"We are better than you. We're more enlightened, more civilized and thus our way is the way of life, yours is the way of death.

After admitting that invading their land in the first place was a grave mistake and then suggesting that we carpet bomb them to oblivion for their resistance to the invasion of their land we still are better, more civilized and more enlightened than them?

does Carpet-bombing with napalm and F18 of people who didnt threaten us or fight us belong to the same sentence as "enlightened and civilized"?

arrogance and foolishness has no limit i guess. people of the world has no right whatsoever in standing up and defending themselves against the mighty superpower. they just must kneel down and pray for the mercy of the owner of the "right stuff".

you just wrote the basis for the death sentence of this kind of civilization, even though that name does not apply to that kind of culture. barbarism is less savage than that.

I dont think WE are that way. May be you are that way, the USA is difinitely not that kind of society.

Just wars are won only buy just means and that what WWII was. Unjust wars are never won. Period. and that is what the Iraq war is.

Yes, the Iraq war is unjust and falls at the feet of one man and one man only. It is guilty of war crimes and should be tried and convicted and put to death by his people. No question.

However, the soldiers on the ground had nothing to do with that man's actions, and did nothing to harm the Sunnis. The attacks by the Sunnis on the Americans is completely without cause and must be treated for what they are: Acts of terrorism against the men and women trying to help rebuild Iraq.

The mistake you make is assuming that others must die and be punished for Bush's mistakes. Only Bush can be punished for Bush's mistakes. It is no longer about Bush, and is entirely about a people that do not want to become anything but barbarians. They wish to fight against that which will bring them a better life. It's fundamentally based on fear. But their actions are the same and the result the same. Murder. (not self-defence which is the key difference)

The American soldiers have been asked to stand up and be shot without the right to defend themselves as rational and just men of the past have done (i.e. WWII). Instead they must always be afraid that they are going to be prosecuted by their own military if they make the wrong choice, if they open fire as they enter a room and it turns out to be women and children instead of the terrorists that caused them to have to enter the room in the first place. By preventing them from fighting a war, we are as guilty as the man that caused the war to be started in the first place.

The fundamental difference between the Terrorists and the Americans is that the Americans acted to liberate Iraq, while the Sunnis wish to see it enslaved under the boot of their version of Islam (and kill all others that don't believe exactly the same thing). Even in the barbarity of what Bush did, his actions are far more "civilized" than that of the Islamic fundamentalist. (Bush is a Christian fundamentalist which explains 99% of the stupidty...)

And might I add that the war in Afganistan is a just one, fought for the right reasons. Canadians are dying to prove it while the Americans dither around in Iraq. But once again, even in a just war as you put it, we're fighting on the same terms. Napalm the poppy crops, carpet bomb the villages that are harbouring the Taliban after giving them the chance to turn them over. Don't play games and don't try and be police. Kill every terrorist you can find and don't stop killing until they're all dead or @ Gitmo. And if people want to harbour these evil men, then kill them too because they are just as guilty as the terrorists.

However, the soldiers on the ground had nothing to do with that man's actions, and did nothing to harm the Sunnis. The attacks by the Sunnis on the Americans is completely without cause and must be treated for what they are: Acts of terrorism against the men and women trying to help rebuild Iraq.

I dont know what world you occupy my friend. Actions and decisions of the government of any country, democratically elected or not, ARE the responsibility of the people of that country.

There is no two ways about it.

OUR forces in Iraq are an invading forces regardless of who sent them or who is responsible for it. The people of Iraq have the right to resist that. that is a universal right. just because a foolish president started it doesnt make it any less invasion that is rightfully resisted by any self-respecting people.

The people of Iraq did not invite us to rebuild their country. They are able to do it themselves and much better than we can ever do.

I dont know what kind of logic you using , but your arguements are very illogical.

The fundamental difference between the Terrorists and the Americans is that the Americans acted to liberate Iraq

you must be kidding yourself. because that is not fooling anyone in the world.

WE are there to liberate them? from whom? from themselves?

and who exactly asked us to liberate them?

Wake up man,

They are able to do it themselves and much better than we can ever do. I dont know what kind of logic you using , but your arguements are very illogical.

And I don't know "what" logic "you" are using, but it's flawed nonetheless. If the Iraqis could have gotten rid of Saddam on their own? Man I don't know what you're smoking....but I want some.

Something else you guys don't seem to get. GW is no war criminal. Saddam was. "He's" the one that broke the peace accords. At that point we were free to resume hostilities against him.

Would Allah allow Mecca to be nuked? If terrorists nuked a city in the U.K., U.S., France, India or Russia, in the name of Allah, then one possible response would be interesting - as a thought experiment at least. Suppose the country suffering the nuclear attack by the Jihadists announced that two days hence they planned to turn Mecca into a nasty radioactive crater, uninhabitable for the next ten thousand years. They were giving all the faithless the chance to get out. One might assume that if one truly believed in Allah, then one would believe that Allah would never allow HIS holy site to be nuked, right? So, what a way to test ones faith - in two senses at once...

One might assume that if one truly believed in Allah, then one would believe that Allah would never allow HIS holy site to be nuked, right? So, what a way to test ones faith - in two senses at once...

First we really cant assume anything about what "HE would do" in any given circumstances. He may allow it, you never know. didnt you hear that He sometimes acts in a mysterious way?

Second, this actually happened to His holy site in Mecca around the turn of the 6th century. Abraha, the King of Persia at the time, i think, decided to destroy that site since it was attracting merchants to Mecca away from his markets. He led a huge army spear -headed by a huge Elephant contingent that is capable of just flatenning anything in its path. They approached Mecca and the people there we scared of course and went to their Chief. that was Abul-Muttalib, the garndfather of prophet Mohammad. The man knew that they really had no chance against that army. he told his people, everyone takes all their possessions and stay in their homes and close their doors. They were very upset with their chief and said why are we going to do that? aren't we supposed to protect Allah's House? he answered: with what we have we can only defend and protect our houses, but HE can defend and protect His. and that was it.

When Abraha camped at the edge of Mecca for the night in preparation for the final assault in the morning, a huge scorching sand storm accompanied by huge flock of large birds attacked the camping army. There were no trace of them in the morning.

the incident was acctually used as the start of the Arabic Calender before it was replaced by the Islamic Calender after the death of the Prophet around the turn of the 7th Century

So, let us not push our luck. Testing Him is lethal.

Hate to break up your dream but you failed to notice one small little thing. Yes, we invaded Iraq, the war was over in 6 weeks and the occupation began. A year later they had their own government freely elected by the people. The elected officials invited us to stay until all the bad people trying to destroy the new leadership are gone. This means the occupation has been over since we were invited to stay. that was two or three years ago. The people trying to kill our troops are also trying to kill all the people that voted the leadership in power so it means the terrorist are in the minority. We are wanted there, and by the last poll taken of Iraqis we are wanted there by about 70% to 79% of the people. Two different polls were taken almost a month apart and the numbers hold true. We are wanted there but the people not just the politicians in power.

As a South African living in the Middle East I am often blase about the war in Iraq. It does not get my blood going like some of my fellow Joeusers. It is the Middle East I live in, I'll grant you , but I live peacefully here. However, to put my two cents in, I'll say that even if you put a million troops into Iraq you will not stabilise that country. There are too many hidden agendas, too many interniscene disagreements, too many elements fighting peace.

The country is as hopeless as with Saddam and, now, without him. I think Bush is wasting his time unless he knows something we don't. The Arab agenda is volatile, quick-tempered, culturally different and anti-American. Furthermore, it is inflamed by Al Quaeda, Sunni-Shia differences (do not under-estimate this), and a perception that the USA and UK (amongst others), have not delivered the promised land!

This war is not like the Vietnam War at all. This is even more hopeless because there is not one enemy ---there are 3 or 4 or more.

Good article John. Keep them coming!

I note that a similar situation, perhaps not quite so violent, but certainly having that potential, existed under the Roman Empire, which kept expanding as other countries or factions within those countries kept pleading for Rome's military assistance to settle their problems with the nasty neighbors or native troublemakers.

So you ended up with Yugoslavia under Tito, or Iraq under Saddam, a lid kept on the mess by shear brute force majure, but how long could it last?

Then, along came the Christians, who created a social/moral/ethical/legal umbrella that offered a place to anyone, regardless of ethnic heritage or past personal history. ALL were brothers under Christ and required by adherence to the Faith to renounce vendettas and forgive their neighbors.

Now I'm an athiest, but I note that the then non-Christian Roman authorities, after a time of paranoid reaction to the rise of a new and incomprehensible POWER, suddenly realized the potential for their own benefit and jumped on board with both feet.

Well, we can't expect the Muslims to convert to Christianity, and Christianity doesn't have that good a long term record anyway, but, noting that it did bring an era of relative peace for a while, why not analyze why and how it worked and see if we can come up with a secular, rational, replacement that doesn't rely upon mysticism, altruism or anything but hard-nosed good sense and self-interest.

As a first candidate, I suggest an explicit social contract, in which all signatories agree in writing and on record on the Net, that they will resolve their differences with all other signatories by means of some kind of rational binding arbitration, if nothing else will serve, or a common law jury trial, or whatever other method is agreed to by all the parties, but still under the authority of the mutually binding contract. Businesses who had signed on could offer a small discount for people who were signatories, once they realized that it might mean reduced costs in terms of expensive, unreliable, often corrupt state systems for dispute resolution.

It could snowball, and then, instead of stewing about some slight until it escalates into imagining that your neighbors are plotting to blow you up - and maybe they are as preemption! - you could walk over and talk to them and say, listen, do we have a real dispute, or are we just both being paranoid and feeding a stupid problem with our fear? If we do have a dispute, then I'm a signatory, so lets agree on mediation or arbitration. I want my local Imman to mediate for me. Do you want to do this? You choose your mediator and then they can choose someone they both agree on to judge the case discretely and with wisdom.

As with the goode and ancient Common Law, the major sanction would be outlawry, although in a dispute people would typically post bonds up front with the judge or court. You might win unjustly occasionally. You might lose unjustly on occasion. But it sure beats being blown up over nothing!

Yes, we invaded Iraq, the war was over in 6 weeks and the occupation began. A year later they had their own government freely elected by the people

you really must be kidding. isnt that what ALL occupiers do? get a puppet government elected and pretend that they are there by the approval of an elected government. comon now. whom you think are kidding? when saddam hussain got elected by 100% of the people he had a more cridible claim to his authority than you pretend that we have. Fake elections are as valid as elections "Under Occupation".

Be serious please. We are not in the security council here. there we can present that as we presented the proof of mobile biological wepons labs. ok?

We are wanted there? by the elected government? of course we are. who else would protect them. The script is known, very well known. An occupation, puppet government, occupation continues, till a coup that topples the government and starts kicking the occupiers out. Read it in all the histories of all occupations. USSR invasion and occpation of Afghanistan was the last episode.

ooh yes, the polls that shows we are wanted there. If you were an iraqi and were asked by an american polloster, would you say no? and same goes for people who are interviewed on TV, they can really say no we dont want the americans here? how suicidal you think they are? they will blow theselves to kill our troops but not for nothing.

you really must be kidding. isn't that what ALL occupiers do? get a puppet government elected and pretend that they are there by the approval of an elected government. c'mon now. whom you think are kidding? when Saddam Hussein got elected by 100% of the people he had a more credible claim to his authority than you pretend that we have. Fake elections are as valid as elections "Under Occupation".

"You're" the one that must be kidding! Your "so-called" puppet government is far from it. Do you understand the term? Here let me help:

The term puppet state has two distinct but related meanings. First, it refers to a state whose government depends on a foreign power for its existence and which closely follows the will of that foreign power in key policy issues (sometimes economic, sometimes strategic). Such a government is also known as a puppet regime. In this respect, puppet state is one of many terms that describe the subordination of one state to another in the international system. Second, the term refers to a state that has been created by the intervention of an external power in territory under the sovereignty of another state. In this respect, a puppet state is a secessionist state enabled and supported by an external power. Under these definitions, a puppet state either lacks democratic legitimacy (because its policies are determined elsewhere) or it lacks sovereign legality (because it was created in breach of the rules of sovereign succession). For these reason, the term puppet state can be useful if applied only in the modern world, that is the world in which states are presumed to be a reflection of the will of their people and in which war has been outlawed as means of formal territorial acquisition. For subordinate relations in pre-modern times, the terms vassal state and tributary state are preferable.

The US does NOT determine their internal policies! Never has, never will. The current Iraqi government was chosen by the Iraqi people, NOT the US. The candidates were chosen by the PEOPLE, and voted for by the PEOPLE! Or did you forget the purple fingers? "If" it were a "puppet government" like you say, then the violence would have been over. The current government does NOT kowtow to our whims or wishes. Best you do some more reading.

Are you accusing the United Nations of manipulating the series of elections in Iraq or Afghanistan? If so what proof do you have? You see no matter how much you mistrust the American government, the UN is not a puppet of the United States of America and the UN certified the elections. If that was faked by the US then why was the UN so hostile to the goals of the US? In short your arguments don’t hold water.



That Information was provided by Germany and France two countries that officials were being paid by Saddam to hinder our actions in the UN. The people in charge of those programs have admitted they had such things but don't know where Saddam sent them or if they are functioning today.

What we have is photo evidence that seemed to back up the intelligence provided by two nations that had mixed loyalties.



Neither poll was taken by any American orginazation. Both polls were done by European news organizations not American.

The current government does NOT kowtow to our whims or wishes

Neither poll was taken by any American orginazation. Both polls were done by European news organizations not Amer

What world you two guys live in. The fantasy world is a great place for both of you to be in. Happy fantasy.

you two talking as if you are in a diferent universe. the Europeans pollosters are trusted by Iraqis? ooh yes i forgot they opposed the invasion. like Italy, spain, poland, Britain ... oh yes Britain. very trusted by Iraqis.

Happy fantasy guys.

We are in deep trouble than what i thought. with thinking like that .... how can we ever do anything right.

no wonder the world is laughing at us. Thank you guys for that.

yes yes i know. you dont care what the world thinks. of course why should we care about that?

If WWII had been fought like this war (and Vietnam for that matter) has been fought, we would have lost and would have all been Germans by now.

Note that the Germans fought World War II in Russia exactly the way you want -- no mercy for the civilians, burn the whole town for one act of resistance, no innocents among the untermensch. They lost anyway, and saying it came back to bite them in the ass would be a wild understatement.