"how Iraq is a double-win for U.S. Ideology and Interests."
this statement illustrates my points exactly. you believe that forcing american ideology and intreasts on another country can improve that country and yours. It doesn't. The american system of mostly unrestricted capatalism may have worked just peachy here but that doesn't mean it will work everywhere else too.

"Some of us feel that that way of life is worth protecting."
Do you honestly consider spending trillions of dollars and sacrificing american and iraqi lives to find WMDs that seeminly vanished into thin air protecting the american way of life?

"That tax cut might have worked temporarily, but its not gonna solve the problem."

The problem being a Republican government, I presume.

"If this is the typical scene now in the US, than free speech is greatly at risk."

No, it isn't. Free speech is at risk when dimwits scream 'free speech is at risk' when someone disagrees with what they say. Like Tim Robbins and his chill winds. Letting everyone speak their mind without being criticized is not free speech, it's Show and Tell in grade three.

"The american public has taken on an attitude of ur with us or ur with them attitude, which is, like ive said before, an immature and fundamentally flawed view of the world. let me put this to u in terms u right wingers mite understand. There is another world out there, it doesnt end with ur boarders."

First of all, it's 'you', and 'your'. Second, it IS a matter of 'with us or against us'. It's very clearly a black and white issue. Either you stand by the US in her fight against terrorists, or you don't, and by that you are allowing them refuge and a cover to work with. You're just as complicit as the Swiss bankers who house the funds of criminals, just as complicit as bystanders who ignore the cries for help of a mugging victim. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. And if 'evil' is too gauche a term for your postmodernist sensibilities, go grab a 20th century history book and a calculator. Then come tell me that Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, and their ilk are anything other than evil.

Or are they just poor broken bogeymen?

"The american system of mostly unrestricted capatalism may have worked just peachy here but that doesn't mean it will work everywhere else too."

Well, socialist dictatorships seem to work like a charm everywhere.

Can you name a constitutional republic with democratic elections, rule of law, and free-market capitalism that isn't hugely successful, free, and stable, compared to the rest of the world?

Can you see the blatant racism in your statement?

What in the world does racism have to do with anything? grab a dictionary buddy, im not discriminating against any race of people



Your idea of "hugely successful" is just that, your idea. If the people of a certain country prefer a theocracy and they prefer religious unity vs religious dissention, thats their choice. Now I am aware that Iraq is not exactly the best example for this so i dont need you self-rightious hypocrits to tell me saddam was a dictator.



"It's very clearly a black and white issue."

First off, i'd just like to say nothing is just a black and white issue. It has been estimated that five hundred thousand children, not counting the adults, just children, died in iraq since 1990 from US bombings and US sanctions. If the US actually had evidence of the WMD's going in to iraq, than the issue would be completely different, but to this day, not a single WMD has turned up, i guess we should all just assume they disappeared the second america attacked the country, because if Pres Bush said there was WMDs there, i guess there must be WMDs.

Free speech is indead at risk if all of you seem to be so intolerant of other opinions. Unlike you, i choose not to make any personal attacks simply because i believe a debate should be able to be conducted in an orderly, respectful manner. Go back to grade school buddy, learn some courtesy and maybe you'll be able to fit in into an educated\decent society

I applaud you, Sam. I completly agree with your first entry. I actually agree with most of what you have to say. Oh, and the fellow who disagrees with you, Machiavelli_incorporated, i have to ask you something. How can you debate any matter or event in a purely "orderly, respectful" manner? Rarely do you see two opposing sides that differ in opinions with any respect for each other. When two groups clash together someone or somegroup will get resentful of the other when that group eventually comes out on top of the debate. Orderly? Yes, i can see a somewhat orderly debate happening. But how, with a passion for what one is speaking, can one person remain respectful for the opposing group? What you seek is not truly possible. You currently seem to live in a dream world of pink pansies where all species, though they disagree an all issues, can rejoin later with the same amount of respect and love they had for each other before their one debate started. I highly doubt now that i've said what i feel the need to say, you can like me. You don't know me. Do you respect me for my opinions and ideas? Do you respect Sam for HIS opinions and idea? I highly doubt it...

AJCrowley:

Your reply has a couple of lines that are direct quotes from a Michael Moore thesis. called, “We Finally Got Our Frankenstein... and He Was in a Spider Hole!”


Next time you should use quotation to avoid plagiarism.

I should have put quotation around the word "thesis," in regard to anything written by Michael Moore.

Anthony R. - You are correct about the quote from Michael Moore, but it is restricted purely to the list of nasties given by the US to Iraq. I guess I didn't see the need or the point of citing a source for a six item list, but there you have it.

As far as your dislike of Michael Moore, I can understand that too. Anyone who believes that children should be given free medical treatment is obviously a dangerous communist, and a threat to your precious way of life. You're obviously much better off listening to reasonable and sane people like Anne "Assasinate their leaders and conver them to Christianity" Coulter.

To also reply to the person who found the keystone to destroying my entire argument, in my spelling of "Baghdad" as "Bagdad", I think you'll find that both are perfectly acceptable spellings of the city. Because Arabic is a different language to English, and does not use the same alphabet as English, you'll find that many words have multiple valid spellings in their English translation. To give another example of this, "Usama" and "Osama", again, both correct.

Regarding the whole free speech issue, I am entitled to state my opinions, and anybody is entitled to respond in any way that they choose, though resorting to personal attacks only serves to highlight your own immaturity, and makes it hard to take seriously any valid points that you may seek to raise, but free speech being what it is - fill your boots.

It amazes me how popular the view is that the ends always justifies the means. Though it's highly dubious that Hussein presented any degree of threat to any free world nation at all, the way in which the war was justified (through lies and scaremongering), in my opinion does not justify the ends of this war. In the end, the people it affects the most are the people of Iraq, and right now, most of them will tell you that they're no better off today living under American dictatorship than they were living under Hussein's dictatorship. Hopefully that will change with time, but there are no guarantees in this world.

If the people behind the war had gone about it in a different manner, stating that Saddam was a brutal dictator, and a danger to his own people, my views on the war would be very different. Instead, however, the war was justified by a series of fictions, probably because Bush and Blair both know full well that their constituants might have not reacted so well to a war that would cost them trillions of dollars if the only stated goal was to improve the lives of the Iraqi people. As things stand, I have a great deal more sympathy for the Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed in the course of this war than for the American and British troops killed by roadside bombs and other insurgents' attacks.

When people talk about exporting the US system of capitalism and democracy to other regions, that's all well and good in theory, but in the case of Iraq, it's simply another lie. Iraq hasn't yet been allowed to hold free elections, simply because such elections would not go the way that the US wants right now. Whether US style capitalism would work in Iraq or not is an extremely complex issue, and one which I'm not going to attempt to tackle here. I'll just say that if exporting the US system to Iraq is a stated goal of this war, then it should be done. As it stands, it's yet another matter of the US saying one thing, and doing another. Also on the subject of exporting the US system to other countries, doing it in this manner is self-destructive to the whole philosophy. Forcing another system on people is just another form of dictatorship, and not freedom at all. If the people of a country largely want to move to a democratic system, but are unable to do so because of a nasty dictator, then I'm all for helping these people out, but storming into another country, destroying it, and then saying, "Ok, you're free, we order you to go and be free" isn't really freedom at all now, is it? Somebody also stated that having a single superpower in the world isn't ideal, but it's the way it is, and asked the question, "Who would you rather it be than the US?". To answer that question, obviously I don't think that we'd be better off (actually we'd be substantially worse off) under a system of either Soviet or Chinese style communism, but if I had to choose, there'd be a number of factors that would have to be taken into consideration. At the top of the list would be, "Is this a peaceful nation, and would they uphold a truly fair and balanced system of justice in the world?". These are traits that I don't see from the US right now, in fact, the largest traits of the US right now as I see it are self interest and hypocrisy, and have been ever since the end of World War 2, when the USA found itself in the unique position of being the only country with nuclear armaments, and therefore pretty much able to impose their will on anyone with little fear of non-compliance. Certainly not traits I'd choose of the world's only remaining superpower. To that situation, nuclear proliferation was certainly a positive thing, at least in free world nations where such a threat would only be used as the very final resort. On a lighter note, it's good to see that this may not be the situation for long. With the EU really starting to get its act together, we may see a more balanced world coming through in the not too distant future.

I do recognize that the US and Hussein aren't the only bad guys in this matter. The sanctions that have served to kill so many Iraqis are not simply the product of US legislation, but the whole UN. However, in the latest chapter of this conflict, the blame does lie fairly solidy and mostly in the hands of the US and the UK.

One aspect of the whole thing that I find particularly offensive is the whole "with us or against us" rhetoric. Despite the views of George Bush, the world isn't such a simple place that things can be cast in such a clear black and white light.

Anyway, that's enough for now, have fun.

Any time you are using info from Michael Moore you should beware. He has very little credibility and makes up much of his "facts" IMO.

Frankly, I rate Michael Moore's credibility way above that of your president, which admittedly doesn't say much. However, the extent of his "facts" that I used was limited to the list, and the list alone. This is information that I've come across time and time again, and the original source was a congressional report, which you're free to look up for yourself if you doubt the solidity of the list. It's by far not complete, but it was more than adequate to illustrate the point that I was making.

You know, I try to normally be a reflective person with a fair sense of judgement..
But I can say for once, I didn't even finish reading an article and went straight to making comments.

AJCrowley, you are entitled to what you believe. But just because you believe it doesn't make it true, no matter what you say.

Have a nice day.

Kendra, I would respect your's and Sam's ideas if you people actually had any that could be taken seriously by anybody with a grade school education.

Mr. Crowley, the problem that I have with most thesis of this nature (beyond the relentless anti-americanism and Bush hatred, of course) is the shallowness of arguments used.

Every left-wing/socialist paper I've read or listened to over the last year ends up in the same place -- Saddam was a friend of the US, we sold him his weapons, the WMDs did not exist, he was not a threat to the US (or anyone else for that matter). Apart from the fact that most of these claims can be easily debunked*, what troubles me about the left's response to this war is the complete lack of an alternate vision for how to solve the problem of terrorism (and no, "involving" the UN does not count as a solution).

Specifically, one of the stated aims of this war was to install a democratic government, rooted in a market economy. Successfully implemented, this oasis of freedom and prosperity in the Middle East could serve as a beacon to other Arab countries, and more specifically, to the people of those countries. Improving the quality of living of muslims in Syria, Pakistan and Palestine is the only way that I see to drain the swamp of hopelessness and resentment that breeds the terrorists that are currently attacking us. In my mind, this one objective makes this a "just" war, regardless of what actually happened to the WMDs, connections to al Qaeda, or anything else.

So what say yea, Mr. Crowley? Does the left have a better solution to the problems of the Middle East?

--------------------------
* One, Saddam was never a "friend" of the US, he was a proxy during the war with Iran, and that only because he was deemed to be less of a threat at THAT time than the mullahs. Two, although the US did indeed sell Saddam weapons and chemical precursors during that period, it was a fraction of what eventually was supplied to Iraq by Russia, France and the Chinese. Three, at one point the WMDs DID exist, and right up to the start of this conflict there wasn't a single country in the world that was saying that they no longer existed. The argument made by the French and Germans was that the UN should be given more time to find out what had happened to the weapons, NOT to find out if they had existed. And finally, Saddam may not have been a direct threat to the US, but by destabilizing the region he was indirectly hurting us.

Michael Moore sure has a lot of bad things to say about the capitalist country that gave him the freedom to become a wealthy film maker / book writer. Much of what Moore “reports,” begins with about 10% reality. Moore simply molds and shapes a story that will pander to the extremist views of his respective audience. If a writer tries hard enough, or is full of enough hate, they could make mother Theresa look like a bad person. Michael Moore is not trying to stimulate thought or inspire opinions, he is only out to solidify his readers own political views, which I consider warped.



Moore is extremely critical of the so called rich elite, at the same time; he’s flying around the world in a leer jet on his book tour, where he greets miscreant / malcontents that purchase his hate America first ideology. Moore fly’s to France in time of war to congratulate the French for doing nothing, and to thank Frances American hating population for being such good friends. I wonder how much of the wealth generated by Moore is actually spent on charity, or how much time, or monetary assistance he has granted to the people who have medical bills, or job losses which he is so concerned about, probably not a cent.



Is Michael Moore theoretically a traitor, does he have to be photographed in the trenches of the enemy like Hanoi Jane, or is what is in his heart and mind enough for him to earn this distinction?

Michael More probably does warp facts a bit to make it fit the mold of his opinions, but then again, who doesnt? we all try to make what we know agree with what we believe in. You can disagree with Michael Moore or agree with him, but i believe he deserves a bit of respect for simply acting on what he believes is right. Since when did criticizing the government and championing the poor become a act of treason? If so than that would be undermining the basic foundation of democracy. If you can provide evidence on how he gave intelligence to any of our enemies or if you can prove he sold a nuke to the saudi's, that would be another issue, if he is just making movies and writing books, than he is just exercising the rights given to him by America.