Bush's war on Iraq

[Al-Kindi]

Your human rights argument smells of anti US propaganda along with your argument that the US government sold anything to the Iraqi governemnt. The US governemnt approved the sale of Dual Use items to Iraq which individually are innocent products. The government did not sell the products, it was a few small companies within the US who were either disbanded or prosecuted for selling said items. The products that were sold were DUAL use products. Some of the products in question were things like computer equipment, pestacides, bacteria cultures (for research purposes) and some precision manufactoring equipment. We did not sell them any WMD's or weapons as some claim.
interesting how people bend and bend well documented(and by ｴhisｴ own nation co-signed) facts untill they have painted a picture they feel is right, we are all guilty of that but you are extremely naive if you believe the things you justed typed.
Another thing about your human rights arguments. How much time in prison does an Insurgent spend for beheading and killing civilians?
well in the Iraq before you invaded(this includes the Iraq before saddam) people who beheaded civilians actually got the death penalty.
Did you know that the people who were involved in Abu Gharib are serving time in prison?

Yes, I heard that they got 2 years. that ｴladyｴ did I believe. u know the ones that actually videotaped and took pictures of their crimes....tell me how long did the others get....they should be jailed for life or get 20 years......but they get just a phew years. most of them actually got away so why are you acting like those horrible people were brought to justice? and that are the things we know about how about the things that happened we donｴt know about, you really believe they were the only ones?
how about the mercaniers like blackwater`? they arenｴt in jail right now right?
Yes, we actually enforce human rights. Who has pressured china to the point to where they are now almost a domocratic nation.
dude, China has been giving you the finger for years and years now(you live in Japan, watch some politics and media of the country next to you), get some sense of reality(and they are noway near a democratic nation, they have changed drastically the last 30 years but only the fools think thats because the us tried to enforce human rights)
Who brings human rights issues to the forefront in North Korea and Africa? Thats right, the US.

please do not talk about africa like its some small country like north korea when it is actually the biggest continent on earth with many nations and your government has actually violated human rights many times over there and also supports countries that violate human rights(think countries like egypt and ｴmyｴ motherland Morocco and many others, this does not limit it self to africa) also fascinating how you just ignore the role certain (asian and european) countries played especially that of the Koreans themselves(south)
So your human rights argument is off based. Name a war by any country that did not have once human rights violation? I think that should satisfy this argument.
do you realize that this war in iraq should have never happened? people are not only pissed of about the fact that you have been constantly screwing up human rights, but also about the fact that you had no right(if there ever is such a right) to invade and that massive lies and propaganda/deception etc has been used. many people critisise the US/UK because nobody has stepped up/seems to be responsible for these terrible crimes. where is the justice?
I guess itｴs all just a game....like qadhafiｴs son said in an interview not so long ago(british independent investigation has concluded that the Lockerbie affair was not the fault of the libians) the one who was known as the biggest terrorist(the ｴwestｴ labeled him that way) is now an allie, bussiness partner and great friend of the west.(Qadhafi)

.
trying to get the 20 characters

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

"Indeed, these evil Jews are pumping water and electricity into Gaza and other Palestinian areas right now." - GodEmperorLeto

Awfully kind of them, considering the Palestinians are denied authority to dig their own wells or get water from the Jordan River. (source: Time Magazine, Sept. 8 2008, at p. 6).

I suspect a lot of the facts offered by both sides above wouldn't withstand careful examination. We all must be careful of received knowledge -- doctrine, like religion, that you probably first heard in your youth and have accepted without question.

 

[Red5]

by the way .... America there a day that 'll lose in last

and jews also they'll lose

 

[AroundTheWorld]

by the way .... America there a day that 'll lose in last

and jews also they'll lose

What he said.

I think.

 

[Red5]

that mean .. every occupation will finish ....
in my country .. Syria was occupated by France but
with population's power and decision
we could deport them from our country and Syria is the
first country that it took the independence

 

[Jim Hodges]

I must admit I am for the war. I believe there are two kinds of countries. Those who are with us and those who are against us. I believe it is our duty to ensure that countries have democracy and human rights. I also believe that it is proper to go to war with countries that want to destroy our way of life. This war is just.

 

[Red5]

so what are those counties who they are against you ??

 

[SushiShin]

I support the war but i'm not for or against any country, i'm neutral so I stay at the sidewalk. There must be peace and if there is no political solution then war is the last choice.

 

[Capster78]

.
trying to get the 20 characters

Present some facts instead of spouting biased opinion. There are several documented investigations out there of what the US sent to Iraq.

Where did you get your information about Abu Ghraib?? I have several articles sentancing thouse involved to 10 years to 6 months in prison.

Here is a list so far of thouse sentanced.

Colnel Thomas Pappas, Relieved of his command. Fined $8,000 and a Dishonerable Discharge from the military. He was not involved in the tourture itself, but was in command of the prison.

Spc Charles Graner, Sentance to 10 years in prison.

Staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick to 8 years in prison.

Serfeant Javal Davis, 6 months and bad conduct discharge for false statement (was not involved in the torture, but gave false statements pertainint to the case)

Spc Jeremy Sivits, The Photogropher, sentanced to 1 year in prison with a bad conduct discharge.

Spc Armin Crus, 8 months in prison and bad conduct discharge.

Spc Sabrina Harman, 6 months in prison and bad conduct discharge

Spc Megan Ambhul, reduced in rank and fined half of her pay (for just not reporting minor mistreatments).

Private First Class Lynndie England, 3 years in prison, bad conduct discharge.

Sargent Santos Cardona, 90 days hard labor and reduced in rank. Still serving in the military.

Spc Roman Krol, still pending charges

Sergeant Michael Smith, fined $2300, 6 months prison and bad conduct discharge.

Brig General Janis Karpinski - Demoted to Colonel (was not involved directly with prisoner mistreatment, just in the chain of command)

Donald Rumsfeld - Offerd his resignation


The people who recieved light sentances had minimal roles in the case or had testified against thouse who had the main roles in the case. This was an isolated incedent and did not encompas the entire prison. Just a particular section of the prison these individuals worked in.

You actually believe that Iraq was a just country prior to us overthrowing Saddam? What about all the political advasaries Saddam tortured and killed? What about the Kurds he gassed? What about the opression against the kurds? What about the invasion of Kuwait? I could go on and on......

 

[grapefruit]

The people who recieved light sentances had minimal roles in the case or had testified against thouse who had the main roles in the case. This was an isolated incedent and did not encompas the entire prison. Just a particular section of the prison these individuals worked in.

I saw a documentary called "Taxi to the dark side." I don't know how biased the film was, but the case did not look like "an isolated incdent" to me.😌

 

[Capster78]

I saw a documentary called "Taxi to the dark side." I don't know how biased the film was, but the case did not look like "an isolated incdent" to me.😌

I have not seen that documentary. I have seen articles pertaining to other cases of torture. I still have mixed feelings on the topic. One part of me believes that tourture is of course wrong. Another part of me thinks that if it helps save the lives of people I care about from criminals such as terrorist's I would undoubtably use it. I guess this leads me to the view that I am for it as long as it is used against someone who has information that is a most probable threat to the well being of other people. However, this leads for alot of gray area that can be abused. First of all, the term terrorist or criminal can be defined in may different ways as well as a threat. So for me there would have to be very specific guidance as to when it's use would be authorized. I can't completly condemn it because in reality, If someone had information about a plot to kill my wife.. or to kill my kids.. I would most definatly use any tactics possable to protect them, just pure rationality on my part I think.

Saying that, I open up another pandora's box. That is, if I were to say I am for tourture, I would not be against it being used on my own people or even myself if were captured by the enemy. If they felt the need to tourture me for information that may lead to saving the lives of their own people. Of course, I do not want to be tourtured, as anyone would not want to be. I might not even have the information they are asking for. I may really not know what they are asking for. So in essance, its a question that any rational person would have troubble answering if they were forced to back up why they agree or disagree with it. If you can say honestly without any hesitation that you would rather your wife/husband, child or friend die than torture someone to get the information you need to save their lives, then you are a much better person than I am.

 

[Red5]

thank you very much Capster for your participation ...

first of all .. the defination of terrorism is kill people without any reason and terrorize people to be very weak ...
so USA thinks it self very smart and define terrorist as it wants ...

first :there is no any terrorism in Arab world , but the main Goal of USA to inter to Iraq is (oil) it want to stole oil from Iraq so , USA declare the iraq has dangerous weapons like (nuclear weapons and others) and now when it inter , the population have to resist against their enemy ... and this Resistance , USA call it terrorism ...

and for week ago USA attack to Syria in Pokamal city and 6 dead and 15 people in hospital and USA declare that there is terrorist in Syria ...
but this i think that Bush wants to justify his lose in Iraq with other attack ......

 

[grapefruit]

Go watch a documentary called occupation 101...[/I]

I watched the documentary. I thought it was a great documentary.👍 Having seen the documentary, the American rhetoric of invading Iraq in order to save people who were oppressed by Saddam Hussein sounds hollow.😌

 

[Capster78]

I would like to hear a convincing argument from someone that refutes the claim the INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY had about Saddam's WMD's. Many people say it was just the U.S that said Iraq had WMD's. This is again, a false and biased view.

I love the argument that it has somthing to do with oil. In a sense, it does because Saddam was funding his war with Iran and Invasion of Kuwait with oil profits after he nationalized the oil industry. The main reason the 3 sects in Iraq are at each other's throat is because they argue they are not geting their fair share of the oil profits. Many live in destitute poverty while the leaders of Iraq (such as Saddam) lavished himself in palaces. The whole time, striking down coups with the military funded by oil profits. And might I mention, the striking down of any political opponents with the most brutal tactics. Killing their entire families and setting a tone of oppression amoung the people. In a sense, yes, it was about oil. Not about America but Iraq's greed for it. Anyone who truely believes it was a war to gain control of Iraq's oil fields is obviously a result of misleading propaganda. When we stood Iraq back up we did not take over the oil fields. There are no US oil companies tankering oil off in large trucks to container ships bound for the US. If we really wanted the oil that bad we would have invaded, set up a US interim government and called Iraq a US territory. We would not have set up an elected government and we would not be handing security back to Iraq like we are right now. Hell, a few months ago there was an article stating that a US oil company was denied by the Iraqi government to drill/survey in Iraq. How is this possible if that is what we are there for??? Hurry guys, the BS train is leaving the station, beter hop aboard before its full.

 

[grapefruit]

In a sense, yes, it was about oil. Not about America but Iraq's greed for it. Anyone who truely believes it was a war to gain control of Iraq's oil fields is obviously a result of misleading propaganda. When we stood Iraq back up we did not take over the oil fields. There are no US oil companies tankering oil off in large trucks to container ships bound for the US. If we really wanted the oil that bad we would have invaded, set up a US interim government and called Iraq a US territory. We would not have set up an elected government and we would not be handing security back to Iraq like we are right now. Hell, a few months ago there was an article stating that a US oil company was denied by the Iraqi government to drill/survey in Iraq. How is this possible if that is what we are there for??? Hurry guys, the BS train is leaving the station, beter hop aboard before its full.

No country would invade a country and make an explicit territorial claim these days. We are living in the 21 century. Even the Imperial Japanese government in the 1930s did not make its own government in Manchuria. It was supposedly an "independent" government. What you referred to is a colonial strategy in the 18th and 19th century.

In Iraq, the election was set up by the US. The US made sure that the elected government would not be like "Hamas" in Gaza. Saddam was put on trial right after the war and prosecuted right away for a reason. Such a hasty trail is not what the international community does these days.

If there had been a slight possibility of having such a government, the US wouldn't have held an election. An "evil" country's invasion to an innocent country for "evil" reasons does not take place in the 21 century and would happen only in a fictional world like "Star Wars". The reality of invasion, occupation, etc, is more subtle and complex. So, when other countries criticize the US for its selfishness, it is not like what you are saying. We are not saying the US is an "evil" empire trying to dominate the world for "evil" reasons, because we all know that such things do not exist in the real world. Only Americans use such rhetoric to convince their cause both inside and outside of the country.

 

[Capster78]

No country would invade a country and make an explicit territorial claim these days. We are living in the 21 century. Even the Imperial Japanese government in the 1930s did not make its own government in Manchuria. It was supposedly an "independent" government. What you referred to is a colonial strategy in the 18th and 19th century.

In Iraq, the election was set up by the US. The US made sure that the elected government would not be like "Hamas" in Gaza. Saddam was put on trial right after the war and prosecuted right away for a reason. Such a hasty trail is not what the international community does these days.

Any type of action by a world power to brutally occupy another country would probably be dealt with by the international community, I would hope atleast. It seems no one cared much about doing anything when Iraq took Kuwait, or when Germany took poland... ect.. ect.. We have not had any major invasions in quite awhile because thouse who have the means to do so have been put down for the time being. However, the middle east was heading in that direction untill we got involved (US).

If there had been a slight possibility of having such a government, the US wouldn't have held an election. An "evil" country's invasion to an innocent country for "evil" reasons does not take place in the 21 century and would happen only in a fictional world like "Star Wars". The reality of invasion, occupation, etc, is more subtle and complex. So, when other countries criticize the US for its selfishness, it is not like what you are saying. We are not saying the US is an "evil" empire trying to dominate the world for "evil" reasons, because we all know that such things do not exist in the real world. Only Americans use such rhetoric to convince their cause both inside and outside of the country.

I think its a bit early in the 21st century to be makeing predictions like that.

 

[grapefruit]

Any type of action by a world power to brutally occupy another country would probably be dealt with by the international community, I would hope atleast. It seems no one cared much about doing anything when Iraq took Kuwait, or when Germany took poland... ect.. ect.. We have not had any major invasions in quite awhile because thouse who have the means to do so have been put down for the time being. However, the middle east was heading in that direction untill we got involved (US).
I think its a bit early in the 21st century to be makeing predictions like that.

The US supported Saddam when he invaded Iran but against it when he invaded Kuwait. What kind of justice is that? Decisions appear opportunistic to me.

I think its a bit early in the 21st century to be makeing predictions like that.

Did you skip the 20th century, intentionally? I repeat, "No country would invade a country and make an explicit territorial claim these days. We are living in the 21 century. Even the Imperial Japanese government in the 1930s did not make its own government in Manchuria. It was supposedly an "independent" government. What you referred to is a colonial strategy in the 18th and 19th century."

 

[grapefruit]

We have not had any major invasions in quite awhile because thouse who have the means to do so have been put down for the time being.

What are you talking about? What happened to Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc, etc...😌

 

[Capster78]

The US supported Saddam when he invaded Iran but against it when he invaded Kuwait. What kind of justice is that? Decisions appear opportunistic to me.

We had to pick between the lesser of the two evils. The fact that we removed him is proof enough we did not support him at all. We used him to keep Iran on its side of the boarder. Then once that was resolved we took him out of power.

Did you skip the 20th century, intentionally? I repeat, "No country would invade a country and make an explicit territorial claim these days. We are living in the 21 century. Even the Imperial Japanese government in the 1930s did not make its own government in Manchuria. It was supposedly an "independent" government. What you referred to is a colonial strategy in the 18th and 19th century."

Are you sure about this. Im prety sure Germany did this in the 20th century. To say it will not happen in the 21st century is letting your gaurd down for somthing that is very possible. We never guessed that in the late 20th century someone would pull off as brazen of an attack as 911, but it happened.

What are you talking about? What happened to Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc, etc...😌

Korea is at war on paper but since it has become a democratic nation it has florished. You have obvioulsy never been to seoul. There is tention between North and South but the deterent of the US on the souths side has allowed the South to concentrate on its economic development. As a result of US intervention Japan, China and S.Korea have all become economic powerhouses instead of war torn countries. Vietnam is the perfect example of a war run by politicians instead of generals.

 

[grapefruit]

We had to pick between the lesser of the two evils. The fact that we removed him is proof enough we did not support him at all. We used him to keep Iran on its side of the boarder. Then once that was resolved we took him out of power.

What a convenient way to frame the word "support"! It does not matter what happened after Iran-Iraq War, but the US surely supported Iraq, or "used" Iraq, which killed millions of Iraq and Iran people.

Are you sure about this. Im prety sure Germany did this in the 20th century.

Hitler framed it as an effort to "liberate" the German minority still in the Corridor. Even during that time, such a rhetorical justification was necessary to start invasion.

Korea is at war on paper but since it has become a democratic nation it has florished. You have obvioulsy never been to seoul. There is tention between North and South but the deterent of the US on the souths side has allowed the South to concentrate on its economic development. As a result of US intervention Japan, China and S.Korea have all become economic powerhouses instead of war torn countries.

Who was involved in the war in the Korean peninsula and Vietnam? The US.

Don't justify the war by what happened after the war. There was tension between the north and south BECAUSE the US backed the southern side, when the civil war was almost over. The intervention from the US refueled the war.

Vietnam is the perfect example of a war run by politicians instead of generals.

Could you explain a bit on this? I have no clue what you meant by this.

 

[Capster78]

What a convenient way to frame the word "support"! It does not matter what happened after Iran-Iraq War, but the US surely supported Iraq, or "used" Iraq, which killed millions of Iraq and Iran people.[/quote/

The Iran/Iraq war was not caused by US intervension at all. Im not sure why your trying to put blame on the US when that blame needs to be placed on Iraq and Iran.

Who was involved in the war in the Korean peninsula and Vietnam? The US.

Don't justify the war by what happened after the war. There was tension between the north and south BECAUSE the US backed the southern side, when the civil war was almost over. The intervention from the US refueled the war.

So I guess you support a unified Korea run by Kim Jong Il?

Could you explain a bit on this? I have no clue what you meant by this.

The only reason the Vietnam war was a failure was because politicians did not want to give the generals the supplies and manpower needed to fight the war. Not only that, they put constraints on how the war was to be fought.

 

[grapefruit]

The Iran/Iraq war was not caused by US intervension at all. Im not sure why your trying to put blame on the US when that blame needs to be placed on Iraq and Iran.

I never said the US caused the war, didn't I? I said the US supported it. "Support" and "cause" are totally different. You are right on that the US did not cause it, but it is incorrect to say that the US did not support it.

So I guess you support a unified Korea run by Kim Jong Il?

I don’t understand. We started talking about Korean War because you said there has been no major invasion in a quite while. See the following:
You said,

We have not had any major invasions in quite awhile because thouse who have the means to do so have been put down for the time being.

So I said,

What are you talking about? What happened to Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc, etc...

Then you said,

Korea is at war on paper but since it has become a democratic nation it has florished. You have obvioulsy never been to seoul. There is tention between North and South but the deterent of the US on the souths side has allowed the South to concentrate on its economic development. As a result of US intervention Japan, China and S.Korea have all become economic powerhouses instead of war torn countries.

So, I replied,

Who was involved in the war in the Korean peninsula and Vietnam? The US.
Don't justify the war by what happened after the war. There was tension between the north and south BECAUSE the US backed the southern side, when the civil war was almost over. The intervention from the US refueled the war.

So, you said,

So I guess you support a unified Korea run by Kim Jong Il?

The focus is not about the result of the war. If I support the North Korean government or not has little bearing. I simply wanted to point out the fact that invasion is invasion.

The only reason the Vietnam war was a failure was because politicians did not want to give the generals the supplies and manpower needed to fight the war. Not only that, they put constraints on how the war was to be fought.

So, you were talking about justification of the war. No wonder I did not get what you meant.
Again. I never mentioned the Vietnam war to point out the US's failure. I wanted to bring up the fact that that was also an invasion.

By the way, you also said,

There is tention between North and South but the deterent of the US on the souths side has allowed the South to concentrate on its economic development. As a result of US intervention Japan, China and S.Korea have all become economic powerhouses instead of war torn countries.

It's funny to hear that China benefited from the Korean war. The fact is that the US fought with China in the Korean war. The US forces slaughtered Chinese soldiers in the war. Whom did you think the US fought against in the war? Japan and S. Korea benefited from the war, but China didn't. The same is true of the Vietnam war.

 

[Capster78]

I never said the US caused the war, didn't I? I said the US supported it. "Support" and "cause" are totally different. You are right on that the US did not cause it, but it is incorrect to say that the US did not support it.

I don’t understand. We started talking about Korean War because you said there has been no major invasion in a quite while. See the following:
You said,

So I said,

Then you said,

So, I replied,

So, you said,

The focus is not about the result of the war. If I support the North Korean government or not has little bearing. I simply wanted to point out the fact that invasion is invasion.

I think it has everything to do with this whole argument. It is obvious by your postings you support little to not intervension by the US. It's really convinient to say such a think now when we have not been involved in any Major conflicts between Vietnam and Iraq. What people like you forget is that without US intervension WW1, WW2, Korean war and I think we will see in the future if we stay the course, Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts the world would have been a war torn wasteland. That is why we must continue to intervien.

It's funny to hear that China benefited from the Korean war. The fact is that the US fought with China in the Korean war. The US forces slaughtered Chinese soldiers in the war. Whom did you think the US fought against in the war? Japan and S. Korea benefited from the war, but China didn't. The same is true of the Vietnam war.

You don't think that the deterent of US forces in Asia has not contributed to the peace they have enjoyed over the last 50+ years? You don't believe that this peace has not allowed the economies to florish? You dont think the trade between the East and the West has caused both economies to expload. This can only happen in peacetime.

 

[grapefruit]

I think it has everything to do with this whole argument. It is obvious by your postings you support little to not intervension by the US. It's really convinient to say such a think now when we have not been involved in any Major conflicts between Vietnam and Iraq.

Then, neither of us is qualified to discuss this topic?
Also, you have not explained why you said here has been no major invasion in a quite while and how it relates to our discussion.

What people like you forget is that without US intervension WW1, WW2, Korean war and I think we will see in the future if we stay the course, Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts the world would have been a war torn wasteland. That is why we must continue to intervien.
You don't think that the deterent of US forces in Asia has not contributed to the peace they have enjoyed over the last 50+ years? You don't believe that this peace has not allowed the economies to florish? You dont think the trade between the East and the West has caused both economies to expload. This can only happen in peacetime.

Again. I never said, the US involvement in WW1, WW2, Korean war, etc were bad or evil. I never said the invasion to Iraq was bad. I thought you wanted to discuss what cause the war in Iraq. I don't understand why you bring up the value associated with the war? I agree that war in Iraq is beneficial. But, what caused it has little to do with benefits it brought. Your whole argument sounds like:

"What was motivation for war in Iraq?"
"Since it brought good results, it must have been motivated by good intentions!"

I say, even if something brought in good results, the analysis of motivation should be separated from results it brought in.

I also don't know why you use the word intervention. Korean War and Vietnam War were caused by the US. It's not intervention. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan these days are also war caused by the US.
Your argument that the Asia enjoyed peace for the last 50+ year totally ignores those people who live in these areas like Korea and Vietnam. It's only the American view. What kind of deterrent is it? The US caused war in Asia. If I borrow your words, the US's deterrent was failure!

The periods during Korean war and Vietnam war should not be referred as "peace". Yes, Japan during Korean war and Vietnam war was peaceful, but these periods won't be considered as peaceful by Koreans, Vietnamese, and Chinese. Are you saying "Asia" does not include these countries? Millions of Koreans, Vietnamese, and Chinese were killed by the Korean and Vietnam wars. What kind of peace is it?

 

[Capster78]

Then, neither of us is qualified to discuss this topic?
Also, you have not explained why you said here has been no major invasion in a quite while and how it relates to our discussion.

During this time frame of percieved peace people have forgotten how violent the world is and can be. The safegaurds that are in place to keep it from becoming the world many knew during WW1 and WW2 are slowly being taken away. If you look thru history it has always happend this way. Between major wars people argue there is no need for them (safegaurds, as in military deterance) anymore and once everyone lets their gaurd down, another large conflic happens.

Again. I never said, the US involvement in WW1, WW2, Korean war, etc were bad or evil. I never said the invasion to Iraq was bad. I thought you wanted to discuss what cause the war in Iraq. I don't understand why you bring up the value associated with the war? I agree that war in Iraq is beneficial. But, what caused it has little to do with benefits it brought. Your whole argument sounds like:
"What was motivation for war in Iraq?"
"Since it brought good results, it must have been motivated by good intentions!"
I say, even if something brought in good results, the analysis of motivation should be separated from results it brought in.
I also don't know why you use the word intervention. Korean War and Vietnam War were caused by the US. It's not intervention. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan these days are also war caused by the US.

This is exactly what I am talking about! Most americans believe we started these wars and it is completly false. You need to brush up on your history. The Korean war was caused by the invasion of North Korea into South Korea. You say that our intervension lengthend the war. Well of course it did!! Were we to allow North Korea to take the entire peninsula? this is where my comment "Would you rather see a unified korea run by Kim Jong Ill" came from.

The viatnamese conflict actually started with the French, who supported the government of South Vietnam and the Chinese who supported the communist North Vietnam. However, we were led to believe that if North Vietnam were to take South Vietnam, communism could again spread through Asia. So, fearing that the French could not support the South in a fight against the North, we started sending in supplies. So again we intervined, not started that conflict.

Wrong again about Iraq. The war in Iraq was started way back when they decided to go against the IAEA agreement they signed and produce Chemical Weapons in the 80's. Then there was the Iran/Iraq war where Saddam used these weapons against Iran. Then Saddam started playing games with the inspectors. Then Iraq invaded Kuwait. So I would say the blame for the Iraq war is all on Iraq and Saddam, not the US.

Your argument that the Asia enjoyed peace for the last 50+ year totally ignores those people who live in these areas like Korea and Vietnam. It's only the American view. What kind of deterrent is it? The US caused war in Asia. If I borrow your words, the US's deterrent was failure!
The periods during Korean war and Vietnam war should not be referred as "peace". Yes, Japan during Korean war and Vietnam war was peaceful, but these periods won't be considered as peaceful by Koreans, Vietnamese, and Chinese. Are you saying "Asia" does not include these countries? Millions of Koreans, Vietnamese, and Chinese were killed by the Korean and Vietnam wars. What kind of peace is it?

The Vietnam war affected little of anything in the countries I am talking about. Unless there is another conflict you are refering to that I dont know about between WWII and now.. Asia has not had a major conflict since WWII. Even vietnam was some 40+ years ago. So, ok, 40 years of peace which has allowed China, Japan and Korea to florish. Maybe that wording is better. My point is that these wars could have easily continued for years and years without intervension from the US. And the animosity that followed these wars could have caused more conflicts after WWII if the US did not have a continuous presance in this part of the world.

Oh and by the way, the current conflict that is going on in Iraq is not Bush's war. It is Clinton's war. He was the one that signed the Liberation of Iraq into law. More misinformation!!!