunidad internacional.


----------



## DavyBCN

As someone who has only been contributing to these forums for a couple of months I probably have little to say which is new, but what the hell! My views are aimed at Blair just as much as Bush.

It is not a war in Iraq. It is a war against Iraq. It is an illegal invasion of an independent country and the last three years have been an illegal occupation.

Bush and Blair did not say they were attacking Iraq to get rid of Saddam, a vicious dictator whom previous US and UK administrations had been happy to support with trade and arms when Iran was the chief enemy of their economic and political interests. The reason given was weapons of mass destruction, which was a lie and remains a lie.

There can be no such thing as "victory" in Iraq. The USA and the UK have already lost whatever they were trying to achieve. The losers are also the Iraqi people and the rest of the world, who now have the prospect of terrorist attacks for a long time into the future.


----------



## rocioteag

Everness, Gracias por tu amable respuesta, si no escribo en Ingles es porque en este tipo de post, me es mas fácil expresarme en mi idioma materno.

Mi duda subsiste, quien atacó primero a quien y porque? 

Un terrorista, según las definiciones, son grupos que utilizan el poder y el miedo como armas de ataque, usualmente se les liga a grupos religiosos, pero creo que las guerrillas, de las cuales hay muchas en el mundo, tambien son terroristas, su arma es la misma, su fin último, terminar con aquello que les molesta o insulta o agrede es el mismo.

Ahora bien, como parte de la naturaleza humana, si alguien me agrede, me defiendo, si es un grupo que aunque numeroso no esta en el poder, se le llama terrorismo o guerrilla, dependiendo de si se trata de algo local o mas globalizado.

En definitiva, no estos de acuerdo con las políticas republicanas, pues tienden a ser del tipo de “o estas conmigo o contra mi”. 

Pero, mi pregunta es, que tiene que estar haciendo Bush del otro lado del planeta? Acaso lo llamaron? Le pidió nadie que invadiera Iraq, que destruyera mujeres y niños, que arrasara con un país y una cultura? Que a base de poder y miedo (armas terroristas) se esgrimiera como el salvador de la humanidad? 

Y mi pregunta subsiste... quien ataco primero a quien y porque? Creo que esto se ha perdido en la historia....


----------



## cuchuflete

Jimmy Jazz said:


> lol
> 
> "Civilized world"...?
> 
> Can the president of a country pronunce those words? Has anybody the right to say what countries are civilized or not? Oh my god...



Thank you very much, Jimmy Jazz, for pointing out that Bush knows what he means by the term, and apparently the thread starter is telepathetically joined with Bush, so he too knows the definition of "civilized world".  The rest of us will just have to trust that Georg and Ever can define it for us when they are not at war.


----------



## .   1

Alex_Murphy said:


> It was typed "3 times", before I questioned "who mentioned it"? There were two, when you mentioned terrorist.. it had only been mentioned once.
> Not "many times"


The war on terror (which is a terrific way to obtain guaranteed access to cheap oil) was mentioned in the first line of the opening post of this thread.  It is hard to imagine a way of discussing the war on terror but not terrorists from both sides of the gun sight.

I feel vary sad for Everness and we should not criticise him so much.  It must be foul to live in a land controlled by a person who you so revile.

.,,


----------



## Everness

. said:


> I feel vary sad for Everness and we should not criticise him so much.  It must be foul to live in a land controlled by a person who you so revile.
> 
> .,,



Thank you for caring! You come across as a sensitive individual. But I don't revile anyone. Presbyterians aren't allowed to harbor those type of feelings. (Well, I might need to qualify that statement. I despise, revile, hate, etc. etc. those damned New York Yankees and everyone and everything related to the evil empire. But my pastor doesn't know this.)

Of course I'm concerned about the attempts of this administration to sell Iraq to the American public and to use fear as vaseline so it doesn't hurt when they try to shove all this Iraq B.S. up our *sses. I must remind you that in 2004 it worked, and the only thing many Americans asked was: "How wide do you want me to spread my legs?" I want a Congress and a White House that denounce and renounce the way we are conducting the war on terror.  

But my worries are gradually disappearing. Why? _A series of polls taken over the last few weeks of August show that support for the war in Iraq among Americans is at an all-time low. *Almost two-thirds of Americans in each of three major polls say that they oppose the war,* the highest totals since pollsters starting asking Americans the question three years ago._http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0901/dailyUpdate.html

Ther results of this poll are even more important. _*More than a third of Americans,* and two-thirds of Democrats, *are so opposed to the war in Iraq that they would vote against a candidate on that basis alone.*
_http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060830-034641-4446r

So don't cry for me mate!


----------



## Everness

DavyBCN said:


> As someone who has only been contributing to these forums for a couple of months I probably have little to say which is new, but what the hell! My views are aimed at Blair just as much as Bush.
> 
> It is not a war in Iraq. It is a war against Iraq. It is an illegal invasion of an independent country and the last three years have been an illegal occupation.
> 
> Bush and Blair did not say they were attacking Iraq to get rid of Saddam, a vicious dictator whom previous US and UK administrations had been happy to support with trade and arms when Iran was the chief enemy of their economic and political interests. The reason given was weapons of mass destruction, which was a lie and remains a lie.
> 
> There can be no such thing as "victory" in Iraq. The USA and the UK have already lost whatever they were trying to achieve. The losers are also the Iraqi people and the rest of the world, who now have the prospect of terrorist attacks for a long time into the future.



Right on the money across the board! I just want to highlight your last statement: "The losers are also the Iraqi people and the rest of the world, who now have the prospect of terrorist attacks for a long time into the future."

"In January 2005, the CIA's internal think tank, the National Intelligence Council, concluded that Iraq had replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for a new generation of jihadist terrorists... There was no question that there were more terrorists in Iraq in 2005 than there were early in 2003, when President Bush had accused the country of harboring terrorists." (Thomas E. Ricks, Fiasco, p. 430).


----------



## Everness

rocioteag said:


> Pero, mi pregunta es, que tiene que estar haciendo Bush del otro lado del planeta? Acaso lo llamaron? Le pidió nadie que invadiera Iraq, que destruyera mujeres y niños, que arrasara con un país y una cultura? Que a base de poder y miedo (armas terroristas) se esgrimiera como el salvador de la humanidad?



When President Bush was asked by Bob Woodward of the Washington Post if he had consulted with the former President before ordering the invasion of Iraq, Bush replied, "He is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength; there is a higher father that I appeal to."

Does this answer your question?


----------



## TonioMiguel

No, Sorry W but I do not hold the idea that the pillars of the civilized world(you mean western because you do not include countries that are eastern in this list).

On the hand, we helped Iraq start a new government and in its current stage it would be foolish to not finish what one started.  Iraq is worth the effort and what we did had good consequences.  It is followed with bad consequences but I believe the good outways the bad.

Culturally, I think the US needs to get more input from Iraq's people.  It is not going to be won the old American way.  It must be fought with the Arabic sense of honor and justice.  We cannot assume that giving them an American government will suit all their needs.  Just remember how angry they were when an American soldier flew and American flag over Baghdad.  It will take time but terrorism will not be stopped simply by turning Iraq into a democratic republic.


----------



## DavyBCN

TonioMiguel said:


> No, Sorry W but I do not hold the idea that the pillars of the civilized world(you mean western because you do not include countries that are eastern in this list).
> 
> On the hand, we helped Iraq start a new government and in its current stage it would be foolish to not finish what one started. Iraq is worth the effort and what we did had good consequences. It is followed with bad consequences but I believe the good outways the bad.
> 
> Culturally, I think the US needs to get more input from Iraq's people. It is not going to be won the old American way. It must be fought with the Arabic sense of honor and justice. We cannot assume that giving them an American government will suit all their needs. Just remember how angry they were when an American soldier flew and American flag over Baghdad. It will take time but terrorism will not be stopped simply by turning Iraq into a democratic republic.


 
Sorry to be blunt but you need a reality check on what is happening in Iraq. Neither the American administration of Iraq or the recently elected government can travel outside a small fortified area in Baghdad. The economic power in Iraq is totally USA political and commercial interests, with the new Iraqi constitution and government having few powers over how Iraq's economy is run, especially in terms of control of oil in the future.

I would love a definition of "the good old American way". In a previous post I emphasised that my problem was with Blair as much as Bush, but are you refering to Chile and the rest of Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s, where US interests ignored democracy, and armed dictators against democratic resistance? Do you mean the support for Saddam's Iraq during the horrific war with Iran? Do you mean ignoring other dictatorships such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Burma, etc?

I would also be interested in a definition of your phrase "the Arabic sense of honour and justice". Leaving aside the word Arabic with its dubious relevance, does this mean the Saudi Arabian honour and justice system with its barbaric treatment of just about any of its citizens who transgress a small and wealthy clique's standards? Pity the poor Kurds who comprise so much of Iraq's population as well.

Before the illegal war against Iraq in 2003 that poor country had suffered decades of a foul dictatorship, supported by the USA and UK until those countries decided their interests lay elsewhere. Iraq was never a safe haven for terrorists, as they opposed Saddam as much as they did the countries which ensured his survival for so long. It is now a savaged and fragmented country ridden with sectarian and religious violence which neither the new government or the American and British occupation forces have any powers to combat. In excess of 1,000 people a month are now being killed in Iraq, with countless other lives destroyed through injury, intimidation and economic hardships.

What have been the "good consequences" that you refer to?


----------



## Everness

DavyBCN said:


> What have been the "good consequences" that you refer to?



Here's one "good" consequence. There has only been between 41,041 and 45,613 reported civilian deaths resulting from the US-led military intervention in Iraq. The death toll could be substantially higher. 

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Don't you love the sentences at the top and the bottom of the page?

“We don’t do body counts”
General Tommy Franks, US Central Command

“Change the channel”  
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt's advice to Iraqis who see TV images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops.


----------



## claudine2006

Everness said:


> _"The security of the civilized  world depends on victory in the war on terror, and that depends on victory in Iraq_


Does Mr Bush think he is civilized and part of the civilized world?? . 
His words are an abuse to anyone gift with a standard brain and they don't reserve an answer.


----------



## luar

rocioteag said:


> ¿Quien fue quien agredió primero a quién?


 Iraq war is, as Senator Kerry stated, the “global test” of a more aggressive US stance on foreign policy: the preemptive (preventive?) war. Therefore, the question of who was the first to attack? would have one invariable answer.


----------



## luar

The horrifying event of 9/11 gave Bush and its allies the new _ism _they needed to justify its intrusive foreign policy. The fearsome communism was substituted by terrorism. As you see, one of the characters was replaced, nevertheless the plot remains the same. Once again the US and its allies represent the good boys, once again its enemies are demonized, and once again fear is used as a powerful weapon. 

As Viktor Frankl said: …_fear bring to pass what one is afraid of._ So the more a fearful US radicalized its stance, a more radical response is promoted. Bush once stated: _We seek to shape the world, not merely be shaped by it._ I believe he has been somewhat successful, part of the world is changing in order to fit his mold. 



Everness said:


> "In January 2005, the CIA's internal think tank, the National Intelligence Council, concluded that Iraq had replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for a new generation of jihadist terrorists... There was no question that there were more terrorists in Iraq in 2005 than there were early in 2003, when President Bush had accused the country of harboring terrorists." (Thomas E. Ricks, Fiasco, p. 430).


----------



## Alxmrphi

> The horrifying event of 9/11 gave Bush and its allies the new _ism _they needed to justify its intrusive foreign policy.



... makes ya wonder if they didn't plan it or not.


----------



## Rimbaud

Lo sabían, seguro que lo sabían. Carpe metu, Bush. Lo único que necesitan son excusas.


----------



## Rimbaud

¿El mundo —o Irak al menos— está mejor o peor que antes?


----------



## Victoria32

Everness said:


> But my worries are gradually disappearing. Why? _A series of polls taken over the last few weeks of August show that support for the war in Iraq among Americans is at an all-time low. *Almost two-thirds of Americans in each of three major polls say that they oppose the war,* the highest totals since pollsters starting asking Americans the question three years ago._http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0901/dailyUpdate.html
> 
> Ther results of this poll are even more important. _*More than a third of Americans,* and two-thirds of Democrats, *are so opposed to the war in Iraq that they would vote against a candidate on that basis alone.*_
> http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060830-034641-4446r
> 
> So don't cry for me mate!


Those polls are good news Everness!



Alex_Murphy said:


> ... makes ya wonder if they didn't plan it or not.


I have wondered that for a wee while now...


----------

