From one liberal to another, this was my favorite answer:

"The billions spent on homeland security and far-flung bombing campaigns haven't made the US any safer. With the money it wastes killing civilians abroad and chipping away at civil liberties at home, the US government could provide health insurance to all Americans."

P.S. Is there a disjointed.org group on Orkut? I just joined and was looking for one, but got bored. I'll have to figure Orkut out later.

I've never used Orkut.. what is it?

Its a friendsteresque thing that you have to be invited to. I think I just invited you. Let me know.

brette,

That's funny that you should quote that as your favorite answer. I found that to be a paragraph that was written intentionally to be stupid!

Dude:

What is stupid about it? Do you feel like attacking Iraq has protected you from terrorists? Do you enjoy freedoms being stolen from you by the Patriot act? If healthcare is not an issue for you, then certainly you are of privledge, because there are millions of Americans out there who cannot afford to take their children to the doctor because they have no healthcare.

How typical for a liberal to ask me how attacking Iraq has made me "feel". Explaining to you the benefits of having Saddam out of power (whatever the end result of the current quagmire) for the U.S. and the entire world would require having you process and synthesize an entire series of facts. I suspect my effort and energies would be wasted. Asfar as the Patriot Act goes, as a conservative with a libertarian streak, I must say I have always had my concerns. However, I have actully read the text of the statute, and there is nothing there that has stolen any of my freedoms, and I appreciate the fact that the act was sunsetted (to guard against abuses). At this point, I support it's renewal for another couple of years. I am not priveledged, but I find it amusing you assume so. I was without health care for several months while recently unemployed. I would have never dreamed of whining to the government to provide it. A government that has the power to give you everything you want, also has the power to take everything you have. I find the perils of a nanny-state to be much more frightening than those of any Patriot Act...

I like this web site. You guys are fun.

By the way Ryan, did you see my response to Microman's comments on the Bush press conference from a couple of weeks ago?

What an excellent way to defend the war.. by insulting my intelligence and not defending it at all. Brilliant.

As for healthcare: by priveledged I do not mean growing up with a silver spoon in your mouth. You have the ability to find work that will provide you with adequate healthcare, you are priveledged as I am in that respect. There are plenty of children (and adults) who grow up without any healthcare, not just a few months of no healthcare.

I don't need the government to babysit me, but I would rather see the US spend my tax dollars on healthcare than spend it on a war I do not support.

Amazing...I just received this update from a contact of mine in the Iowa National Guard who is serving in Baghdad about the condition of much of the country now, as opposed to before the war. Not that these are the main reasons we went, but whenever we are able to improve the lives of others it's a nice bonus. I didn't mean to insult you, but support the war or not, if you can't understand something so basic as how removing Sadam from power was a vast short term AND long term benefit for the safety and security of America and her allies, I am not going to fix that in a board posting...it's just that simple. What I can do is point out some of the tangible benefits from the Iraqi people, as reported by one of our fine soldiers (not one of the ones stripping and beating people in a prison, mind you). By the way...I agree that Calgary can go to hell.

* Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations.
* School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.
* Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur.
* The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster.
* The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.
* Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.
* The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.
* 100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war.
* Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place.
* Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city.
* Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.
* Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.
* Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.
* Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.
* Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs.
* An interim constitution has been signed.
* Girls are allowed to attend school.
* Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.

I knew some facts like these were coming, and they are good ones, don't get me wrong. They seem a little streched -- but I'll take them as fact for the sake of argument.

I cannot argue that there is no good to come out of removing Saddam. That being said, I will revert to an argument you've surely heard before. We did not go to Iraq for the purpose of 1) freeing the people, 2) creating a safer America. Had that been our reasoning, this war would not have been such a hard sell in the UN. Greedy US interests prevailed in creating this war and the world knows it.

There are plenty of repressed people and threatening regimes around the world, but we let that slide. Iraq on the other hand has a lot of oil and loads of opportunities to make Bush's friends richer.

To me, my opposition to the war has nothing to do with the end results, but everything to do with why we are there in the first place.

I'm sorry this is long...but it's necessary. If you want to believe that the rest of the world is altruistic and that they were taking some noble stand against U.S. greed...you are certainly entitled to your opinion. The bottom line is, if we fought this war for oil, we should all be paying .50 cents a gallon right now. Furthermore, the cost of Iraqi crude for the U.S. and her companies will ultimately be higher, especially once there is an independant government in place who's trade practices we will be less able to strong-arm without sanction and regulation(since there is no longer a brutal dictator who's human rights violations we can site). Yes, there are torturous regimes all over the world...but many fewer than 20 or 30 years ago thanks largely to U.S. power, influence and leadership. You can't over-throw every dictator at once, but is that some moral impediment from stopping once when you can? Or when it's in your interest as a nation? Especially the one who has violated treaties and U.N. Resolutions over and over again for 12 years, and who is weakened enough to take out with minimal losses (not to minimize each individual loss, but out losses have been small for such an amazing military achievement). Another 10 years, and with the loss of international will, Saddam (or whatever son would have been in charge at that time) would have been much stronger, likely invading another neighbor, and threatening the civilized nations of the western world once again.

Here are some facts on who would have benefitted from keeping Saddam in power: these were updated facts as of Feb. 28th, 2003...right before the war.

FRANCE
According to the CIA World Factbook, France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraq's imports. French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations.

Roughly 60 French companies do an estimated $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad annually under the U.N. oil-for-food program.

France's largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated a deal to develop the Majnoon field in western Iraq. The Majnoon field purportedly contains up to 30 billion barrels of oil.

Total Fina Elf also negotiated a deal for future oil exploration in Iraq's Nahr Umar field. Both the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields are estimated to contain as much as 25 percent of the country's reserves.

From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq's arms imports.

GERMANY
Direct trade between Germany and Iraq amounts to about $350 million annually, and another $1 billion is reportedly sold through third parties/countries.

It has recently been reported that Saddam Hussein has ordered Iraqi domestic businesses to show preference to German companies as a reward for Germany's "[F]irm positive stand in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq." It was also reported that over 101 German companies were present at the Baghdad Annual exposition.

During the 35th Annual Baghdad International Fair in November 2002, a German company signed a contract for $80 million for 5,000 cars and spare parts.

German officials are investigating a German corporation accused of illegally channeling weapons to Iraq via Jordan. The equipment in question is used for boring the barrels of large cannons, and is allegedly intended for Saddam Hussein's Al Fao Supercannon project.

RUSSIA
According to the CIA World Factbook, Russia controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq's annual imports. Under the U.N. oil-for-food program, Russia's total trade with Iraq totaled somewhere between $530 million and $1 billion for the six months ending in December of 2001.

According to the Russia's Ambassador to Iraq, Vladimir Titorenko, new contracts worth another $200 million under the U.N. oil-for-food program are to be signed over the next three months.

Soviet-era debt of $7 billion through $8 billion was generated by arms sales to Iraq during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.

Russia's LUKoil negotiated a $4 billion, 23-year contract in 1997 to rehabilitate the 15 billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq. Work on the oil field was expected to commence upon cancellation of U.N. sanctions on Iraq. The deal is currently on hold.

In October 2001, Salvneft, a Russian-Belarus company, negotiated a $52 million service contract to drill two oil fileds in southern Iraq; the Tuba field and the Suba-Luhais field.

In April 2001, Russia's Zaruezhneft company received a service contract to drill in the Saddam, Kirkuk, and Bai Hassan fields to rehabilitate the fields and reduce water incursion.

A future $40 billion Iraqi-Russian economic agreement, reportedly signed in 2002, would allow for extensive oil exploration opportunities throughout western Iraq.

Russia's Gazprom company over the last few years has signed contracts worth $18 million to repair gas stations in Iraq.

The former Soviet Union was the premier supplier of Iraqi arms. From 1981 to 2001 Russia has supplied Iraq with 50 percent of its arms.

CHINA
According to the CIA World Factbook, China controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq's annual imports.

China National Oil Company has negotiated a deal for future oil exploration in the Al Ahdab field in Iraq. Total estimate of the contract is unknown.

In recent years, the Chinese Aero-Technology Import-Export Company (CATIC) has been contracted to sell "meteorological satellite" and "surface observation" equipment to Iraq. This contract was approved by the U.N. oil-for-food program.

CATIC also won approval from the U.N. in July 2000 to sell $2 million worth of fiber optic cables. This and similar contracts approved were disguised as telecommunications gear. These cables can be used for secure data and communications links between national command and control centers and long-range search radar, targeting radar, and missile-launch units, according to U.S. officials. In addition, China National Electric Wire & Cable and China National Technical Import Telecommunications Equipment Company are believed to have sold Iraq $6. million and $15.5 million worth of communications equipment and other unspecified supplies, respectively.

According to a report from SIPRI, from 1981 to 2001, China was the second largest supplier of weapons and arms to Iraq, supplying over 18 percent of Iraq's weapon's imports.

Saddam was no threat to civilized nations. Like many dictators, he killed all of his good generals and leaders for fear they would overthrow him. I never understood why we got involved, but it clearly wasn't for either safety or altruistic goals. As Ryan said, there are many countries in as much or more need than Iraq and we do little or nothing for them. Moreover, we are no safer having played right in to Al Queada's hands -- they told Arab nations that we would attack for oil and it looks like we did.

I'm sorry, you're right! How could I have been so blind... looking at all those facts. What was I thinking?

Do you by chance remember the first Gulf War? You should ask the Kuwaitis whose homes and communitites were ravaged if they think Saddam was a threat to civilized nations. If we were in this for oil, why didn't we just finish the job the first time? The Bush family would have gotten richer then, and then Bush 43 wouldn't even have had to weather the preverbial name-through-the-muck that inevitably comes with any Presidential run just to invade Iraq so Dick Cheney could make the money he missed out on when he left Haliburton just to drag his name through the mud to be V-P. I mean, come on. I realize sometimes I sound very scathing and sarcastic, and I am sorry for that...but man I just can't believe some of the stuff I read on these message boards that is just complete nonsense, and I disagree with President Bush OFTEN. However I am grateful to live in a country where such discussions can freely take place (unlike Iraq under Saddam).

I am not arguing against the first gulf war. But certainly oil was an issue in the first war as well. You pose an interesting question though... why didn't we finish the job? We had much more support worldwide for the first war, we were already over there so it would have been a more cost effective time to do so...

This time around I agree with Brette -- Iraq was not posing enough of an immediate threat to anyone to justify such a rush to warfare.

Here are the facts I would rather live by:

The war has cost us $110B so far. Instead of using that money for warfare we could have invested that money in the American people.

First off, increase the fuel efficiency of our vehicles. Just a tiny fraction of that war money could have been used to stimulate hybrid R&D. If Detroit doesn't want to do it on their own, then make it worth their while. If we increased the fuel efficiency of our vehicles to 40mpg, we could cut the Iraq oil supply out of picture.

Second, provide healthcare and education for our people. $110B is enough to put 3 million students through college for 4 years. $110B is enough to provide 48 million children with health insurance for a year. A healthy and well educated population will do more for the US economy in the long run than a couple extra years worth of oil.

I believe this excerpt is appropriate for you Dude, and many other neocons.

"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on the battlefield."
-from George Orwell's essay "In Front of Your Nose"

Interesting arguments on fuel-efficiency as it relates to the Iraq war, Ryan. Maybe we'll hit that topic another time since I am becomeing a regular. Plus, I get the sense that we both have Michigan ties.

Thanks for the ego-boost MicroMan (I probably had it coming), but I assure you I am always open to sensible discussion...and even being proved wrong!

Would love to hear your response to my posting on your April 14th board about Bush supposedly "knowing about 9/11" before hand...or whatever it was.

I'm out for the day...its been a pleasure!

Haha. Yeah, I was born in Detroit. I'd have to say you have put up the best arguments I have seen on this site to support the other end of the argument. Generally I just see a bunch of back and forth bashing between liberals and conservatives. Look forward to you stirring up some more trouble here. ; )

You should think about getting an account, then you can post articles and really piss a bunch of people off. ; )

Missed your post from the April 13th post when you made it, but I'll repost it.

...and it's good to bump into a neoconservative that is open for sensible discussion, I can respect that.

I think I can respect you guys too. I used to go on sites like this all the time...but I'm almost 30 now and have become a bitter old man (haha).
Anyway, I'm sure my frustration was reflected in my initial attitude when I stumbled on your site, and decided to issue a few parting shots.

Then...you sucked me in. Smarter than the average liberals you are, and that's not an insult to liberalism. OK...yeah...I guess it is.

:)