NationStates Jolt Archive

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20040918/mdf699814.jpg

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040918/capt.bag13709181612.iraq_bag137.jpg

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040918/capt.bag13609181533.iraq_bag136.jpg

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20040918/capt.sge.kpi48.180904135823.photo00.default-384x255.jpg

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040918/capt.mac10309181239.iraq_explosion_mac103.jpg

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040918/capt.bag11109180753.iraq_bag111.jpg

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040918/capt.bag10709180718.iraq_bag107.jpg

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040918/capt.bag10909180700.iraq_bag109.jpg

This is the result of going into a war based on lies and forged documents. If you truly are a "compassionate" conservative, you'd be just as disgusted as I am (I'm a liberal Christian).

I don't see how anyone could support this war. :(

I don't see how anyone could support this war. :(
I know! I mean, what did those poor Iraqi children ever do to deserve the wrath of the American army aside from being born? Or, the everyday citizens who just want to peacefully coexist?

I'm a Conservative but from Day 1, I knew this war would only bring trouble, death and a stupid taunts from the president to terrorists that he (the president) managed to destroy a 3rd world country.

its better then saddam tying them to ceiling fans then breaking there hips by holding onto there legs and keeping them straight.

I'm a Conservative but from Day 1, I knew this war would only bring trouble, death and a stupid taunts from the president to terrorists that he (the president) managed to destroy a 3rd world country.

Im a liberal and I agree! :headbang:

its better then saddam tying them to ceiling fans then breaking there hips by holding onto there legs and keeping them straight.
You say this, why?

I don't support this war, but I don't think it's fair at all that you show those pictures without showing all the pictures of every Iraqi and drawing conclusions from there. I could only show you pictures of the disaster caused by hurricane Ivan and hurricane Frances and make you think that the life of every American is hell if you knew little enough.

And I'm sure all of Saddam's citizens were flying kites with big smiles before the war. Please.

And I'm sure all of Saddam's citizens were flying kites with big smiles before the war. Please.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20031106/wd4.jpg

:D

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20031106/wd4.jpg

:D
Uh, those are Indian people.

Anyway, this war was going to happen sooner or later, only problem is it was for the wrong reason. We should have had it in our goal to LIBERATE and FREE the Iraqis from a terrorist-supporting government, not based on WMDs. It should have been the other way around:

WE ARE GOING TO FREE THE IRAQIS AND STOP A TERRORIST SUPPORTING GOVERNMENT, and we can also make sure they don't have WMDs.

instead of

WE ARE GOING TO STOP THE TERRORIST SUPPORTIN GOvERNMENT FROM MAKING ENOUGH NUKES TO SLAUGHTER THE ENTIRE WORLD WITH and also liberate the Iraqis in the process.

War isn't pretty, and you people see 10 pictures and think that is how all Iraqis are living? That's probably downtown Baghdad 1 block away from the firefights going on between US Soldiers and Muslims jihadists.

There are worse things that happen in the United States ever day.

Uh, those are Indian people.

Afghan, actually.

...Too true.

Yeah, see, those photos were of Iraqi against Iraqi. I've seen all those photos, and they were the cause of Islamic extremists.

Why am I soposed to care about the Iraqis. Iraq was a threat to MY safety and it was dealt with in a much more civilized manner than if I would have been in charge. Besides its better than being under a crazy guy the tortured and gassed them.

By the way most iraqis are fine and many are earning a good living well the intelligent ones are.

Why am I soposed to care about the Iraqis. Iraq was a threat to MY safety and it was dealt with in a much more civilized manner than if I would have been in charge. Besides its better than being under a crazy guy the tortured and gassed them.

Why should you care about the Iraqis? Well, because theyre people. It's like saying "Why should I care about September 11, 2001? They're only Americans." Both views are equally full of shit.

How was Iraq a threat to your safety? What WMD have been found? Was there a large Iraqi army waiting to invade your country? There have been no links found between Saddam and Al-Quaeda, the group number one in the wanted terrorist groups.

And anyway, why should you care if life is better? You shouldn't care about those Iraqis anyway ;)

Why am I soposed to care about the Iraqis. Iraq was a threat to MY safety and it was dealt with in a much more civilized manner than if I would have been in charge. Besides its better than being under a crazy guy the tortured and gassed them.

This aughta be good.

How was Iraq a threat to your safty?

Why am I soposed to care about the Iraqis. Iraq was a threat to MY safety and it was dealt with in a much more civilized manner than if I would have been in charge. Besides its better than being under a crazy guy the tortured and gassed them.

How in the HELL was Iraq a threat to your safety???? You better not go off spurting about WMD's either, because there were none...

Why am I soposed to care about the Iraqis. Iraq was a threat to MY safety and it was dealt with in a much more civilized manner than if I would have been in charge. Besides its better than being under a crazy guy the tortured and gassed them.



IRAQ IS A 3RD WORLD COUNTRY, IT WASN'T ORGANIZED ENOUGH TO FIGHT ITSELF. If Iraq is a threat to the US, then Americans are ont he ones illegally immagrating to Mexico and not the other way around. See my point?

Why am I soposed to care about the Iraqis. Iraq was a threat to MY safety and it was dealt with in a much more civilized manner than if I would have been in charge. Besides its better than being under a crazy guy the tortured and gassed them.
Exactly, Iraq was only substantially less dangerous to Americans before the war than the average motor vehicle, so clearly something had to be done...after all if Saddam had ever gotten past this whole WMD business and moved in automobile manufacturing....well the US could have had real trouble on its hands.
As for those who naively think that just because Saddam didnt have the means of deploying any weapons he might have become capable of producing should the UN sanctions have been lifted, have you not heard of swimming? Clearly if Saddam had been left until the UN Sanctions were lifted, it would only have been a matter of years before he developed nuclear powered pea shooters, and trained some Iraqi soldiers to swim to the States with them for an all out offensive.

This is the result of going into a war based on lies and forged documents. If you truly are a "compassionate" conservative, you'd be just as disgusted as I am (I'm a liberal Christian).

I don't see how anyone could support this war. :(

http://massgraves.info/

Thanks for playing.

Like I said before... YOU ARE THE WORLD'S BIGGEST http://www.genmay.com/images/smilies/tard.gif

Kthxbai dumbass.

I oppose war entirely, with just one exception: if, and only if, we are attacked first, and we know exactly who attacked us. Then, I favor all-out (but not using nukes) war to end the conflict as quickly as possible and spare as many innocent lives as possible.

http://massgraves.info/

Thanks for playing.

Kthxbai dumbass.

Why do the neoconservatives think it's Amrica's duty to police the world and stop tyrants if they don't threaten us? There have always been dictators, and there will always be. If it suddenly is the United States' mission to "take out brutal dictators" then we've got alot of work to do. Ever heard of John Quincy Adams? Here's what he said way back in 1821:

"She [America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

(Applause)

Agreed! We are not the world's policeman! Every war we fought (with the exception of our War For Independence) could and should have been avoided.

Why do the neoconservatives think it's Amrica's duty to police the world and stop tyrants if they don't threaten us? There have always been dictators, and there will always be. If it suddenly is the United States' mission to "take out brutal dictators" then we've got alot of work to do. Ever heard of John Quincy Adams? Here's what he said way back in 1821:

"She [America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

Where exactly did I say that it was America's duty to police the world?

All I did was show that the life of Iraqis today is better than it was before the U.S toppled Saddam with a link.

And called out an idiot on his ridiculous assertion that the life of Iraqis today is worse due to the U.S Army action.

Where exactly did I say that it was America's duty to police the world?

All I did was show that the life of Iraqis today is better than it was before the U.S toppled Saddam with a link.

And called out an idiot on his ridiculous assertion that the life of Iraqis today is worse due to the U.S Army action.

We all know there were no WMDs, so now the war supporters are arguing that "we made life better for the Iraqis". Whether or not they're better off isn't relevant. By suggesting that we had a right to attack a soverign nation on the grounds of "the leader's a dictator!", you are supporting the idea that the US must be a globocop.

http://massgraves.info/

Thanks for playing.

Like I said before... YOU ARE THE WORLD'S BIGGEST http://www.genmay.com/images/smilies/tard.gif

Kthxbai dumbass.

And how many Iraqis have we killed? How many have the 'insurgents' killed?

The 'insurgents' are doing what they are doing because we went in and destroyed or disbanded all authoritative bodies in Iraq, leading to chaos. Not to mention everyone hates the US in the Middle East, so that helps. Everything that is going on in Iraq now is a direct result of the war. Its our fault.

As for some of the mass graves Saddam created, they were done by WMDs the US GAVE Saddam before and during the Iran/Iraq conflict. Dead Iranians and Kurds make up the bulk of those mass graves. And the slaughter of the Marsh Shia that rose up against him in Gulf War I were (a) told by the US to do so and then we abandoned them, (b) killed because they rose up against the government.

Now, all I have to say concerning (b) is Ruby Ridge, Branch Davidians, Montana Freemen, Kent State Massacre. The United States has no hesitations about killing its own citizens and the slightest HINT of acting against it. Now if a large number of people were to do it...who knows?

We all know there were no WMDs, so now the war supporters are arguing that "we made life better for the Iraqis". Whether or not they're better off isn't relevant.

You are correct, but the point of that post wasn't any justification for war.

Like I said before, all I did was call out an idiot and his assertion. Nothing else.

Now, all I have to say concerning (b) is Ruby Ridge, Branch Davidians, Montana Freemen, Kent State Massacre.

The 'victims' of Kent State were violently rioting. They burned buildings and caused thousands of dollars' worth of damage, threw bricks and rocks at the Guardsmen, etc. The Guardsmen fired in self-defense.

The 'victims' of Kent State were violently rioting. They burned buildings and caused thousands of dollars' worth of damage, threw bricks and rocks at the Guardsmen, etc. The Guardsmen fired in self-defense.

Violent riot yes, but did it require firing at the students? Firing into the air would have done a good job at dispursing the crowd.

http://massgraves.info/

Thanks for playing.

Like I said before... YOU ARE THE WORLD'S BIGGEST http://www.genmay.com/images/smilies/tard.gif

Kthxbai dumbass.
That was how long ago?

How was he able to do this? Oh with western supplied CBW, and helicopters.

Oh and of course the US was all up in arms about this huh? Nope!! They were so upset that they continued to back Iraq in its' war against Iran.

Kurds = civil war casualties. The US had a few of those too?

BTW, where do we put all these dead and dying?

http://www.ccmep.org/usbombingwatch/2003.htm#5/16/03

I am sure the Iraqi people thank you for your belated concern?

Ummm thanks for playing.

http://prisonplanet.com/video/CAS.wmv
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1/aztlan_thief_host_your_own_video_iraqiwar.wmv

...

http://prisonplanet.com/video/CAS.wmv
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1/aztlan_thief_host_your_own_video_iraqiwar.wmv

...
The perpetrators should be charged and spend a long time in jail.

The Iraqi war and you:

The US government would not have invaded Iraq if the majority of americans had told their congressional representatives that they did not want this invasion to happen. In a democracy, the government must listen to the majority, (or the majority of the politically-active).

Don't blame your government for your actions, or in this case, lack of action.

Yeah, see, those photos were of Iraqi against Iraqi. I've seen all those photos, and they were the cause of Islamic extremists.
Yes, let's blame it all on the Islamic extremist:D

Where exactly did I say that it was America's duty to police the world?

All I did was show that the life of Iraqis today is better than it was before the U.S toppled Saddam with a link.

And called out an idiot on his ridiculous assertion that the life of Iraqis today is worse due to the U.S Army action.


Iraqis' are better off?

Well, lets ask them!

By Sept 2003, only 33% of Iraqis thought they were better off now than under Saddam. (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/24/1064083043705.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true)


In April of this year, only 39% of IRaqis felt better off after the war than before: (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/28/iraq.poll/)


That was all before Abu Ghraib, before the seige of Falluja, the battles against Al Sadr, and the huge increase in violence by the insurgencies.


Care to guess what poll numbers would say now? You know - if it were safe enough in Iraq to actually conduct a poll?



Incidentally, how do you think the pictures would look if, in 10 years, they dig up the graves of all of the civillians killed in this war? Just like the website you posted? Yeah - pretty much....


Oh yeah - about those mass graves..... too bad it turns out that there weren't really any on the scale that they claimed. Remember those "hundreds of thousands" they kept talking about? Well, even Tony Blair had to admit that it wasn't the case (http://www.myantiwar.org/view/23685.html).


So, by most counts it seems that besides blowing the shit out of the country, removing women's rights, selling off the country's assets through Article 39, and allowing the total collapse of the domestic security system in the country - it even seems that it is quite possible that the US has killed more Iraqi civillians than that "evil" Saddam did.

Yeah - they are MUCH better off! :rolleyes:

Iraqis' are better off?

Oh yeah - about those mass graves..... too bad it turns out that there weren't really any on the scale that they claimed. Remember those "hundreds of thousands" they kept talking about? Well, even Tony Blair had to admit that it wasn't the case (http://www.myantiwar.org/view/23685.html).


So, by most counts it seems that besides blowing the shit out of the country, removing women's rights, selling off the country's assets through Article 39, and allowing the total collapse of the domestic security system in the country - it even seems that it is quite possible that the US has killed more Iraqi civillians than that "evil" Saddam did.

Yeah - they are MUCH better off! :rolleyes:

It was only tens of thousands and not hundreds of thousands? Well, obviously not enough killing going on over there for anyone to bother with. Natural selection principal, isn't it?

Blowing the s--- out of the country? Our satellites don't seem to be getting a lot of glare from glass. If you mean the rebels who are trying to take over the country so that they can set themselves up as the country's leaders and force their ideas over the people, well, yes, a few thousand of those have been bombed. It's interesting to note that more than a few of them have been identified as not even being Iraqi. hmmmmmmmmm....we'll call that natural de-selection process.

Removing women's rights. You mean their rights to not get an education, to be the property of their husbands, to be beaten and murdered by male family members at their whim, to be undelcared slaves, to wear about 20 pounds of dark clothing over their entire bodies, including their faces, in 120 F temperatures, to be allowed the joy of being raped by Saddam, his sons, and all his merry men? Wow!! I bet they're really hate losing the lifestyle they had!

Article 39...well, let's all read it together...

ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.


Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.


Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

You obviously understand what the UN's intention was much better than I do. Please explain to me how this is selling off Iraq's assets.

allowing the total collapse of the domestic security system in the country?
A brutal dictatorship who controls the country through murder, torture, starvation, poverty, and oppression is not a valid security system. It is an atrocity. The current situation is being handled by the interum Iraqi government with the coalition's assistance as needed and requested. Iraqis are being governed by Iraqis with a democracy goal in mind. It's not the coalition that is setting roadside bombs, car bombs, or deploying suicide bombers. The coaltion is bombing "nests" of anti-freedom insurgents. Unfortunately, there are innocent lives lost, too. How do we avoid it? The alternative is another brutal dictatorship. Would you want to be governed by a group of people who think nothing of setting off bombs in market places, at police stations, and near schools?

it is quite possible that the US has killed more Iraqi civillians than that "evil" Saddam did? Please!! Source!! The truth is that the coalition troops have killed no where near the number of people that Saddam & Co. did, even if you include the foks from Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan who have been killed. Obviously, from your words, you embrace Saddam's form of government. How do you stand living in Canada?

Is this United States going to attack every non-democratic country and liberate the people being oppressed there?

No ... ? Maybe you should stop trying to justify your silly war then.

Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security

Umm, actually he was talking about Article 39 of the "new" Iraqi "Constitution. Not the UN.

No WMD
No threat to America

and now the last argument they had that at least they were better off without Saddam is going to hell in a hand basket.

Pretty sad.

mmm...death and decay...yummy








I RULE YOU ALL! NOW BURN!!! :mad:



xoxoxo <3 The Queen of Sinks

Removing women's rights. You mean their rights to not get an education, to be the property of their husbands, to be beaten and murdered by male family members at their whim, to be undelcared slaves, to wear about 20 pounds of dark clothing over their entire bodies, including their faces, in 120 F temperatures, to be allowed the joy of being raped by Saddam, his sons, and all his merry men? Wow!! I bet they're really hate losing the lifestyle they had!


No actually, in Iraq women already had the rights to divorce, hold office, not wear the burkha et. You are confusing Iraq with Afghanistan. However the interim government has put in place many of the traditional islamic rules that repress women. All signed into law by Mr. Bremmer.


Article 39...well, let's all read it together...

...

Sorry - CPA ORDER 39, which allowed the privatization and selling off to foreign interests everything In Iraq including the banking, telecommunications, and oil industries.

Feel free to do a little research on it.

Such as the fact that this was blatantly illegal.

The Hague regulations state that an occupying power must respect "unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country". Iraq's existing constitution outlawed the privatization of key state assets, and it barred foreigners from owning Iraqi firms. No plausible argument can be made that the CPA was "absolutely prevented" from respecting those laws, and yet the CPA overturned them unilaterally.

The convention also states that occupying powers "shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile state, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct."

Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines "usufruct" as an arrangement that grants one party the right to use and derive benefit from another's property "without altering the substance of the thing". Put more simply, if you are a housesitter, you can eat the food in the fridge, but you can't sell the house and turn it into condos.

What could more substantially alter "the substance" of a public asset than to turn it into a private one?

But when Bremer enacted the order last September, the CPA immediately announced that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatized; decreed that foreign firms can retain 100% ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move 100% of their profits out of Iraq. The allowance of complete foreign control of Iraq's banking industry is certainly key. No country has ever been successful without a fair measure of domestic control of it's financial intitutions.

Indeed, The Economist declared the new rules a "capitalist dream".

Don't care about International Law?

How about Domestic Law. The US army's Law of Land Warfare states that "the occupant does not have the right of sale or unqualified use of [non-military] property". This is pretty straightforward: bombing something does not give you the right to sell it.

But already the great selloff has begun. After all, you have a population in dire financial need after a decade of sanctions, and a business community crying out for capital to get things running again. The pickings are great when the situation is dire and you can buy up firms at pennies on the dollar.

And the section allowing the CPA to sign binding 40 year leases on businesses it choses to privatize is also in full swing. Cases in point, MCI (the perpetrators of the greatest fraud in US history) being handed Iraqi mobile telephone business on a silver platter, and JP Morgan (you remember them from the Enron scandal) has been handed the business of heading up the new Trade Bank of Iraq.

And the laws do not even require the CPA to look at domestic bids for services when a foreign company has an interest. There is no formalized bidding structure in place at all that provides even the veneer of legitimacy. You know - a Halliburton-style bidding process....


Anyway, you have some lovely rhetoric. Next time try starting with facts though.... you'll do better.

Umm, actually he was talking about Article 39 of the "new" Iraqi "Constitution. Not the UN.

No WMD
No threat to America

and now the last argument they had that at least they were better off without Saddam is going to hell in a hand basket.

Pretty sad.

Nice of you to handle this for him. I'm still waiting for his statisic sources. Please provide a link to the Iraqi constitution...which was written, btw, by Iraqis.

Let me provide another link. Is this really better?

http://members.cox.net/free_iraq/Free_Iraq.htm

The point is, there is a very small group of people that want complete, unchallenged control of the Iraqi government. All the signs are pointing to Iran as a major supporter of this movement. In trying to eliminate this militant group, innocent lives are lost. It's a damnable situation, but the coalition are doing what they can to minimize that loss. There is no way that any logical, rational, thinking person could equate those losses with the slaughter that Saddam willfully committed. Eventually, with persistence, and in spite of armchair doomsday critics, the will of the Iraqi people will prevail.

Nice of you to handle this for him. I'm still waiting for his statisic sources. Please provide a link to the Iraqi constitution...which was written, btw, by Iraqis.

Let me provide another link. Is this really better?

http://members.cox.net/free_iraq/Free_Iraq.htm

Nah, I believe Zeppistan handled it quite nicely all by himself.. :rolleyes:

Nice of you to handle this for him. I'm still waiting for his statisic sources. Please provide a link to the Iraqi constitution...which was written, btw, by Iraqis.

Let me provide another link. Is this really better?

http://members.cox.net/free_iraq/Free_Iraq.htm

HEre is your link to Article 39: http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20031220_CPAORD_39_Foreign_Investment_.pdf

You might want to look up Article 137 too. It was signed into law in December 2003, and it officially repeals the equal rights for women that have been a part of Iraqi culture for over 50 years. It replaces it instead with strict Sharia law,

The (annotated) text of the motion is as follows:

"1) Applying the rules of the Islamic Sharia in matters of Marriage, engagement, eligibility for marriage, marriage contract, marriage procedure and validity, impediments, marriage (of Muslim men) to women of the Book (Christians), nuptial rights including the dowry [initial and post Divorce settlement it is usually stated on the contract], legal separation, divorce [this means the man only needs to say to his wife : you are ‘Talliq’ (divorced) in front of two witnesses in order to divorce his wife (not necessarily in her presence)!], matters of breast feeding, [ according to Islam a woman that breastfeed a baby cannot become her/his mother-in-law ] annulment, the time span for the decree absolute, matters regarding the custody of children, ( This is different according to the sect, for the Shia the man can claim custody of a child as young as one year old, for the Sunnis it is five. Under the current civil law it is seven year old this is part of the law needs modernizing in order to conform with the UN Convention for the Rights of the Child),
Also in matters of written and unwritten wills, inheritance and allowance (woman share is half of the man’s) and all matters concerning family law.
In accordance with the individual’s ‘religious identity’

2- The annulment of all laws, decisions and directions that contravenes the above decision.

3- Valid from the date of issue.
Signature: Abdul Aziz Hakim
"


Yep - that sure is the "freedom" for the women of Iraq that they wanted... the REMOVAL of their rights. :rolleyes:

http://federalistpatriot.us/news/images/real_usa_iraq.jpg

Evil Americans! Them and their worthless "freedom!"

Look at Japan, Germany, and the Phillipines. America should just stop trying, shouldn't it?

http://federalistpatriot.us/news/images/real_usa_iraq.jpg

Evil Americans! Them and their worthless "freedom!"

Look at Japan, Germany, and the Phillipines. America should just stop trying, shouldn't it?

That was what? Taken over a year ago? I know because that's about how long I've been seeing it go around. I doubt those children (if half are even still alive now) would feel the same way. There is nothing "free" about what is going on in Iraq these days.

As to Japan, Germany etc.. lets not forget none of those countries were fundi-religious people. Big Difference. History already taught the British about the middle east and I guess America ignored it and will have to learn themselves. *sigh*

The point is...

Did you even read Zeppistan's responses to you? Or is just easier to ignore them and respond back to me? Sheesh.. *LOL* :rolleyes:

well shit! tell them to stop blowing their own god damn people up, and to stop decapitating americans that are trying to help them!
lol! that didn't really take a fucking genious now did it?! >=/
god damn hippies! ;) :sniper:

americans that are trying to help them!

Yes, trying to help the Iraqi's by stealing their national treasure for the next 40 years.. what great people!

Did you even read Zeppistan's responses to you? Or is just easier to ignore them and respond back to me? Sheesh.. *LOL* :rolleyes:


No....I have a glitch in my system. Whenever I try to open a link to a pdf, Adobe starts throwing error messages and locks up my puter. I have to hard boot out of it and then go through the scan disk thing. Don't worry, I'm not afraid of you or Zeppistan. You're too easy to prove wrong. I'm reviewing the posts and composing my answer. Get ready...I'm about to expose that Canada either wants to or has sold off Muslim women's rights. Still researching the progress on that one.

I'm not afraid of you or Zeppistan. You're too easy to prove wrong. I'm reviewing the posts and composing my answer. Get ready...I'm about to expose that Canada either wants to or has sold off Muslim women's rights. Still researching the progress on that one.

:rolleyes:

Explain to me please wtf Canada had to do with the discussion?

Yes. Going back to the first post, we must realize that even though there are ignorants here saying the Iraqi's are better off and have a better system, there is more corruption and unrest in the country after our ivasion
We are considered liberators to less than half the country right now. So, we shouldn't expect them to kiss our feet or greet us well.

Im curious how Zeppistan can say that the Iraqi's were better off under Saddam?
Can anyone deny that Saddam tortured and killed people on whims, and for amusments? Can anyone deny that Saddam could and did kill thousands of his own people for political and personal reasons? Can anyone deny that he was "grooming" his sons to continue his same reign of terror that was the Presidency of Saddam Hussein?

And Stephistan, those national treasures you are talking about... might they be the ones that American servicemen recovered from looters and returned to the people of Iraq? Or do you concider oil a national "treasure"?

Im curious how Zeppistan can say that the Iraqi's were better off under Saddam?
Can anyone deny that Saddam tortured and killed people on whims, and for amusments? Can anyone deny that Saddam could and did kill thousands of his own people for political and personal reasons? Can anyone deny that he was "grooming" his sons to continue his same reign of terror that was the Presidency of Saddam Hussein?

And Stephistan, those national treasures you are talking about... might they be the ones that American servicemen recovered from looters and returned to the people of Iraq? Or do you concider oil a national "treasure"?

How do you know that Saddam killed people for kicks? Is there any evidence to support he didn't have a reason? Twisted as it may of been, do you?

A lot of us in the free world shrill at the thought of the death penalty, yet should we go liberate Americans being put to death by their own country for the crimes they commit? Is it your place to tell people what their laws should and shouldn't be? If so, should the rest of the free world get together and at least stop the US from killing their own people? Some of those people being sent to death row are even children. I guess it depends on your laws and on the different laws under Muslim rule. There are many laws Muslims live by that we in the west do not.

It's not just Zeppistan who believes the Iraqi's were better off under Saddam, I do too, as do many people and no, it's not because we believe Saddam was a great guy because he was a bastard. It's because their situation now is worse.

As to their national treasure, one could argue their basic economic infrastructure could be called their "national treasure" thus, read Zeppistan's post about CPA article 39 which is good for 40 years.

And I'm sure all of Saddam's citizens were flying kites with big smiles before the war. Please.

Saddam's wrongs don't make Bush's wrongs right, you uneducated cretin. Please.

:rolleyes:

Explain to me please wtf Canada had to do with the discussion?

Muslim women's rights, of course.

http://www.iheu.org/modules/news/print.php?storyid=84

As you are from Canada and support your government's role in human rights, I'm surprised that you would condemn the loss of women's rights in Iraq. As for the link to the new constitution, I'm going to have to take your word for what it says. pdf is not an option for me right now.

:Anyway, you have some lovely rhetoric. Next time try starting with facts though.... you'll do better.

Ew...that was a cheap shot. As you and the Mrs have made it clear that you have ties to the UN (there's another scandal), I assumed you were talking about the UN's decree. You didn't specify. In all honesty, I haven't read anything but brief synopsis of the constitution. I'll have to do more research into it and base an opinion after that. If what you say is totally true :rolleyes: then I have to ask why the US is supporting it. Or do we have any say into what the Iraqis decree? Lotta reading to do before I form a view.

Now, if you'll excuse me, Adobe and I have some issues to work out. I'll check back after I do another download.

Muslim women's rights, of course.

http://www.iheu.org/modules/news/print.php?storyid=84

As you are from Canada and support your government's role in human rights, I'm surprised that you would condemn the loss of women's rights in Iraq. As for the link to the new constitution, I'm going to have to take your word for what it says. pdf is not an option for me right now.


You have dificulty reading your links? IT clearly states that this allows Muslims to voluntarily jave legally binding decisions made under religious law. Note that BOTH parties have to agree. Note that this is something the Muslims are asking for, and note that Ontario is considering it as a way to allow them to maintain their cultural processes IF THEY WISH TO as a freedom being offered to them rather than inflicting this optional process as a forced system.

So, women will have the option to be bound by arbitration in a sharia court if they so choose, and the option to pursue the normal judicial process if that is their preference. Seems to be an offer to extend their freedoms rather than restrict them if you ask me.

And none of which has anything to do with the subject at hand which is NOT Canada.

Ew...that was a cheap shot. As you and the Mrs have made it clear that you have ties to the UN (there's another scandal), I assumed you were talking about the UN's decree. You didn't specify. In all honesty, I haven't read anything but brief synopsis of the constitution. I'll have to do more research into it and base an opinion after that. If what you say is totally true :rolleyes: then I have to ask why the US is supporting it. Or do we have any say into what the Iraqis decree? Lotta reading to do before I form a view.

Now, if you'll excuse me, Adobe and I have some issues to work out. I'll check back after I do another download.

Yes, please DO start reading before you post uninformed statements. You might just have a better chance of "proving me wrong" if you did.


And no, trying to sidetrack the discussion does not count in that regard.

Oh, and using the magic of that obscure technology we all call "Google", here is the Order in html: http://www.mafhoum.com/press6/164E15.htm

[QUOTE=Stephistan]
A lot of us in the free world shrill at the thought of the death penalty, yet should we go liberate Americans being put to death by their own country for the crimes they commit? Is it your place to tell people what their laws should and shouldn't be? If so, should the rest of the free world get together and at least stop the US from killing their own people? QUOTE]

Couldn't let this one go by.

There are many of us in the US opposed to the death penalty. We're also the ones you scream about being Christian extemists for wanting to deny women the right to kill their children and call it a medical procedure. It's called Right to Life. Cold blooded murder is wrong no matter who the person is, unborn child or killer. Only, in your mind, only unborn children are fair game.

Steph, you and Zep have made it clear over and over that you hate the US, its policies, and any of its people that aren't in lock step with your ideas. that's your right and your loss. But, when you assume to dictate how we Americans should run our country and our policies, you shouldn't be surprised when Americans take afront. The obvious difference here is that Saddam and his gang were killing innocent people for no valid reason. It was basically an opposition cleansing.

How do we know that he did it for kicks? Because he tortured and slaughtered children!! No brainer!! Take a good hard look and then make an informed decision.

http://members.cox.net/free_iraq/Free_Iraq.htm

Steph, you and Zep have made it clear over and over that you hate the US, its policies

No we have made it clear over and over again that we hate some of the US's policies, not the US!

Now, if you'll excuse me, Adobe and I have some issues to work out. I'll check back after I do another download.
Download a better PDF reader (http://www.cadkas.com/downengpdf5.php). Abode sucks.

Steph, you and Zep have made it clear over and over that you hate the US, its policies, and any of its people that aren't in lock step with your ideas. that's your right and your loss. But, when you assume to dictate how we Americans should run our country and our policies, you shouldn't be surprised when Americans take afront. The obvious difference here is that Saddam and his gang were killing innocent people for no valid reason. It was basically an opposition cleansing.

How do we know that he did it for kicks? Because he tortured and slaughtered children!! No brainer!! Take a good hard look and then make an informed decision.

http://members.cox.net/free_iraq/Free_Iraq.htm


Please stop posting the same link to the same private website as some sort of Holy Grail of the Truth. If that is where you get your information it sure explains a lot about your mindset.

If I put up a set of pictures from Mi Lai would you accept me calling that a "no-brainer" on the mindset of Nixon?


And if you weren't so self-righteous you might note that we both DO have many good debates with certain intelligent and informed people here who happen to have contrary views to our own. We manage to have those politely and include the normal give-and-take an adult discussion requires.

We have our views and we are happy to share them. That does not imply a desire to "dictate" how you run your country but rather a statement of opinions on how we think you could run it better. It is our right under own free speech laws as it would be if we were Americans. And in case you haven't noticed - our opinions ARE shared by many citizens of your fine country.

Download a better PDF reader (http://www.cadkas.com/downengpdf5.php). Abode sucks.

Thanks for the link. I finally got it working. It seems to be a compatability issue with an accounting program I use. I'll just have to watch it for a while.

Thanks again!!

We all know who put Saddam in charge and backed him up. The US installed the Saddam regime. When the puppet stops dancing to the puppetmasters strings, it gets disposed of. They want oil oil oil oil oil oil... and nothing you say can convince me it is otherwise. Believe your government's propaganda if you want to keep feeling good about this war.