http://apnews.excite.com/article/200409 ... 2T6G0.html
Just sad. That many people had to die for a war with no real cause. Notic, they don't even mention innconet Iraq civilians who just got caught in the cross fire.
U.S. Deaths in Iraq pass 1000
-
lightningbolt
- Nothing Vulgar
- Posts: 983
- Joined: 28 Jun 2004 12:55
- Location: Alaska
U.S. Deaths in Iraq pass 1000
I think I going to take over Canada. You should help.
Get Firefox!
Get Firefox!
-
420FootBager
- Multidex Master
- Posts: 239
- Joined: 29 Jun 2004 11:05
- Location: South NJ aka. bordom
Yeah we should have left them to the cruel ruler who randomly killed his own people. We never found WMD's but we found mass graves and there is video of dead iraq's that died from Saddam testing gas in his streets. However I guess the 100 that died arn't worth saving the lives of tens of thousands.
Gus P.-- Get'um up against the wall
Who let all this riff raff into the room
There's one smoking a joint and
Another with spots
If I had my way I'd have all of you shot
Who let all this riff raff into the room
There's one smoking a joint and
Another with spots
If I had my way I'd have all of you shot
Current figures for civillian deaths in Iraq due to the US invasion is put at a minimum of 11793 and a maximum of 13802.
The other thing to remember is that there has been very little celbrating of the ousting of Saddam - most of what we have seen (like the toppling of a Saddam statue) was actually staged by the US.
There is no doubt that Saddam was a cruel leader, but lets not forget the 500,000 children who died as a direct result of trade sanctions against the Iraq prior to the war (according to a number of independant reports) - something that was worth what the trade sanctions achieved according to the then US secretary of state - Madeline Albright.
And lets not forget the usage of uranium depleted weapons during the first Gulf War - something that is now estimated to have killed tens of thousands as well as making large parts of Iraq uninhabitable.
And then there is the use of cluster bombs in both wars - something that is now outlawed by international law and the UK refused to participate in the second war unless the US promised not to use them - yet they did anyway - unexploded cluster bombs are responsible for the mutilation, dismemberment and death of thousands of people in Iraq - some are still left over from the first Gulf War - most of those effected are children.
And then there is the use of landmines in the first Gulf War - (there is actually a treaty banning the use of landmines and only 42 countries ahve not signed the treaty - http://www.icbl.org/ ) - the landmines used in the first Gulf War are still active - thousands of people have been killed or dismembered by them - mainly farmers and children.
In total - Iraqi Civillians killed by Saddam - up to 50,000
Iraqi Civillians killed by the us - up to 600,000
Congratulations Gus on supporting this
The other thing to remember is that there has been very little celbrating of the ousting of Saddam - most of what we have seen (like the toppling of a Saddam statue) was actually staged by the US.
There is no doubt that Saddam was a cruel leader, but lets not forget the 500,000 children who died as a direct result of trade sanctions against the Iraq prior to the war (according to a number of independant reports) - something that was worth what the trade sanctions achieved according to the then US secretary of state - Madeline Albright.
And lets not forget the usage of uranium depleted weapons during the first Gulf War - something that is now estimated to have killed tens of thousands as well as making large parts of Iraq uninhabitable.
And then there is the use of cluster bombs in both wars - something that is now outlawed by international law and the UK refused to participate in the second war unless the US promised not to use them - yet they did anyway - unexploded cluster bombs are responsible for the mutilation, dismemberment and death of thousands of people in Iraq - some are still left over from the first Gulf War - most of those effected are children.
And then there is the use of landmines in the first Gulf War - (there is actually a treaty banning the use of landmines and only 42 countries ahve not signed the treaty - http://www.icbl.org/ ) - the landmines used in the first Gulf War are still active - thousands of people have been killed or dismembered by them - mainly farmers and children.
In total - Iraqi Civillians killed by Saddam - up to 50,000
Iraqi Civillians killed by the us - up to 600,000
Congratulations Gus on supporting this
I know Australias part of the 'Coalition of the Willing'
Do you guys have soldiers out there?
if so how many have died? how many Iraqis have they killed?
Do you guys have soldiers out there?
if so how many have died? how many Iraqis have they killed?
It's set up like a deck of cards,
theyre sendin us to early graves
for the diamonds
they use a pair of clubs to beat the spades(ratm)
Cloud9-Juan Rangel
theyre sendin us to early graves
for the diamonds
they use a pair of clubs to beat the spades(ratm)
Cloud9-Juan Rangel
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
-----------------------------------
Jeremy, you shouldnt make up numbers just because they sound good.
The United Nations, the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch (HRW) all estimate that Saddam Hussein's regime murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 were "disappeared" by the Iraqi government over the past two decades.
Maybe 50,000 is a yearly (low) estimate of Iraqi "disappearances".
If that's the case, using your original maximum of 13000, U.S. forces could kill 3 or 4 times as many civilians ,PER YEAR,and still the people would STILL be safer than they were with Saddam.
------------------------------------------------------
Let's put the "big lie" about sanctions to rest.
Let us not forget about the billions in oil revenues collected by Saddam, as the children starved.
Let us not forget about the U.N. oil-for-food scam enjoyed by Europe and Saddam, to the tune of billions as the children starved and went without medicine.
Let us not forget about the lavishly built palaces, and Palestinian suicide bombers paid, as the children starved and went without medicine.
Let us not forget about hundreds of millions in currency found stashed in-country, NOT spent on starving children.
How could you not blame Saddam?
Clearly he is a rich republican who cut all medical and welfare payments to poor children, so he could build himself more mansions.
Of course, lifting the sanctions would have been like a "tax cut" for Saddam.
-n
Jeremy, you shouldnt make up numbers just because they sound good.
The United Nations, the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch (HRW) all estimate that Saddam Hussein's regime murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 were "disappeared" by the Iraqi government over the past two decades.
Maybe 50,000 is a yearly (low) estimate of Iraqi "disappearances".
If that's the case, using your original maximum of 13000, U.S. forces could kill 3 or 4 times as many civilians ,PER YEAR,and still the people would STILL be safer than they were with Saddam.
------------------------------------------------------
Let's put the "big lie" about sanctions to rest.
Let us not forget about the billions in oil revenues collected by Saddam, as the children starved.
Let us not forget about the U.N. oil-for-food scam enjoyed by Europe and Saddam, to the tune of billions as the children starved and went without medicine.
Let us not forget about the lavishly built palaces, and Palestinian suicide bombers paid, as the children starved and went without medicine.
Let us not forget about hundreds of millions in currency found stashed in-country, NOT spent on starving children.
How could you not blame Saddam?
Clearly he is a rich republican who cut all medical and welfare payments to poor children, so he could build himself more mansions.
Of course, lifting the sanctions would have been like a "tax cut" for Saddam.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
And the flame war begins....Why not? You do all the time.
I agree with -n. Let's not forget why the US imposed sanctions in the first place. And also not forget that Saddam not the US exploited those sanctions to better himself and his immediate family. Let's also not forget how he invaded Kawait on a whim. Let's also not forget that Saddam killed all those who opposed him, but not just a quick death, he had torture chambers EVERYWHERE. His sons were notorious criminals who tortured thier own olympic team for christ sake.
What has happened on and since 9/11 can and will happen again (just look at Russia) if nothing is done to prevent it. It is up to each country to patrol the streets and bring terrorists, terrorist funders, terrorists organizations, and corupt business leaders to justice before society is brought back to civil war of the world where women and children must learn to use weaponery to defend themselves against a threat that has not been brought under control or irradicated.
If that means 1000 US soldiers have to give their lives to lead the way to freedom, then so be it. The US didn't kill civilians, the militants simply used them as bullet shields by hiding in highly populated areas and taking pot shots at the LIBERATORS. Let me also point out that as time has passed the use of weapons in Iraq have more precision for humanitarian reasons. It would be all too easy for BUSH to push the button on the whole pennisula. By physically going to Iraq and walking the streets armed to the teeth, the US is showing that it can fight a new war without nukes and cluster bombs. But as long as there is a threat to peace in that region, you will find a US soldier ready to defend it. And that is more than any country in the region can say about it.
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews
~Damon Mathews
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
I know I can count on you to keep me honest when my numbers appear outrageous, C-Fan.
Here's a random link from 1997 about palaces
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9712/19/iraq.palaces/
Here's some GIGANTIC .jpgs of some various palaces
http://www.digitalglobe.com/iraqi_gallery.html
-n
Here's a random link from 1997 about palaces
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9712/19/iraq.palaces/
Here's some GIGANTIC .jpgs of some various palaces
http://www.digitalglobe.com/iraqi_gallery.html
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
Regarding sanctions - Surely the US has to be responsible for the consequences of it's actions just like everybody else. Regardless of what Saddam was doing it is pretty much indisputable that the 500,000 children would not have died if the sanctions weren't in place. The majority of the world voted in the UN general assembly to remove them (only a small handful of countries didn't vote for the resolution) - but the US chose to ignore world opinion hoping that the people of Iraq would rise up and defeat Saddam. This did not happen and there was no chance of it happening because Saddam controlled all the media - thus the people had virtually no idea what was going on except for what he told them. It was well known that this was what was happening and the US still refused to remove the sanctions despite the fact that they were achieving nothing and there was no foreseeable chance of this changing.
So those 500,000 children died as a direct result of the US policy and achieved nothing. Saddam is just as culpable but at least from his view they didn't pointlessly die - he got even richer, he created more anti american and nationalist support and the international community gave him (indirectly) more support.
So in actual fact from the US point of view the sanctions had a negative effect on the issue they were trying to resolve and killed half a million children. I find it hard to understand how you can support this.
In regards to Russia and terrorism - I think history shows that it is easy to stop terrorism. When we look at places where terrorism was used and then the "terrorists" stopped using it - we see an obvious trend. The South African conflict ended in a non violent manner with both sides negotiating together and fixing the grievences. Terrorism in Ireland has stopped because both sides decided to take non violent paths and negotiate.
By trying to fight terrorism with force it actually strengthens the terrorist movement. We can see this everywhere through out history. I cannot think of a single conflict involving terrorism that was stopped by the usage of force.
Terrorism is trying to provoke the "enemy" into retaliating. When they retaliate they alienate more of the population that has not yet alligned with the terrorists. As a small group with no power it is impossible to create the change you want - that's why people resort to using terrorism - because they feel it is their only option. When enough people have turned to the "terrorists" cause then it is possible to create real change with a popular revolution.
The way the Russians handled the school situation was pretty much perfect for the "terrorists" - We can now expect big and indiscriminate attacks against the Chechen and other rebels - many of which do not believe in terrorist tactics and are simply fighting so that their own land can be free again - just as many of you would fight if your country was invaded and occupied. We can also expect a growing movement among the Russians of appeasement. Finally the general population will begin to understand that if they allowed Chechnya to become an independant state the attacks would stop. They might be "giving into terrorism" but they will also be giving a country back it's freedom, no longer plundering its resources and most importantly saving lives.
It is not easy for Bush to nuke Iraq at all. The international outcry would be enourmas. You may not realise it but the US (like the majority of countries) relies on trade and support from the rest of the world. I have no doubt that if the US chose to nuke a country that was absolutely no threat to the US then you would be in serious trouble.
I know you have been subjected to the media demonising Saddam (much of which is justified but it doesn't help) but there was more peace and people had a much higher life expectancy under him than under the US invasion. It is not up to the US to decide what is right for the people and what isn't. Nobody likes to be invaded and people will always fight the invaders.
Can you give me some examples where the US has actually helped to lead a country to freedom since world war 2? Vietnam? Korea? Afghanistan? - Colombia? Nicuaragua (sp)? Chile? Cambodia? Somalia? The US has a long history of doing what it claims is in the best interests of a country by invading and bombing it and then fucking it up. Iraq is no different.
So those 500,000 children died as a direct result of the US policy and achieved nothing. Saddam is just as culpable but at least from his view they didn't pointlessly die - he got even richer, he created more anti american and nationalist support and the international community gave him (indirectly) more support.
So in actual fact from the US point of view the sanctions had a negative effect on the issue they were trying to resolve and killed half a million children. I find it hard to understand how you can support this.
In regards to Russia and terrorism - I think history shows that it is easy to stop terrorism. When we look at places where terrorism was used and then the "terrorists" stopped using it - we see an obvious trend. The South African conflict ended in a non violent manner with both sides negotiating together and fixing the grievences. Terrorism in Ireland has stopped because both sides decided to take non violent paths and negotiate.
By trying to fight terrorism with force it actually strengthens the terrorist movement. We can see this everywhere through out history. I cannot think of a single conflict involving terrorism that was stopped by the usage of force.
Terrorism is trying to provoke the "enemy" into retaliating. When they retaliate they alienate more of the population that has not yet alligned with the terrorists. As a small group with no power it is impossible to create the change you want - that's why people resort to using terrorism - because they feel it is their only option. When enough people have turned to the "terrorists" cause then it is possible to create real change with a popular revolution.
The way the Russians handled the school situation was pretty much perfect for the "terrorists" - We can now expect big and indiscriminate attacks against the Chechen and other rebels - many of which do not believe in terrorist tactics and are simply fighting so that their own land can be free again - just as many of you would fight if your country was invaded and occupied. We can also expect a growing movement among the Russians of appeasement. Finally the general population will begin to understand that if they allowed Chechnya to become an independant state the attacks would stop. They might be "giving into terrorism" but they will also be giving a country back it's freedom, no longer plundering its resources and most importantly saving lives.
Your media might not be reporting it but almost every day there are enourmas demonstrations in Iraq - especially Baghdad - often well over 200,000 people. The militants aren't hiding amonst the population - they are the population!If that means 1000 US soldiers have to give their lives to lead the way to freedom, then so be it. The US didn't kill civilians, the militants simply used them as bullet shields by hiding in highly populated areas and taking pot shots at the LIBERATORS. Let me also point out that as time has passed the use of weapons in Iraq have more precision for humanitarian reasons. It would be all too easy for BUSH to push the button on the whole pennisula. By physically going to Iraq and walking the streets armed to the teeth, the US is showing that it can fight a new war without nukes and cluster bombs. But as long as there is a threat to peace in that region, you will find a US soldier ready to defend it. And that is more than any country in the region can say about it.
It is not easy for Bush to nuke Iraq at all. The international outcry would be enourmas. You may not realise it but the US (like the majority of countries) relies on trade and support from the rest of the world. I have no doubt that if the US chose to nuke a country that was absolutely no threat to the US then you would be in serious trouble.
I know you have been subjected to the media demonising Saddam (much of which is justified but it doesn't help) but there was more peace and people had a much higher life expectancy under him than under the US invasion. It is not up to the US to decide what is right for the people and what isn't. Nobody likes to be invaded and people will always fight the invaders.
Can you give me some examples where the US has actually helped to lead a country to freedom since world war 2? Vietnam? Korea? Afghanistan? - Colombia? Nicuaragua (sp)? Chile? Cambodia? Somalia? The US has a long history of doing what it claims is in the best interests of a country by invading and bombing it and then fucking it up. Iraq is no different.
Giving into terror in order to prevent terror is the stupidist thing I have ever heard. A crazy suicidal man with a gun who makes no distinction between man, woman or child, regardless of the issue is not a diplomat and deserves no respect nor to have his demands met. That's like me saying hey Jeremy I'll let your country live if you free all your criminals and hand over all the women in australia to me. O, and I want all your money too. The terrorists in Iraq who have captured the French journalists are asking for 5 million dollars. Please o please give me your reasoning behind that, and then explain how giving them the money is a good thing?
There are basically 2 majorities in Iraq made up of a rough 60-40 split with some random religions thown in there somewhere. The 60% supported Saddam, leaving the other 40% without a voice. So by your logic we should leave Iraq, give the country over to the protesters (cough-- terrorists by your own wording) and let them kill each other as they fight to replace Saddam. Yeah that'll happen.
No one said war was pretty, innocent lives will be lost. You have to look to the future instead of giving into the demands of the present. While I understand that the US stance is not popular (again, this war is not a popularity contest) amongst other nations, the US will do what it sees fit in order to protect the lives of Americans. If other countries took the same stance, people would not be allowed to simply walk in and take a school.
There are basically 2 majorities in Iraq made up of a rough 60-40 split with some random religions thown in there somewhere. The 60% supported Saddam, leaving the other 40% without a voice. So by your logic we should leave Iraq, give the country over to the protesters (cough-- terrorists by your own wording) and let them kill each other as they fight to replace Saddam. Yeah that'll happen.
No one said war was pretty, innocent lives will be lost. You have to look to the future instead of giving into the demands of the present. While I understand that the US stance is not popular (again, this war is not a popularity contest) amongst other nations, the US will do what it sees fit in order to protect the lives of Americans. If other countries took the same stance, people would not be allowed to simply walk in and take a school.
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews
~Damon Mathews
-
lightningbolt
- Nothing Vulgar
- Posts: 983
- Joined: 28 Jun 2004 12:55
- Location: Alaska
I agree with you. Saddam was a horriable, evil, asshole of a man. But, how many more ditactors are out there? How many more dictaors kill there own people? How many more "evil-doers" are out there??
I am not trying to defend Saddam, because I not. Death would be too nice for that man. I just trying to say that there shitty people everywhere. Just the other day, the Russia terroist thing. If we go by Bush's logic, why arn't we there helping track thoes "evil-doers" down? Why arn't we in China? Where incconet people still die? Why arn't we in N.K where they actually have nuclear weapons? Why arn't we in Cuba freeing that place? Why arn't we at home? Where 1 in 3 women will be raped. Where 1 in 5 childern will go hurgery. Where 1-4 children won't have health care. Where 1-4 kids who have a parnet in the milltary will grow up with out their dad or mom. Where 1 in 3 children will be beaten. Where childern go to schools with holes big enough to look out side in; that won't withstand a 3.5 earthquake. Nothing can be done because the school lacks funding. (I should know about that. I used to go to that school.) Where their army? Where there M-16 and F-15? Where is there liberators?
I am not trying to defend Saddam, because I not. Death would be too nice for that man. I just trying to say that there shitty people everywhere. Just the other day, the Russia terroist thing. If we go by Bush's logic, why arn't we there helping track thoes "evil-doers" down? Why arn't we in China? Where incconet people still die? Why arn't we in N.K where they actually have nuclear weapons? Why arn't we in Cuba freeing that place? Why arn't we at home? Where 1 in 3 women will be raped. Where 1 in 5 childern will go hurgery. Where 1-4 children won't have health care. Where 1-4 kids who have a parnet in the milltary will grow up with out their dad or mom. Where 1 in 3 children will be beaten. Where childern go to schools with holes big enough to look out side in; that won't withstand a 3.5 earthquake. Nothing can be done because the school lacks funding. (I should know about that. I used to go to that school.) Where their army? Where there M-16 and F-15? Where is there liberators?
I think I going to take over Canada. You should help.
Get Firefox!
Get Firefox!
Wow! Passion, I love it.
I agree with that as well. Unfortunately the military is not as large as it once was. It seems that a particular side doesn't think the military is that important so it was downsized years ago. This has hampered our efforts abroad. The Iraq war will be debated forever, just like Vietnam. The North Korean situation is touchy and we already fought them once and got stomped - literally, so I doubt you will see Bush ready to march on in. We pratically own Cuba, but I don't agree with the way it is being run. It is like an umbrella free from US law it seems. Sad. China is a communist state still, so getting support in there is difficult but not impossible to acheive.
Honestly though in all fairness more people die in the US from drunk drivers per year than all of the casualties in Iraq including civilians, so the innocent will continue to die where mishaps occur. And all schools lack funding, which is also sad.
It would be nice if the US picked battles that eveyone agrees is the right battle. Unfortunately with terrorism, that battle is everywhere and in a lot of countries. We take the stand that few countries would take in order to preserve our way of life in the US. IMO - that shows leadership in the face of adversity and a willingness to try, rather than watch.
I agree with that as well. Unfortunately the military is not as large as it once was. It seems that a particular side doesn't think the military is that important so it was downsized years ago. This has hampered our efforts abroad. The Iraq war will be debated forever, just like Vietnam. The North Korean situation is touchy and we already fought them once and got stomped - literally, so I doubt you will see Bush ready to march on in. We pratically own Cuba, but I don't agree with the way it is being run. It is like an umbrella free from US law it seems. Sad. China is a communist state still, so getting support in there is difficult but not impossible to acheive.
Honestly though in all fairness more people die in the US from drunk drivers per year than all of the casualties in Iraq including civilians, so the innocent will continue to die where mishaps occur. And all schools lack funding, which is also sad.
It would be nice if the US picked battles that eveyone agrees is the right battle. Unfortunately with terrorism, that battle is everywhere and in a lot of countries. We take the stand that few countries would take in order to preserve our way of life in the US. IMO - that shows leadership in the face of adversity and a willingness to try, rather than watch.
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews
~Damon Mathews
-
Senor Grommet
- Post Master General
- Posts: 3394
- Joined: 18 Oct 2002 20:25
- Location: Greater Santa Cruz, CA
Flex This,
I can't seem to understand how you believe that sticking our (US') nose into another country's business is noble or galant. All we're doing is fucking with another country's way of life, which is no business of our own. How can people not see this. If Chine wants to be communist, fuck thenm. Let them be. Why do we have to go out of our way, divert our resources that could be best used on our own soil or around our borders and place them in China just to keep them from living the way they want to? The same goes for Iraq. The same goes for North Korea. etc, etc. Isnt that selfish of us? Not everyone country needs to be democratic.
I can't seem to understand how you believe that sticking our (US') nose into another country's business is noble or galant. All we're doing is fucking with another country's way of life, which is no business of our own. How can people not see this. If Chine wants to be communist, fuck thenm. Let them be. Why do we have to go out of our way, divert our resources that could be best used on our own soil or around our borders and place them in China just to keep them from living the way they want to? The same goes for Iraq. The same goes for North Korea. etc, etc. Isnt that selfish of us? Not everyone country needs to be democratic.
My name: Jeremy Mirken, AKA Chocolatey Shatner, AKA jerk enemy rim.
I kick it with trunk chef elf and liz luck key my.
I kick it with trunk chef elf and liz luck key my.
FlexThis wrote: Saddam not the US exploited those sanctions to better himself and his immediate family.
Dude. You are the first one to shout about how following the letter of the law, while fucking the people is fine. Make this man a republican idol. Hate the game bitch, don't ahte the playa.
Let's also not forget how he invaded Kawait on a whim. Let's also not forget that Saddam killed all those who opposed him, but not just a quick death, he had torture chambers
USA ** USA ** USA ** oh, wait. WE did that. Damn, maybe we should take a dose of reality here.
What has happened on and since 9/11 can and will happen again (just look at Russia) if nothing is done to prevent it.
Taking action against a random bad guy does not produce safety. Bush has not made the US safer, he created several recruitment tools for terrorist. read more
If that means 1000 US soldiers have to give their lives to lead the way to freedom, then so be it.
Do you really believe this war is about freedom and liberty ? Why did the president not mention these goals until after the weapons were so brilliantly concealed that not one has been produced in a year ?
The US didn't kill civilians,
Bullshit. We are fighting a civilian force. You can tell yourself we are fighting "terrorists", but in reality we are fighting the civilian population. We have killed over 10 thousand civilians in Iraq.
the militants simply used them as bullet shields by hiding in highly populated areas and taking pot shots at the LIBERATORS.
Why are the LIBERATORS fighting in a town ? Could it possibly be that the enemy is the population ? Maybe we are not liberators, but more along the lines of OCCUPIERS.
But as long as there is a threat to peace in that region, you will find a US soldier ready to defend it.
This region doesn't need the US soldier to defend threats to peace, the US soldier IS the threat to peace.
First of all, noone said anything about converting China to democracy. The question was raised about helping out bad situations in China. So run a chiggity check on that.I can't seem to understand how you believe that sticking our (US') nose into another country's business is noble or galant. All we're doing is fucking with another country's way of life, which is no business of our own. How can people not see this. If Chine wants to be communist, fuck thenm. Let them be. Why do we have to go out of our way, divert our resources that could be best used on our own soil or around our borders and place them in China just to keep them from living the way they want to? The same goes for Iraq. The same goes for North Korea. etc, etc. Isnt that selfish of us? Not everyone country needs to be democratic.
North Korea could blow us to shit if they want. There is a US interest in that country to stop the proliferation of nukes. PERIOD.
Selfish would be stopping all trade embargos, becoming a self contained country, and ignoring the requests of other countries. Selfish would be attaining the rank of super power and then not using any of our technology to help anyone. Selfish would be letting a dictator like Hitler come to power and then watch as he destroys a race.
Not everyone follows the law, which is why Saddam is now the deposed leader of Iraq. He broke the law over and over again. Never said I liked the game either. I think the United Nations needs a serious overhaul, but that is another topic all together.Dude. You are the first one to shout about how following the letter of the law, while fucking the people is fine. Make this man a republican idol. Hate the game bitch, don't ahte the playa.
Reality is you CAMERON are an American - duh. Don't let a few bad apples spoil your bunch bro. There are a lot of assholes in this world as you know, so why are you buying the hype that ALL of the USA is bad? Have some pride or move the fuck to CanadaUSA ** USA ** USA ** oh, wait. WE did that. Damn, maybe we should take a dose of reality here.
(that was a joke people).I agree, but it is a start. Noone ever said ridding the world of Saddam would end all evil. When all hell broke loose, their were over 60 + nations with terrorists living and mingling with the populations of those countries, funneling money, training, recruiting, etc... It is gonna take a lot more than one war to rid the world of terror.Taking action against a random bad guy does not produce safety. Bush has not made the US safer, he created several recruitment tools for terrorist. read more
More than one has been produced, unfortunately 2 missles out of 200 does not a smoking gun make. And if you stayed current on the news you would know that scrap metals have been found in at least 14 countries smuggled out through Jordan for use by neighboring countries. If Saddam was such a noble random guy as you perceive, why would he need to smuggle out illegal components? Why did he not simply destroy them? He is a shark bro, and had his hands in a lot of pots, Russia and France to name 2 that aren't muslim.Do you really believe this war is about freedom and liberty ? Why did the president not mention these goals until after the weapons were so brilliantly concealed that not one has been produced in a year ?
Lets think back for a year there Cameron. When we started this thing, no armies where there at the border greeting us. For days we marched with no enemy in front of us. Only gas masks and empty uniforms laying around.Bullshit. We are fighting a civilian force. You can tell yourself we are fighting "terrorists", but in reality we are fighting the civilian population. We have killed over 10 thousand civilians in Iraq.
The army is not stupid, Saddam said, hey don't be a fool, drop your rags and take it to the streets. He told them to take it to the streets, so they did. They may look like eveyone else, but honestly, if you were a soldier would you want a giant red target drawn on your back? Didn't think so. Neither did the army, so they went gorilla. Not only that, Al Queda sees the war as a great place to train, and thus you find Al Queda blowing shit up on a daily basis. The terrorists want you to believe that civilians are being killed by the US. Makes there cause look just. They don't play fair. They have no set standards. They kill women in children. They strap bombs to people and cars and run into a crowded area and denonate. They stage fronts in Mosques. They fire at soldiers from farm houses and populated areas.
Name one settlement we have established that would constitute the word Occupy? We have no colonies there breeding children. We aren't in plain clothes working and running for public office. Shame on you and any one else who thinks we are occupiers. We are in uniform, we are working for the US of A. We are not even in control of the govt. any longer. We support them as needed and with their permission. It is such bullshit for you guys to sit back and say, but look at the protesters. There is a thing called mob rule, and it is a bad thing. Listening to the ramblings of an ignorant few will hardly quantify the needs and wants of all. They don't even have TV for christ sake. Satelite was banned there under Saddam. They have no clue what is going on outside the country.Why are the LIBERATORS fighting in a town ? Could it possibly be that the enemy is the population ? Maybe we are not liberators, but more along the lines of OCCUPIERS.
If that were true, 9/11 would have never happened. What country were we occuping then?This region doesn't need the US soldier to defend threats to peace, the US soldier IS the threat to peace.
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews
~Damon Mathews
Saudi Arabia, the country OBL has asked us to withdraw our military from repeatedly, the country which sent the hijackers, the country which the top grossing documentary of all time centers around.FlexThis wrote: What country were we occuping then?
Alternatively, Palestine through our support through Israel.
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Jeremy wrote:
--------------------------------------------
(....)
Regardless of what Saddam was doing it is pretty much indisputable that the 500,000 children would not have died if the sanctions weren't in place.
(.....)
So those 500,000 children died as a direct result of the US policy and achieved nothing. Saddam is just as culpable but at least from his view they didn't pointlessly die - he got even richer, he created more anti american and nationalist support and the international community gave him (indirectly) more support.
--------------------------------------------
So did they die "regardless of what Saddam was doing" or was "Saddam just as culpable"?
I don't think you can have it both ways.
Your defense of Saddam's "view" tells us a lot.
"He got even richer".... using 500,000 children as pawns in an international propaganda game (with Jeremy, and many others, as willing stooges ).
"he created more anti american and nationalist support "...... (of which Jeremy agrees)
"and the international community gave him (indirectly) more support" .......... (by parroting his propaganda, and profiting handsomely from the oil-for-food program, which apparently didnt involve much food.)
Jeremy wrote:
-----------------------------------
"This (a revolution) did not happen and there was no chance of it happening because Saddam controlled all the media."
------------------------------------
So it was the lack of journalist shmucks running around that prevented a rebellion, and not murderous purges, family imprisonment, rape, mass graves, and unspeakable tortures that held them in check?
You are at least partly right about controlling the media. CNN revealed how they had been broadcasting favorable stories for Saddam for years, in order to protect Iraqi employees who were threatened if CNN reported contrary to their wishes.
If I was the bureau chief for CNN at the time I probably would have played along also, to save the lives of my employees.
That wouldn't change the fact that my organization had became a propaganda arm of Saddam.
-n
--------------------------------------------
(....)
Regardless of what Saddam was doing it is pretty much indisputable that the 500,000 children would not have died if the sanctions weren't in place.
(.....)
So those 500,000 children died as a direct result of the US policy and achieved nothing. Saddam is just as culpable but at least from his view they didn't pointlessly die - he got even richer, he created more anti american and nationalist support and the international community gave him (indirectly) more support.
--------------------------------------------
So did they die "regardless of what Saddam was doing" or was "Saddam just as culpable"?
I don't think you can have it both ways.
Your defense of Saddam's "view" tells us a lot.
"He got even richer".... using 500,000 children as pawns in an international propaganda game (with Jeremy, and many others, as willing stooges ).
"he created more anti american and nationalist support "...... (of which Jeremy agrees)
"and the international community gave him (indirectly) more support" .......... (by parroting his propaganda, and profiting handsomely from the oil-for-food program, which apparently didnt involve much food.)
Jeremy wrote:
-----------------------------------
"This (a revolution) did not happen and there was no chance of it happening because Saddam controlled all the media."
------------------------------------
So it was the lack of journalist shmucks running around that prevented a rebellion, and not murderous purges, family imprisonment, rape, mass graves, and unspeakable tortures that held them in check?
You are at least partly right about controlling the media. CNN revealed how they had been broadcasting favorable stories for Saddam for years, in order to protect Iraqi employees who were threatened if CNN reported contrary to their wishes.
If I was the bureau chief for CNN at the time I probably would have played along also, to save the lives of my employees.
That wouldn't change the fact that my organization had became a propaganda arm of Saddam.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan