...because pulling out early and letting Iraq collapse into a mess of civil war is always a good thing.

And you're the authority on what will happen if we leave? It sounds like you're just buying into Bush's propaganda. No, I hardly think Iraq is going to "collapse into a mess of civil war". You really give the people of Iraq no credit.

Iraq is just beginning to get a formally trained military. The attacks in Iraq aren't just because of the American presence - they're also because of the new government. If we completely pull out and leave them with just the base beginnings of an actual military to defend themselves with, how likely do you think it is that things will just wrap themselves up nicely?

More immediate maybe but not more critical.

You honestly think Iraq would be better off if the US pulled out now? That's rich.

If the attacks were centered on American/Coalition forces, I would say, yes, Avenger, it would. But when bombers are targetting cafes frequented by municipal police and the infrastructure of a city, that's an attack on the people and the government, not on the alien forces.

I'd say the U.S. has had plenty of time.

The ridiculous thing about what you just said Avenger is the word 'now'. If not now, then when? It will never be the right time to pull out for you people. You know what happened in Vietnam don't you?

When Iraq has a fully trained military/police force that can deal deal with what's going on. When they have the means to train new police and military forces on their own, meaning people, facilities and hardware.

I love your wonderful use of "you people" to. Way to generalize, chief.

And who's to say "what's going on" won't cease when we withdraw?

But if we leave Iraq with a trained military and the ability to train more soldiers and police officers, they have a better chance to protect and sustain themselves than if we simply up and leave.

I'm not going to doubt England's commitment to the 'war on terrorism', but the fact is for every Englishman in the Middle Eastern Theatre, there are 10 Americans. Fundamentally, what I'm saying is this isn't a war being fought by a coalition; it's America's War.

I find the response to these terrorist attacks utterly disturbing, displaying the ignorance of President Bush and to an extent Prime Minister Blair. They've called this a "War on Terrorism." Our armies are there and Iraqi civilians are dying, and there is little we can do to prevent this, and we knew this would be the case. We're fighting a war; people are going to die, and if we're killing innocent civilians, then why are we so shocked when innocent ciivlians of our own are killed?

Again, America the bully. If we attempted to address the causes rather than the symptons, I think we'd find ourselves in a much better situation, and I don't understand why people in government don't see that. But of course, we have to do it our way.

These types of things can be averted, and not by having armed military in subways and protected public areas...

I'm so glad you people are in the minority.

Umm...I fail to see how 9/11 is more understandable than the London Attacks. They both killed innocent civilians...

Fixed.

And what person am I?

The person who thinks gun control is fundamentally a bad idea? The person who hasn't quite made their mind up on abortion but is fundamentally leaning toward it being a bad idea in most cases? The person who thinks that now that we are in Iraq we are obligated to see it through? The person who's fundamental tennent of freedom is choice? Do these beliefs make me one of these people?

Politics and pronouns aren't friends. The Republican Party (and as of recent Howard Dean's Democratic Party) would like you to think that they are, but they aren't.

Not that I'm taking sides, but what do you suggest, Eversor?

i'm talking about the leader of the country. most of us don't become leaders of countries and therefor are not privy to what goes on in policy as it happens and sometimes as it stands.

there are 2 moments in farenheit 911 where i sympathize with bush. when he is told about the attacks on the wtc and when he is getting ready to make his tv appearance.
i don't care who you are or what you do. no one knows what to do in a situation like that. no one. (well except bush. but that's now)
and moore made bush look stupid when bush was doing everything anyone would do when getting ready for a national tv appearance.

i don't like bush nor do i like his administration. but i would never want his job.
and as said a million times before here and elsewhere, it is our jobs as responsible citizens to question and complain to our governments lest they do what they want. and who wants a bunch of rich white guys doing what they want with our tax dollars? ooops... too late.

The pretense for war was false. This has been proven. Stupid could fit a number of things, such as 20k Iraqi civilians dead, etc. But you can't deny it's a false war.

IT'S NOT REALLY A WAR?!!! OH MY GOD!!!

Seriously though...I was (and am) against the war, but whether it was stupid to start it or not, it'd be even dumber not to finish it as best we can, or else the people who have died won't have accomplished anything.

How did a thread on explosions in london turn into an argument about bush and the iraq war?

It's asinine to be in Iraq solely so the soldiers can feel like they're actually doing something. Sadly, this was one of the reasons Bush gave in his last talk. "We can't leave yet because the servicemen need to feel like they did something useful if Iraq goes to hell".

Beacuse it's Massassi.

In a nutshell, raising the standard of living in the Middle East through diplomacy and fundraising. Additionally, America is forcing itself upon the rest of the world through simple things (Coca Cola, Rock n' Roll, any cliché you can think of) while remaining totally xenophobic and not opening itself to foreign culture. Its essential that America become more tolerant in both its implicit and explicit values as well as in its foreign policy.

While Egypt may not be representative of the entire region, 88% of Egyptians hated America, while 92% of them wanted to move here in a 1999 poll. You have to wonder what makes this the case.

Love how you're not seperating corporations from the US government there, and to call the US xenopobic is absurd.

Whoa, whoa, they hate us so you want to send them money until they like us? Also, you make it sound as though America is actively and consciously FORCING its culture upon the rest of the world. That's not the case. And we're not exactly closing ourselves off either. It's just a case of America being one fo the current world powers and therefore having its day to spread its culture.

It happened because the war in Iraq is related to the Al Qaeda attacks.

big pic

The Golden Arches of McDonalds are a more recognizable symbol than the Christian Cross. Unfortunately I lost the source which states this, but its the truth.

Again, you're looking at merely the symptons rather then the problems. They don't merely want us scared, they have needs that are not fulfilled. America's government and it's corporations have pursued their own interests, and through the course of this they have alienated foreign nations.

And to your final point, just because its "America's day to spread its culture" doesn't mean its a good thing. America's status right now can only be compared to Ancient Rome; after the USSR fell, there has been no opposing power to equal America's might. America could be using this status to help end poverty throughout the world, but alas instead it chooses to bully the world with its military might.



Historically, America has Americanized people who have come to America rather than culturally embrace their cultures.

So organizations like the KKK aren't signs of America's xenophobic qualities? I acknowledge it's an extreme, but its not like the KKK is the only example of a group of Americans who want this country to be white and white only.

I didn't want to distinguish the US government from US corporations because all facets of America are guilty of xenophobia and imposing globalization at the same time, including many of its citizens.

That's not to call anyone guilty, but it is simply the case.

there has yet to be any credible link between Al Qaeda and the bombings, yes its highly likely but nothing concrete as yet so lets just wait for a confirmed answer.

the general feeling I’m getting in England at the moment is we knew this was coming, not if, but when. Its not really a surprise that they hit London at this time, personally I'm surprised the security agencies weren't more prepared, but then you can't really guard against events such as these..

as for the relevance in regard to the Iraq war, the reasons for going to war have been proven to be false, however, lets take a look at the future for the country as it stands;

1) They are no longer under the control of a dictator,

2) There is freedom of expression and people are no longer being killed/persecuted for their beliefs,

should we concerned that the reasons for going to war were false, yes, should we be against the continued occupation, no, we can't go into a country, rip apart its government and then decide that,

"oopps, sorry folks we shouldn't have gone to war, hope you don't mind but we're going home now, sorry for the mess..."

if we did that Iraq would implode on itself and in 10-15 years could well be in the same situation it was in when we entered. We (the US, UK and others) need to say in the country up until proper government is in place and is able to police their own country.

Too long has the western world looked on as the middle eastern countries have imposed their rule and beliefs over their people with the money we have given them through oil.

The western countries have an obligation to the rest of world to try and get rid of dictators, forced rule and oppression not only in the middle east but Africa and the rest of the world. This can not always be done by peaceful means and more often than not will require the use of force to achieve the required goals.

Does this mean the ultimate goal of freeing the Iraq people from Saddam’s rule justifies going to war, no, but we can not just leave Iraq to fend for itself after ripping it apart.

No we don't. That was just what the Bush administration changed its reason for going to war to after it was found that Iraq had no WMDs and wasn't going to use them against the United States.

Of course groups like the KKK are xenophobic, but I think you have a grand misconception of how much power and influence groups like this have. Furthermore, there are plenty of groups out to promote diversity. There are cultural celebrations for all the differnet cultral groups that live in the area. Now, I'm aware that this is going to vary form region to region and that there are areas in the US that are more xenophobic than others. Of course, there are plenty of other countries that have their xenophobic issues, excempt there are dealth with using genocide.

It as always a reason, just that the WMD case was the primary.

Okay, so I agree that it is hard to put one in the position of a national leader but it is reasonable to criticize one for pandering to terrorists. You do not reward terrorism by giving in to their demands.

And the moore film. I was laughing hysterically at the absurd conclusions he made in the first five minutes. After that I ran through boredom, thinking "And?" and "So?" and eventually came to the conclusion that if anyone thinks there is any legitimate information in there to form an opinion on a major issue, they're an idiot. But, yes, I find it absurd that people criticize his reactions on that day. I never found anything wrong with anything he did that day and I very personally felt sorry for him for the weight that burdened him.

Are you too young to actually remember the events as they happened?

For Chrissakes wookie, I was 18 when we invaded Iraq. Then it was all "WMD this, WMD that, the US is in danger, we must make a preemptive strike", and then that reasoning slowly shifted from security to spreading democracy as the war went on. I am sure spreading democracy came up in places at the beginning but that by itself was nowhere near enough to go to war. If it was - why not invade North Korea, or Cuba, or any country with a dictator?

And never mind the brilliance of the UN circa 1991.

Oh it's "the truth" is it? Says who? How the hell can you prove which of two symbols is more recognizable? That is complete bullcrap.