62 Comments:

• At 5/12/05 11:29 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  I watch CNN and MSNBC, shows such as Harball and Crossfire, on a regular basis, and I have been following these debates pretty closely. First off, Even the Democrats are split on this issue. It is not a platform issue that everyone from the same party is supporting, most people have their own opinions on it and members of both parties have recently been strongly voicing them. For the most part, however, it is supported that a timetable is set, not that we immediately leave the country. We've messed it up and we are obligated to fix it.
  
  Your remark about our job being done there is very inaccurate. There may be progress taking place but the destruction is still occuring. My next door neighbor LEAVES for Iraq in January.
  
  I find it so interesting, yet not at all surprising, that any news opposing the Republican party is completely disregarded, while any tiny bit of nonesense you can come up with about any liberal whatsoever is generalized to everyone and blown dramatically out of proportion. Any comment on that?

   

• At 6/12/05 12:36 AM,  sevenpointman said…

  Howard Roberts
  
  
  
  A Seven-point plan for an Exit Strategy in Iraq
  
  
  
  
  1) A timetable for the complete withdrawal of American and British forces must be announced.
  I envision the following procedure, but suitable fine-tuning can be applied by all the people involved.
  
  A) A ceasefire should be offered by the Occupying side to representatives of both the Sunni insurgency and the Shiite community. These representatives would be guaranteed safe passage, to any meetings. The individual insurgency groups would designate who would attend.
  At this meeting a written document declaring a one-month ceasefire, witnessed by a United Nations authority, will be fashioned and eventually signed. This document will be released in full, to all Iraqi newspapers, the foreign press, and the Internet.
  B) US and British command will make public its withdrawal, within sixth-months of 80 % of their troops.
  
  C) Every month, a team of United Nations observers will verify the effectiveness of the ceasefire.
  All incidences on both sides will be reported.
  
  D) Combined representative armed forces of both the Occupying nations and the insurgency organizations that agreed to the cease fire will protect the Iraqi people from actions by terrorist cells.
  
  E) Combined representative armed forces from both the Occupying nations and the insurgency organizations will begin creating a new military and police force. Those who served, with out extenuating circumstances, in the previous Iraqi military or police, will be given the first option to serve.
  
  F) After the second month of the ceasefire, and thereafter, in increments of 10-20% ,a total of 80% will be withdrawn, to enclaves in Qatar and Bahrain. The governments of these countries will work out a temporary land-lease housing arrangement for these troops. During the time the troops will be in these countries they will not stand down, and can be re-activated in the theater, if both the chain of the command still in Iraq, the newly formed Iraqi military, the leaders of the insurgency, and two international ombudsman (one from the Arab League, One from the United Nations), as a majority, deem it necessary.
  
  
  G) One-half of those troops in enclaves will leave three-months after they arrive, for the United States or other locations, not including Iraq.
  
  H) The other half of the troops in enclaves will leave after six-months.
  
  I) The remaining 20 % of the Occupying troops will, during this six month interval, be used as peace-keepers, and will work with all the designated organizations, to aid in reconstruction and nation-building.
  
  
  J) After four months they will be moved to enclaves in the above mentioned countries.
  They will remain, still active, for two month, until their return to the States, Britain and the other involved nations.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  2) At the beginning of this period the United States will file a letter with the Secretary General of the Security Council of the United Nations, making null and void all written and proscribed orders by the CPA, under R. Paul Bremer. This will be announced and duly noted.
  
  
  
  3) At the beginning of this period all contracts signed by foreign countries will be considered in abeyance until a system of fair bidding, by both Iraqi and foreign countries, will be implemented ,by an interim Productivity and Investment Board, chosen from pertinent sectors of the Iraqi economy.
  Local representatives of the 18 provinces of Iraq will put this board together, in local elections.
  
  
  4) At the beginning of this period, the United Nations will declare that Iraq is a sovereign state again, and will be forming a Union of 18 autonomous regions. Each region will, with the help of international experts, and local bureaucrats, do a census as a first step toward the creation of a municipal government for all 18 provinces. After the census, a voting roll will be completed. Any group that gets a list of 15% of the names on this census will be able to nominate a slate of representatives. When all the parties have chosen their slates, a period of one-month will be allowed for campaigning.
  Then in a popular election the group with the most votes will represent that province.
  When the voters choose a slate, they will also be asked to choose five individual members of any of the slates.
  The individuals who have the five highest vote counts will represent a National government.
  This whole process, in every province, will be watched by international observers as well as the local bureaucrats.
  
  During this process of local elections, a central governing board, made up of United Nations, election governing experts, insurgency organizations, US and British peacekeepers, and Arab league representatives, will assume the temporary duties of administering Baghdad, and the central duties of governing.
  
  When the ninety representatives are elected they will assume the legislative duties of Iraq for two years.
  
  Within three months the parties that have at least 15% of the representatives will nominate candidates for President and Prime Minister.
  
  A national wide election for these offices will be held within three months from their nomination.
  
  The President and the Vice President and the Prime Minister will choose their cabinet, after the election.
  
  
  5) All debts accrued by Iraq will be rescheduled to begin payment, on the principal after one year, and on the interest after two years. If Iraq is able to handle another loan during this period she should be given a grace period of two years, from the taking of the loan, to comply with any structural adjustments.
  
  
  
  6) The United States and the United Kingdom shall pay Iraq reparations for its invasion in the total of 120 billion dollars over a period of twenty years for damages to its infrastructure. This money can be defrayed as investment, if the return does not exceed 6.5 %.
  
  
  7) During beginning period Saddam Hussein and any other prisoners who are deemed by a Council of Iraqi Judges, elected by the National representative body, as having committed crimes will be put up for trial.
  The trial of Saddam Hussein will be before seven judges, chosen from this Council of Judges.
  One judge, one jury, again chosen by this Council, will try all other prisoners.
  All defendants will have the right to present any evidence they want, and to choose freely their own lawyers.

   

• At 6/12/05 6:48 AM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  We've messed it up and we are obligated to fix it.
  
  Messed it up? Getting rid of Saddam, saving millions from potential death. Building a good government. Giving Iraq a proper police force and military. Building bridges, schools, houses, and other infrastructure. Giving Iraq freedom? Going from a dictatorship to freedom is messing Iraq up? That's crazy!
  
  We beat Saddams army in a matter of weeks, soon later we captured Saddam. From there we just spent the time preparing Iraq to live under a Democracy.
  We didn't blow down buildings, air strike civilians, go on shooting rampages and all the other things you probably think. Not to mention you think the Iraqis hate us which is completely wrong. Other than SOME of the sunnis, we are loved there. We saved them from a rutheless dictator and gave them freedom, why wouldn't they love us?
  
  Your remark about our job being done there is very inaccurate. There may be progress taking place but the destruction is still occuring. My next door neighbor LEAVES for Iraq in January.
  
  Destruction of what? What? The war is over and has been over. Right now we are just helping Iraqis prepare to live on there own. The only thing that could be considered war is Sunni insurgents and other terrorists placing bombs in trucks but that's not really warfare. And it's not as bad as the media wants you to think.
  
  God bless your neighbor for accepting such a brave job. I can assure you he won't be gone long though because the war will be over early next year. Not an immediate withdrawal, but people will start coming home.
  
  I find it so interesting, yet not at all surprising, that any news opposing the Republican party is completely disregarded, while any tiny bit of nonesense you can come up with about any liberal whatsoever is generalized to everyone and blown dramatically out of proportion. Any comment on that?
  
  Like what? When John Kerry lied about the soldiers saying we torture and break into the homes of Iraqi families at night and murder them? Is that maybe the lie you want me to talk about. Sorry but ANY sane person should know he is just trying to work on his image show he can run again, even if he has to lie to do it. Besides John Kerry loses all credibility when he says things like this,
  
  What John Kerry said last week(paraphrased):
  "We need to send more troops in to Iraq,"
  
  What John Kerry said this week (paraphrased):
  "We need to pull out of Iraq,"
  
  So you think I'm blowing this out of proportion? Murtha and Palosi have been shemeing this for years. They are trying to do EXACTLY what I said whether you believe it or not. You can't blow something as big as that out of proportion.

   

• At 6/12/05 10:30 AM,  Dan Trabue said…

  re: "We messed it up, we have to fix it"... You know who said this, don't you? Colin Powell.
  
  "Privately, Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it."
  
  Messed up. Broke. Ain't it about the same? So, if you have a problem with the notion that we've messed up Iraq, you'll have to take it up with that wild wacky liberal, Colin Powell...
  
  fyi.

   

• At 6/12/05 3:08 PM,  Anonymous said…

  Okay, well as ,much as I hate to say it allosoni's right about the Dems being split on this issue. You get good ones (JL etc.) and bad ones (Dean).

   

• At 6/12/05 3:14 PM,  Anonymous said…

  and you are being a bit paranoid. I don't think it's anything that sinister. I mean look, the whole reason they keep spewing such crap is because they're afraid of being outcast from their party, like Joe Leiberman or Zell Miller.

   

• At 6/12/05 4:31 PM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  Really guys, just tell me what we've messed up, I'm listening. You give me a list of bad things and I'll give you a list of good things to compare. But only proven stuff, none of this torture and murdering civilians for no reason bull.

   

• At 6/12/05 6:42 PM,  Anonymous said…

  It's great how you liberals say you support the troops. complete BS of course. You can't support the troops and then say they're doing a bad job. Great support there guys.
  
  What I'm saying is this. You get an A in a class. The teacher says, I support you but that's awful and it sucks and you need to do better.
  
  But this isn't school. Its a fight to the death. So next time you criticize a US soldier think about what you're doing.

   

• At 6/12/05 6:48 PM,  Anonymous said…

  sevenpointman said... Combined representative armed forces of both the Occupying nations and the insurgency
  
  You can't talk to a faction. Terrorists are NOT one army. You can't just go up to Mohammed Al-Mohammed and say, "Hello! Want to resolve this conflict?" You'll end up of CNN with a swordsman behind you.

   

• At 6/12/05 8:11 PM,  Dan Trabue said…

  I love the troops as I love the Iraqis and would like to see both groups out of harm's way.
  
  As to your teacher analogy, it isn't very good.
  
  A better analogy would be that of the driver who is speeding down a neighborhood street. I love the driver and I love the people in the neighborhood where he's driving. I want him to slow down for his own safety and for the safety of those in the neighborhood.
  
  Cody, as to a list of the bad things, I'll give you 30,000 - 100,000 of them. When we kill (or cause the death of) innocents, we become the enemy. When we are the behemoth enemy, too large to wage war against, then some will choose to use terrorism to try to bring us down. Bush's plan is promoting, not ending terrorism.
  
  You want another reason? How about this: We've legitimized the notion that you can go to war based on the suspicion that another country MIGHT be a threat to you. Not on any solid evidence, but just on the suspicion.
  
  If that is the precedent, then when India comes to think that Pakistan is a threat, they can BY OUR MODEL invade and destroy Pakistan (or try to). When China feels that the US is a threat to them, then we've said that it is okay for them to wage war against us! Why? Because they suspect that we might be a threat!
  
  This pre-emptive invasion policy is a disaster waiting to happen.

   

• At 6/12/05 8:20 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  Very well said, Dan.

   

• At 6/12/05 11:39 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  Also, my neighbor is going to Iraq as a sniper with special forces. Doesn't sound much like rebuilding.

   

• At 7/12/05 6:42 AM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  Cody, as to a list of the bad things, I'll give you 30,000 - 100,000 of them. When we kill (or cause the death of) innocents, we become the enemy.
  
  First off I highly doubt that number is proven and secondly, if you're talking about collaterol damage, then it's not something done on purpose. We were already the enemy to the terrorists and Saddams army but we've gainged the trust of the Iraqi people.
  
  When we are the behemoth enemy, too large to wage war against, then some will choose to use terrorism to try to bring us down. Bush's plan is promoting, not ending terrorism.
  
  Giving people freedom does not make them angry. The only Iraqis who want to kill us were leftovers from Saddams army and disgruntled Sunnis. The majority appreciates what we did. And I wouldn't blame them, we did save them from an evil dictator who would have likely killed them at some point.
  
  You want another reason? How about this: We've legitimized the notion that you can go to war based on the suspicion that another country MIGHT be a threat to you. Not on any solid evidence, but just on the suspicion.
  
  A threat to us? You think that was it? Why don't you ask one of the castrated Shi' if Saddam was a threat to anybody. If you are as humanitarian as you sound you should realize that Saddam had killed over 100,000 of his own people in brutal in-human ways. What about their lives? 100,000 is greater than any other number you've givin me. Not to mention the people we have killed purposfully were NOT innocent. Yes there is collateral damage, that's an aspect of war but it's not as bad as you tell me.
  
  Not only WAS Saddam a threat to us but he was a threat to the Iraqi people and our allies including Israel.
  
  If that is the precedent, then when India comes to think that Pakistan is a threat, they can BY OUR MODEL invade and destroy Pakistan (or try to). When China feels that the US is a threat to them, then we've said that it is okay for them to wage war against us! Why? Because they suspect that we might be a threat!
  
  This pre-emptive invasion policy is a disaster waiting to happen.
  
  Think?! we did not think Saddam was a threat. We knew it and places around the world new it too. Saddam killed his own people, supported Al-Qaeda, the PLO, he seeked weapons, and peronally murdered people.
  
  Why don't you ask the kid who saw his parents brutally murdered in Abu-Ghraib if Saddam was a threat?
  
  Thinking and knowing is two different things. China may think we're a threat even though we aren't and we can know Saddam was a threat because he was. It makes sense to me and I have always been in complete support of the war in Iraq.

   

• At 7/12/05 6:46 AM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  A better analogy would be that of the driver who is speeding down a neighborhood street. I love the driver and I love the people in the neighborhood where he's driving. I want him to slow down for his own safety and for the safety of those in the neighborhood.
  
  So by your logic the only thing we're doing there is just shooting everyone we see every time? Is that what you are saying?
  
  If so you are completely wrong.
  
  How long will it take you to realize this war is a success and the Iraqis are better off? 50 years from now when George W. Bush is talked about like a great man. Like he was as great as Abe Lincoln. Or maybe you'll never get it, I don't know. It's a shame if you don't.

   

• At 7/12/05 4:14 PM,  Anonymous said…

  So neither of you is concerned with the Iraqi's saftey then? And our saftey against teroorism? I see, once again the open minded liberals are as close minded as can be.

   

• At 7/12/05 4:16 PM,  Anonymous said…

  Oopsies! Liberals didn't do their homework and Cody kicked their... nether reagions with logic and facts again.

   

• At 7/12/05 5:04 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  Logic and fact. Oh boy. First of all, nothing that I have said was proved wrong. Secondly, what Dan said about pre-emptive war is EXACTLY true. You cannot deny, Cody, the reasons we went to war, even if you don't think it matters now. We invaded a country because we THOUGHT they might be a threat, thus "pre-emptive war." You don't have any facts, you have your opinions, and in debate that just doesn't cut it.

   

• At 7/12/05 5:10 PM,  Anonymous said…

  Answer this allsoni, how many of the 23 reasons we went were about WMDs? Answer? 2.

   

• At 7/12/05 5:14 PM,  Dan Trabue said…

  I've not responded because Cody nor you are offering reasonable arguments to debate.
  
  Cody said:
  "So by your logic the only thing we're doing there is just shooting everyone we see every time?"
  
  I did not say this. How does one respond to folk who are not hearing what you're saying?
  
  By saying it again? Okay:
  1. The reason for going to war, as stated by W and his underlings, was because Saddam was an immediate threat and because he had WMD.
  2. He was not and he did not.
  3. If we tell the world by our actions that you can wage war based upon a hunch and faulty (or cooked) intelligence, then we have set a dangerous and foolish precedent.
  4. Whether or not it was our intent, we have been responsible for a mess in Iraq, with tens of thousands dead. SO SAYS COLIN POWELL, not just me (that we made "broke" Iraq, that is).
  5. When you've been responsible for the deaths of so many innocents, some portion of the survivors are going to hate you and want revenge, thus leading to more terrorism.
  
  Don't believe me? What if Mexico thought the US was a threat and invaded us, bombed our military bases and in the process killed many of our family members and friends, will you be glad that Mexico acted in what it thought the wisest way? Will you say, "I'll sure miss my friends and my blowed off right arm, but if Mexico thought that the intelligence suggested the US was a threat to them, they didn't really have a choice. God bless them Mexicans!"
  
  I think not.
  
  Argue with me if you wish, but at least argue with what I've said and not some interpretation of what I've said.
  
  Peace.

   

• At 7/12/05 5:30 PM,  Anonymous said…

  He gave a HUGE reasonable arguement. I realize "reasonable" to liberals means "what I want to hear" but sometimes that's just not true.
  
  Dan said... 1. The reason for going to war, as stated by W and his underlings, was because Saddam was an immediate threat and because he had WMD
  
  *Buzzer* WRONG! 2 out of thirty-three total reasons involved WMDS.
  
  Dan said... 2. He was not and he did not.
  
  Wrong again. I've explained this already. Saddam was harboring terrorists. WMDS in Syria.
  
  Dan said... 3. If we tell the world by our actions that you can wage war based upon a hunch and faulty (or cooked) intelligence, then we have set a dangerous and foolish precedent.
  
  What about when Saddam went to war for oil? Did we forget about that? Its okay for him to do that but not for us to attack a country that tourtures its own citizens and harbors terrorists? Cut down on the pot please.
  
  Dan said... 4. Whether or not it was our intent, we have been responsible for a mess in Iraq, with tens of thousands dead. SO SAYS COLIN POWELL, not just me (that we made "broke" Iraq, that is).
  
  So he's wrong. We have freed millions of Iraqis and know exactly what we're doing. We've created a base in the middle east, and freed them from a dictator. I don't call that a mess, I guess some people might, like Saddam.
  
  Dan said... 5. When you've been responsible for the deaths of so many innocents, some portion of the survivors are going to hate you and want revenge, thus leading to more terrorism.
  
  Let's do the math here.
  
  US killed: approx 2000
  Civs killed: obscure
  
  US killed under Saddam: at least 100
  Civs killed under Saddam: millions (for no reason)
  
  Ok, so what you're saying is that its not ok for us to go in a cause some collateral, but it IS okay to allow Saddam to kill millions each year. That doesn't sound very liberal to me, that sounds pretty heartless.
  
  And finally, what do you say to the fact that Iraqis cheer as American troops roll by? What do you say to the fact that Iraqis volunteer to help our patrols? What do you say to the fact that the number two and number three of Al-Qaeda have been killed? What do you say to the fact that Iraqis voted for the first time in their lives? What do you say to the fact that John Kerry complained more about Abu Ghraib then the Shiite leader in Iraq? What do you say to the fact that Saddam has been captured? What do you say to the fact that a WMD does NOT have to be a nuclear bomb? What do you say to the fact that democracy has come to the middle east for the first time ever? What do you say to the fact that Iraqi women can now go out without burkas? What do you say to the fact that Iraqi children can go to school? What do you say to the fact that Iraqis now have electricity? What do you say to the fact that Iraqis have sanatation?
  
  Most importantly, what do you say to the fact that Iraqis now have FREEDOM?
  
  You have a lot of questions to answer Dan. Im waiting.

   

• At 7/12/05 5:57 PM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  I've not responded because Cody nor you are offering reasonable arguments to debate.
  
  you're kidding right? You sure you don't have that backwards?
  
  Dan, your pre-emptive strike comparisons don't work because with your examples you show a country having a problem with us and going to war with the entire country.
  
  With the war in Iraq it was just Saddams army and angry Sunnis who by the way were beaten within a month or so. The majority of the country supports what we're doing because unlike your examples we are not destroying, we are giving them freedom!

   

• At 7/12/05 10:34 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  How many times do I have to say on these stupid blogs that the Iraqi people are NOT FREE? We, in the U.S., are free. THey have not, do not, and will never know freedom as we know it.
  
  I find it so unbelievable that you think there has been no damage created by a WAR. Logic and common sense, boys, it really isn't that difficult.

   

• At 8/12/05 6:24 AM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  How many times do I have to say on these stupid blogs that the Iraqi people are NOT FREE? We, in the U.S., are free. THey have not, do not, and will never know freedom as we know it.
  
  point 1) my blog is not a stupid one.
  
  point 2) Of course the Iraqis are free. Not on the same level as us but free nonetheless. If a country is Democratic then it is free, pretty simple. In a Democratic system every person has a voice. Try doing that while Saddam is in power.
  
  I find it so unbelievable that you think there has been no damage created by a WAR.
  
  The WAR part was over in a matter of weeks and that was when the destruction almost completely ENDED. We are not still bombing buildings like you seem to sugest.
  
  Logic and common sense, boys, it really isn't that difficult.
  
  Sure your disinformation SOUNDS logical but the problem is, is that it's not TRUE. If there is no truth then it dosn't really matter anymore.

   

• At 8/12/05 6:52 AM,  Anonymous said…

  She's getting angry and illogical again. She won't answer the questions either. :)

   

• At 8/12/05 10:32 AM,  Dan Trabue said…

  I'll answer your questions when you answer mine:
  
  What do you say to the Iraqi boy whose parents were killed in front of his eyes and who had both of his arms blown off?
  
  What do you say to the dozens of nations who join together wanting to drop bombs on us because they think we're a threat to them (remember that poll that said the majority of the people around the world thought the US was a greater threat to world peace than Saddam?)? Are you consistent with your philosophy that if a country feels threatened then they have a right to invade/bomb?
  
  What do you say to the majority of Iraqis who want us out of there today? "Happy Democracy, hold on to it for a while and we'll let you know when you can use it and how?"
  
  Answer these few questions, friends and I'll answer yours.
  
  (OK, I'll do you a favor and answer all of yours now: To those Iraqis who may be pleased that Saddam is gone, so am I. BUT HOW he was removed remains problematic. As my momma taught me: Two wrongs don't make a right.)
  
  And PLEASE REMEMBER (as conservatives consistently get this wrong wrong wrong): No one is saying that we should have done nothing about Saddam. We're saying things should be done about Iraq, Iran, Colombia, Sudan, the Congo, the Phillipines, China, Guantanamo and ALL those places where opprsession is occurring.
  
  We're saying War-As-Solution doesn't work. We're saying Join the ICC. We're saying Lead by example. We're saying take stands against oppression wherever it occurs and NOT only in those countries where we have something to gain. We're saying Hold ALL who break laws accountable and begin by holding ourselves accountable.
  
  So, no longer may you say that, "Huh! Liberals would just have us do nothing and let bad guys eat babies! Dumb liberals!" No more. Fair enough?

   

• At 8/12/05 2:48 PM,  Anonymous said…

  I would say he's colateral, and dies quickly, unlike Saddam's prisoners. I would also check your sources on that one.
  
  I would say that 75 countries are for us and the ones that want to bomb us are our enemies and harbor terrorists anyway.
  
  Most of the Iraqis do NOT want us out. Wherever you got that information is lying.
  
  Your turn. I want each of those answeres specifically one by one.

   

• At 8/12/05 5:31 PM,  Dan Trabue said…

  From UPI:
  BASRA, Iraq, Oct. 23, 2005 (UPI) -- A poll of Iraqis found most think the occupation forces are hurting the country and 45 percent approve of attacks on foreign troops.
  
  The London Telegraph obtained a copy of the results of the study which showed that in some areas 65 percent support attacks, and less than one percent think the occupation is improving security.
  
  The poll, conducted by Iraqi university researchers who were not told the data would be used by Britain's Defense Ministry, showed stark numbers against the occupation forces, which contradicts the positive message coming from London and Washington.
  
  Eighty-two percent of respondents said they "strongly oppose" troops being in their country, 67 percent feel less secure and 72 percent have no confidence that the occupation will succeed...
  
  Another poll cited in Newsweek in June of 2004:
  June 15 - The first survey of Iraqis sponsored by the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal shows that most say they would feel safer if Coalition forces left immediately, without even waiting for elections scheduled for next year. An overwhelming majority, about 80 percent, also say they have “no confidence” in either the U.S. civilian authorities or Coalition forces.
  
  ======
  Don't believe the polls? I can't help you there.
  
  As to my answers, I've responded already. But to recap: For each question you asked, my answer is:
  
  Fine, insofar as your point is valid or not. BUT HOW Saddam was removed remains problematic.
  
  And would you REALLY tell an armless orphan simply that "You're collateral and your parents died quickly."? You'd expect him to be grateful for this?
  
  You don't remember Ali's story? (Of course, it was not a unique story, but it captured media attention). from BBC:
  
  "Doctors treating the badly injured Iraqi boy Ali Ismail Abbas are searching for the best possible artificial limbs to help him regain as normal a life as possible...
  
  The youngster lost both arms and was severely burned during a coalition air raid on Baghdad in which his family was killed."

   

• At 8/12/05 6:14 PM,  Anonymous said…

  I don't really care if he's happy about or not, they're still colateral, I base my facts on logic not emotion. Those were not specific answers to each question. Your polls are both from liberal publications.

   

• At 8/12/05 7:39 PM,  Dan Trabue said…

  One poll conducted by "Iraqi university researchers" for the Iraqi gov't, the second "survey of Iraqis sponsored by the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority..."
  
  Deny it all you want, it's right there in the news and no one is discounting it but people like you who don't want to believe.
  
  Some democratic process you believe in there.
  
  As to your logic not emotion point: Logically, little Ali has surviving uncles and aunts and cousins who may be righteously angry at the US, thus leading to more terrorism. What was the point of this war? Oh yes, to reduce terrorism. Logic, not emotion (although if that's the best you could say to a child wounded thusly, then I'd say the terrorists are not always wrong about our evil nature - again, not emotion but a reality of perception).
  
  And I'll put it to you again to prove my point, if we were attacked, are you going to graciously say thanks as the invaders kill and maim us? I'll answer for you: No. You're not. You're going to want to fight back anyway you can.
  
  So, by your own testimony and based on a logical understanding of humanity, Bush's war to stop WMD or the Iraqi threat or to end terrorism has just struck out.

   

• At 8/12/05 7:50 PM,  Anonymous said…

  Your "logic" uses emotions. Don't try to confuse me. And why on Earth won't you answer those questions? Could it be because you cannot.
  
  As for your poll, it was done by talking heads, wheras my info was gotten from US soldiers, who I'm sure you just love to spit on, since prtecting Iraqis is evil to you.
  
  In the words of Rusty Humphries: ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION[s]!!!

   

• At 8/12/05 10:54 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  Maybe you should restate them...

   

• At 9/12/05 6:46 AM,  Anonymous said…

  Probably a good idea. Okay here goes.
  
  
  what do you say to the fact that Iraqis cheer as American troops roll by?
  
  What do you say to the fact that Iraqis volunteer to help our patrols?
  
  What do you say to the fact that the number two and number three of Al-Qaeda have been killed?
  
  What do you say to the fact that Iraqis voted for the first time in their lives?
  
  What do you say to the fact that John Kerry complained more about Abu Ghraib then the Shiite leader in Iraq?
  
  What do you say to the fact that Saddam has been captured?
  
  What do you say to the fact that a WMD does NOT have to be a nuclear bomb?
  
  What do you say to the fact that democracy has come to the middle east for the first time ever?
  
  What do you say to the fact that Iraqi women can now go out without burkas?
  
  What do you say to the fact that Iraqi children can go to school?
  
  What do you say to the fact that Iraqis now have electricity?
  
  What do you say to the fact that Iraqis have sanatation?
  
  Most importantly, what do you say to the fact that Iraqis now have FREEDOM?
  
  I answered you questions specifically Dan. You said you'd answer mine. I have seen no evidence of this. Only three short paragraphs which did not specifically answer them.

   

• At 9/12/05 9:09 AM,  Dan Trabue said…

  what do you say to the fact that Iraqis cheer as American troops roll by?
  
  Fine. some do. Doesn't make what happened right and 80% of these Iraqis according to the poll conducted BY IRAQIS and BY THE US LEADERS IN IRAQ don't trust us and want us out.
  
  What do you say to the fact that Iraqis volunteer to help our patrols?
  
  Fine. some do. Doesn't make what happened right and 80% of these Iraqis according to the poll conducted BY IRAQIS and BY THE US LEADERS IN IRAQ don't trust us and want us out.
  
  What do you say to the fact that the number two and number three of Al-Qaeda have been killed?
  
  Fine. Has nothing to do with Iraq where we staged an illegal invasion, though.
  
  What do you say to the fact that Iraqis voted for the first time in their lives?
  
  A good thing. Are we going to actually let them USE their democracy and make decisions (like when the US should leave)? A prediction: No. We're setting up a puppet regime and will maintain a presence their.
  
  What do you say to the fact that John Kerry complained more about Abu Ghraib then the Shiite leader in Iraq?
  
  What of it? I'm glad Kerry has some small piece of a backbone in his limp body.
  
  What do you say to the fact that Saddam has been captured?
  
  Fine. Doesn't make how it happened right.
  
  What do you say to the fact that a WMD does NOT have to be a nuclear bomb?
  
  Fine. Iraq did not have any WMD at the time of the invasion just the same "We know where they're keeping these weapons..."
  
  What do you say to the fact that democracy has come to the middle east for the first time ever?
  
  I'll believe it when I see it. It may be a fine thing if it happens. Doesn't make how it happened right.
  
  What do you say to the fact that Iraqi women can now go out without burkas?
  
  Fine. Doesn't make how it happened right.
  
  What do you say to the fact that Iraqi children can go to school?
  
  They went to school before.
  
  What do you say to the fact that Iraqis now have electricity?
  
  They had electricity before we blew it all up.
  
  What do you say to the fact that Iraqis have sanatation?
  
  They had sanitation before.
  
  Most importantly, what do you say to the fact that Iraqis now have FREEDOM?
  
  Fine. Doesn't make how it happened right.
  
  The ends do not justify the means. Might does not make right.
  
  My logic is flawless. There is a time for emotions. Jesus was angry as hell at the oppressive moneylenders in the temple taking advantage of the poor when he ran the thieves out. Anger and passion are good things. Still, my logic is flawless, or point to the problem with it. You can't just say, "that's dumb logic" you have to break it down.
  
  Like this:
  IF we say it is okay for the US to invade another country based on the suspicion that they might be a threat,
  THEN it is also okay for Middle Eastern terrorists to invade our country based on the suspicion that we might be a threat.
  
  One side equals the other. Am I saying this is right? NO. I'm saying the logic - your logic, Bush's logic - is horribly flawed. Show me how I'm wrong.

   

• At 9/12/05 10:02 AM,  Anonymous said…

  Dan said/...Fine. some do. Doesn't make what happened right and 80% of these Iraqis according to the poll conducted BY IRAQIS and BY THE US LEADERS IN IRAQ don't trust us and want us out.
  
  Liar. John Kerry said that, not polls. It was not based on evidence. And do you really think that the average Iraqi is going to take a poll? No. My evidence is based on SOLDIERS not politicians.
  
  Same for answer two.
  
  Dan said... Fine. Has nothing to do with Iraq where we staged an illegal invasion, though.
  
  Uh, it has nothing to do with it? We based the attacks out of Iraq! Zarquai was killed in Iraq.
  
  Dan said... A good thing. Are we going to actually let them USE their democracy and make decisions (like when the US should leave)? A prediction: No. We're setting up a puppet regime and will maintain a presence their.
  
  Wrong again! If they were puppets we souldnt have allowed Islam to dictate the law which is in their constitution.
  
  DAn said... What of it? I'm glad Kerry has some small piece of a backbone in his limp body.
  
  Backbone?! He's a goddamn whiner!
  
  DAn said... Fine. Doesn't make how it happened right.
  
  How it happend? We FREED them from him!
  
  Dan said... Fine. Iraq did not have any WMD at the time of the invasion just the same "We know where they're keeping these weapons..."
  
  Then how did he gas the Kurds?!?!
  
  Dan said... I'll believe it when I see it. It may be a fine thing if it happens. Doesn't make how it happened right.
  
  When you SEE it? Do you watch the NEWS?! Remember the purple fingers!? They VOTED!!!
  
  Dan said... Fine. Doesn't make how it happened right.
  
  Pansy-ass answer.
  
  Dan siad...They went to school before.
  
  NO THEY DIDN'T!!! The only ones that did were taught that we were evil and to blow us up!
  
  Dan said... hey had electricity before we blew it all up.
  
  The TERRORISTS BLEW IT UP, NOT US! Jesus Christ, do you even know what you're talking about?
  
  Dan said... They had sanitation before.
  
  No they did NOT!
  
  DAn said... Fine. Doesn't make how it happened right.
  
  Pansy-ass answer by a liberal who values his life more than other people's freedom.
  
  Dan said... IF we say it is okay for the US to invade another country based on the suspicion that they might be a threat,
  THEN it is also okay for Middle Eastern terrorists to invade our country based on the suspicion that we might be a threat.
  
  You would DARE compare our military to terrorists? You are one sick bastard. The difference is that the terrorists are EVIL and we are NOT!
  
  Get a brain, stop watching CNN, and for Christ's sake stop saying that its wrong to free people.

   

• At 9/12/05 10:12 AM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  Of course I'm not surprised that the points brought up in my article have not been answered by any of you.
  
  The war is over. We will start to pull troops out after the elections (one week from now) and continue until mid 06 when we are completely gone. Yet according to Howard Dean we can't win this war. And he's not a power-hungry scumbag?
  
  I knew Allisoni wouldn't believe me when I said the war was almost over and by January or February we would be slowly pulling troops out. But in fact it is earlier than that when we start bringing people home. I knew she wouldn't believe me when I said we had already won and was just waiting for elections to finish. So how's this for a question. How does it feel to be wrong?

   

• At 9/12/05 10:36 AM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/08/iraq.main/index.html
  
  Your neighbor may not even have to go to Iraq Allisoni.

   

• At 9/12/05 10:37 AM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  (the link will work if you highlight the blank line under it too.)

   

• At 9/12/05 11:34 AM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  They went to school before.
  
  Yeah the Sunnis, not everyone.
  
  They had electricity before we blew it all up.
  
  Yeah the Sunnis, not everyone. And it was Sunni insurgents who took out the power in attempt to get Saddam back.
  
  They had sanitation before.
  
  Yeah the Sunnis, not everyone.

   

• At 9/12/05 12:27 PM,  Anonymous said…

  Completly off subject Cody, but this is the XM I might get for Christmas. What do you think? Is it any good?
  
  http://shop.xmradio.com/detail.aspx?pid=4&cat=7
  
  I'll be on the IM every half-hour or so if you want to respond that way.

   

• At 9/12/05 1:24 PM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  Hmm, I'm not sure if that's the best choice or not. I'm getting the SkiFi2 boombox bundle, but if you travel around a lot that would be a better choice. It all depends on that I guess. Just make sure you don't end up with one for cars only.
  
  I'm at my Aunts house so I'll have to download AIM. I'll have it in an hour.

   

• At 9/12/05 1:33 PM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  Crap. My Aunts computer is even worse than mine. It's a Windows 2000, it won't work. Oh well, blog commenting works I guess.

   

• At 9/12/05 1:36 PM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  The one you're looking at looks like it would be a good choice. It works at home in the car and it's portable.
  
  Mine won't be portable, because it's the reciever and it goes in a boombox. You can take that out to go in a car but not like a walkman or anything. The other one is probably cheaper too.
  
  Anyways, yeah I would go with that one.

   

• At 9/12/05 1:49 PM,  Dan Trabue said…

  Dark said:
  "You would DARE compare our military to terrorists? You are one sick bastard. The difference is that the terrorists are EVIL and we are NOT!"
  
  This is a little sad. Do you understand how making a logical argument works? I did not compare our military to terrorists. I'm making an application of YOUR logic to our situation.
  
  YOUR logic is the one that says it's okay to invade a country based on fear (an emotion, right?). I merely pointed out that, by YOUR logic, YOU are saying that it is okay to invade another country.
  
  UNLESS, of course, you're a hypocrite and you believe it is okay for one group to do so but not another group. In which case, YOUR logic is invalid. Logic is the same, it is consistent. 2 + 2 always = 4.
  
  If a logical argument is not consistent (sometimes it is okay for a country to invade another based on fear, other times it's not) then the logic is faulty and invalid.
  
  In conclusion, based on what you've said thus far, either it is okay for countries/entities to invade one another based on fear OR your logic is faulty.
  
  You have a problem with that, change YOUR logic and make a better case. I said clearly that I do NOT believe it is okay for people to invade other countries based on fear.
  
  This is not about what I've said, it's about what YOU'VE said.
  
  Since we're getting nowhere, I believe I'll end my participation in this discussion for now. Thank you, Peace and Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, May you enjoy the Peace of this Season, etc.

   

• At 9/12/05 2:06 PM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  I don't think out of 20 some odd reasons for going into Iraq, fear was even ONE of them. I've gone over the reasons time and time again and the only reason that you people actually hear is the WMD reason. Yet our logic is flawed?

   

• At 9/12/05 3:13 PM,  Anonymous said…

  Im not even going to try anymore. These people are A. Stupid B. Evil or C. Both.
  
  Anyway Cody, thanks for the XM help.

   

• At 9/12/05 5:46 PM,  joe said…

  Good article Cody!

   

• At 9/12/05 5:55 PM,  Gayle said…

  I'm a bit late in coming here. My apologies Cody. I've been a bit busy this month. You wrote a very valid and astute post and I applaud you.
  
  You are wasting your time trying to reason with Allisoni. It won't get you anywhere... it's all complete denial. At any rate, I certainly won't waste my time. There is one thing I don't understand though: Allisoni said that these blogs are stupid. Okay, if that's correct, then why does Allisoni spend so much time on them? I think it's a valid question. Probably has nothing better to do. I have never visited a liberal's blog because I know what they are going to say before they say it. It would be a complete and utter waste of my time. Allisoni is not going to change your opinion so why all the useless effort?
  
  I've read all the comments here. Dark, this one that you made makes the most sense: "Im not even going to try anymore. These people are A. Stupid B. Evil or C. Both."
  You said it in a nutshell! I reached that same conclusion long ago. Don't waste your time.
  
  MERRY CHRISTMAS!

   

• At 11/12/05 12:42 AM,  Brian said…

  Hmmmm...Interesting little debate going on here...
  
  Anyway, responding to the post:
  
  I mostly agree with the war. Unfortunately, Cody, you're kind of generalizing when you say, "All liberals do blah blah blah." Saying that isn't fair at all. It's not like ALL liberals share a collective mind. Please, don't generalize. It's kind of like a liberal who says, "All conservatives are hicks and gay haters!"
  Generalizations aren't cool.
  
  Anyway, cool blog. Keep up the good posting! It's nice to see another teen (I'm a teen as well) interested in worldly events!

   

• At 11/12/05 1:08 AM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  Oh, Gayle, I love you too.
  
  Blogs are stupid BECAUSE I spend so much time on them that I should spend on other things. That is very much off topic and irrelevant, though.
  
  "Merry Christmas" is a fairly pointless thing to say after rattling off insults and being rather unChristian. But, whatever floats your boat.

   

• At 11/12/05 7:03 PM,  Gayle said…

  If Allisoni thinks I insulted her she is terribly thin-skinned. I simply said arguing with her is a complete waste of time. I didn't call her stupid nor did I call her a fool. I did agree with Dark however... :)
  
  My insults, if I felt like insulting her, would be way worse than what Dark said. She should count her blessings.
  
  Allisoni is, according to her profile, only 18, which is why I have tried to take it easy on her and will continue to do so.
  
  Just because I believe in Christ does not mean that I'm not entitled to my own opinion. I can wish fools Merry Christmas whenever I choose. Merry Christmas Allisoni.

   

• At 11/12/05 7:07 PM,  Gayle said…

  One more itty-bitty point to make here. Allisoni said: "Blogs are stupid BECAUSE I spend so much time on them that I should spend on other things."
  
  That doesn't make blogs stupid, it makes you stupid. If you feel you should be spending time doing other things then you cannot blame anything other than yourself.
  
  Liberals never blame themselves though. I'm sorry. I forgot about that.

   

• At 11/12/05 10:18 PM,  Dan Trabue said…

  RE: "If Allisoni thinks I insulted her she is terribly thin-skinned."
  
  Now, didn't at least a couple of y'all say that we "are A. Stupid B. Evil or C. Both."?
  
  Stupid and Evil are not insulting? Not that I mind that you think that of me or young Allisoni, but those ARE insulting words (or did you mean Stupid and Evil in the best sense of those words?), if words have any meaning.
  
  To which I suppose you must reply that they're not insulting words if they're accurate.
  
  Ah well, cast your aspersions away, my friends.
  
  Merry Christmas, to all and to all a good night.

   

• At 11/12/05 11:21 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  I didn't say that I was insulted, I said that saying such horrible things doesn't make you a very good Christian, and therefore it's ironic that you take such pride in celebrating the birth of Christ. As far as I know, he loves people no matter what, not based on their political views.
  
  Also, there is no point whatsoever in debating or attacking me on my comment on "stupid blogs." Please move on.

   

• At 12/12/05 6:36 AM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  Generalizations aren't cool.
  
  When I say these Liberals, I'm referring to the politicians I mentioned in there. The ones I listed are pretty much all on the same page.

   

• At 12/12/05 10:02 AM,  Dan Trabue said…

  I know I said I was bowing out of the discussion, but just saw this latest poll reported in the AP today:
  
  WASHINGTON - Most Iraqis disapprove of the presence of U.S. forces in their country, yet they are optimistic about
  Iraq's future and their own personal lives, according to a new poll.
  
  More than two-thirds of those surveyed oppose the presence of troops from the United States and its coalition partners and less than half, 44 percent, say their country is better off now than it was before the war, according to an ABC News poll conducted with Time magazine and other media partners...
  
  The poll was conducted by Oxford Research International face-to-face with 1,711 Iraqis age 15 and over from Oct. 8 to Nov. 22.
  ======
  But of course, the AP is part of a vast leftwing conspiracy to undermine the US invasion. As for Oxford Research? OR? Which stands for Out-to-get Republicans, of course!
  
  Peace, please and thank you.

   

• At 12/12/05 2:23 PM,  Anonymous said…

  I said the evil thing. Blame me not the others.

   

• At 12/12/05 6:05 PM,  MJ said…

  Wow, haven't visited here in a while, I guess I should've - you've got quite a debate going here.
  
  Dan; while I tend to doubt that most Iraqis want us out, at least they have the freedom to say that they want us out. Anyone who spoke out against Saddam's regime ended up with a tongue missing.
  
  Allisoni; it is getting pretty petty when someone can't even wish you a Merry Christmas. But have it your way.
  
  Cody, great blog you got here (not stupid at all) - sorry I have not stopped by in a while.
  
  BTW - what originally brought me here . . .
  Tag, you're it!

   

• At 12/12/05 8:25 PM,  Rebekah said…

  Well, I'm not sure it's that much of a strategy.
  
  Well, here are some points I want to make.
  
  a) When did WWII end? If you say 1945, according to Liberal logic, you're wrong. Nay, it was a "quaqmire" much longer than that!
  b) 2000 is such a non-number. Hundreds of thousands died in single battles in previous wars. To expect to win a war, oust a government, help set up a new one and have several Democratic elections and be farther advanced in women and minority rights than our own country was, hundreds of years after it's democratization with no problems and less than 2000 casualties is pollyana-esque at best.

   

• At 12/12/05 11:04 PM,  Allisoni Balloni said…

  It's Gayle's problem, not mine.

   

• At 13/12/05 9:16 AM,  Dan Trabue said…

  So, when y'all say you doubt the polls, are you suggesting that THREE different pollsters (at least TWO of which were paid for by your side of this issue) are colluding together to fake these results to undermine Bush's efforts or are you suggesting just that polls aren't that accurate? (Even with all three polls finding similar results?)
  
  Just curious...

   

• At 13/12/05 12:02 PM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  Polls and reality are two different things. Usually with polls the questions are biased and the answers are usually mis-interperated.
  
  Of course they want us out, BUT AFTER WE FINISH. They are not dumb enough to think that they will succeed if we leave now. They know how much we are helping them they just want us out when we are done. When the government is stable. When the police are ready. When the violence stop. It's all misinterpereted, biased, and just plain wrong.
  
  How many of you want to bet that the places they polled Iraqi's was in a majorly Sunni area? If so, those numbers are pretty high.
  
  I never trust polls, ever. End of story.

   

• At 13/12/05 12:07 PM,  Cody O'Connor said…

  Is it just me or does it seem like the Liberals WANT the war to go badly.
  
  Probably because if "Bush's war" goes badly, they do good next elections.
  
  And my post was a paranoid conspiracy theory? I think not.

   

Post a Comment

<< Home