hifisex: "You (like a lot of people who bring up this argument) try to have it both ways......you ask "where are they" and then bring up the point that the US sold them WMD (poisonous gas)....you can't have it both ways! "
The Kurds were gassed about 13 years ago. Apparently it got used up. Since Gulf War 1 there have been routine UN inspections... which Hans Blix said on the eve of this war, that there were none. Listen to the experts who have been inspecting the country for years. To this date the US has not found any WMD. So who's right?
hifisex: "They aren't in Fallujah simply as a point of retaliation....if that was the case they would use much larger munitions and fewer troops to "flatten an entire city"....they're there to find capture/kill Muqtada al-Sadr "
The US Military announced to all civilians of Fallujah to leave the city. What do you think this means? The US Military literally said, "we're going to flatten Fallujah in retalation for these horrible murders". Don't bother second guessing how the military would actually go about destroying the city, by using fewer troops bigger munitions, etc. You're no expert at that, they are. They announced to civilians to leave and they said they were going to flatten the city in retaliation. Just accept what the US Military said.
hifisex: "Would you prefer that the global terrorist network go unchecked????? Of course SOME of the Arab world will be angry with this....the US and Coalition forces are attempting to stop terrorism. "
SOME Arab countries? Have you had your head in the sand? ALL Arab countries have reacted strongly against this invasion. None of them supported it.... and certainly none of them were going to join "the coalition of the willing". Even Saudi Arabia refused to allow American troops to stage there before the war. And Turkey voted marginally for it, though it came with a big bucket of US concessions and lots of MONEY.
hifisex: "They're trying to stabilize the country after removing a two legged WMD (Hussein)....would you have preferred that they simply packed up and left. The country is rife with tribal disputes and various religious sects that without a significant independent force would be ready for a massive civil war. "
They're trying to stabilize a country the US has destabilized by destroying infrastructure and leaving a power vacuum, and having no plan for the peace - which leads to war. Saddam was no threat to anyone, and every country nearby knew it. They certainly were not a threat to the US by WMD, and the threat by terrorism was contentious. The country is rife with tribal disputes now, only because they can no longer be kept in check or oppressed. There were alternatives to war that the US was not interested in pursuing because they were in a big rush to get in there, even by lying to the world.
hifisex: "As I said before...if it was simply about oil then the US would have gone it alone and bombed the ever loving crap (maybe even used nukes) out of the entire region and then drill through the glass. "
Are you 9 years old?? "Nuke the entire region and then drill through the glass." You can not take dominance of any country by just military means. There is a combination of economic, diplomatic, and military power that is required. The military might of the US could not win a war against militarily inferior and starving Vietnamese. And they are losing this one too, because they are STUPID.
hifisex: "As far as the long term military presence....the US is still in Germany and the UK.....what are they leaching out of their countries?"
The UK wants US troops there to decrease their own troops. Germany wanted US troops there to help against a Soviet threat. You chose a poor comparison. In the case of Iraq, long term US military bases would keep the new Iraqi government in check with US aims and cheap oil prices. I would not be surprised if contracts for the drilling of oil were handed to one of the Bush family's oil companies.
hifisex: "what of the schools that have been built where girls are now FREE to attend"
You're very confused. Girls were always free to go to school in Iraq. Girls were not free to go to school in Afghanistan. Iraq did not follow the Shariah law as closely as the Taliban did, as the Saddam government was not particularly religious.
hifisex: "should the US and Coalition forces simply leave the country in shambles"
Of course not. The CIA funded Saddam to get him into power. The American government allowed the selling of chemical WMD to kill 100,000 Kurds. And now they've invaded and destroyed lots of infrastructure and killed 15000 Iraqis, most were civilians. The US gov should pay massive reparations, akin to what Germany was forced to pay France after World War 1. And while the US is paying it, the US should keep its troops there to keep the peace while other countries, France and Germany and Russia, etc., be allowed to go in to also keep the peace without having to negotiate with the US first.
The US should not be doling out contracts to American corporations and having it paid with any Iraqi resources. That's just 100% exploitation.
