|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 85 responses total. |
jaklumen
|
|
response 39 of 85:
| 
Jul 7 00:31 UTC 2003 |
re:16-28 Good God-- a conservative vs. liberal debate. Should I be
glad the moderates are left out? Such crap.
|
keesan
|
|
response 40 of 85:
|
Jul 7 06:17 UTC 2003 |
A school that I know of that was built in India cost $10,000. Schools in Iraq
(built with local labor and materials) could not possibly cost $8 million.
|
sj2
|
|
response 41 of 85:
|
Jul 7 06:21 UTC 2003 |
Any facts/figures about how much the US spent on the war and how much
are they spending on rebuilding/food/medicines/restructuring Iraq?
That should put an end to a lot of debate/rhetoric here.
|
sj2
|
|
response 42 of 85:
|
Jul 7 06:28 UTC 2003 |
Re#40, I think Mary's point was that if you have $25 million to spend,
then spend it on food/medicines/rebuilding Iraq rather than on
catching Saddam Hussein.
For eg., Iraqis in Baghdad are still waiting for electricity to be
restored. Something that was working well before the war. Or clean
water!! And this is just Baghdad. Other cities like Basra are far
worse off.
Re#31, Go eat a hotdog or whatever a stereotypical US citizen is
supposed to be eating.
|
lk
|
|
response 43 of 85:
|
Jul 7 06:48 UTC 2003 |
Can't we just all eat hotdogs with curry and all get along and live in peace?
(Better than Apple Pie with curry!)
|
pvn
|
|
response 44 of 85:
|
Jul 7 06:59 UTC 2003 |
re#42: currently the electricity in baghdad is about what it was pre
gulf-war-II. Improvements need to be made there and are. It might
surprise you to know that there are no sewage treatment plants in
baghdad in the first place so the current building of them in a definate
step forward. I expect the bounty on sadaam and his sons is in addition
to the new construction not taken from.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 45 of 85:
|
Jul 7 12:59 UTC 2003 |
What were they doing with sewage, then? Pumping it into the ground untreated?
|
jazz
|
|
response 46 of 85:
|
Jul 7 13:05 UTC 2003 |
A school in Iraq could easily cost $8 million, if it's subcontracted
through Haliburton with bricks produced domestically.
|
gull
|
|
response 47 of 85:
|
Jul 7 14:29 UTC 2003 |
Re #15:
> I also feel embarrassed by the people who expect this to take days
> instead of years.
Like Bush? His planning for the post-war situation was rather lacking,
from the looks of things. The Iraqis haven't been quite as friendly and
accepting as he assured us they'd be.
Re #28:
> There are plenty of working-class conservatives, who seem
> to back political decisions that are just plain bad for them.
Conservative politics are often hereditary. There are also parts of the
country where it's just not considered proper to be anything but
conservative.
"...no Texan need grow up thinking that being a Democrat is acceptable
behavior." -- GOP strategist Grover Norquist.
|
slynne
|
|
response 48 of 85:
|
Jul 7 15:06 UTC 2003 |
http://www.costofwar.com/
|
klg
|
|
response 49 of 85:
|
Jul 7 16:08 UTC 2003 |
re: "#47 (gull): ... The Iraqis haven't been quite as friendly and
accepting as he assured us they'd be...."
Really? The televised results of a recent poll we saw over the weekend
showed that Iraqis are in favor of the continued American administra-
tion by a margin of nearly 4 to 1.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 50 of 85:
|
Jul 7 16:12 UTC 2003 |
They also voted 99% for Saddam in their last elections.
|
tod
|
|
response 51 of 85:
|
Jul 7 16:49 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 52 of 85:
|
Jul 7 16:53 UTC 2003 |
Wrong, again, Mr. rcurl. BBC headline: Wednesday, 16 October, 2002,
11:41 GMT 12:41 UK "Saddam 'wins 100% of vote'"
|
gull
|
|
response 53 of 85:
|
Jul 7 18:26 UTC 2003 |
Re #49: They've also been shooting our troops at the rate of several a
week for quite a while now. I think we've now suffered more fatalities
in the "peace" than we did in the war.
Of course, our administration there has been doing some stuff I find
pretty inexplicable, too. The two decisions that have really amazed me
lately are the decision to print more currency with Saddam's face on it,
and the decision to start censoring Iraqi newspapers.
Re #51: I personally never said "Iraq will be another Vietnam", but it
does seem to be heading that direction now. Every day it looks more
like a guerilla war.
|
janc
|
|
response 54 of 85:
|
Jul 7 18:43 UTC 2003 |
Why would such an apology be owed to the troops? Do you think "Iraq will be
another Vietnam" is a criticism of our troops? The only way I could see that
making sense would be if you thought Vietnam became the kind of situation it
did because our troops there weren't up to doing the job right. Maybe you're
the one who owes some military folks an apology.
Though I'm no expert, I'm prepared to believe the the US has the best military
on the planet, not only in technological sophistication, but in training and
dedication, and the quality of their military commanders. I wouldn't trade
the US military for any force that has ever existed in the history of the
universe.
I don't, however, think that they are so angelic that any mission they might
be sent on would automatically become blessed with goodness by the mere fact
of their presence. I don't hold that against them though.
|
tod
|
|
response 55 of 85:
|
Jul 7 19:24 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 56 of 85:
|
Jul 7 19:32 UTC 2003 |
I see Vietnam as a good example of political and military over-optimism. We
had great technology, well-trained troops, etc. But basically there isn't
any really cool technological way to prevent little harrassing attacks during
an occupation - especially if the enemy has less to lose than you.
|
slynne
|
|
response 57 of 85:
|
Jul 7 19:35 UTC 2003 |
Iraq is only like Vietnam in that it is a military operation this
country never should have engaged in. That is my opinion. While it isnt
my intention to degrade or demotivate our military, if protesting the
war does that to them, it isnt my fault. I have nothing against
soldiers. Sometimes they get sent to fight and die in wars this country
shouldnt fight. I would have no problem explaining my views to a vet.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 58 of 85:
|
Jul 7 19:36 UTC 2003 |
Re #51: tod is confusing badly "protesting against the war" and "speaking
badly against our military". The protests were (and are) AGAINST THE WAR, NOT
THE MILITARY. The war should not have been declared - oh, sorry, yes I know
it wasn't declared: the war should not have been fought. However our military
fought the military war brilliantly (except for the nonsense of "shock and
awe" - but that was the promoters of the war, not the military).
Unfortunately, our military seems incapable of "nation building", but then,
that should not be their assignment, since they are only trained to fight
wars.
|
tod
|
|
response 59 of 85:
|
Jul 7 19:43 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 60 of 85:
|
Jul 7 19:47 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 61 of 85:
|
Jul 7 20:03 UTC 2003 |
re: "#53 (gull): Re #49: They've also been shooting our troops at the
rate of several a week for quite a while now. I think we've now
suffered more fatalities in the "peace" than we did in the war."
Mr. gull,
Your's is the first declaration of peace that I seem to recall having
seen. Additionally, upon what authority do you have it that those who
have been killing our troops are solely Iraqi nationals?
Regards,
klg
re: #58 (rcurl): ... The protests were (and are) AGAINST THE WAR, NOT
THE MILITARY...."
Mr. rcurl,
Based upon knowledge of the groups and individuals which organized and
sponsored the protests, we find your assertion to be patently false.
Regards,
klg
|
rcurl
|
|
response 62 of 85:
|
Jul 7 20:22 UTC 2003 |
You certainly have a short and inaccurate memory.
"Military readiness" was hardly cited by anyone as a main argument against
the war. The main argument is that we had no business initiating an unprovoked
pre-emptory war in violation of the UN charter and in the face of UN
opposition.
|
tod
|
|
response 63 of 85:
|
Jul 7 21:27 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|