I seem to remember a Democrat mantra of needing "thousands of body bags" for US soldiers 5.1 years ago. 

  MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe.

First off, were you born in 1980? (man, I'm getting old :p)

Okay, quickly:

Read any of the reports the U.S. government itself puts out on the make up of the insurgents in Iraq, only about 5% are foreign born.

Not buying that 5% number, but okay, I'll do some research and get back to you.

The Vietnam war resulted in the deaths of 2 million Vietnamese. So much for no wars resulting in millions of deaths.

I meant the current war, in Iraq. I should have included that, sorry. Yes, we engaged in a true quagmire some 40 years ago. Iraq has no resemblance to that war, especially in death/casualty numbers. That's all I was arguing.

The Iraq war has death total estimates in excess of half a million by some studies. Since our government never saw fit to do body counts we don't know for sure. Considering the ratio of wounded to dead U.S. soldiers it stands to reason that more than a million Iraqis have been wounded in this conflict.

Okay, "some studies" and "considering the ratio.... it stands to reason..." don't cut it. Give me some links, and I'll look at them.

Your feelings shouldn't be the basis of Iraq policy. Rational thoughts and actions based on the facts should be the basis of our policy. Saddam was not a threat to the United States. In the history of his country he never attacked us. At the most, and this is a stretch, he shot at U.S. airplanes from time to time enforcing the no fly zone over Iraq.

This is not my feelings. I was telling you how I see a much safer/free-er world post-Saddam. Arguments about pre-invasion are valid, but we're now 5 years post-invasion.

There were no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil from the first WTC bombing under Clinton to 9/11 under Bush. A longer time period than since 2005 which has made you feel safe.

Never said "terror attacks on U.S. soil". I was referring to worldwide. There were several major, coordinated/orchestrated attacks by al Queda throughout the 1990's, and a lot of their energy/resources went into the lead-up to 9/11. I believe the last al Quada-connected attack was 2003 or 2004. So far, so good.

You have no idea what the consequences of this Iraq war will be. It is a faith based assumption not born out of any facts that freedom and democracy will spread out of Iraq from this. None of us know what the repurcussions of this will be Nostrodomos.

Granted, no, I probably don't have an idea. And as you then stated, "none of us know...." you don't, either. Time will tell.

My take on things are not borne from just some "blind faith" in things. I have some statistics/facts to give me hope that this could turn out good, and so far, we are not clearly in more danger of terrorism now than we were 5 years ago, and I'm not buying that we've "lost our standing in the world" which I hear non-stop.

* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change

First, I neither cite nor accept Wikipedia as a reference. Not that it really matters. I never once stated who specifically created it, nor when it was created. I merely said it was a fiction writer's pipe dream. That statement stands, and you have tacitly accepted it when you wrote, "It is based off of a policy..." All fiction is based on something, yet it remains fiction.

As for my not watching (enough) Star Trek - I'll let you tell that to my wife. Don't pay any attention to me as I stand downwind of that exchange, lol.

R/
Clyde

"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC

So in short - Are you saying Iraq is not safer than it was a year ago?   If not then what is your point other than echoing the doom and gloom the media chooses to focus on?  The actual point Rich's article so clearly demonstrates.

bambys town

Go ahead and hang out here, wonder the streets at night.

Murder of Americans in all if Iraq is about equal to this one city.

<wake up>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !

IranianUranium<sleep>InfrastructureROFLMAO

Another pithy comment that doesn't address the actual issues. I am getting the impression you are a one trick pony.

Many of our wars were immoral resource wars for land and raw materials, the same immoral BS the Roman Empire was doing 2000 years ago that we all condemned in public school history classes. I have to admit my ignorance and lazyness (as I could look up the details right now thanks to the internet) about the Spanish American war and the exact details of WW1 other than the exhorbinant vengeful fees imposed on Germany after they lost which led to poverty which led to Hitler's rise to power.

In World War 2 we were attacked. Japan bombed our military bases in Japan.

I'm not saying countries shouldn't provide for a common defense though I think it should be made official and not up to the whim of the President at the time.

A world government composed of democracies where individual citizens of each country had the right to elect representatives of their choosing to this world government in a system like the House and Senate and all citizens got to vote on a President.

As I saw it this world government could fundamentally change the issue of nuclear deterrence as member states would not need to possess nukes anymore. They would be under control of the world government. This would encourage other countries, far more than invading and overthrowing Saddam, to become democracies so they can join this world government and be protected.

It was an idea I came up with on my own. 
If we can deny ONE man his freedom and send him to jail requiring the evidence to be beyond a reasonable doubt, doesn't it stand to reason we should have the same standard if not a higher one for war?

War affects the lives of millions of people. Hundreds of thousands routinely die in most wars that last any moderate amount of time.

My main thought was that the Media present the Casus belli as a court case.

Iraq stands accused of harboring dangerous weapons of mass destruction, they plead not guilty. Introduce the evidence including the Hussein Kamel testimony, the U.N. weapons inspectors testimony, etc.

The media doesn't make it easy for the average person who does not read a lot and gets their news from the boob tube to stay informed. While I read, most of my fellow citizens do not. I thought this might help keep people informed resulting in public opinion that more represents the facts and ignorant beliefs like Iraq being tied to 9/11 would get extinguished.

I'm not saying Congress needs to hold a court case to declare war. Though it would be nice if Congress still actually declared war rather than giving blank checks to Presidents and abdicating their responsibility.

Hussein Kamel was a son-in-law of Saddam Hussein who defected and left for Jordan.

In a January 25, 1999 report to the U.N. Security Council, UNSCOM
declared that the history of the Iraqi weapons inspections "must be
divided into two parts, separated by the events following the departure
from Iraq, in August 1995, of Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel." (http://en.wikipedia....)

He revealed the existence of Iraq's biological weapons programs that we did not know about. He revealed the locations where weapons were kept. He also revealed that all the weapons were destroyed after the first Gulf War.

He told inspectors "that after the Gulf War, Iraq destroyed all its
chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver
them," Barry wrote. All that remained were "hidden blueprints, computer
disks, microfiches" and production molds. The weapons were destroyed
secretly, in order to hide their existence from inspectors, in the
hopes of someday resuming production after inspections had finished.
The CIA and MI6 were told the same story, Barry reported, and "a
military aide who defected with Kamel... backed Kamel's assertions
about the destruction of WMD stocks." (http://www.fair.org/...)

You can read the transcript of Hussein Kamel as he debriefed UNSCOM here: (http://www.fair.org/...)

The problem with the 5-10% and missing paperwork is that it is impossible to prove a negative. It's like proving God does not exist. If Iraq did not properly document the destruction of the 5-10% of weapons but they did in fact destroy them, there is no way to prove they don't still exist. Yet without being able to proving the weapons no longer exist they would always be in violation of the U.N. sanctions.

Our leaders knew this and they knew a significant proportion of information we got on Iraq's WMD programs was through Hussein Kamel, the same man who was claiming they have all now been destroyed.

While I wouldn't give Saddam the benefit of the doubt on this I think it is reason enough to not launch a war there because 5-10% of their WMD is unaccounted for. Furthermore additional military action against Iraq for violation of sanctions was required to be approved by the Security Council. Remember that big bruhaha about the 2nd resolution we were trying to get to allow military action in Iraq. We wire-tapped and spied on fellow U.N. security council members to see how they were going to vote and when we realized we would not have the votes we decided not to vote on the 2nd resolution and just invade.

Bush has stated Iraq wasn't behind 9/11 but the public at large is easily confused. When they hear Iraq being mentioned in the same speech as Al-Qaeda and being related to the war on terror people at large got the facts mixed up.

This article was about the media and how it has given an unfavorable light to the Iraq war. I am merely trying to point out that the media hasn't done their job of informing and educating the public in the beginning. Part of education is knowing what your students are struggling on and misinformed about and educating them on their misbeliefs.

If the media is so liberal, they would have done that. The media, by and large, isn't liberal or conservative, it is driven by the dollar. They exist to return the maximum amount of money back to the shareholder. When Bush was a popular President, his policies received little scrutiny including his policy on removing Saddam from power and the vast majority of the people interviewed by the MSM before the war reflected his policies.

Exactly Up...

All you have to do for just a couple of examples rf is go to Noel Sheppard's blog posts on the environment about a week ago with the left using the children just for the environment, they are outrageous...I can remember 'The Daisy' commercial from way back...it goes on and on...there is no comparison...

You can look them up rf...right here on this site.

Please link commercials/ads the right has used that are even comparable.

I have to run, but will check back later. 

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

We can't have that can we?

Why? The children we must keep the children from seeing this stuff.

Conservatives by far use children more on that issue than liberals.

I can't stand liberals and conservatives who can't recognize that they are hypocrits with double standards. That they rail against the other "team" for something they've done and then go do it themselves back against the other "team" and yet never see it as the same issue.

The issue isn't whether or not it is possible to use children in a particular instance for a pet cause, it was just do liberals and conservatives use children to push their agendas. The answer is a resounding yes for both. And when liberals say we don't but conservatives do they are being hypocrites. When conservatives say we don't but liberals do they are being hypocrites.

A previous poster implied that the parents brought their daughter to an anti-war rally, using their daughter to try and sway public opinion.

To point out that parents often bring their children to anti-abortion rallies, in an attempt to use their children to try and sway public opinion isn't an oxymoron.

Its the same damn thing and only a blind man couldn't see that.