Anything Concerning the Iraq conflict..

Alot of protesting going on all across the world over war . Poor ol' Bush must be beside himself with rage because the world isn't goose - stepping to his march for war . I'm afraid he'll soon enter the dreaded final stage of MAD COW BOY disease , which will require that he be heavily sedated .

THE COMPLETE MILITARY HISTORY OF FRANCE
Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.
Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."
Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.
Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.
Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.
War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.
The Dutch War - Tied.
War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War - Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.
War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.
American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."
French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.
The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States and Britan. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by Allied forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.
World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.
War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu.
Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.
War on Terrorism - France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.
Classic Quote: "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."

Blow Up the Taliban..

LOL, "taliban" was more fun than bashing Cretien. Speaking of "mullas", that little sucker on the top gave me a little trouble. I threw everthing a god fearing, poutine-'eatin, hockey watching, syrup-slatherin', wood-choppin lad could throw, and he still did the energizer bunny thing. Maybe I should try the Canadian approach and "reason" with him...

Whoa, spoke too soon. Just dropped a daisy cutter on his ass! Had to borrow the daisy-cutter though.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article ... emid=14544

this site has a interesting little flash animation about the war protests, http://www.usgreens.org

Good flash site Trev.

Sulo.........There will indeed be civillian casualties. This is unfortunate, but if the people pick up weapons and fight, they're combatants. The civillian side is unavoidable, but by you saying "murdering hundreds of thousands of civillians" is indeed ridiculous. There is no way the American people, let alone the world would stand for that. War is unfortunate but sometimes necessary. I have no doubt there are economical reasons for the war, but the humanitarian reasons are there as well.

The US will indeed be inflicting casualties, but I think you'll find that there will be far less civillian casualties because the US is not trying to harm the people of Iraq.......They're trying to get rid of Saddaam. The precision with which the US will strike, will amaze everyone. It will be almost surgical. Just wait and see, but I think we need to put our energy into supporting our neighbors to the South, the UK and Australia......Their soldiers are there to do a job, the politicians have ordered them to go, they're there and they deserve our respect and most of all our support.

war, what is it good for ..take it away

and if you think war is great...
http://www.ogrish.com/multimedia.php?cat=war

Like Donovan said the decision lies with each soldier now, not with the generals. Does anyone remember Viet Nam? Why do you want to travel halfway around the world to kill Iraqi babies? Answer soldier.

"What if they gave a war and nobody came?"

Whats with the baby killer crap? Soldiers aren't just killers....It's ONE of the roles they must play. Noone ever seems to talk about the humanitarian efforts undertaken, the rebuilding of schools, hospitals, infrastucture........

I'm a soldier and proud of it. I'm also proud of the efforts of the soldiers in NATO and the UN that have worked for so many years to do good things...Many of who payed with their lives....You're entitled not to agree with whats going on, but don't smear the noble profession of serving in the military because you don't agree with it. The freedom you have right now is because of people who serve. Maybe even family members of yours........Way to insult them. I'm sure they'd be proud of how you refer to "soldiers" as baby killers.

Gimme a break.

Some aspects that seem to get lost in the debate stem from the extreme positions and views of both sides of the war issue . War is sometimes necessary , and civilian deaths are unavoidable . If war is the last resort , and/or our forces are committed , then they should be supported . The service member has volunteered and agreed to undertake their duties as directed by their superiors . They are required to follow the lawful orders of their leaders and deserve the support of the public .

Having said that , the general public and it's political leaders owe it to the military to commit the military to just causes which justify their deployment . In America , the military is controlled by civilian authorities - and it's been that way since the beginning . If the political leadership determines that force is necessary , than it is their responsibility to fully explain to the public the reasons for going to war . The military should not question their orders , however , the civilian society owes it to it's armed forces to make sure that they are deployed legitimately. In a democracy , it is the political leaders who must submit to the will of the people .

from praying that a war will not happen to

1) Safety of the Iraqi people and US/British soldiers involved.

2) That Suddam has over estimated his soldiers support and that the Iraqi soldiers will be allowed to surrender and not harmed.

3) That the soldiers who make it home are not treated as the Vietnam vets were on their arrival home.

4) this does not escelate to WWIII