<a href='http://www.usmc.mil' target='_blank'>USMC</a>

CAMP FALLUJAH, Iraq(May 22, 2004) -- Marines arrived in Kharma to a sea of smiles and waving hands from Iraqi schoolchildren May 22.

It was a sign of the distinct difference Marines of 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment are making here.

Marines visited a school in Kharma to pass out school supplies, toys and other items in an effort to further cement their relationship with the citizens of Kharma. It was the latest in a series of projects Marines conducted here and one that's showcasing 1st Marine Division's "no better friend" efforts.

"It turned out to be a good day," said Maj. Lawrence J. Kaifesh, a 36-year-old civil affairs Marine Team Leader for 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment from Chicago.

"I wanted to make sure the school supplies would get to kids who would appreciate it," added Kaifesh, a Chicago Marine.

Kaifesh and his Marines delivered more than 1,500 book bags filled with school supplies to Kharma students. The supplies were donated to Marines to pass out to Iraqis from Spirit of America, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit organization.

The donations included book bags with school supplies, Frisbees, soccer balls and toys. There were also items for the city as a whole, including toys, medical supplies and fire-fighting gear.

"It's always a good thing to help people, but especially kids who are caught in the middle," said Sgt. Jose A. Orozco, a 30-year-old Los Angeles Marine with the civil affairs team.

The outreach effort to Kharma is focused to dispel any lingering hostilities that emerged while Marines fought terrorist here in April. Kharma was the site of fierce fighting, with Marines killing more than 100 terrorists.

Now, Marines brandish gifts instead of weapons, demonstrating to the Iraqi citizens their fight was against those who brought fear and intimidation and not against the local citizens, Kaifesh explained.

Still, donations in this city weren't limited to school supplies. Medical equipment was also purchased to improve capabilities at local clinic. Two new x-ray machines, a dental chair, medical supplies were given to the Iraqis as well as renovations conducted on the clinic, Kaifesh said.

It's all part of a concentrated effort that's produced tangible results.

"A youth center and a ribbon-cutting ceremony for an Internet café was held last week," he said.

More Internet connections and a communications center are currently in the planning stages to be built in Kharma.

"We've only been here three weeks, but we've made some pretty good progress and we'll continue to do so," Kaifesh explained.

Kaifesh said that within the last few weeks, Marines fixed 11 schools and fully restored six water purification plants that will deliver potable water to the entire city.

The change in the city is drastic compared to early April when the area was engulfed in the fighting that erupted in nearby Fallujah.

"Now a month later, the ICDC and Iraqi Police are on the streets, shops are open and the streets are bustling again," said Capt. Jamie M. McCall, a 29-year-old from Wilmington, Del.

"This town has changed dramatically, because they wouldn't look or wave at us," added McCall, the battalion's staff judge advocate. "Now they do. It's remarkable."

Kaifesh said that while not on the road searching for new developments, he keeps busy at base camp dealing with city officials and village leader.

"We're meeting with council members all the time," he said. "We want to take care of these folks as much as possible."

Kaifesh and his Marines still have a tough schedule ahead of them. Progress is being made, but they are still wary of occasional attacks from roadside bombs and small-arms fire. Still, progress is being made and concrete plans are being worked for further improvements for Kharma.

"Right now we have about 200 claims and over 40 projects that are in one stage or another," he said. "We're in Phase 1, which consists of water, electricity, sanitation and healthcare."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what it's all about. 1/5...the best...IMO.

Don't let Oddball see this

Do you morons realize were in a s h i t storm? Keep drinkin the kool-aid boys. It's all roses and smiles... roses and smiles.

Yeah, don't you morons realize we should be getting our info from anti-Bush leftists and people like Dogger instead of people that are actually there? Oh, the NERVE of some people. :rolleyes:

Had a democrat waged this war in the manner Bush and the junta have, we'd be seeing the same images. One day torture and mistreatment to Americans' beheadings. The next day propaganda and polished images of doo-gooding and in the meantime, the Republicans would be all over that democratic prez. and the war supporters.

RebelKev, you are not there. We could easily argue that the your info on this war comes from anti-DNC rightists.

Even if we are good to some over there, it does not justify our intervention and military invasion. It in no way corrects the wrongs commited. It in no way justifies our position in the world as the supreme subsidizor and protector of autonomous nations.

Respect for other nations is American heritage, generally speaking. Respect for other nations' autonomy that is.

Establishing a democracy (if it were that easy) in that nation will not correct wrongs commited and it will not justify invasion.

To the provider of the link posted: The USMC is not an objective source of info, hence the term propaganda.

Propaganda has long been an outrage among many military men, including George H.W. Bush when he went off to fight the Japanese. He claimed the "less intelligent" men of his outfit by the anti-Japanese demonizations eat it up, but the college educated can see past it for what it is.

KlutzDio I Wrote:Had a democrat waged this war in the manner Bush and the junta have, we'd be seeing the same images. One day torture and mistreatment to Americans' beheadings. The next day propaganda and polished images of doo-gooding and in the meantime, the Republicans would be all over that democratic prez. and the war supporters.

RebelKev, you are not there. We could easily argue that the your info on this war comes from anti-DNC rightists.

Even if we are good to some over there, it does not justify our intervention and military invasion. It in no way corrects the wrongs commited. It in no way justifies our position in the world as the supreme subsidizor and protector of autonomous nations.

Respect for other nations is American heritage, generally speaking. Respect for other nations' autonomy that is.

Establishing a democracy (if it were that easy) in that nation will not correct wrongs commited and it will not justify invasion.

To the provider of the link posted: The USMC is not an objective source of info, hence the term propaganda.

Propaganda has long been an outrage among many military men, including George H.W. Bush when he went off to fight the Japanese. He claimed the "less intelligent" men of his outfit by the anti-Japanese demonizations eat it up, but the college educated can see past it for what it is.

So, is the USMC brainwashed? I only ask because on another thread someone used an Army General. Is it only "propaganda" when you disagree with it? Or, as I stated, is the Clancy-Zinni book propaganda as well?

I also want to ask, after several resolutions passed by the UN and Saddams refusal to live up to the treaty he signed......what should have been done about him? Also, how many conflicts has the UN actually been successful in?

KlutzDio I Wrote:Even if we are good to some over there, it does not justify our intervention and military invasion. It in no way corrects the wrongs commited. It in no way justifies our position in the world as the supreme subsidizor and protector of autonomous nations.

Respect for other nations is American heritage, generally speaking. Respect for other nations' autonomy that is.

Establishing a democracy (if it were that easy) in that nation will not correct wrongs commited and it will not justify invasion.

The justification for war was that the state government of Irag was sponsoring groups that waged war against the United States. This government was also holding chemical weapons and had a history of using them on the people it governed.
The story above shows the respect that America has for Iraq and the people who live there. All supplies handed out were taken from donations of the American people.
Establishing a democracy may not correct all the wrongs that occured under Saddam Hussein but it is a start towards an economically stable and healthy Iraq.

Yes the above story may be propaganda. Hopefully, it will work and the image that Americans are heartless and occupationalist will decay.

RebelKev Wrote:So, is the USMC brainwashed? I only ask because on another thread someone used an Army General. Is it only "propaganda" when you disagree with it? Or, as I stated, is the Clancy-Zinni book propaganda as well?

I also want to ask, after several resolutions passed by the UN and Saddams refusal to live up to the treaty he signed......what should have been done about him? Also, how many conflicts has the UN actually been successful in?

I never said the USMC is brainwashed. You really shouldn't jump to conclusions.

The USMC, along with other branches of the military, federal and state goverment and various businesses have a public relations department charged with sanitizing messages for public consumption.

Keep in mind the job Marines are trained for. They are trained to be killers, now let me see your warface! Bullsh*t, sound off like you got a pair.

The business of the military is to wage war, that is what they do. They will advise against dangerous and unnecessary wars, which has been done to a certain degree before and during the current conflict.

Is it only propaganda when you disagree with it, RebelKev? How many times have I read the words "liberal propaganda" come out in your posts?

Fact is, Kev, I seek out information and many times I take to heart what I hear that I disagree with. I take it to heart and then search out information, usually in the form of gov. docs and other primary source data. 80% of the time, I discover that the Bush-junta claims are misleading, outright false or half-truths. I also discover equivocations and fallacies of division, which is using similar terminology in different ways designed to cloud the meaning of a statement.

I realize the left does this as well, that is why I watched with interest when Kerry's Vietnam record was criticized by former officers and NCO's who served with him. It deconstructed what I had believed about Kerry vis-a-vis Vietnam at that point.

Sometimes I wish the Bush-junta were correct in their statements, policies and judgements. It is a simple view that they offer of very complex circumstances, however, their view rarely holds much water.

The U.N. also passed a resolution that stated the U.S. does not have the U.N. mandate, blessing or whatever to invade Iraq. And then Bush said that we don't have to look toward any other governing body to "protect" our own lands, institutions, gov. people, customs, culture, etc.

But we weren't in danger from the Iraqis to begin with. The Bush-junta and general pro-invasion argument was a.) Iraq was a threat to the USA, and b.) their military was weak and any invasion would be swift, along with c.) the Iraqis want our help and now we are finding out that 'c' came from ultimately one source, Chilabi, who is now discredited in the eyes of the ruling American junta.

Truman and Ike called Korea a successful intervention. The U.N. successfully established the nation of Israel. The U.N. successfully ridded Saddam from Kuwait, albeit with American wherewithal.

Please provide Saddam's treaty violations.

Also, consider that Gen. Sanchez has been relieved after Rummie defended his character and service publicly. What do you make of this?

Fanatical, I'll answer your post shortly.

Fanatical Wrote:The justification for war was that the state government of Irag was sponsoring groups that waged war against the United States. This government was also holding chemical weapons and had a history of using them on the people it governed.
The story above shows the respect that America has for Iraq and the people who live there. All supplies handed out were taken from donations of the American people.
Establishing a democracy may not correct all the wrongs that occured under Saddam Hussein but it is a start towards an economically stable and healthy Iraq.

Yes the above story may be propaganda. Hopefully, it will work and the image that Americans are heartless and occupationalist will decay.

Iraq and terrorist groups--unsubstantiated. I think N. Korea has more ties to terrorism than did Saddam and the Iraqis. I think that many terrorist groups would have had religious differences with Saddam, in addition to finding him untrustworthy and scared of him.

A report I read last night said an estimated 18,000 terrorists currently reside in some 60 nations. Are we going to invade these lands with National Guard and reservist divisions?

Well, until we find these chemical weapons, we are still in danger of these since the pro-war argument maintains that these chem. weapons endangered Americans, i.e. drones flying over here and unleashing chem. agents on the American population centers.

Since Iraq is a terrorist haven now that we militarily control that nation, and since the chem. weapons have not been discovered, Americans are at an increased risk of these weapons. The policy, in this regard, has failed immensely.

A general policy of warfare, post-invasion, is to foment alliances with locals who may be sympathetic and therefore they will cooperate. Generally, Americans have long done this when invading, South Vietnam notwithstanding.
The Nazis, on the other hand, invaded lands to enslave the local populations. They extended little if any aid or friendship, unless it served their ends of rounding up those with a modicum of authority or influence among their own population. Hitler drastically failed in this endeavor, and in the regular Reich army (not the SS) his generals pleaded with him for a different policy.

Economically stable Iraq is far off in becoming reality considering that 65-70% of their population is suffering from unemployment. Iraqis have maintained that they don't care for a universal suffrage system of representative government. Women, many Iraqis say (including female Iraqis) don't have the moral integrity to decide who should govern or which referendum initatives are correct.
The Bush-junta employed scholars fluent in Iraqi and middle eastern culture prior to the war. They submitted a report to the president and his advisors that outlined various caveats toward a democratic Iraq. Of these scholars, who were summarily fired after pointing out their caveats, many said a democratic, tri-partite Iraq was a more feasible outcome of reconstruction in the post-war setting.

Improving the American image is contingent upon establishing a success story out of the mess 'o potamia (thanks Jon Stewart) we have their now. I sincerely hope that this can be achieved because I have no ill-feelings toward the Iraqis or Islamists, although I disagree with the majority of their cultural and religious ideals.

When images of bombed out villages and bloody children and civilians emerge, as these images do in wartime, it damages our credibility in a region where we have ultimately no credibility to begin with. As long as we arbitrarily support the Israeli state and their program of genocide and occupation, as long as we support Kuwaiti, Syrian, Jordanian and Saudi ruling factions, the masses of Arabs will not support us and will always see us as you described because these ruling factions take our aid given to them, spend it on themselves and then tell their oppressed peoples that the U.S. is the cause of their military. Saudi Arabia is a closed society, as is Jordan and Syria. To a lesser extend Egypt is a closed society where a strict control over information is the norm.

One thing often left out of many characterizations of the Arab world, i.e. Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, "palestine" or the occupied territory, etc. is these lands have an abundant and vibrant Christian community, i.e. the Chaldean Christians who are second-class citizens under the totality of oppression in these lands. They are more oppressed than the rank-and-filed oppressees. The Chaldean Christians are somewhat distinctively different from Texas-style evangelicalism, but I think we should foment relationships with these Arabs in order to help improve what credibility we may have over there.

KlutzDio I Wrote:

Fanatical Wrote:The justification for war was that the state government of Irag was sponsoring groups that waged war against the United States. This government was also holding chemical weapons and had a history of using them on the people it governed.
The story above shows the respect that America has for Iraq and the people who live there. All supplies handed out were taken from donations of the American people.
Establishing a democracy may not correct all the wrongs that occured under Saddam Hussein but it is a start towards an economically stable and healthy Iraq.

Yes the above story may be propaganda. Hopefully, it will work and the image that Americans are heartless and occupationalist will decay.

Iraq and terrorist groups--unsubstantiated. I think N. Korea has more ties to terrorism than did Saddam and the Iraqis. I think that many terrorist groups would have had religious differences with Saddam, in addition to finding him untrustworthy and scared of him.

A report I read last night said an estimated 18,000 terrorists currently reside in some 60 nations. Are we going to invade these lands with National Guard and reservist divisions?

Well, until we find these chemical weapons, we are still in danger of these since the pro-war argument maintains that these chem. weapons endangered Americans, i.e. drones flying over here and unleashing chem. agents on the American population centers.

Since Iraq is a terrorist haven now that we militarily control that nation, and since the chem. weapons have not been discovered, Americans are at an increased risk of these weapons. The policy, in this regard, has failed immensely.

A general policy of warfare, post-invasion, is to foment alliances with locals who may be sympathetic and therefore they will cooperate. Generally, Americans have long done this when invading, South Vietnam notwithstanding.
The Nazis, on the other hand, invaded lands to enslave the local populations. They extended little if any aid or friendship, unless it served their ends of rounding up those with a modicum of authority or influence among their own population. Hitler drastically failed in this endeavor, and in the regular Reich army (not the SS) his generals pleaded with him for a different policy.

Economically stable Iraq is far off in becoming reality considering that 65-70% of their population is suffering from unemployment. Iraqis have maintained that they don't care for a universal suffrage system of representative government. Women, many Iraqis say (including female Iraqis) don't have the moral integrity to decide who should govern or which referendum initatives are correct.
The Bush-junta employed scholars fluent in Iraqi and middle eastern culture prior to the war. They submitted a report to the president and his advisors that outlined various caveats toward a democratic Iraq. Of these scholars, who were summarily fired after pointing out their caveats, many said a democratic, tri-partite Iraq was a more feasible outcome of reconstruction in the post-war setting.

Improving the American image is contingent upon establishing a success story out of the mess 'o potamia (thanks Jon Stewart) we have their now. I sincerely hope that this can be achieved because I have no ill-feelings toward the Iraqis or Islamists, although I disagree with the majority of their cultural and religious ideals.

When images of bombed out villages and bloody children and civilians emerge, as these images do in wartime, it damages our credibility in a region where we have ultimately no credibility to begin with. As long as we arbitrarily support the Israeli state and their program of genocide and occupation, as long as we support Kuwaiti, Syrian, Jordanian and Saudi ruling factions, the masses of Arabs will not support us and will always see us as you described because these ruling factions take our aid given to them, spend it on themselves and then tell their oppressed peoples that the U.S. is the cause of their military. Saudi Arabia is a closed society, as is Jordan and Syria. To a lesser extend Egypt is a closed society where a strict control over information is the norm.

One thing often left out of many characterizations of the Arab world, i.e. Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, "palestine" or the occupied territory, etc. is these lands have an abundant and vibrant Christian community, i.e. the Chaldean Christians who are second-class citizens under the totality of oppression in these lands. They are more oppressed than the rank-and-filed oppressees. The Chaldean Christians are somewhat distinctively different from Texas-style evangelicalism, but I think we should foment relationships with these Arabs in order to help improve what credibility we may have over there.

Klutz!! I respect your opinions and your views on Islamic culture are well researched and thought out; however, chemical weapons have been found:
<a href='http://www.americandaily.com/item/5772' target='_blank'>Chemical Weapons Found In Iraq</a>

UCBearcats1125 Wrote:Don't let Oddball see this

I guess Oddball has not seen this yet

Why would anyone be offended by Americans doing good? If you have some misguided notion that leftists are cheering when bad things happen to our troops, and booing when they do good things, then you've really got a pretty warped view, my friend.

The fact remains, though. This was an optional war. We opted to engage in it, not for the reasons our president stated (the mushroom cloud speech, remember?), but for reasons of profit and empire.

Besides, now that we've changed our reason for being there (since there's no creditable link between al Quayder and Iraq, according to Dubya himself), we may actually be running the wrong way with regards to the "war on terror."

----------
Memo on the Status Report on the War on Terrorism




May 25, 2004




To: Interested Parties
From: Robert O. Boorstin




The U.S. war in Iraq has helped to revitalize and motivate the al Qaeda network and risks to Westerners have increased. That's the conclusion of a new report released by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. This is particularly important given the president's invoking of the global war on terrorism to justify the administration's actions in Iraq.




Highlights from Institute's annual Strategy Survey are given below. A summary is available here. 



Al Qaeda fully functioning, growing. "The Madrid bombings in March 2004 suggested that al Qaeda had fully reconstituted, set its sights firmly on the U.S. and its closest Western allies in Europe, and established a new and effective modus operandi that increasingly exploited local affiliates." Furthermore, al Qaeda still has a functioning leadership despite the deaths or capture of key figures. Al Qaeda has more than 18,000 potential terrorists in more than 60 nations around the world.



Iraq used as al Qaeda recruiting tool. Iraq has become the new magnet for al Qaeda's recruiting efforts. Up to 1,000 Islamic fighters from foreign nations have infiltrated Iraqi territory, where they are co-operating with Iraqi insurgents. "In counter-terrorism terms, the intervention has arguably focused the energies and resources of al-Qaeda and its followers." Progress against al Qaeda "is likely to accelerate only with currently elusive political developments that would broadly depress recruitment and motivation."



Iraq has split the coalition. The war in Iraq has diluted "the global counter-terrorism coalition that appeared so formidable following the Afghanistan intervention in late 2001." "Politically, it split the U.S. and major continental European powers, leaving the United Kingdom uncomfortably in the middle, and induced uncertainty in other governments about the extent of any contribution to the post-conflict effort."



Failure in Iraq would be a strategic nightmare. "A failed Iraqi state would be a strategic nightmare for the U.S. and the West… It is key to regional security - and the stability of the international system - that the U.S. and its allies get Iraq right." "The U.S. is realizing the awful truth that the first law of peacekeeping is the same as the first law of forensics - every contact leaves a trace. Unfortunately, too many bad traces have been left recently, and many good ones will be needed for the U.S. to recover its reputation, its prestige and therefore effective power."

Robert O. Boorstin is the senior vice president for national security at the Center for American Progress.

(more liberal propaganda, I know! :laugh: )

Nice Link, let me guess all the anti americans around here will tell us how the govt lies and how that website is just propaganda its all a terrible lie.

We are single handedly rebuilding that nation right now, the fact is life for most Iraqis has improved since before the war last year. It is an unfortunate minority who are living in the more hostile regions occupied by the enemy forces and terrorists who continue to suffer.

By anti-Americans, I guess you mean "leftists"?

The government does lie. So what. Other organizations of all political stripes choose to paint the picture with their own broad strokes. My feeling is if you read all the different view points then the truth will fall somewhere in the middle.

Your post (and the original link) still fail to answer the question of WHY it's so important for us to engage in nation-building in Iraq? There are certainly other countries who need our humanitarian assistance much more than they do.

And if we're there to offer humanitarian aid, whither the mushroom cloud over an American city argument?

Still waiting. . . :snore:

Quote:Dogger Posted: May 25 2004, 08:29 AM&nbsp;
Do you morons realize were in a $ # ( + storm? Keep drinkin the kool-aid boys. It's all roses and smiles... roses and smiles.

Quote:KlutzDio I Posted: May 25 2004, 10:43 AM&nbsp;
&nbsp; Had a democrat waged this war in the manner Bush and the junta have, we'd be seeing the same images. One day torture and mistreatment to Americans' beheadings. The next day propaganda and polished images of doo-gooding and in the meantime, the Republicans would be all over that democratic prez. and the war supporters.

Quote:joebordenrebel Posted: May 27 2004, 10:53 AM&nbsp;
The fact remains, though. This was an optional war. We opted to engage in it, not for the reasons our president stated (the mushroom cloud speech, remember?), but for reasons of profit and empire.

Sounds like I may have offended some by providing the story.

There has been a serious improvement in the elimination of terrorists, and quality of life of the Iraqi population. There are now Women's Abuse shelters. The first ever in the country. A covered bridge, only one...he, he. Reinforced banks. There are Iraqi's living in MUD huts. Soon, these should be living in real buildings. No framing like Tudor homes. Inadequate plumbing and electrical supplies. Must houses linked themselves into the electrical lines when available. Oh, and some have Asian style toilets.<<not that that's a bad thing. I guess you missed the part where our troops were handing out Humanitarian MRE's and Water like it was cool.

It's funny when posters mention civilian casualties. They would lead you to assume that it was our bombs and bullets hitting every one. A few maybe, but those ill trained Iraqi regulars, and the now insurgents and rebel militia are very bad shots.

The truth in itself is not propaganda, only when it is blown out of proportion is it propaganda.

As for humanitarian aid, I'll bring up some figures shortly.

Read a little about a concept called the "3 block war." It may shed light on your war to humanitarian questions.

Fanatical,

First of all, the story linked is an op-ed column, not a news story if that means anything to you. The difference being that a news story should not contain statements of opinion left unsupported with hard evidence. Also, the use of the first person "I" should also not be used. A news story is, in theory of course, report the accounts/events as witnessed by the reporter(s). It should also, in theory, present the other side(s) or offer different perspective of the accounts/events. Reading the linked article, the writer was trying to persuade his readers that 1.) chem weapons have been found, 2.) the U.S. mission is justified based on his assumption that chem. weapons have been found, and 3.) those who disagree with his argument are not experts at all.
The writer, furthermore, failed to show exactly why the one round of chem. weapons capable shell was a threat to the entire United States prior to the March '03 invasion.
While the shell was employed against U.S. forces, the writer ignored the fact had U.S. forces not invaded, the shell would not have been a threat to any American.
The writer did not mention the fact the U.N. voted down the invasion, yet the U.S. embarked upon a policy of war based on resolutions from a body the U.S. considers untrustworthy.

An op-ed piece, on the other hand, takes liberty with the news events, current events, policies, etc. of the times. The prime responsibility of the op-ed piece is to argue for a position, policy, or to discredit other positions and policies. It's goal is to convince people to change their minds, or support whatever the argument is or concerns.

One shell does not constitute massive amounts of "threatening" material, that is, threatens the U.S. How is this more threatening and urgent compared to the North Koreans? Compared to other evil dictators in the world who may possess Sarin?

Now, no doubt Saddam had chem. weapons, had WMD's and until we sieze all of these, to avoid threats, as the Bush-junta calls them, we are still at danger--if the Bush-junta platform is correct. Therefore, the military has utterly failed and responsibility lies with the president and the main planning to go into Iraq and get these weapons before used against us (and how they could use these weapons against us, before our military was in-country, is a mystery).

Duke, I don't think you've offended anyone. I consider your attempt at sarcasm to be a very bad attempt indeed.

This is not something offensive at all and I don't see how you could claim me or anyone else was offended. I was not offended the first time I heard about the military's outreach programs so many months ago. I, moreover, did not take offense when learning about the U.S. military setting up hospitals to care for the diseased of South Vietnam during our first years of warfare with those peoples.

It's common to feed the local population when invading another nation. You don't want mass unrest from hungry folks after an invasion, and invasion will certainly lead to that because it disrupts the day-to-day normalcy.

I think what bothers most about civilian casualties is that it is a normal part of war. Until warfare can be isolated from the civilian community (which will likely be never) then warfare is a really bad aspect of life.

Humanitarian concerns are wonderful and that would have made a wonderful justification for war. The Bush-junta, however, pushed the "threat" issue and contradicted their policy in the process. Iraq, they said back in Jan-March '03, is a threat that must be stopped immediately, but the war will be effortless because the Iraqis want us to intervene in their nation's affairs.

What Bush should have done is argue for war based on a dire humanitarian need in that nation as the ONLY reason for invasion, and hopefully in the process would have ousted Saddam (a given) and siezed is stockpile of WMDs that he chose not to use against the invading forces.

But Bush did not do that. Bush, instead claimed that we needed to pre-empt an attack they were planning against us that would put a "mushroom cloud" over an American city. The Bush-junta argued the "threat" version because the same argument will be used to wage war against another nation after the re-election. The Bush-junta policy set a precedent.

Now I pose this question to you who think Iraq is getting better and the U.S. military is there solely for benevolent reasons.

1. If this is so, then why do so many Iraqis dislike us to the point they take up arms against our people over there?

2. If the Iraqis were waiting for our intervention, then why do they continually hold massive displays against our forces?

3. Why did we discredit the man (Chilabi) who said the Iraqis wanted us to intervene?

4. If the Iraqis love our humanitarian aid, then it would serve to reason that they would not bomb our folks, not shoot at them, not demonstrate against our soldiers, not intimidate them, etc. How do you explain all of these actions on the part of the Iraqis?

5. Why did it take the U.S. military to set up schools and give out food? Why couldn't the Red Cross have done that to begin with, prior to invasion?

Look at this analogy:

Suppose you and your family lives in an area with absolutely deplorable conditions, such as no schools, no food, no jobs and daily some armed bands come by your shanties and shoots rounds of bullets at you just to scare the b'Jesus out of you and your family.

You wish things were better, but you and yours are absolutely powerless to change things.

One day, without much explanation, it stops. Then a new group comes in. A man approaches you and you are at first scared. He gives you some food. It's different from what you are accostomed to, but it's damn good. You and yours soon develop a taste for it.

Several weeks later, after the men come back repeatedly to do things for y'all. The same man comes back to you and says he has set up a school for the little ones and asks you if you care to send your kids there. You are elated and your kids begin going to school.

Obviously things are getting better, right? No more bands of thugs come shoot at you just to scare you, right? Then, it is logical to assume that you and your family isn't going to act against the new group, right? It would be counter productive to do so, right?

If our military guys are so good, our intentions so benevolent, then someone has to explain why so many Iraqis are shooting, bombing and intimidating our people over there!! What conditions could possibly lead to this action on part of the Iraqis given that Americans are so benevolent toward them?

Dooky,

The only offense I've taken is by your typical lazy Con thinking. But, as I consider the source, it really doesn't get me worked up like, oh, say, logical arguments seem to get you and yours worked up.

We're doing good for us. Yipee. I'm proud of our nation-building. But I still have some concerns.

The president and his cabal have requested upwards of 201 billion (with a 'B') for war-related costs.

Compare that with the 62b in vererans' benis.

Or the 34b in elementary or secondary education.

Or the 30b for natural resources and the environment.

Is Iraq really that much more important to you than your fellow Americans' welfare?

http://www.endthewar.org