NationStates Jolt Archive

Original Article (http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html#109582366638394688)

Wednesday, September 22, 2004
If America were Iraq, What would it be Like?
by Prof. Juan Cole

President Bush said Tuesday that the Iraqis are refuting the pessimists and implied that things are improving in that country.

What would America look like if it were in Iraq's current situation? The population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics would have to be multiplied by that number.

Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.

And what if those deaths occurred all over the country, including in the capital of Washington, DC, but mainly above the Mason Dixon line, in Boston, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco?

What if the grounds of the White House and the government buildings near the Mall were constantly taking mortar fire? What if almost nobody in the State Department at Foggy Bottom, the White House, or the Pentagon dared venture out of their buildings, and considered it dangerous to go over to Crystal City or Alexandria?

What if all the reporters for all the major television and print media were trapped in five-star hotels in Washington, DC and New York, unable to move more than a few blocks safely, and dependent on stringers to know what was happening in Oklahoma City and St. Louis? What if the only time they ventured into the Midwest was if they could be embedded in Army or National Guard units?

There are estimated to be some 25,000 guerrillas in Iraq engaged in concerted acts of violence. What if there were private armies totalling 275,000 men, armed with machine guns, assault rifles (legal again!), rocket-propelled grenades, and mortar launchers, hiding out in dangerous urban areas of cities all over the country? What if they completely controlled Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Denver and Omaha, such that local police and Federal troops could not go into those cities?

What if, during the past year, the Secretary of State (Aqilah Hashemi), the President (Izzedine Salim), and the Attorney General (Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim) had all been assassinated?

What if all the cities in the US were wracked by a crime wave, with thousands of murders, kidnappings, burglaries, and carjackings in every major city every year?

What if the Air Force routinely (I mean daily or weekly) bombed Billings, Montana, Flint, Michigan, Watts in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Anacostia in Washington, DC, and other urban areas, attempting to target "safe houses" of "criminal gangs", but inevitably killing a lot of children and little old ladies?

What if, from time to time, the US Army besieged Virginia Beach, killing hundreds of armed members of the Christian Soldiers? What if entire platoons of the Christian Soldiers militia holed up in Arlington National Cemetery, and were bombarded by US Air Force warplanes daily, destroying thousands of graves and even pulverizing the Vietnam Memorial over on the Mall? What if the National Council of Churches had to call for a popular march of thousands of believers to converge on the National Cathedral to stop the US Army from demolishing it to get at a rogue band of the Timothy McVeigh Memorial Brigades?

What if there were virtually no commercial air traffic in the country? What if many roads were highly dangerous, especially Interstate 95 from Richmond to Washington, DC, and I-95 and I-91 up to Boston? If you got on I-95 anywhere along that over 500-mile stretch, you would risk being carjacked, kidnapped, or having your car sprayed with machine gun fire.

What if no one had electricity for much more than 10 hours a day, and often less? What if it went off at unpredictable times, causing factories to grind to a halt and air conditioning to fail in the middle of the summer in Houston and Miami? What if the Alaska pipeline were bombed and disabled at least monthly? What if unemployment hovered around 40%?

What if veterans of militia actions at Ruby Ridge and the Oklahoma City bombing were brought in to run the government on the theory that you need a tough guy in these times of crisis?

What if municipal elections were cancelled and cliques close to the new "president" quietly installed in the statehouses as "governors?" What if several of these governors (especially of Montana and Wyoming) were assassinated soon after taking office or resigned when their children were taken hostage by guerrillas?

What if the leader of the European Union maintained that the citizens of the United States are, under these conditions, refuting pessimism and that freedom and democracy are just around the corner?

Yeah....many people do the same thing with Israel ragarding how many are killed by terrorists there. So what?

Well, it's significant because Bush keeps talking about Iraq like it's some sort of success story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6077104/) when it's obvious that it's FUBAR there and not getting any better.

Yeah....many people do the same thing with Israel ragarding how many are killed by terrorists there. So what?

Because perspective is something America severly lacks. It's like a stubborn child who refuses to believe that pulling the cat's tail will get him scratched ... often, the child must get scratched several times before learning.

Thats just liberal propaganda the same thing happened in germany after the second world war

The answer to that "what if..?" is:

Then USA would know what it's like... The Bush strategy derived from the bible - a dozen eyes for an eye - would be fun to watch then! :) (2k dead in 9/11, ten times that in Afghanistan, a hundred times that in Iraq)

Americans (Us of A ones) are just too ignorant about there being another 200 countries and 5,8 billion people on this planet...

The French are ignorant. The US is realist

Because perspective is something America severly lacks. It's like a stubborn child who refuses to believe that pulling the cat's tail will get him scratched ... often, the child must get scratched several times before learning.
Speaking of cats...I found out from a conservative that Kerry would let me sodomize kitties if he were elected. Woohoo! Another reason to vote Kerry!! I like kitties...

Thats just liberal propaganda the same thing happened in germany after the second world war

This situation has a lot more factors to ensure the violence won't stop even if we leave. Its not like the case of the Werewolves. There is a lot more support for the 'insurgents' in Iraq.

This situation has a lot more factors to ensure the violence won't stop even if we leave. Its not like the case of the Werewolves. There is a lot more support for the 'insurgents' in Iraq.
Some of the support for the insurgents though is only there because they want Americans to leave--even if they are at the same time greatful that America disposed of Saddam Hussein.

The French are ignorant. The US is realist

Please what part of the war in Iraq was started on a realistic outlook.

If the French are ignorant, the US is just as ignorant.

Some of the support for the insurgents though is only there because they want Americans to leave--even if they are at the same time greatful that America disposed of Saddam Hussein.

Lest we forget.....most of the insurgents who are killing Iraqi's are not from Iraq.

Some of the support for the insurgents though is only there because they want Americans to leave--even if they are at the same time greatful that America disposed of Saddam Hussein.

That's a great uncertain. Will they merely fight back until we leave or will they fight until the government is toppled and they take over (since it is seen as an extention of the US).

I have no idea how things will progress. I don't think many do.

Thats just liberal propaganda the same thing happened in germany after the second world war

Hmmm .... propaganda ... The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

Gee ... ummm ... yeah ... mission accomplished.

Lest we forget.....most of the insurgents who are killing Iraqi's are not from Iraq.

I don't think there have been any surveys questioning the insurgents where they were from.

Any absolute numbers are only guesses and any percentages made are only speculation. Besides it suits the White House fine if they convince everyone that foreigners are behind the insurgency because if the Iraqis were mostly behind it then it would look extremely bad. So you can't really trust their opinion on this matter.

If you look how they dance in the streets after US troops get killed and from looking at Sadr's militia quite a few of them, if not most, have to be Iraqi. Although I wouldn't ignore the fact they may get finiancial support from foreign groups. (weapons aren't hard to get in Iraq though.)

I don't think there have been any surveys questioning the insurgents where they were from.

Any absolute numbers are only guesses and any percentages made are only speculation. Besides it suits the White House fine if they convince everyone that foreigners are behind the insurgency because if the Iraqis were mostly behind it then it would look extremely bad. So you can't really trust their opinion on this matter.

If you look how they dance in the streets after US troops get killed and from looking at Sadr's militia quite a few of them, if not most, have to be Iraqi. Although I wouldn't ignore the fact they may get finiancial support from foreign groups. (weapons aren't hard to get in Iraq though.)

Well...in the fighting in the graveyard outside Falluja (sp) many of those fighting against the US were found to carry Iranian Army ID cards.....so we KNOW that Iran has sent in people to fight against the US. Iran and Syria are dead set against Iraq becoming a free democracy.

Please what part of the war in Iraq was started on a realistic outlook.

If the French are ignorant, the US is just as ignorant.
Please don't feed the trolls. When Eldarana posts something worth replying to, then by all means, go ahead, but I wouldn't waste my time.

That's a great uncertain. Will they merely fight back until we leave or will they fight until the government is toppled and they take over (since it is seen as an extention of the US).

I have no idea how things will progress. I don't think many do.
The fighting will most likely continue if the US leaves, but you cannot deny that it would lose some support as some Iraqis are fighting against the US's presence. Of course, on the same token, if the people of Iraq don't want the government that America set up to rule them, why should they stop fighting? By that logic, we should be sipping tea and pledging allegiance to some royalty because a watery tart lobbed a sword at them...

Well...in the fighting in the graveyard outside Falluja (sp) many of those fighting against the US were found to carry Iranian Army ID cards.....so we KNOW that Iran has sent in people to fight against the US. Iran and Syria are dead set against Iraq becoming a free democracy.
This of course, by extension (using Rightist logic), proves that most of the insurgents are in fact NOT Iraqi, kind of like how during the revolutionary war, the people fighting against Britain were mostly NOT American. I mean, France, Spain, Portugal all wanted Britain to lose, and they all had generals from their armies (plus some generals from what would become Germany and other places) in America fighting for American independence. Clearly, the Revolutionary war was not fought by Americans.

This of course, by extension (using Rightist logic), proves that most of the insurgents are in fact NOT Iraqi, kind of like how during the revolutionary war, the people fighting against Britain were mostly NOT American. I mean, France, Spain, Portugal all wanted Britain to lose, and they all had generals from their armies (plus some generals from what would become Germany and other places) in America fighting for American independence. Clearly, the Revolutionary war was not fought by Americans.

The terrorists who are kidnapping and beheading prisoners are not Iraqi. They want to set up a theocracy like Iran. The world should be very alarmed at this and put a stop to it. If the US pulls out, they will take over and the iraqi people will be worse off for it. No, it does not prove that most of the insurgents are not Iraqi, but it does show that Iran and Syria are involved and supporting it. Take that support away and where would the insurgency be?

Because perspective is something America severly lacks. It's like a stubborn child who refuses to believe that pulling the cat's tail will get him scratched ... often, the child must get scratched several times before learning.
Translation: Americans are nothing but a bunch of stupid children. They need to listen to their superiors.

Well...in the fighting in the graveyard outside Falluja (sp) many of those fighting against the US were found to carry Iranian Army ID cards.More "info" from your Iranian Brother-in-law? :D

Hmmm .... propaganda ... The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

Gee ... ummm ... yeah ... mission accomplished.

Same to you, for your post. Bravo Zulu.

Well, it's significant because Bush keeps talking about Iraq like it's some sort of success story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6077104/) when it's obvious that it's FUBAR there and not getting any better.
Actually is had gotten much better in Iraq. There will likely be a point where it gets bad (very) again, as their elections loom, but overall, the situation has greatly improved.

Who is considered the "leader" of the Sunni triangle insurgency?
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
He is Jordanian.

More "info" from your Iranian Brother-in-law? :D

Actually I can verify this from personal experience as well, however, not only Iranian but Saudi, Syrian, Pakistani...pretty much a hodge podge of people from many places other than Iraq.

Who is considered the "leader" of the Sunni triangle insurgency?
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
He is Jordanian.

Isn't he also considered to have died a while ago?

Isn't he also considered to have died a while ago?
He has not died, YET

Some of the support for the insurgents though is only there because they want Americans to leave--even if they are at the same time greatful that America disposed of Saddam Hussein.

The US in its infancy wasnt much different from other developing nations today. We had a nasty civil war that cost the lives of a larger number of people than those, so far killed in Iraq. But there was no occupying force in the US at the time - and the issue was slavery & civil or human rights I think. Earlier than that though, communication, and cultural differences led to mass murders of the native american population.

When there was a foreign power on our soil, taxing us without representation - we declared our independance and fought for it - and we brought our freedom with the highest price any nation should have to pay. But it was probably the one way to achieve our freedom and independance. Well there is a foriegn power on Iraqi soil - and theyre not so sure theyre there for there benifit either. And can you blaim them when you conceder the results, above. The everyday conditions or quality of life there is nothing like we've ever seen here in America I think is the point of the above. We went in there to liberate the Iraqis from a dictator who was ruthless & brutal. But by removing him we've created a vacuum of political power in the minds of any native leader in Iraq. Freedom is what we brought to the Iraqi's and now they want to take advantage of it - anybody that can will try to consolidate as much military force under there command and as much influence with the people so that they can eventually rule. And they thank our good president for making it possible.

But if we leave them now to thier devices the result will immediately be brutal, uncivilized, unrestrained war for absolute power and control of Iraq. This would be unacceptable. But the US isn't going the other way either - we arent sending the additional forces needed the sweep the country clean of terrorist. Ahhh - but then we'd be giving these radicals all the ammunition they'd need - they would be able to oint at the US brutal, forced tactics and say the imperialist have not changed, and they would either be a general uprising powerful enough to remove us or victories at the cost of so much human life Iraqi and that of US soldiers that we would pull out anyway and they would have thier independance. So what can the US do besides what we are doing right now. Camp out on the sidelines with our superior firepower yet without the desire to use it. Confining organized militias to a few cities and mosque - where they would not be able to achieve thier end goals through military means. They would have to play the game in democratic terms - if they are brave enough to come out - because thier local compititors would eventually be able to... well. What else can we do?

We can drop a million US troops on the ground and use them to police the nation and train native police officers - because that would provoke a general uprising where we'd end up at square one again, maybe even with someone worse than Husein in power. And we can't leave - because you'd be likely to end up with the same results.

Theyre frilled if we leave them now & frilled if we go in force and try to resolve the problem for them - but maybe if we keep doing what we are doing right now, a miracle will happend and democracy will succeed in some shape or form that is right for Iraqi's.

Isn't he also considered to have died a while ago?
No. You are confused. I believe you may be speaking of Abu Abbas, a terrorist harbored and given medical treatment by Saddam Hussein.

Interesting and thought provoking. Mind you, you can do a thing that like from the other point of view:

What if 1.1 million Catholics (Shias are sort of the Muslim version of Catholics) had been killed by a former President when they tried to rise against him?

What if 11 million Americans had died as a result of UN sanctions?

What if 88,000 Americans were gassed by both Canada and the US government?

I can't find a reasonable North American equivalent for setting light to the oil wells of Kuwait, but it'd have something to do with Mexico.

Multiplying out the death figures for Iraq (say 20-30,000) gives us 220-330,000 people in total, with 11,500 EU deaths- about a tenth of the total all-sides deaths Vietnam.

I note that more people seem to have died in Darfur than in Iraq in the last 18 months.

By the way, the current world population isn't 5.8 billion, it's 6.3 billion.

IMO, there will not be a consensus on whether the invasion/war/aggression/liberation/attack on Iraq on 20 March 2003 (it may have been 19 March in the US, but it was 20 March in Baghdad) was justified for at least 20 years.

The US in its infancy wasnt much different from other developing nations today. We had a nasty civil war that cost the lives of a larger number of people than those, so far killed in Iraq. But there was no occupying force in the US at the time - and the issue was slavery & civil or human rights I think. Earlier than that though, communication, and cultural differences led to mass murders of the native american population.

When there was a foreign power on our soil, taxing us without representation - we declared our independance and fought for it - and we brought our freedom with the highest price any nation should have to pay. But it was probably the one way to achieve our freedom and independance. Well there is a foriegn power on Iraqi soil - and theyre not so sure theyre there for there benifit either. And can you blaim them when you conceder the results, above. The everyday conditions or quality of life there is nothing like we've ever seen here in America I think is the point of the above. We went in there to liberate the Iraqis from a dictator who was ruthless & brutal. But by removing him we've created a vacuum of political power in the minds of any native leader in Iraq. Freedom is what we brought to the Iraqi's and now they want to take advantage of it - anybody that can will try to consolidate as much military force under there command and as much influence with the people so that they can eventually rule. And they thank our good president for making it possible.

But if we leave them now to thier devices the result will immediately be brutal, uncivilized, unrestrained war for absolute power and control of Iraq. This would be unacceptable. But the US isn't going the other way either - we arent sending the additional forces needed the sweep the country clean of terrorist. Ahhh - but then we'd be giving these radicals all the ammunition they'd need - they would be able to oint at the US brutal, forced tactics and say the imperialist have not changed, and they would either be a general uprising powerful enough to remove us or victories at the cost of so much human life Iraqi and that of US soldiers that we would pull out anyway and they would have thier independance. So what can the US do besides what we are doing right now. Camp out on the sidelines with our superior firepower yet without the desire to use it. Confining organized militias to a few cities and mosque - where they would not be able to achieve thier end goals through military means. They would have to play the game in democratic terms - if they are brave enough to come out - because thier local compititors would eventually be able to... well. What else can we do?

We can drop a million US troops on the ground and use them to police the nation and train native police officers - because that would provoke a general uprising where we'd end up at square one again, maybe even with someone worse than Husein in power. And we can't leave - because you'd be likely to end up with the same results.

Theyre frilled if we leave them now & frilled if we go in force and try to resolve the problem for them - but maybe if we keep doing what we are doing right now, a miracle will happend and democracy will succeed in some shape or form that is right for Iraqi's.

I mostly agree, I do not think it will take a miracle however. The thing that irks me is that somehow in the story it gets missed that most Iraqis DO WANT the freedom they have been given. They are unsure of what to expect, but most Iraqis I came in contact with were glad to have the chance for a fresh start.

Bush keeps talking about success stories in Iraq, because Iraq isnt solely made up of the Sunni Triangle. In the North, a lot of progress has been made with the Kurds, in the South as well. Its the middle of the country where things are unsettling. Mostly because it was the middle of the country that most profitted from Saddams rule. Now with Saddam gone they arent gonna get crap anymore unless its along with the rest of the country. That would make people mad.

More "info" from your Iranian Brother-in-law? :D

No, from the news....

http://www.kumawar.com/FallujahPoliceStationRaid/overview.php

While according to local officials, Iranians were among the dead assailants, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmet asserts that the Fallujah actions are the work of homegrown loyalists.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040408/world.htm#1

KARBALA: Five Iranians and three Iraqis were killed and 16 wounded during overnight clashes between the US troops and militiamen of radical cleric Moqtada Sadr in this central city, an official said. “There were eight killed, including five Iranians, and 16 wounded, including four Iranians, during the overnight clashes in Karbala,” said Saleh al-Hasnawi, Health Ministry official responsible for hospitals in Karbala.

Iran has sent in fighters to keep Iraq from becoming a stable country. Deny if you will, but there it is....we are killing them too.

Actually I can verify this from personal experience as well.so, just like Biff, you are (or have a Brother)Iranian, With lots of "insigth" about the Iranian Politics?

Thats just liberal propaganda the same thing happened in germany after the second world war

??? Perhaps we should carpet bomb every of your cities. Maybe you would think twice then before saying such things.

so, just like Biff, you are (or have a Brother)Iranian, With lots of "insigth" about the Iranian Politics?

I am a Captain in the US 4th Inf Div. I have just returned from a tour of duty there, unlike you, who I assume gets your info 3rd hand.

I dont mean it as rude, I meant from the "news"

[Keruvalia #1]Original Article (http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html#109582366638394688)

Wednesday, September 22, 2004
If America were Iraq, What would it be Like?
by Prof. Juan Cole

President Bush said Tuesday that the Iraqis are refuting the pessimists and implied that things are improving in that country.

What would America look like if it were in Iraq's current situation? The population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics would have to be multiplied by that number.

Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.

And what if those deaths occurred all over the country, including in the capital of Washington, DC, but mainly above the Mason Dixon line, in Boston, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco?

What if the grounds of the White House and the government buildings near the Mall were constantly taking mortar fire? What if almost nobody in the State Department at Foggy Bottom, the White House, or the Pentagon dared venture out of their buildings, and considered it dangerous to go over to Crystal City or Alexandria?

What if all the reporters for all the major television and print media were trapped in five-star hotels in Washington, DC and New York, unable to move more than a few blocks safely, and dependent on stringers to know what was happening in Oklahoma City and St. Louis? What if the only time they ventured into the Midwest was if they could be embedded in Army or National Guard units?

There are estimated to be some 25,000 guerrillas in Iraq engaged in concerted acts of violence. What if there were private armies totalling 275,000 men, armed with machine guns, assault rifles (legal again!), rocket-propelled grenades, and mortar launchers, hiding out in dangerous urban areas of cities all over the country? What if they completely controlled Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Denver and Omaha, such that local police and Federal troops could not go into those cities?

What if, during the past year, the Secretary of State (Aqilah Hashemi), the President (Izzedine Salim), and the Attorney General (Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim) had all been assassinated?

What if all the cities in the US were wracked by a crime wave, with thousands of murders, kidnappings, burglaries, and carjackings in every major city every year?

What if the Air Force routinely (I mean daily or weekly) bombed Billings, Montana, Flint, Michigan, Watts in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Anacostia in Washington, DC, and other urban areas, attempting to target "safe houses" of "criminal gangs", but inevitably killing a lot of children and little old ladies?

What if, from time to time, the US Army besieged Virginia Beach, killing hundreds of armed members of the Christian Soldiers? What if entire platoons of the Christian Soldiers militia holed up in Arlington National Cemetery, and were bombarded by US Air Force warplanes daily, destroying thousands of graves and even pulverizing the Vietnam Memorial over on the Mall? What if the National Council of Churches had to call for a popular march of thousands of believers to converge on the National Cathedral to stop the US Army from demolishing it to get at a rogue band of the Timothy McVeigh Memorial Brigades?

What if there were virtually no commercial air traffic in the country? What if many roads were highly dangerous, especially Interstate 95 from Richmond to Washington, DC, and I-95 and I-91 up to Boston? If you got on I-95 anywhere along that over 500-mile stretch, you would risk being carjacked, kidnapped, or having your car sprayed with machine gun fire.

What if no one had electricity for much more than 10 hours a day, and often less? What if it went off at unpredictable times, causing factories to grind to a halt and air conditioning to fail in the middle of the summer in Houston and Miami? What if the Alaska pipeline were bombed and disabled at least monthly? What if unemployment hovered around 40%?

What if veterans of militia actions at Ruby Ridge and the Oklahoma City bombing were brought in to run the government on the theory that you need a tough guy in these times of crisis?

What if municipal elections were cancelled and cliques close to the new "president" quietly installed in the statehouses as "governors?" What if several of these governors (especially of Montana and Wyoming) were assassinated soon after taking office or resigned when their children were taken hostage by guerrillas?

What if the leader of the European Union maintained that the citizens of the United States are, under these conditions, refuting pessimism and that freedom and democracy are just around the corner?

The US would never be like Iraq.

If any part of America were to become one one-hundredth as bad as "Iraq" (those parts in bad shape), then martial law would be declared, and the iron fist of the good people of America would come down on the perpetrators and crush them utterly.

This article is a completely false comparison. It is simply leftist nonsensical propoganda used to scare little children (the left) and make then pliable in the hands of their controllers (the "leaders" of the left).

What if Iraq were like America..?

Should we give up on the good people of Iraq, or give into the forces of terror, as the leftist, in his incessant quest for the destruction of western civilization, would have us do..?

The leftist sees kinship in the Islamist, as a brother in opposition to the west.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend", I hear in their rantings.

"Give into the islamist", says the leftist, "as it will hasten the demise of the people's common enemy, the capitalist west."

Numbers have to be put in context. Let's look at some U.S. fatalities.

In 2003 there were 5,559 fatalities due to work related injuries.

The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) reported an estimated 1,400 child fatalities in 2002.

In 1992, alcohol was involved in an estimated 17,700 traffic fatalities and 355,000 traffic injuries.

About 41,345 people lost their lives in traffic crashes during 1999, in 1998 there were 41,471 fatalities.

There were 703 recreational boating fatalities in 2003.

And I won't even get into smoking related deaths.

People die all the time. This doesn't diminish their deaths but it puts their deaths in context. You can't simply scale up based on population. If you do scale numbers you have to take those numbers along with the other fatalities
that occur day to day.

[Keruvalia #1]Original Article (http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html#109582366638394688)

Wednesday, September 22, 2004
If America were Iraq, What would it be Like?
by Prof. Juan Cole

President Bush said Tuesday that the Iraqis are refuting the pessimists and implied that things are improving in that country.

What would America look like if it were in Iraq's current situation? The population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics would have to be multiplied by that number.

Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.

And what if those deaths occurred all over the country, including in the capital of Washington, DC, but mainly above the Mason Dixon line, in Boston, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco?

What if the grounds of the White House and the government buildings near the Mall were constantly taking mortar fire? What if almost nobody in the State Department at Foggy Bottom, the White House, or the Pentagon dared venture out of their buildings, and considered it dangerous to go over to Crystal City or Alexandria?

What if all the reporters for all the major television and print media were trapped in five-star hotels in Washington, DC and New York, unable to move more than a few blocks safely, and dependent on stringers to know what was happening in Oklahoma City and St. Louis? What if the only time they ventured into the Midwest was if they could be embedded in Army or National Guard units?

There are estimated to be some 25,000 guerrillas in Iraq engaged in concerted acts of violence. What if there were private armies totalling 275,000 men, armed with machine guns, assault rifles (legal again!), rocket-propelled grenades, and mortar launchers, hiding out in dangerous urban areas of cities all over the country? What if they completely controlled Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Denver and Omaha, such that local police and Federal troops could not go into those cities?

What if, during the past year, the Secretary of State (Aqilah Hashemi), the President (Izzedine Salim), and the Attorney General (Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim) had all been assassinated?

What if all the cities in the US were wracked by a crime wave, with thousands of murders, kidnappings, burglaries, and carjackings in every major city every year?

What if the Air Force routinely (I mean daily or weekly) bombed Billings, Montana, Flint, Michigan, Watts in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Anacostia in Washington, DC, and other urban areas, attempting to target "safe houses" of "criminal gangs", but inevitably killing a lot of children and little old ladies?

What if, from time to time, the US Army besieged Virginia Beach, killing hundreds of armed members of the Christian Soldiers? What if entire platoons of the Christian Soldiers militia holed up in Arlington National Cemetery, and were bombarded by US Air Force warplanes daily, destroying thousands of graves and even pulverizing the Vietnam Memorial over on the Mall? What if the National Council of Churches had to call for a popular march of thousands of believers to converge on the National Cathedral to stop the US Army from demolishing it to get at a rogue band of the Timothy McVeigh Memorial Brigades?

What if there were virtually no commercial air traffic in the country? What if many roads were highly dangerous, especially Interstate 95 from Richmond to Washington, DC, and I-95 and I-91 up to Boston? If you got on I-95 anywhere along that over 500-mile stretch, you would risk being carjacked, kidnapped, or having your car sprayed with machine gun fire.

What if no one had electricity for much more than 10 hours a day, and often less? What if it went off at unpredictable times, causing factories to grind to a halt and air conditioning to fail in the middle of the summer in Houston and Miami? What if the Alaska pipeline were bombed and disabled at least monthly? What if unemployment hovered around 40%?

What if veterans of militia actions at Ruby Ridge and the Oklahoma City bombing were brought in to run the government on the theory that you need a tough guy in these times of crisis?

What if municipal elections were cancelled and cliques close to the new "president" quietly installed in the statehouses as "governors?" What if several of these governors (especially of Montana and Wyoming) were assassinated soon after taking office or resigned when their children were taken hostage by guerrillas?

What if the leader of the European Union maintained that the citizens of the United States are, under these conditions, refuting pessimism and that freedom and democracy are just around the corner?

The US would never be like Iraq.

If any part of America were to become one one-hundredth as bad as "Iraq" (those parts in bad shape), then martial law would be declared, and the iron fist of the good people of America would come down on the perpetrators and crush them utterly.

This article is a completely false comparison. It is simply leftist nonsensical propoganda used to scare little children (the left) and make then pliable in the hands of their controllers (the "leaders" of the left).

What if Iraq were like America..?

Should we give up on the good people of Iraq, or give into the forces of terror, as the leftist, in his incessant quest for the destruction of western civilization, would have us do..?

The leftist sees kinship in the Islamist, as a brother in opposition to the west.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend", I hear in their rantings.

"Give into the islamist", says the leftist, "as it will hasten the demise of the people's common enemy, the capitalist west."

YOU'RE THE MAAAAN!!! Next time if someone asks me if I can give him an example for heavy delusions, I'll show him your post.

"The Iron Fist of the good people of America, what is THAT supposed to mean? Does that mean you would support a military tyranny/dictatorship?
Because I can't see anything else in your words...

YOU'RE THE MAAAAN!!! Next time if someone asks me if I can give him an example for heavy delusions, I'll show him your post.

"The Iron Fist of the good people of America, what is THAT supposed to mean? Does that mean you would support a military tyranny/dictatorship?
Because I can't see anything else in your words...

Actually, I believe he was listing reasons for NOT supporting a military tyranny/dictatorship(Iraq under Hussein)

I am a Captain in the US 4th Inf Div. I have just returned from a tour of duty there...
So you were in the fighting in the graveyard outside Falluja ?
and you personally searched bodies? and you found Iranian Army ID cards?

Or did you learn it from the USBase Satellite "news" ?

[Destroyer Command #40]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[Keruvalia #1]Original Article

Wednesday, September 22, 2004
If America were Iraq, What would it be Like?
by Prof. Juan Cole

President Bush said Tuesday that the Iraqis are refuting the pessimists and implied that things are improving in that country.

What would America look like if it were in Iraq's current situation? The population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics would have to be multiplied by that number.

Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.

And what if those deaths occurred all over the country, including in the capital of Washington, DC, but mainly above the Mason Dixon line, in Boston, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco?

What if the grounds of the White House and the government buildings near the Mall were constantly taking mortar fire? What if almost nobody in the State Department at Foggy Bottom, the White House, or the Pentagon dared venture out of their buildings, and considered it dangerous to go over to Crystal City or Alexandria?

What if all the reporters for all the major television and print media were trapped in five-star hotels in Washington, DC and New York, unable to move more than a few blocks safely, and dependent on stringers to know what was happening in Oklahoma City and St. Louis? What if the only time they ventured into the Midwest was if they could be embedded in Army or National Guard units?

There are estimated to be some 25,000 guerrillas in Iraq engaged in concerted acts of violence. What if there were private armies totalling 275,000 men, armed with machine guns, assault rifles (legal again!), rocket-propelled grenades, and mortar launchers, hiding out in dangerous urban areas of cities all over the country? What if they completely controlled Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Denver and Omaha, such that local police and Federal troops could not go into those cities?

What if, during the past year, the Secretary of State (Aqilah Hashemi), the President (Izzedine Salim), and the Attorney General (Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim) had all been assassinated?

What if all the cities in the US were wracked by a crime wave, with thousands of murders, kidnappings, burglaries, and carjackings in every major city every year?

What if the Air Force routinely (I mean daily or weekly) bombed Billings, Montana, Flint, Michigan, Watts in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Anacostia in Washington, DC, and other urban areas, attempting to target "safe houses" of "criminal gangs", but inevitably killing a lot of children and little old ladies?

What if, from time to time, the US Army besieged Virginia Beach, killing hundreds of armed members of the Christian Soldiers? What if entire platoons of the Christian Soldiers militia holed up in Arlington National Cemetery, and were bombarded by US Air Force warplanes daily, destroying thousands of graves and even pulverizing the Vietnam Memorial over on the Mall? What if the National Council of Churches had to call for a popular march of thousands of believers to converge on the National Cathedral to stop the US Army from demolishing it to get at a rogue band of the Timothy McVeigh Memorial Brigades?

What if there were virtually no commercial air traffic in the country? What if many roads were highly dangerous, especially Interstate 95 from Richmond to Washington, DC, and I-95 and I-91 up to Boston? If you got on I-95 anywhere along that over 500-mile stretch, you would risk being carjacked, kidnapped, or having your car sprayed with machine gun fire.

What if no one had electricity for much more than 10 hours a day, and often less? What if it went off at unpredictable times, causing factories to grind to a halt and air conditioning to fail in the middle of the summer in Houston and Miami? What if the Alaska pipeline were bombed and disabled at least monthly? What if unemployment hovered around 40%?

What if veterans of militia actions at Ruby Ridge and the Oklahoma City bombing were brought in to run the government on the theory that you need a tough guy in these times of crisis?

What if municipal elections were cancelled and cliques close to the new "president" quietly installed in the statehouses as "governors?" What if several of these governors (especially of Montana and Wyoming) were assassinated soon after taking office or resigned when their children were taken hostage by guerrillas?

What if the leader of the European Union maintained that the citizens of the United States are, under these conditions, refuting pessimism and that freedom and democracy are just around the corner?


The US would never be like Iraq.

If any part of America were to become one one-hundredth as bad as "Iraq" (those parts in bad shape), then martial law would be declared, and the iron fist of the good people of America would come down on the perpetrators and crush them utterly.

This article is a completely false comparison. It is simply leftist nonsensical propoganda used to scare little children (the left) and make then pliable in the hands of their controllers (the "leaders" of the left).

What if Iraq were like America..?

Should we give up on the good people of Iraq, or give into the forces of terror, as the leftist, in his incessant quest for the destruction of western civilization, would have us do..?

The leftist sees kinship in the Islamist, as a brother in opposition to the west.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend", I hear in their rantings.

"Give into the islamist", says the leftist, "as it will hasten the demise of the people's common enemy, the capitalist west."



YOU'RE THE MAAAAN!!! Next time if someone asks me if I can give him an example for heavy delusions, I'll show him your post.

"The Iron Fist of the good people of America, what is THAT supposed to mean? Does that mean you would support a military tyranny/dictatorship?
Because I can't see anything else in your words...

Yes, I would support limited military law under those conditions, as would anyone who was not sympathetic to the cause of the "outlaws".

You, on the other hand, would be one of the RPG wielding adolescents out there flinging bombs at the peacekeepers because "they violated my civil rights by showing MILITARY FORCE in the face of massive unrest".

What would be your solution to such unrest..?

Oh,.. that's right,.. you'd be out there with an RPG. Silly me.

I have faith in the good people of America. You, like all leftist infantile drones, have no faith in humanity whatsoever, which is why the left has such a need to micro-control every aspect of everything, and can not relax long enough to have a non-painful bowel movement.

You see any societal control (not of your own making) as tyranical dictatorship. Yet, you would control everything (via hyperbolic laws).

The left's single salient charateristic is that of "Utter Anal Retentive".

So you were in the fighting in the graveyard outside Falluja ?
and you personally searched bodies? and you found Iranian Army ID cards?

Or did you learn it from the USBase Satellite "news" ?

I was in a great deal of fighting. Also interviews with prisoners.

Actually, I believe he was listing reasons for NOT supporting a military tyranny/dictatorship(Iraq under Hussein)BreakingNEWS saddam was Jailed long time ago, our NewDictator is busy tryng to pump out some oil..to pay the Halliburtons.

I was in a great deal of fighting. Also interviews with prisoners.
You say you are a Soldier, yet you answer like a polititian, you avoid giving direct answers, you spin and evade.

[OceanDrive #45]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takrai
Actually, I believe he was listing reasons for NOT supporting a military tyranny/dictatorship(Iraq under Hussein)

BreakingNEWS saddam was Jailed long time ago, our NewDictator is busy tryng to pump out some oil..to pay the Halliburtons.

Ocean is obviously one of those little children who thinks that "conflict is bad" and "the US government killed the Easter Bunny"..!

:)

When Ocean grows up, Ocean might (depending on the quality and extent of Ocean's brainwashing) come to realize that things are the way they are for a reason, and that actual "conspiracies" are not only VERY prone to backfiring, but are extremely energy intensive (require ludicrous amounts of work to maintain).

When Ocean grows up a bit, Ocean might see Ocean's masters for the control freaks they are.

BreakingNEWS saddam was Jailed long time ago, our NewDictator is busy tryng to pump out some oil..to pay the Halliburtons.

Saddam WAS jailed long ago, because of OUR efforts. His country is still trying to put their lives back together, also with alot of help from US.
As for "Halliburton" probably you watched F9/11, I see. Alot of rubbish.

Saddam WAS jailed long ago, because of OUR efforts. His country is still trying to put their lives back together, also with alot of help from US.
As for "Halliburton" probably you watched F9/11, I see. Alot of rubbish.

You will find that arguing with pre-pubescent adolescents who have a world view based on their limited knowledge gained from never having been anywhere will become tiring at best. Their diatribes are just the rantings of a child looking for some attantion. Even bad attention is craved. They must have been weened too early or something.

You say you are a Soldier, yet you answer like a polititian, you avoid giving direct answers, you spin and evade.

I am neither spinning nor evading. I answered your question. Personally, I actually do think, the political decisions for the war, MAY, PERHAPS, have been not well thought out, the soldiers fighting it, however, do know THEIR reasons for it. And the idea that Iraq is worse now, is just absolutely a fantasy by people who WISH it were so, for either political ideas, or whatever else.

You will find that arguing with pre-pubescent adolescents who have a world view based on their limited knowledge gained from never having been anywhere will become tiring at best. Their diatribes are just the rantings of a child looking for some attantion. Even bad attention is craved. They must have been weened too early or something.

:)
I somewhat agree, and have generally tried to avoid these discussions, but several times now it has just been too much. It is a slap in the face of every soldier to hear non-stop how horrible we have made life for Iraqis with our sacrifices. What makes it even worse is hearing it from people who base their decisions on what they hear, from thousands of miles away, by people with an agenda. Staying out of the political sphere of Kerry/Bush, whoever wins, wins, but I find it disheartening that it seems Kerry's support comes from mostly people who regularly impugn the USA.
People in Iraq, do know how much better it is, and more importantly, they know that it is up to THEM now, how much better it CAN BECOME.
They never could say that before.

From:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3676308.stm

Basra: British troops in Iraq's 'peaceful' city
By Paul Wood
BBC Middle East correspondent, Basra

"There are lots of moderates here who support you. But if the shrines are touched, I'll kill you myself."

That was the warning given to a British brigadier by a leading Shia figure in Basra, during the long hot month of August, when the UK-led multi-national forces in southern Iraq found themselves under constant attack.
The Americans were battling Shia gunmen loyal to the radical cleric Moqtada Sadr in Najaf.
The anger spilled over into Basra and Amara, fuelled by the widespread belief that coalition forces were attacking Najaf's two holy shrines.
British officers characterise the August fighting as merely a "spike" in the violence. Some spike. Last month, British troops fired 100,000 rounds of ammunition in southern Iraq.

Mortar hits

The base in Amara sustained more than 400 direct mortar hits.
The British battalion there counted some 853 separate attacks of different kinds: mortars, roadside bombs, rockets and machine-gun fire.
They say that no British regiment has had such intense "contact" since Korea.
"Sometimes, in order to keep the peace, you have to find it first," said the commander in Amara, Lt Col Matt Maer, of the Princess of Wales' Royal Regiment.
Eventually an agreement in Najaf brought calm to the rest of the south too.
Since the shrines were not touched, it's thought that only 400 hard-core gunmen joined the fight against the multi-national forces in Basra.
Still, in an area which is 99% Shia, the great danger for the British is of a general Shia uprising.
It sometimes seems as if the troops are gingerly walking on the thin crust of a volcano, wondering how much pressure is building below.
The British - with tanks, air support and thousands of soldiers - say they could have destroyed the small militia force attacking them.
But they were asked by local people not to turn Basra into a war zone. And because they didn't, the majority still welcome them here.

Severed heads

We went on a British patrol in the dead of night to stop and search vehicles on the road from Amara to Basra.
Drivers were searched for illegal weapons. No-one expressed resentment.
One driver explained that hostage taking was especially bad on that stretch of road. People were glad of the British presence.
But the problem is that very few are actively supporting the fight against the militants. A vicious campaign of intimidation doesn't help matters.
Last month, five cleaning ladies at a British base were murdered on their way to work. Two local translators for the army disappeared. Their severed heads were found outside the front gate.
But perhaps the most worrying development of the August fighting was that none of Basra's 25,000 police officers came to the aid of the British soldiers. Some even helped the gunmen.
I asked the Iraqi prime minister, Iyad Allawi, if this wasn't rather shaming. Why hadn't he countermanded an order from the local police chief, who had told his men not to help the British?
Prime minister Allawi made a frank admission of the limits of his powers: "As you know in conflicts, people sometimes waver, others are heroic," he said.
"So the police force, we know, unfortunately in Basra did not do their duties well."
He added: "We hope that we can address the issue of personnel and the command and control structure in the police."
So the British are rebuilding the security forces from the bottom up.
Eighteen months after arriving in Iraq, they are still recruiting new police officers and giving them basic training. The main qualification seems to be that you haven't been in the police before.
The best new recruits go into what's called the Tactical Support Unit; tough, highly professional forces which the British hope will serve as a model for the rest of Iraq.
The men in this unit are risking their lives - and those of their families. But they believe this is a life or death struggle for the future of their country.
"We hate the militia," one young officer told me, "Iraq was destroyed once. We will not allow it to be destroyed again."

'Fragile period'

Moqtada Sadr has spoken of his wish to transform his militia into a normal political party.
Yet over the past week, British soldiers have raided buildings belonging to his organization and found massive stockpiles of weapons: 50,000 rounds of ammunition, improvised bombs, and brand new grenades just imported into Iraq, not left over from Saddam's time.
So everyone knows the fighting is not over in Basra.
"We're in a fragile period," one British army captain said. "We're just waiting for it to break down."
Yet, British morale is extremely high.
Soldiers happily displayed bullet-scarred flak jackets and helmets during a visit to Basra by the chief of the general staff, Sir Mike Jackson, known affectionately by his men as the Prince of Darkness.
British casualties have been mercifully low. So British commanders, as they come to the end of each six month tour, tend to sound optimistic.
I met, though, one of the senior civilian political advisers to the military command, an astute and experienced Whitehall figure.
Every time he came to Basra things seemed a "step change worse" he said.
The best thing to happen, he went on, would be for a new Islamic government to be elected in January, which would ask multi-national forces to leave. He was not being facetious.
Elections do form part of the exit strategy, but not in this way. The hope is that the national poll in January will produce a government with the authority and the legitimacy to face down the gunmen on its own.
But in local elections in the British sector this week, turnout was just 15 per cent. A government with that much backing could be just one faction in the civil war some American intelligence officials fear is brewing.
That is very much the worst case. But a year ago, the British Army were still congratulating themselves on running one of the more peaceful parts of Iraq.
Now, whatever happens, they no longer have any illusions that their backyard will be immune from the violence.
Seems to me that it could go either way. There's some optimism, but also resentment and distrust towards the occupying forces. It really looks like it depends on the whim of the clerics, which isn't a good thing to depend on.

You will find that arguing with pre-pubescent adolescents who have a world view based on their limited knowledge gained from never having been anywhere will become tiring at best.Im not the one, Offering to get Personal Info From my "VIP Iranian Brother-in-Law", and then Pussyng away from my statement.

From:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3676308.stm


Seems to me that it could go either way. There's some optimism, but also resentment and distrust towards the occupying forces. It really looks like it depends on the whim of the clerics, which isn't a good thing to depend on.

It's always like that in the Middle East....yet there is no real "supreme" cleric to set things right. So little guys like Al-Sadr wield much more power than they should.

It's always like that in the Middle East....yet there is no real "supreme" cleric to set things right. So little guys like Al-Sadr wield much more power than they should.

Ah, you do have SOME correct facts ;) I am glad.

Geez..I didn't realize who this was, I read the header from the preceding post. My apologies..just was amazed he got something right, but it's you :)

[INDENT]
Yes, I would support limited military law under those conditions, as would anyone who was not sympathetic to the cause of the "outlaws".

You, on the other hand, would be one of the RPG wielding adolescents out there flinging bombs at the peacekeepers because "they violated my civil rights by showing MILITARY FORCE in the face of massive unrest".

What would be your solution to such unrest..?

Oh,.. that's right,.. you'd be out there with an RPG. Silly me.

I have faith in the good people of America. You, like all leftist infantile drones, have no faith in humanity whatsoever, which is why the left has such a need to micro-control every aspect of everything, and can not relax long enough to have a non-painful bowel movement.

You see any societal control (not of your own making) as tyranical dictatorship. Yet, you would control everything (via hyperbolic laws).

The left's single salient charateristic is that of "Utter Anal Retentive".

THE INDIGNITY!! How can SCUM like even DARE to tell such blatand LIES about ME!!! You're not even worth LICKING MY SHOES!

People like YOU made the Nazi regime possible in the first place.

Ah, you do have SOME correct facts ;) I am glad.

20 years in the USAF and more deployments in support of ONW and OSW came in handy for something...;)

nvm

20 years in the USAF and more deployments in support of ONW and OSW came in handy for something...;)

Yeah I edited that, I read the heading from the previous post and was amazed he got something well said, well spelled, and correct finally, then realized it was you ;) My apologies.

Im still waiting for your First Hand, Falluha Body searching experiences.
Alright, since you neither understand the meaning nor the concept of operational security, I will say a couple of things.
My comments were not particularly concerned with Fallujah, they addressed the contingency as a whole. Numbers of foreign fighters(NOT IRAQI) who were captured/killed(yes, we DO search EVERY body for ID) as a ratio to Iraqi fighters was roughly 2:1 in more than 30 engagements(that would be "battles" to you) In case you haven't gotten that far in school yet, 2:1 means for every 1 Iraqi, there were 2 foreign fighters killed/captured. This MAY have not carried over to the enemy force in general, but usually those numbers hold out, unless all the foreign fighters just really, really were ineffective(that's "sucked" to you)

I am neither spinning nor evading. I answered your question. Personally, I actually do think, the political decisions for the war, MAY, PERHAPS, have been not well thought out, the soldiers fighting it, however, do know THEIR reasons for it. And the idea that Iraq is worse now, is just absolutely a fantasy by people who WISH it were so, for either political ideas, or whatever else.
I understand fully what he means. Let he who has not seen the dead and the dying cast the first comment. I have seen far too many in my lifetime.

Germany was not rebuilt in a day. Neither will Iraq...

Alright, since you neither understand the meaning nor the concept of operational security, I will say a couple of things.
My comments were not particularly concerned with Fallujah, they addressed the contingency as a whole. Numbers of foreign fighters(NOT IRAQI) who were captured/killed(yes, we DO search EVERY body for ID) as a ratio to Iraqi fighters was roughly 2:1 in more than 30 engagements(that would be "battles" to you) In case you haven't gotten that far in school yet, 2:1 means for every 1 Iraqi, there were 2 foreign fighters killed/captured. This MAY have not carried over to the enemy force in general, but usually those numbers hold out, unless all the foreign fighters just really, really were ineffective(that's "sucked" to you)First, Thx for taking your time to answer. Even after i withdrew my question (It was no the way I should have asked)

Second, How can you tell if the dead body is from Irak, Iran, Jordan or Syria?

I understand fully what he means. Let he who has not seen the dead and the dying cast the first comment. I have seen far too many in my lifetime.I just realized that, And I really apreciate the effort he made to answer.

First, Thx for taking your time to answer.

Second, How can you tell if the dead body is from Irak, Iran, Jordan or Syria?

It varies. Many times they carry ID(stupid, but they do) Sometimes interviews with captured fighters IDs killed fighters, etc. Well, there are more ways I assume, by people who specialise in that, but those are two ways to learn actually on the battlefield without depending on the other ways.
On a side note, I apologize for the general harshness of my messages, I mean you no offence personally, I hope none is taken.

allow me to explain Myself,
its when I saw the (second hand) news about the "Irania Military Tags"...thats what shoked me.

I mean lets say I am an Iranian Figther, and Im about to go to Iraq, Why on earth would I keep my Tags???

Cos when im about to run...(after I attacked the USConvoy)...My best survival chance is Stealth, I trow away my guns...and I hide and do as i was a poor scared Iraqui citizen...

If they find me they may kill me...but If I keep my Tags...For sure Im a dead turkey, maybe even get a one way ticket to Cuba.

..."Now, watch this drive!"

[Biff Pileon #49]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takrai
Saddam WAS jailed long ago, because of OUR efforts. His country is still trying to put their lives back together, also with alot of help from US.
As for "Halliburton" probably you watched F9/11, I see. Alot of rubbish.



You will find that arguing with pre-pubescent adolescents who have a world view based on their limited knowledge gained from never having been anywhere will become tiring at best. Their diatribes are just the rantings of a child looking for some attantion. Even bad attention is craved. They must have been weened too early or something.

Heh he he he he...!! :D

How about that..!

I'm not alone in my so-called "fascio-rightist" opinions..!

Excellent.

Heh he he he he he..!

Heh he he he he...!! :D

How about that..!

I'm not alone in my so-called "fascio-rightist" opinions..!

It is all good, but tell me,

what is with the annoying fonts and colors?

allow me explain Myself, its when I saw the (second hand) news about the "Irania Military Tags"...thats what shoked me.

I mean lets say im an Iranian Figther, and Im about to go to Iraq, would i keep my Tags???

Cos when im about to run...after I attacked the USConvoy...My best survival chance is Stealth, I trow away my guns...and I hide and do as i was a poor scared Iraqui citizen...

If they find me they may kill me...but If I keep my Tags...For sure Im a dead turkey, maybe even get a one way ticket to Cuba.

LOL.
That IS what I would do as well. However, many of the people *probably*(no proof here, just a guess) being recruited as foreign fighters to go to Iraq and fight, are extremely uneducated. They make mistakes regularly in deployment, fire patterns, etc. The only reason for their limited success thus far, is that they are terrorizing many IRAQIs who otherwise would prefer them gone. Also, the fact that US troops SPECIFICALLY avoid if at all possible, many types of targets(mosques, civilian housing, etc)..we are said to kill "innocent civilians" Some do die unfortunately, but our enemy KNOWS we do not target the civilians, this is THEIR reason for hiding in civilian areas in the first place.

These appeasement tactics are stupid. Like what happened in Vietnam. We are too concerned with world opinion. Instead of waffling like Kerry, we should adopt the Israeli style of counter-insurgency, and go and bulldoze some houses; assassinate people when we have the chance; and blow up something, such as house or person, WITHOUT prior approval. I wish I had that luxury. We are far too concerned with world opinion to take matters into our own hands. As far as im concerned, people who do not want to get involved with overseas wars are like the people of the WWII era: "Let Hitler Kill the Jews and take over Europe, its all right as long as we are not harmed". Sept. 11 happened on Clinton's watch. Doesn't that tell you something?

I don't know what if..... but I do know some very big differences.

1. We would not kidnap innocent civilians, decapitate them and air it on the internet.
2. We would not strap bombs around our childrens waist and send them in to kill innocent civilians.
3. We would not go to other counties and take a school full of children hostage, shooting them in the back if they run away.

You can not compare ordinary people in the USA to these terrorists.

[Khardsia #56]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[INDENT]
Yes, I would support limited military law under those conditions, as would anyone who was not sympathetic to the cause of the "outlaws".

You, on the other hand, would be one of the RPG wielding adolescents out there flinging bombs at the peacekeepers because "they violated my civil rights by showing MILITARY FORCE in the face of massive unrest".

What would be your solution to such unrest..?

Oh,.. that's right,.. you'd be out there with an RPG. Silly me.

I have faith in the good people of America. You, like all leftist infantile drones, have no faith in humanity whatsoever, which is why the left has such a need to micro-control every aspect of everything, and can not relax long enough to have a non-painful bowel movement.

You see any societal control (not of your own making) as tyranical dictatorship. Yet, you would control everything (via hyperbolic laws).

The left's single salient charateristic is that of "Utter Anal Retentive".


THE INDIGNITY!! How can SCUM like even DARE to tell such blatand LIES about ME!!! You're not even worth LICKING MY SHOES!

People like YOU made the Nazi regime possible in the first place.

I imagine you meant "SCUM like ME"..? :)

..if you're NOT being sarcastic (which this looks like, actually), be more clear with your statements, and I'll respond.

Or just say "Rightist Shmoo-head..!!", and I'll respond.

:D

[Biff Pileon #49]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takrai
Saddam WAS jailed long ago, because of OUR efforts. His country is still trying to put their lives back together, also with alot of help from US.
As for "Halliburton" probably you watched F9/11, I see. Alot of rubbish.



You will find that arguing with pre-pubescent adolescents who have a world view based on their limited knowledge gained from never having been anywhere will become tiring at best. Their diatribes are just the rantings of a child looking for some attantion. Even bad attention is craved. They must have been weened too early or something.

Heh he he he he...!! :D

How about that..!

I'm not alone in my so-called "fascio-rightist" opinions..!

Excellent.

Heh he he he he he..!

Actually, I would prefer my comments not be labelled as fascio rightist lol.
On many issues I am quite in the center politically. What I mainly resent is the effort of the "left" generally to denegrate the sacrifices I have seen in Iraq by many young(and not so young) men and women. They usually try to hide it by pretending to worry about our troops, but in reality, they symbolically spit on the face of every man and woman in uniform. It is no small wonder that our military personell overwhelmingly support our current Commander in Chief, and have their worries about a challenger whose support mostly seems to come from America bashers in general.

LOL.
That IS what I would do as well. However, many of the people *probably*(no proof here, just a guess) being recruited as foreign fighters to go to Iraq and fight, are extremely uneducated.How much education you need for such a basic Survival choice. And what about their Platoon(cell) commanders, or Their recruiters, or Their Coyotes (border smuglers) They are all totally retarded?

Let me ask you a direct question...has the tougth of the infamous tags being Planted ever crossed your mind?

[OceanDrive #69]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

Heh he he he he...!!

How about that..!

I'm not alone in my so-called "fascio-rightist" opinions..!



It is all good, but tell me,

what is with the annoying fonts and colors?

I don't find them annoying at all.

Yet another example of adolescent control-freakishness on your part..? :)

GO LEFTISTS..!

[Tokugawa Shogunate #71]
Tactics

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These appeasement tactics are stupid. Like what happened in Vietnam. We are too concerned with world opinion. Instead of waffling like Kerry, we should adopt the Israeli style of counter-insurgency, and go and bulldoze some houses; assassinate people when we have the chance; and blow up something, such as house or person, WITHOUT prior approval. I wish I had that luxury. We are far too concerned with world opinion to take matters into our own hands. As far as im concerned, people who do not want to get involved with overseas wars are like the people of the WWII era: "Let Hitler Kill the Jews and take over Europe, its all right as long as we are not harmed". Sept. 11 happened on Clinton's watch. Doesn't that tell you something?

Hear hear..!

You've summed up the leftist mantra perfectly.

"The enemy (Islamists) of our enemy (the west) is our friend..!"

How much education you need for such a basic Survival choice. And what about their Platoon(cell) commanders, or Their recruiters, or Their Coyotes (border smuglers) They are all totally retarded?

Let me ask you a direct question...has the tougth of the infamous tags being Planted has ever crosse your mind?

Lets see, first Q first.. It would appear to me that MOST*not all* of their leadership is not well skilled in military tactics, and I would leave it at that for that Q.
As for the fake tags, yes, of course it is possible as well. However, none of the coalition troops have placed fake tags, or even have the opportunity.
So you would have to consider, as a policeman , who has opportunity and motive. Opportunity- they themselves and their commanders.
Motive? If you think of one, let me know lol. I see no motive in the enemy(who seems to WANT us to think they are Iraqis "fighting for freedom") would WANT us to believe they are foreign fighters instead.

[Tokugawa Shogunate #71]
Tactics

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These appeasement tactics are stupid. Like what happened in Vietnam. We are too concerned with world opinion. Instead of waffling like Kerry, we should adopt the Israeli style of counter-insurgency, and go and bulldoze some houses; assassinate people when we have the chance; and blow up something, such as house or person, WITHOUT prior approval. I wish I had that luxury. We are far too concerned with world opinion to take matters into our own hands. As far as im concerned, people who do not want to get involved with overseas wars are like the people of the WWII era: "Let Hitler Kill the Jews and take over Europe, its all right as long as we are not harmed". Sept. 11 happened on Clinton's watch. Doesn't that tell you something?

Hear hear..!

You've summed up the leftist mantra perfectly.

"The enemy (Islamists) of our enemy (the west) is our friend..!"

While I agree with most of what you said, just a quick note, that while Clinton for certain did not help the terror situation, and in some ways may have hurt it(arguable, so not going there ;) ) 9/11 did actually occur in Bush's Presidency. I don't at all blame Bush for it, don't get me wrong, just clarifying.

[Takrai #74]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[Biff Pileon #49]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takrai
Saddam WAS jailed long ago, because of OUR efforts. His country is still trying to put their lives back together, also with alot of help from US.
As for "Halliburton" probably you watched F9/11, I see. Alot of rubbish.



You will find that arguing with pre-pubescent adolescents who have a world view based on their limited knowledge gained from never having been anywhere will become tiring at best. Their diatribes are just the rantings of a child looking for some attantion. Even bad attention is craved. They must have been weened too early or something.

Heh he he he he...!!

How about that..!

I'm not alone in my so-called "fascio-rightist" opinions..!

Excellent.

Heh he he he he he..!



Actually, I would prefer my comments not be labelled as fascio rightist lol.
On many issues I am quite in the center politically. What I mainly resent is the effort of the "left" generally to denegrate the sacrifices I have seen in Iraq by many young(and not so young) men and women. They usually try to hide it by pretending to worry about our troops, but in reality, they symbolically spit on the face of every man and woman in uniform. It is no small wonder that our military personell overwhelmingly support our current Commander in Chief, and have their worries about a challenger whose support mostly seems to come from America bashers in general.

Agreed on the "fascio-rightist" thing..! :)

The left is so stuck on "all war is evil" that any use of it is therefore evil.

Imagine if they had the same thoughts about surgery. "All tissue-cutting is evil, so all surgery is evil". This is their mindset.

They are cowards as to what sometimes, regretably, needs to be done.

They are led forward in their pursuit of hate of all things american, of all things of the west, by the masters of manipulation of youth.

They prey on the lack of experience, the angst, the impatience of the young.

The islamists learned well from the leftists.

The islamists ARE the same as the leftists. They would have total control of all things in their anal-obsessed hands.

This is why they are comrads in arms. Regarless of their protestations.

Please what part of the war in Iraq was started on a realistic outlook.

If the French are ignorant, the US is just as ignorant.
>Something had to be done in Iraq. People lived in fear for their lives. As a free country we can not even imagine what that must be like. We think we have been oppressed if gas goes up ten cents! Do not take for granted what we have and what it took to get here. Have some respect for those who died giving us the right to be spoiled rotten, fat lazy slobs....It was the right thing to go after Saddam. The people of iraq deserve better, and now at least they have a chance. Go Bush!!

>Something had to be done in Iraq. People lived in fear for their lives.!!Iraqui Quality of Life WAS better than many other TW countries, all of Africa included (bar SA).

Iraqui Quality of Life WAS better than many other TW countries, all of Africa included (bar SA).
This is actually true, but is a sad statement on those other countries rather than a good statement on Husseins government.
Also the better quality of life, did not include anyone who disagreed with Saddam's govt. For most of them throughout the 80s and 90s wound up in mass gravesites.

[OceanDrive #82]
Quote:
Originally Posted by TODDER
>Something had to be done in Iraq. People lived in fear for their lives.!!

Iraqui Quality of Life WAS better than many other TW countries, all of Africa included (bar SA).

Ocean disgusts me.

The attitude that "life under a stable evil dictatorship" is better than "the possibility of representative democracy" shows Ocean's (and the leftist's) mindset perfectly.

They would rather have stable evil than unstable non-evil.

That's because they represent the evil notion that humans can be commanded into "goodness" (their goodness) by tyranical means.

They seek the perfect "mommy and daddy" to tell them what to do and how to think.

They disgust me.

Yes, I would support limited military law under those conditions, as would anyone who was not sympathetic to the cause of the "outlaws".

You, on the other hand, would be one of the RPG wielding adolescents out there flinging bombs at the peacekeepers because "they violated my civil rights by showing MILITARY FORCE in the face of massive unrest".

What would be your solution to such unrest..?

Oh,.. that's right,.. you'd be out there with an RPG. Silly me.

I have faith in the good people of America. You, like all leftist infantile drones, have no faith in humanity whatsoever, which is why the left has such a need to micro-control every aspect of everything, and can not relax long enough to have a non-painful bowel movement.

You see any societal control (not of your own making) as tyranical dictatorship. Yet, you would control everything (via hyperbolic laws).

The left's single salient charateristic is that of "Utter Anal Retentive".

You already have a warning under your belt. If I find anything more like this from you, I will forumban.


http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/EyeOfMyrth.jpg
Myrth
The Eye of Myrth is upon thee
Forum Moderator

lol internet

[Myrth #85]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Yes, I would support limited military law under those conditions, as would anyone who was not sympathetic to the cause of the "outlaws".

You, on the other hand, would be one of the RPG wielding adolescents out there flinging bombs at the peacekeepers because "they violated my civil rights by showing MILITARY FORCE in the face of massive unrest".

What would be your solution to such unrest..?

Oh,.. that's right,.. you'd be out there with an RPG. Silly me.

I have faith in the good people of America. You, like all leftist infantile drones, have no faith in humanity whatsoever, which is why the left has such a need to micro-control every aspect of everything, and can not relax long enough to have a non-painful bowel movement.

You see any societal control (not of your own making) as tyranical dictatorship. Yet, you would control everything (via hyperbolic laws).

The left's single salient charateristic is that of "Utter Anal Retentive".



You already have a warning under your belt. If I find anything more like this from you, I will forumban.



Myrth
The Eye of Myrth is upon thee
Forum Moderator

Myrth... you may do as you like.

If the airing of opinions offends you, that's fine with me.

You show your own childish attitude (regardless of your age, obviously) if you allow cry-babies to influence the content of this forum.

People are more than free to ignore me.

What does it say that you would bow to the "demands" of those "terribly upset" by my point of view..?

Do as you wish.

:D

I have to say there seem to be many flamers who quite regularly flame for the "other side" if you will. While I don't agree with what they say, I never once thought of a censorship attempt. So to obtain their silence, is it only required to complain to a moderator? That would save a great deal of time if so.

[OceanDrive #82]
Quote:
Originally Posted by TODDER
>Something had to be done in Iraq. People lived in fear for their lives.!!

Iraqui Quality of Life WAS better than many other TW countries, all of Africa included (bar SA).

Ocean disgusts me.

The attitude that "life under a stable evil dictatorship" is better than "the possibility of representative democracy" shows Ocean's (and the leftist's) mindset perfectly.

They would rather have stable evil than unstable non-evil.

That's because they represent the evil notion that humans can be commanded into "goodness" (their goodness) by tyranical means.

They seek the perfect "mommy and daddy" to tell them what to do and how to think.

They disgust me.

You know, it'd be really good if you'd back up these sweeping statements of yours with some kind of evidence. Are these your actual opinions or are you just trying to grab some attention? To my mind, the size and colour of your font indicate the latter.

Ocean disgusts me.Thank you, and I love you too,

shall we shag now...or shall we shag later? :fluffle:

:D :D :eek: :D

My God...

The scary thing is, many of you Americans don't realise what wou are building up here...

You are providing amunition to groups like Al Queda. Rather than making the wold a safer place you are INCREASING the risk to America... imagine, there are hundreds of children in Iraq whose parents have been killed by American fire, do you REALLY thhink they are going to accept America saying "we're sorry, but it was for your own good?" Of course not! They are going to be captured by propaganda and be taught to HATE you like you cannot believe.

Imagine, there are now thosands of people with reason to hate America... How long before another terrorist attack as big, or bigger, than September 11th? What about a nuclear attack? Manufacturing a nuke is now a real possibility for terrorists, if they can get the materials, and with countries like Iran (possibly) producing plutonium, they will have this. Then you have thosands willing to carry the bomb to America. Imagine the devistation if one was detonated in the centre of New York?

Look at your "coalition of the willing"

Britain: Majority never wanted war.Dragged in by Labour Government
Spain: Withdrawn at the behest of the people
Phillipeans: Withdrawn to prevent the death of hostages
I could go on.

When you have lost the support of your allies, you know you have F*cked up big. and that is the situation America is in ATM.

Thank you, and I love you too,

shall we shag now...or shall we shag later? :fluffle:

:D :D :eek: :D

Ok that was funny sorry

My God...

The scary thing is, many of you Americans don't realise what wou are building up here...

You are providing amunition to groups like Al Queda. Rather than making the wold a safer place you are INCREASING the risk to America... imagine, there are hundreds of children in Iraq whose parents have been killed by American fire, do you REALLY thhink they are going to accept America saying "we're sorry, but it was for your own good?" Of course not! They are going to be captured by propaganda and be taught to HATE you like you cannot believe.

Imagine, there are now thosands of people with reason to hate America... How long before another terrorist attack as big, or bigger, than September 11th? What about a nuclear attack? Manufacturing a nuke is now a real possibility for terrorists, if they can get the materials, and with countries like Iran (possibly) producing plutonium, they will have this. Then you have thosands willing to carry the bomb to America. Imagine the devistation if one was detonated in the centre of New York?

Look at your "coalition of the willing"

Britain: Majority never wanted war.Dragged in by Labour Government
Spain: Withdrawn at the behest of the people
Phillipeans: Withdrawn to prevent the death of hostages
I could go on.

When you have lost the support of your allies, you know you have F*cked up big. and that is the situation America is in ATM.

While in general I agree(I think) with the reasoning behind that statement, its foundation is flawed. More Iraqis have been killed by Baathists and terrorists than Americans, by an order of magnitude.
As far as the other nations agreement or lack thereof, I agree, and actually wish those who had been opposed had stayed out, to be honest, not for any reasons of insult to their forces, but just on the fact that a nation should represent THEIR people..what most Europeans fail to recognize however, is that is what our nation is doing.

The worst thing about an article like this is that the professor compares the insurgents to US militias. Most of the insurgents are coming in from Iran, Syria and possible Saudi Arabia. Proof is when they identify the bodies and find out that these "insurgents" are citizens from Iran and Syria and when you look at their tactics of car bombing which is a favored tactic of Iranian and Syrian terrorists.

Also, if this were happening in the US, the occupying force would have a harder time because our citizens have their own weapons and are great hunters. How hard could it be to snipe soldiers when you've been hunting small animals since childhood? Pure speculation aside, I think American youths would be much more help because of all the first-person shooter and strategy games we play, huh? lol

The worst thing about an article like this is that the professor compares the insurgents to US militias. Most of the insurgents are coming in from Iran, Syria and possible Saudi Arabia. Proof is when they identify the bodies and find out that these "insurgents" are citizens from Iran and Syria and when you look at their tactics of car bombing which is a favored tactic of Iranian and Syrian terrorists.

Also, if this were happening in the US, the occupying force would have a harder time because our citizens have their own weapons and are great hunters. How hard could it be to snipe soldiers when you've been hunting small animals since childhood? Pure speculation aside, I think American youths would be much more help because of all the first-person shooter and strategy games we play, huh? lol
Propaganda, arrogance, bloated self-esteem... as usual. Carry on.

The worst thing about an article like this is that the professor compares the insurgents to US militias. Most of the insurgents are coming in from Iran, Syria and possible Saudi Arabia. Proof is when they identify the bodies and find out that these "insurgents" are citizens from Iran and Syria and when you look at their tactics of car bombing which is a favored tactic of Iranian and Syrian terrorists.

Also, if this were happening in the US, the occupying force would have a harder time because our citizens have their own weapons and are great hunters. How hard could it be to snipe soldiers when you've been hunting small animals since childhood? Pure speculation aside, I think American youths would be much more help because of all the first-person shooter and strategy games we play, huh? lol

I had not realized he was a professor. The post seemed rather uneducated. However, that could include *many* professors I assume, and comes from spending their lives in academia rather than the real world.

[Turnasia #89]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[OceanDrive #82]
Quote:
Originally Posted by TODDER
>Something had to be done in Iraq. People lived in fear for their lives.!!

Iraqui Quality of Life WAS better than many other TW countries, all of Africa included (bar SA).
Ocean disgusts me.

The attitude that "life under a stable evil dictatorship" is better than "the possibility of representative democracy" shows Ocean's (and the leftist's) mindset perfectly.

They would rather have stable evil than unstable non-evil.

That's because they represent the evil notion that humans can be commanded into "goodness" (their goodness) by tyranical means.

They seek the perfect "mommy and daddy" to tell them what to do and how to think.

They disgust me.


You know, it'd be really good if you'd back up these sweeping statements of yours with some kind of evidence. Are these your actual opinions or are you just trying to grab some attention? To my mind, the size and colour of your font indicate the latter.

These "sweeping statements" are my opinions.

If you don't find them thought provoking, don't bother with them. :)

If you find them thought provoking, state your own opinions.

:D

..and the game continues..

dp

[OceanDrive #90]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Ocean disgusts me.

Thank you, and I love you too,

shall we shag now...or shall we shag later?


Heh he he he he he..

No.

I'd rather not catch anything,...... thanks though.

While in general I agree(I think) with the reasoning behind that statement, its foundation is flawed. More Iraqis have been killed by Baathists and terrorists than Americans, by an order of magnitude.
As far as the other nations agreement or lack thereof, I agree, and actually wish those who had been opposed had stayed out, to be honest, not for any reasons of insult to their forces, but just on the fact that a nation should represent THEIR people..what most Europeans fail to recognize however, is that is what our nation is doing.

What your nation appears to be doing is dictaring policy to other countries. "Do things our way or face the consequences."

Yes Iraq had bad human rights records, but by that token, America is going to be invading countries for a LONG time to come yet. North Korea, Viet Nam, Zimababwe, Sudan, Iran, ISRAEL, Syria. By a count I saw a few days ago, if America wants to rid the world of goverments who abuse their people, they will ave to invade a MINIMUM of 75 counties.

So why start with Iraq? Terrorists? Nope, Al Queda hated Sadam. Human rights? No, for the reasons above, other countries closer to America with worse violations should go before that. Oil? BINGO! Bush wanting to finish his daadies attempt? BINGO again.

[Egg and chips #91]
My God...

The scary thing is, many of you Americans don't realise what wou are building up here...

You are providing amunition to groups like Al Queda. Rather than making the wold a safer place you are INCREASING the risk to America... imagine, there are hundreds of children in Iraq whose parents have been killed by American fire, do you REALLY thhink they are going to accept America saying "we're sorry, but it was for your own good?" Of course not! They are going to be captured by propaganda and be taught to HATE you like you cannot believe.

Imagine, there are now thosands of people with reason to hate America... How long before another terrorist attack as big, or bigger, than September 11th? What about a nuclear attack? Manufacturing a nuke is now a real possibility for terrorists, if they can get the materials, and with countries like Iran (possibly) producing plutonium, they will have this. Then you have thosands willing to carry the bomb to America. Imagine the devistation if one was detonated in the centre of New York?

Look at your "coalition of the willing"

Britain: Majority never wanted war.Dragged in by Labour Government
Spain: Withdrawn at the behest of the people
Phillipeans: Withdrawn to prevent the death of hostages
I could go on.

When you have lost the support of your allies, you know you have F*cked up big. and that is the situation America is in ATM.


Wouldn't it be lovely if the people of Iraq could have thrown off Saddam and his like..?

Perhaps the reasonable people of Iraq will some day see that the Saddam-ectomy was a good thing..?

Wouldn't it be lovely if all the oppressed peoples of the middle-east, and everywhere, would realize that the west wants them to do well, because prosperous and proud people are easier to productively deal with..?

Wouldn't it be lovely if the hate-mongering thugs hadn't already decided to teach as mush hate for the west (and America in particular) to the people that they wish to control and use for their own purposes..?

Wouldn't it be lovely if our supposed allies weren't a collection of unprincipled weenies who foment their own version of hatred for America because it might distract terrorist intentions toward America and away from them for as much time as possible..?

Wouldn't it be lovely..!? :)

What your nation appears to be doing is dictaring policy to other countries. "Do things our way or face the consequences."

Yes Iraq had bad human rights records, but by that token, America is going to be invading countries for a LONG time to come yet. North Korea, Viet Nam, Zimababwe, Sudan, Iran, ISRAEL, Syria. By a count I saw a few days ago, if America wants to rid the world of goverments who abuse their people, they will ave to invade a MINIMUM of 75 counties.

So why start with Iraq? Terrorists? Nope, Al Queda hated Sadam. Human rights? No, for the reasons above, other countries closer to America with worse violations should go before that. Oil? BINGO! Bush wanting to finish his daadies attempt? BINGO again.
Actually, US forces are fighting TERRORISTS in Iraq on a daily basis. This includes groups with admitted(by themselves)links to al Q. It is preferable to fight them there, than here. Oil? We do not import anywhere near enough from the mideast(unlike Europe) Our largest oil imports come from Venezuela and regions closer. If we had wanted oil, Our army could have taken a relatively undefended nation (Kuwait or Saudi) and in the case for Saudi, could probably have convinced many that it was because of their possible involvement in 9/11.

Perhaps the reasonable people of Iraq will some day see that the Saddam-ectomy was a good thing..?I personally know some prople from Iraq...and let reasure you...The Iraqi people already know that.
(with the minority exeption of the Sunnis).

[Egg and chips #100]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takrai
While in general I agree(I think) with the reasoning behind that statement, its foundation is flawed. More Iraqis have been killed by Baathists and terrorists than Americans, by an order of magnitude.
As far as the other nations agreement or lack thereof, I agree, and actually wish those who had been opposed had stayed out, to be honest, not for any reasons of insult to their forces, but just on the fact that a nation should represent THEIR people..what most Europeans fail to recognize however, is that is what our nation is doing.


What your nation appears to be doing is dictaring policy to other countries. "Do things our way or face the consequences."

Yes Iraq had bad human rights records, but by that token, America is going to be invading countries for a LONG time to come yet. North Korea, Viet Nam, Zimababwe, Sudan, Iran, ISRAEL, Syria. By a count I saw a few days ago, if America wants to rid the world of goverments who abuse their people, they will ave to invade a MINIMUM of 75 counties.

So why start with Iraq? Terrorists? Nope, Al Queda hated Sadam. Human rights? No, for the reasons above, other countries closer to America with worse violations should go before that. Oil? BINGO! Bush wanting to finish his daadies attempt? BINGO again.

.."What your nation appears to be doing is dictaring policy to other countries. "Do things our way or face the consequences." "..

Close. Do it America's way, or not. But we will do as we wish, based on our principles.

We started with Iraq for a very simple reason. Iraq was the weakest and most easily dealt with.

It's nice that Iraq has a way to pay for their rebuilding, don't you think..?

It's rather nice that the country that SHOULD have wiped the evil tyrant Saddam off the map the FIRST TIME, got another shot at it, don't you think..?

:D

[OceanDrive #103]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

Perhaps the reasonable people of Iraq will some day see that the Saddam-ectomy was a good thing..?

I personally know some prople from Iraq...and let reasure you...The Iraqi people already know that.
(with the minority exeption of the Sunnis).

Excellent..! :)

Let us all hope that reason, and a steady hand to do what is right and called for, prevails in Iraq.

The people and nation of Iraq deserve nothing less.

[INDENT][Egg and chips #100]
[INDENT]Quote:


Close. Do it America's way, or not. But we will do as we wish, based on our principles.

We started with Iraq for a very simple reason. Iraq was the weakest and most easily dealt with.

It's nice that Iraq has a way to pay for their rebuilding, don't you think..?

It's rather nice that the country that SHOULD have wiped the evil tyrant Saddam off the map the FIRST TIME, got another shot at it, don't you think..?

:D

True, most generals in th coalition the first time preferred ending the threat once and for all time. We stopped short only because there were indications that the Arab members of the coalition would fall out. This was a continuation of that war to all purposes. Saddam's govt failed to live up to the conditions for ceasefire, many many times, and was finally attacked for so doing. We had a legal right to attack as his forces violated ceasefire countless times in the intervening 12 years..kicking out inspectors, firing on coalition a/c, etc...if one side breaks a ceasefire, the other is NOT obligated to unilaterally continue it, yet we did, for 12 years.

[OceanDrive #103]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

Perhaps the reasonable people of Iraq will some day see that the Saddam-ectomy was a good thing..?

I personally know some prople from Iraq...and let reasure you...The Iraqi people already know that.
(with the minority exeption of the Sunnis).

Excellent..! :)

Let us all hope that reason, and a steady hand to do what is right and called for, prevails in Iraq.

The people and nation of Iraq deserve nothing less.The people and nation of Iraq deserves Freedom!
The people and nation of Iraq wants Freedom!
They know what they want...and they want it now.

[OceanDrive #107]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[OceanDrive #103]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

Perhaps the reasonable people of Iraq will some day see that the Saddam-ectomy was a good thing..?

I personally know some prople from Iraq...and let reasure you...The Iraqi people already know that.
(with the minority exeption of the Sunnis).

Excellent..!

Let us all hope that reason, and a steady hand to do what is right and called for, prevails in Iraq.

The people and nation of Iraq deserve nothing less.

The people and nation of Iraq deserves Freedom!
The people and nation of Iraq wants Freedom!
They know what they want...and they want it now.

Go give them Freedom (with the capital "F") then Ocean.

America is trying to do that now, clever one.

You betray your matuity level with your insistent impatience.

And thanks for the leftist "srcreaming points"..! :)

the same thing happened in germany after the second world war

Actually what is going on in Iraq right now did not, I repeat did not happen in Germany after WWII.

[Stephistan #109]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eldarana
the same thing happened in germany after the second world war



Actually what is going on in Iraq right now did not, I repeat did not happen in Germany after WWII.

Of course not.

It's not WWII any more..!

..but it is a defeated country that is being rebuilt by it's conqueror (liberator), and there were counter-insurgents in Germany.

And that's all we need to know.

[OceanDrive #107]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[OceanDrive #103]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

Perhaps the reasonable people of Iraq will some day see that the Saddam-ectomy was a good thing..?

I personally know some prople from Iraq...and let reasure you...The Iraqi people already know that.
(with the minority exeption of the Sunnis).

Excellent..!

Let us all hope that reason, and a steady hand to do what is right and called for, prevails in Iraq.

The people and nation of Iraq deserve nothing less.

The people and nation of Iraq deserves Freedom!
The people and nation of Iraq wants Freedom!
They know what they want...and they want it now.

a

And when I say Sunni minority..i ment the Bathtists

The people and nation of Iraq deserves Freedom!
The people and nation of Iraq wants Freedom!
They know what they want...and they want it now.

Very well said. There are many Iraqis btw who have paid with their own lives for freedom, at the hand of terrorists and foreign nationals who have begun attacking many Iraqis who want this. In the end, there will be a free and democratic government there. Many on the left would seem to believe it is impossible for this to occur, that should be seen as an insult by those in Iraq, why would it be impossible for their nation to be a nation of free people?

And when I say Sunni minority..i ment the Bathtists

You may "re-reply" to my actual post #108, if you wish.

Sorry about hitting "submit" when I meant "preview".

Oopsy..! :D

And thanks for the leftist "srcreaming points"..! :)
You are welcome! :D (whatever that was all about :confused: )

You may "re-reply" to my actual post #108, if you wish.

Sorry about hitting "submit" when I meant "preview".

Oopsy..! :D
no problemo,

shiit'te happens...even in Iraq :D

Why isn't the UN using some military intervention to free the US of it's corrupt leadership (ran by ceo's...). And introduce a democratic government. Introduce social security and helath services, not only for the rich, but for everyone? Hmmz, what if the us was iraq or vice-versa. let's invade the US!!!!

why would it be impossible for their nation to be a nation of free people?Tell that to the Native-Americans, and the Kurds, and the Palestineans, etc

Why isn't the UN using some military intervention to free the US of it's corrupt leadership (ran by ceo's...). And introduce a democratic government. Introduce social security and helath services, not only for the rich, but for everyone? Hmmz, what if the us was iraq or vice-versa. let's invade the US!!!!

Another not well thought out post. Our government is democratic, while it has its faults admittedly, it is still QUITE democratic. We have social security as well, and some of the best health services in the world, or did you mean to say health insurance? Who pray tell will pay for this?

Why isn't the UN using some military intervention to free the US of it's corrupt leadership (ran by ceo's...). And introduce a democratic government. Introduce social security and helath services, not only for the rich, but for everyone? Hmmz, what if the us was iraq or vice-versa. let's invade the US!!!!

Maybe because the UN is toothless. Maybe because the US would certainly veto such an action. Maybe because we already have social security and health services. For those of you guys outside the US that dont know, we have medicaid/medicare for the elderly and the poor. These govt programs pick up the health care tab for those people.

Tell that to the Native-Americans, and the Kurds, and the Palestineans, etc
Not sure I understand your post, or did you not get that I was agreeing with you? As for the Kurds, yes, I believe they should be free as well, that does not mean their OWN free country, they can be free in a free country as well. Same with Palestinians. Native Americans??? Not sure how they fit in the context of what I stated. They are a part of this free country right now however. I even served alongside several in Iraq.

[The non-bushies #116]
Invade US?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why isn't the UN using some military intervention to free the US of it's corrupt leadership (ran by ceo's...). And introduce a democratic government. Introduce social security and helath services, not only for the rich, but for everyone? Hmmz, what if the us was iraq or vice-versa. let's invade the US!!!!

Go anarcho-communists..!

And we don't need "helath" services. They only promote helathishness, which no "civilized" country needs,... in excess.

And we are not "ran" by ceo's. We are "run" by ceo's..! Although the ceo's would probably laugh at you for saying so.

Good try though. :)

Not sure I understand your post, or did you not get that I was agreeing with you?FYI...a free nation does not include foreign occupation Army Bases.

Also let me translate whan they say "we want freedom now"...they mean they want te USarmy to leave...Today!

FYI...a free nation does not include a foreign occupation Bases.

How are we occupying Iraq? They have the formation of their own government. Our military is operating under their command. If they ask us to leave, we will. How is that an occupation?

How are we occupying Iraq? They have the formation of their own government. Our military is operating under their command. If they ask us to leave, we will. How is that an occupation?

Hi,
I am Iraqi Government Man.
Leave.
kthxbi.


:D

:D

Good try....but no. ;)

...If they ask us to leave, we will. How is that an occupation?Playing deaf?

WTF?

"Good try"?

You are delusional!

Playing deaf?

Has the Iraqi provisional government asked the US to leave? They are the only legitimate authority in Iraq. They have asked us to stay.....

.Our military is operating under their command.So next time Iraq wants to attack Israel...

oh boy...Israel is in trouble now...

Has the Iraqi provisional government asked the US to leave? They are the only legitimate authority in Iraq. They have asked us to stay.....The Iraquis themselves say that everyday.
Todays Iarq gov is a puppet, just like Saddam used to be...when he tried to invade Iran

Has the Iraqi provisional government asked the US to leave? They are the only legitimate authority in Iraq. They have asked us to stay.....
No one's buying that stuff about Iraqi sovereignty.

The Iraqi government stated that they'd be releasing a woman from jail. The US military said that this would not be happening anytime soon. Whose word carries more weight?

Besides, the provisional government isn't too "legitimate" anyway.

TAG...gtg.

FYI...a free nation does not include foreign occupation Army Bases.

Also let me translate whan they say "we want freedom now"...they mean they want te USarmy to leave...Today!

Ah, well, FYI..the Iraqi citizens daily have expressed gratitude for their freedom from Hussein's regime. You reverted back to your earlier form of uninformed unthought out conclusions after actually posting some that contained thought.
The people trying to remove the US have mostly been foreign Islamic terrorists. I trust you do not fall into that category.
Just as an aside, with the HUGE swing back and forth in your posts, perhaps you may consult a medical professional on the possibility of split personality?
I find it hard to believe the person who posted a handful of thoughtful arguments, is the same who suddenly has reverted to flaming.
And finally, "FYI" American Armed forces bases have KEPT many free nations free from foreign intervention, that is the case here as well, with a vacuum of power in Iraq, many nations in the area would move to profit with no American presence.

No one's buying that stuff about Iraqi sovereignty.

The Iraqi government stated that they'd be releasing a woman from jail. The US military said that this would not be happening anytime soon. Whose word carries more weight?

Besides, the provisional government isn't too "legitimate" anyway.

The prisoner is a prisoner of American forces, not Iraqi. She is wanted by many Kurds who hold her partially to blame for the WMD attack on their families that killed many.

[OceanDrive #122]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takrai
Not sure I understand your post, or did you not get that I was agreeing with you?

FYI...a free nation does not include foreign occupation Army Bases.

Also let me translate whan they say "we want freedom now"...they mean they want te USarmy to leave...Today!

They do not want the US Army to leave. If they did, they would want the thugs to take over. They don't want that.

The thugs, and your pals apparently, do though.

A free nation may contract to have military (or economic, or cultural, etc) bases on other nation's soil as much as they wish.

That is the very definition of freedom.

:D

Because perspective is something America severly lacks. It's like a stubborn child who refuses to believe that pulling the cat's tail will get him scratched ... often, the child must get scratched several times before learning.

No matter how much I try, the message doesnt get across to Eurpopeans, Its not America!!! Its Bush! Theres a difference! Your an asshole, you dont care how we feel, its just your own selfish dumb ignorant opinions, I dont persecute you and you dont persecute me, wed be much better off that way. I was in Italy this summer, many of them were very nice to us, others were not, I made a seperation, I didnt say, Italians are all jackasses, I said some are and some arent. Please, will you seperate us!?!

Most of that happened because of the instability of Iraq. Genocide was happening before is this worse? I think not. If we left do you think that crime would go down for some reason? Do you think that terrorist bombings would stop? Do you think that it would get better in any way? I think we need to occupy and remove those guerrilla fighters not let them be and let them do whatever they like. They are at war and brought it on themselves what do they expect? I see almost nothing wrong with what we are doing in Iraq. Granted what those troops did to the Iraq prisoners was wrong but does that compare to cutting off POW heads? If not for staying to "free" Iraq how about staying long enough to secure our POWs? How about staying to make sure that another dictatorship doesn't arise and make sure terrorists don't run the country again.

There was so much there that was either wrong or can be argued out I am too lazy to quote I just went off the top of my head.

Most of that happened because of the instability of Iraq. Genocide was happening before is this worse? I think not. If we left do you think that crime would go down for some reason? Do you think that terrorist bombings would stop? Do you think that it would get better in any way? I think we need to occupy and remove those guerrilla fighters not let them be and let them do whatever they like. They are at war and brought it on themselves what do they expect? I see almost nothing wrong with what we are doing in Iraq. Granted what those troops did to the Iraq prisoners was wrong but does that compare to cutting off POW heads? If not for staying to "free" Iraq how about staying long enough to secure our POWs? How about staying to make sure that another dictatorship doesn't arise and make sure terrorists don't run the country again.

There was so much there that was either wrong or can be argued out I am too lazy to quote I just went off the top of my head.

You are correct. In the end we will destroy these terrorists. They prey on the weak because they are too fearful to stand and fight, yet time after time we are defeating them. Those we capture usually are foreign terrorists trying to avoid a peaceful Iraq, because they know what President Bush stated before, is fact, that a peaceful, democratic Iraq, would go a long way to curbing terrorism in the region. Saddam paid cash to families of suicide bombers who killed children in Israel. He gassed his own people(Kurds) for disagreeing with how he did things. US, British, and for a time French a/c had to patrol no-fly zones just to keep him from killing more of his own people.

[OceanDrive #122]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takrai
Not sure I understand your post, or did you not get that I was agreeing with you?

FYI...a free nation does not include foreign occupation Army Bases.

Also let me translate whan they say "we want freedom now"...they mean they want te USarmy to leave...Today!

They do not want the US Army to leave. If they did, they would want the thugs to take over. They don't want that.

The thugs, and your pals apparently, do though.

A free nation may contract to have military (or economic, or cultural, etc) bases on other nation's soil as much as they wish.

That is the very definition of freedom.

:D

When you say "they" do you mean every Iraqi? Every citizen of Iraq? I'm sure they're a little more polarized than we are now. We kill hundreds of their citizens every day. They may have been under a mean tyrant before, but they were under a rough ruler AND they had water and electricity in their homes. Now, they've got to start from scratch. Why? Because Bush said they had nuclear weapons. We've got to do something about it, yes, but we should also admit that this is our war, created from lies. If what was happening in Iraq was happening to us, we'd be very angry at the occupying forces.

When you say "they" do you mean every Iraqi? Every citizen of Iraq? I'm sure they're a little more polarized than we are now. We kill hundreds of their citizens every day. They may have been under a mean tyrant before, but they were under a rough ruler AND they had water and electricity in their homes. Now, they've got to start from scratch. Why? Because Bush said they had nuclear weapons. We've got to do something about it, yes, but we should also admit that this is our war, created from lies. If what was happening in Iraq was happening to us, we'd be very angry at the occupying forces.

"WE" kill hundreds of Iraqi's every day? Some proof? It is the terrorists that are killing the Iraqi's with their car bombs. Of course your anti-american mindset prevents you from seeing the truth, but thats ok, this forum is full of blind people such as yourself.

No matter how much I try, the message doesnt get across to Eurpopeans, Its not America!!! Its Bush! Theres a difference! Your an asshole, you dont care how we feel, its just your own selfish dumb ignorant opinions, I dont persecute you and you dont persecute me, wed be much better off that way. I was in Italy this summer, many of them were very nice to us, others were not, I made a seperation, I didnt say, Italians are all jackasses, I said some are and some arent. Please, will you seperate us!?!

Hear, hear! I toured Europe back in '97 and met with two different thoughts from Europeans. Still, most of the US Citizens haven't even been to France, yet they feel the need to constantly harangue French people and their culture. What's that about? Admittedly, neither of us are likely to be one of those, but perhaps the Europeans see more of those types than they do of us.

When you say "they" do you mean every Iraqi? Every citizen of Iraq? I'm sure they're a little more polarized than we are now. We kill hundreds of their citizens every day. They may have been under a mean tyrant before, but they were under a rough ruler AND they had water and electricity in their homes. Now, they've got to start from scratch. Why? Because Bush said they had nuclear weapons. We've got to do something about it, yes, but we should also admit that this is our war, created from lies. If what was happening in Iraq was happening to us, we'd be very angry at the occupying forces.


Bush had every reason to believe they had nuclear weapons. His intelligence network said they did what is he supposed to do just say " no they don't" without even considering the fact that they may decide to use these weapons. They have found evidence of nuclear weapons although they havent found them and Iraq had plenty of time to export them.

Bush had every reason to believe they had nuclear weapons. His intelligence network said they did what is he supposed to do just say " no they don't" without even considering the fact that they may decide to use these weapons. They have found evidence of nuclear weapons although they havent found them and Iraq had plenty of time to export them.

Wow.....it was CHEMICAL and BIOLOGICAL weapons....not nuclear.

"WE" kill hundreds of Iraqi's every day? Some proof? It is the terrorists that are killing the Iraqi's with their car bombs. Of course your anti-american mindset prevents you from seeing the truth, but thats ok, this forum is full of blind people such as yourself.

First, I'd like to point out that you're the one allowing blind fury to lower your level of discussion to insults. I am no more blind than you are. I am also NOT anti-american. Our forces are capable of killing MORE PEOPLE than a car bomb. What about the initial bombings? What about the machine gun spray? Where's your proof that the insurgents kill more Iraqis than we do? If I'm to be forced to provide proof, so should you be. Try thinking for yourself instead of letting the media spoon feed you.

But for the record, this is an article from December of LAST YEAR:

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0%2C6119%2C2-10-1460_1444054%2C00.html

The first paragraph of this article states:

"Between 21,000 and 55,000 people have died as a direct result of the war in Iraq, most of them Iraqi soldiers and civilians, a report estimated on Tuesday."

If we waged war, we caused their deaths. It's really very simple if you bother to do your research. Have another one:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C83544%2C00.html

Bush had every reason to believe they had nuclear weapons. His intelligence network said they did what is he supposed to do just say " no they don't" without even considering the fact that they may decide to use these weapons. They have found evidence of nuclear weapons although they havent found them and Iraq had plenty of time to export them.

The thing is, there's already been evidence to support reports that Bush was informed about the fallability of the intelligence BEFORE he went to press.

The French are ignorant. The US is realist

Oh, quit picking on the French. It's just too damned easy.

Wow.....it was CHEMICAL and BIOLOGICAL weapons....not nuclear.


Vice President's Remarks and Q&A at a BC'04 Roundtable in Lansing, Michigan
Finley's All American Restaurant
Lansing, Michigan:

"It's what we're doing now versus what would happen if we had not taken down the government of Saddam Hussein, if we had not gone in and toppled the Taliban, if we hadn't gone out and captured or killed as many al Qaeda and we could, if we weren't out there actively and aggressively dealing with the problems of nuclear proliferation."

Suggests Saddam was a NUCLEAR threat...

Oh, quit picking on the French. It's just too damned easy.

WAAR, I think they've just illustrated my point. Thanks, folks.

If we waged war, we caused their deaths. It's really very simple if you bother to do your research. Have another one:

Yes, many Iraqi soldiers died. Thats war. The US goes out of it's way to not kill civilians. We could end the fighting in a week if we were not trying to limit the damage done. The insurgents are the ones setting off the car bombs killing civilians lining up to apply for jobs. How many were killed the other day in one bombing? 55?

Yes, many Iraqi soldiers died. Thats war. The US goes out of it's way to not kill civilians. We could end the fighting in a week if we were not trying to limit the damage done. The insurgents are the ones setting off the car bombs killing civilians lining up to apply for jobs. How many were killed the other day in one bombing? 55?

I see you didn't bother to read those articles... you also didn't bother to examine the assertion I made. If the people have died AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE WAR, and we were the ones who decided to go to war in the first place, then WE caused their deaths. Read the second article too. They aren't even sure how many people OUR bombs have killed. (Oh, and there was a car bombing a few days ago that killed six. If we drop a bomb, it kills hundreds. It's simple math.)

Original Article (http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html#109582366638394688)

Wednesday, September 22, 2004
If America were Iraq, What would it be Like?
by Prof. Juan Cole

President Bush said Tuesday that the Iraqis are refuting the pessimists and implied that things are improving in that country.

What would America look like if it were in Iraq's current situation? The population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics would have to be multiplied by that number.

Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.

And what if those deaths occurred all over the country, including in the capital of Washington, DC, but mainly above the Mason Dixon line, in Boston, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco?

What if the grounds of the White House and the government buildings near the Mall were constantly taking mortar fire? What if almost nobody in the State Department at Foggy Bottom, the White House, or the Pentagon dared venture out of their buildings, and considered it dangerous to go over to Crystal City or Alexandria?

What if all the reporters for all the major television and print media were trapped in five-star hotels in Washington, DC and New York, unable to move more than a few blocks safely, and dependent on stringers to know what was happening in Oklahoma City and St. Louis? What if the only time they ventured into the Midwest was if they could be embedded in Army or National Guard units?

There are estimated to be some 25,000 guerrillas in Iraq engaged in concerted acts of violence. What if there were private armies totalling 275,000 men, armed with machine guns, assault rifles (legal again!), rocket-propelled grenades, and mortar launchers, hiding out in dangerous urban areas of cities all over the country? What if they completely controlled Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Denver and Omaha, such that local police and Federal troops could not go into those cities?

What if, during the past year, the Secretary of State (Aqilah Hashemi), the President (Izzedine Salim), and the Attorney General (Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim) had all been assassinated?

What if all the cities in the US were wracked by a crime wave, with thousands of murders, kidnappings, burglaries, and carjackings in every major city every year?

What if the Air Force routinely (I mean daily or weekly) bombed Billings, Montana, Flint, Michigan, Watts in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Anacostia in Washington, DC, and other urban areas, attempting to target "safe houses" of "criminal gangs", but inevitably killing a lot of children and little old ladies?

What if, from time to time, the US Army besieged Virginia Beach, killing hundreds of armed members of the Christian Soldiers? What if entire platoons of the Christian Soldiers militia holed up in Arlington National Cemetery, and were bombarded by US Air Force warplanes daily, destroying thousands of graves and even pulverizing the Vietnam Memorial over on the Mall? What if the National Council of Churches had to call for a popular march of thousands of believers to converge on the National Cathedral to stop the US Army from demolishing it to get at a rogue band of the Timothy McVeigh Memorial Brigades?

What if there were virtually no commercial air traffic in the country? What if many roads were highly dangerous, especially Interstate 95 from Richmond to Washington, DC, and I-95 and I-91 up to Boston? If you got on I-95 anywhere along that over 500-mile stretch, you would risk being carjacked, kidnapped, or having your car sprayed with machine gun fire.

What if no one had electricity for much more than 10 hours a day, and often less? What if it went off at unpredictable times, causing factories to grind to a halt and air conditioning to fail in the middle of the summer in Houston and Miami? What if the Alaska pipeline were bombed and disabled at least monthly? What if unemployment hovered around 40%?

What if veterans of militia actions at Ruby Ridge and the Oklahoma City bombing were brought in to run the government on the theory that you need a tough guy in these times of crisis?

What if municipal elections were cancelled and cliques close to the new "president" quietly installed in the statehouses as "governors?" What if several of these governors (especially of Montana and Wyoming) were assassinated soon after taking office or resigned when their children were taken hostage by guerrillas?

What if the leader of the European Union maintained that the citizens of the United States are, under these conditions, refuting pessimism and that freedom and democracy are just around the corner?
What if Bush decided that he didn't like us and decided to gas us, what if he decided that because Mexico is mostly Catholic and he doesn't like Catholics, that he was gonna invade Mexico. What if he started nuclear weapons programs to blow random countries of the face of the globe

What if Bush decided that he didn't like us and decided to gas us, what if he decided that because Mexico is mostly Catholic and he doesn't like Catholics, that he was gonna invade Mexico. What if he started nuclear weapons programs to blow random countries of the face of the globe
Propaganda.

First, I'd like to point out that you're the one allowing blind fury to lower your level of discussion to insults. I am no more blind than you are. I am also NOT anti-american. Our forces are capable of killing MORE PEOPLE than a car bomb. What about the initial bombings? What about the machine gun spray? Where's your proof that the insurgents kill more Iraqis than we do? If I'm to be forced to provide proof, so should you be. Try thinking for yourself instead of letting the media spoon feed you.

But for the record, this is an article from December of LAST YEAR:

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0%2C6119%2C2-10-1460_1444054%2C00.html

The first paragraph of this article states:

"Between 21,000 and 55,000 people have died as a direct result of the war in Iraq, most of them Iraqi soldiers and civilians, a report estimated on Tuesday."

If we waged war, we caused their deaths. It's really very simple if you bother to do your research. Have another one:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C83544%2C00.html

The terrorists in Iraq are killing their people, American forces are not targetting them. I should say, terrorists in Iraq, are TARGETTING Iraqis, American forces sometimes KILL Iraqi civilians, but never target them.
And during the war, yes, we killed Iraqi soldiers, who also tried to kill us, that is war.

I see you didn't bother to read those articles... you also didn't bother to examine the assertion I made. If the people have died AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE WAR, and we were the ones who decided to go to war in the first place, then WE caused their deaths. Read the second article too. They aren't even sure how many people OUR bombs have killed. (Oh, and there was a car bombing a few days ago that killed six. If we drop a bomb, it kills hundreds. It's simple math.)

Those articles were over a year old and were estimates at best....

Hundreds you say. Well...here a bomb was dropped and killed one and injured 12....fewer than a car bomb. hmmmm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6021654/

Plus MANY of those fighting against the US in Iraq are from third countries, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. They do NOT want a stable Iraq at all. So they can die for their beliefs as well.

Propaganda.
Possibly propaganda, but based on fact. Hussein gassed his own citizenry, much as a one time leader of your nation did. Your nation is much better off now, I am sure you would agree.
Edit: I did not mean for this to sound as horrible as it probably did. My point was, it took a very bloody war to let your nation reach its potential, and rid itself of a bloody dictator. I grant that was before your time perhaps, but I am surprised how many Europeans were opposed to this action, I would have assumed the facts of tyranny and dictatorship would be ingrained in the European psyche, enough to hate all forms of tyranny.

These appeasement tactics are stupid. Like what happened in Vietnam. We are too concerned with world opinion. Instead of waffling like Kerry, we should adopt the Israeli style of counter-insurgency, and go and bulldoze some houses; assassinate people when we have the chance; and blow up something, such as house or person, WITHOUT prior approval. I wish I had that luxury. We are far too concerned with world opinion to take matters into our own hands. As far as im concerned, people who do not want to get involved with overseas wars are like the people of the WWII era: "Let Hitler Kill the Jews and take over Europe, its all right as long as we are not harmed". Sept. 11 happened on Clinton's watch. Doesn't that tell you something?

Yeah, cause retaliation has worked really well for the Israeli's. 50+ years of war and counting, with no end in sight isn't a good idea. While we may be just as capable as they are of generally winning all the fights they get into, the cost is a bit too high for that to be considered a good idea.

Oh, and the rhetoric about hitler and the jews is about the most uninformed thing I have read all day. Read a history book for god's sake. No one outside of europe (and few in europe) at the time really believed any of the stories about the jewish persecution or cared. Half the world still didn't believe or even care after the bodies were found and the death camps discovered. We didn't get involved in the war in Europe because 'hitler was a bad person' we got involved because we were forced to. We just used all that stuff as excuses to crush them in the trials afterwards.

Likewise, we didn't get involved in Iraq because Saddam was such a bad guy, the world and that region especially is full of people that we would consider 'bad'. We got involved because we were manipulated into doing so. Now the same manipulators are using it as an excuse after the fact.

Propaganda.

Yeah...cause NOONE gasses people as well as the Germans do now do they? Maybe Saddam should have contracted I.G. Farbin for some Zyclon B huh?

The terrorists in Iraq are killing their people, American forces are not targetting them. I should say, terrorists in Iraq, are TARGETTING Iraqis, American forces sometimes KILL Iraqi civilians, but never target them.
And during the war, yes, we killed Iraqi soldiers, who also tried to kill us, that is war.

You folks aren't catching my point at all. My point is that, target or not, we're killing Iraqis. CIVILIANS and military. They're dying BECAUSE of the war. A war WE started... or our President started (to be more specific).

Yeah, cause retaliation has worked really well for the Israeli's. 50+ years of war and counting, with no end in sight isn't a good idea.

How do you negotiate with someone who wants to eliminate you completely?

You folks aren't catching my point at all. My point is that, target or not, we're killing Iraqis. CIVILIANS and military. They're dying BECAUSE of the war. A war WE started... or our President started (to be more specific).

Yes civilians are being killed....but they are not being targetted by the US forces. They ARE being targetted by the insurgents though.....

Possibly propaganda, but based on fact. Hussein gassed his own citizenry, much as a one time leader of your nation did. Your nation is much better off now, I am sure you would agree.
Edit: I did not mean for this to sound as horrible as it probably did. My point was, it took a very bloody war to let your nation reach its potential, and rid itself of a bloody dictator. I grant that was before your time perhaps, but I am surprised how many Europeans were opposed to this action, I would have assumed the facts of tyranny and dictatorship would be ingrained in the European psyche, enough to hate all forms of tyranny.
It is propaganda of the victors because you ignore the reasons for this. The preceding events and what would have been the result, would Hussein not have done what he did. I dare to say that especially the gassing of the kurds, happened due to the US.

You folks aren't catching my point at all. My point is that, target or not, we're killing Iraqis. CIVILIANS and military. They're dying BECAUSE of the war. A war WE started... or our President started (to be more specific).

I actually do get your point, as I have stated several times in this thread, I was a part of the war you are referring to. And I can assure you that 80%+ of the Iraqis I met, were GLAD we were there.

Those articles were over a year old and were estimates at best....

Hundreds you say. Well...here a bomb was dropped and killed one and injured 12....fewer than a car bomb. hmmmm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6021654/

Plus MANY of those fighting against the US in Iraq are from third countries, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. They do NOT want a stable Iraq at all. So they can die for their beliefs as well.

Hmm... 12 is still more than the SIX killed last week in a car bomb. Funny, that. You still haven't refuted the causation. And, regardless of the age of the comments, the statement was made. It was the estimates that sent us to war in the first place. And we've been in Iraq quite a bit longer than the past six months. When we went to war with them initially, those comments were current.

Why point the finger at Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia? Have a look in the mirror first. We started the bloody war. What part of that don't you understand?

By the way, thanks for the article proving my point. This bomb killed 12... "most of them children" and was dropped by whom? I believe that was part of my initial point.

It is propaganda of the victors because you ignore the reasons for this. The preceding events and what would have been the result, would Hussein not have done what he did. I dare to say that especially the gassing of the kurds, happened due to the US.


To be 100% fair, I do understand the reason for this statement about the Kurds..they wanted more freedom, the US led them to believe we would back them in that effort, then didn't. The reasons probably had to do with our NATO allies(Turkey)..however, we flew missions to defend them(no fly zones) after the attack on their homes. The US did not cause the gassing of the Kurds, their dictator did. The US gave them the hope for freedom, the only shame is that we did not , at that time(of the gassing) launch this war immediately to defend them.

I actually do get your point, as I have stated several times in this thread, I was a part of the war you are referring to. And I can assure you that 80%+ of the Iraqis I met, were GLAD we were there.
Emphasize being on were. This sympathy has since been evaporated.

Emphasize being on were. This sympathy has since been evaporated.

I hadn't realized you are there at this moment. What unit are you attached to if I may ask?
If I may venture a guess, you have never been there. My *were* ended a few short weeks ago, and nothing substantial has changed since then.

To be 100% fair, I do understand the reason for this statement about the Kurds..they wanted more freedom, the US led them to believe we would back them in that effort, then didn't. The reasons probably had to do with our NATO allies(Turkey)..however, we flew missions to defend them(no fly zones) after the attack on their homes. The US did not cause the gassing of the Kurds, their dictator did. The US gave them the hope for freedom, the only shame is that we did not , at that time(of the gassing) launch this war immediately to defend them.
The US encouraged the revolts and failed to follow up on the encouragement. Iraq could have been peacefully (more or less) freed from dictatorship, would the US have followed up on the promise to back the kurds. The withdrawal of this support resulting in the gassing of the kurds, to secure his power, was to be expected from Hussein. The whole issue is not as black & white as you want to make it appear. It has also been so long ago, that it is difficult to say now, what all happened to result in this.

I hadn't realized you are there at this moment. What unit are you attached to if I may ask?
If I may venture a guess, you have never been there. My *were* ended a few short weeks ago, and nothing substantial has changed since then.
Let me on the other hand guess, that you did not set foot in one of the "no-go" areas. You probably had your safe bed in one of the hotels in Baghdad. The situation in Iraq now and the continuing lies from Bush and even Allawi, remove the last sparkle of credibility the US president and his Iraqi puppet government had.

Let me on the other hand guess, that you did not set foot in one of the "no-go" areas. You probably had your safe bed in one of the hotels in Baghdad. The situation in Iraq now and the continuing lies from Bush and even Allawi, remove the last sparkle of credibility the US president and his Iraqi puppet government had.

Actually wrong. I was in action in 40+ engagements and saw more than I would hope anyone would have to see.
You continue to make it clear you know nothing of the goings on in the country beyond what the media report, and that is fine, you have a right to your opinion. But as I said, you have not been there. BTW, I said they were GLAD to see us, not sympathetic.
On your other point, I guess you would have preferred a war then, in support of the Kurdish freedom fighters? On that we agree actually, but I seriously doubt your, or any other European govt, would have supported that either.

I actually do get your point, as I have stated several times in this thread, I was a part of the war you are referring to. And I can assure you that 80%+ of the Iraqis I met, were GLAD we were there.

This doesn't illustrate at all that you've gotten my point. My point was that their death toll is FAR higher than ours. Since the US started the war and caused that death, their deaths are on our hands. I've had five friends serve in Iraq and have heard diverse stories from all of them. I certainly don't think that ALL Iraqis want us out any more than I think ALL Iraqis want us there. It's split.

This doesn't illustrate at all that you've gotten my point. My point was that their death toll is FAR higher than ours. Since the US started the war and caused that death, their deaths are on our hands. I've had five friends serve in Iraq and have heard diverse stories from all of them. I certainly don't think that ALL Iraqis want us out any more than I think ALL Iraqis want us there. It's split.

One note to realize is that the majority of prisoners taken by US forces, as well as enemy killed by US forces, at this time, in battle anyway, are foreign fighters, NOT IRAQI.
About it being split, yes, of course, those minority of Iraqis who had power under the Saddam regime, do miss the old days very much. This is the "Sunni Triangle" insurgency.

BTW, our job is to make sure the enemy has a higher death toll than us, do you find it bothersome that more Americans have not died? I am not sure how to take that.

Actually wrong. I was in action in 40+ engagements and saw more than I would hope anyone would have to see.
You continue to make it clear you know nothing of the goings on in the country beyond what the media report, and that is fine, you have a right to your opinion. But as I said, you have not been there. BTW, I said they were GLAD to see us, not sympathetic.
On your other point, I guess you would have preferred a war then, in support of the Kurdish freedom fighters? On that we agree actually, but I seriously doubt your, or any other European govt, would have supported that either.
Would the US have stated this goal before the UN, most likely not, due to this foreign influence by one country being forbidden according to the UN charter. With the help of the UN though (which means everyone, not the US alone), it could have been made a reality, if the US would take the UN seriously for things other than using it to hold other countries accountable while ignoreing or violating the UN charter.

Would the US have stated this goal before the UN, most likely not, due to this foreign influence by one country being forbidden according to the UN charter. With the help of the UN though (which means everyone, not the US alone), it could have been made a reality, if the US would take the UN seriously for things other than using it to hold other countries accountable while ignoreing or violating the UN charter.

The political stuff is kind of out of my realm. I *almost**think* I agree with the basic point of your statement, but I do think the UN needs many changes also.

The way it exists today, small dictatorships have the same say as large nations, with the only exception being the 5 SC permament members who hold vetoes.Also"the help of the UN" would not have freed Iraq, or else they would have done so many years prior. No one is more anti war than a soldier who has seen war, but soldiers also know that some things are worth fighting and dying for, and sometimes it actually takes that. No one at the UN seems, to me at least, to understand, they preferred to allow Somali warlords to starve their people, until US forces came in to use force. The same in Bosnia, where NATO went in after UN had utterly failed to prevent a genocidal war.

[Riven Dell #139]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[OceanDrive #122]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takrai
Not sure I understand your post, or did you not get that I was agreeing with you?

FYI...a free nation does not include foreign occupation Army Bases.

Also let me translate whan they say "we want freedom now"...they mean they want te USarmy to leave...Today!


They do not want the US Army to leave. If they did, they would want the thugs to take over. They don't want that.

The thugs, and your pals apparently, do though.

A free nation may contract to have military (or economic, or cultural, etc) bases on other nation's soil as much as they wish.

That is the very definition of freedom.

When you say "they" do you mean every Iraqi? Every citizen of Iraq? I'm sure they're a little more polarized than we are now. We kill hundreds of their citizens every day. They may have been under a mean tyrant before, but they were under a rough ruler AND they had water and electricity in their homes. Now, they've got to start from scratch. Why? Because Bush said they had nuclear weapons. We've got to do something about it, yes, but we should also admit that this is our war, created from lies. If what was happening in Iraq was happening to us, we'd be very angry at the occupying forces.

What lies...? What reasons did you take as meaningful for going into Iraq..?

We went in because Saddam's administration was a threat to US interests. Period.

That's good enough reason for me. Period.

If you believe, or believed, anything other than that, then you are a weak minded sheep. You and those like you constantly pose this nonsensical argument, which is sounding more and more like "Mommy, Georgey tricked me..!" The juvenile plaintif whinings of the school yard.

You deserve to be tricked. You're tricked by your "axis" (the leftist "leadership") continually. And you do their bidding, and the bidding of the terrorist forces of the world, with religious fervor.

And you'd rather an entire nation of people serve a tyrant as opposed to doing what's necessary to give them the opportunity to become a respectable nation..?

.."if what was happening in Iraq was happening to us, we'd be very angry at the occupying forces."..

Once again the false juxtaposition. This would not be happening to us. It is happening to a country that was a miserable pawn of the British, a miserably weak "democratic" country, and a miserably awful hell-hole under Saddam and crew.

It's a false comparison that serves only to inflame infantile minds (the left) and makes the terrorists stronger.

Who's side are you on..?

[UltimateEnd #151]
What if Bush decided that he didn't like us and decided to gas us, what if he decided that because Mexico is mostly Catholic and he doesn't like Catholics, that he was gonna invade Mexico. What if he started nuclear weapons programs to blow random countries of the face of the globe.

The American people would rise up as a whole and kick some major government ass..!

Now on the "blowing up random countries" thing,... it would all depend on how "random" the choices really were. :)

(( We DO have nuclear weapons, you know..! ))

Hmm... 12 is still more than the SIX killed last week in a car bomb. Funny, that. You still haven't refuted the causation. And, regardless of the age of the comments, the statement was made. It was the estimates that sent us to war in the first place. And we've been in Iraq quite a bit longer than the past six months. When we went to war with them initially, those comments were current.

Why point the finger at Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia? Have a look in the mirror first. We started the bloody war. What part of that don't you understand?

By the way, thanks for the article proving my point. This bomb killed 12... "most of them children" and was dropped by whom? I believe that was part of my initial point.

The bomb in question killed ONE, wounding 12. Pointing the finger is because it is fact, most of the killed or captured insurgents have been foreign, perhaps the Iraqi fighters are just better, so arent killed or captured at the same rate, but that is unlikely.

[Pithica #156]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokugawa Shogunate
These appeasement tactics are stupid. Like what happened in Vietnam. We are too concerned with world opinion. Instead of waffling like Kerry, we should adopt the Israeli style of counter-insurgency, and go and bulldoze some houses; assassinate people when we have the chance; and blow up something, such as house or person, WITHOUT prior approval. I wish I had that luxury. We are far too concerned with world opinion to take matters into our own hands. As far as im concerned, people who do not want to get involved with overseas wars are like the people of the WWII era: "Let Hitler Kill the Jews and take over Europe, its all right as long as we are not harmed". Sept. 11 happened on Clinton's watch. Doesn't that tell you something?


Yeah, cause retaliation has worked really well for the Israeli's. 50+ years of war and counting, with no end in sight isn't a good idea. While we may be just as capable as they are of generally winning all the fights they get into, the cost is a bit too high for that to be considered a good idea.

Oh, and the rhetoric about hitler and the jews is about the most uninformed thing I have read all day. Read a history book for god's sake. No one outside of europe (and few in europe) at the time really believed any of the stories about the jewish persecution or cared. Half the world still didn't believe or even care after the bodies were found and the death camps discovered. We didn't get involved in the war in Europe because 'hitler was a bad person' we got involved because we were forced to. We just used all that stuff as excuses to crush them in the trials afterwards.

Likewise, we didn't get involved in Iraq because Saddam was such a bad guy, the world and that region especially is full of people that we would consider 'bad'. We got involved because we were manipulated into doing so. Now the same manipulators are using it as an excuse after the fact.

Do you seriously think that those persecuting Israel would stop it. For any reason..?

(( Hint: NO..! ))

.."We got involved because we were manipulated into doing so. Now the same manipulators are using it as an excuse after the fact."..

Who are these "manipulators" you mention..?

Yet another paranoid conspiracy freak, are you..!?

[Riven Dell #158]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takrai
The terrorists in Iraq are killing their people, American forces are not targetting them. I should say, terrorists in Iraq, are TARGETTING Iraqis, American forces sometimes KILL Iraqi civilians, but never target them.
And during the war, yes, we killed Iraqi soldiers, who also tried to kill us, that is war.


You folks aren't catching my point at all. My point is that, target or not, we're killing Iraqis. CIVILIANS and military. They're dying BECAUSE of the war. A war WE started... or our President started (to be more specific).

Wars kill people. Some of whom ar civilians.

It's always worked that way. It's much better now than it used to be.

What is your REAL point.

"War is EVIL"...?

War is a tool. Be as careful with your tools as possible.

War is no more evil than a sharp knife. Sharp knives kill people (undeserved murder). Sharp knives heal people (surgery).

What IS your real point..?

[Gigatron #161]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takrai
Possibly propaganda, but based on fact. Hussein gassed his own citizenry, much as a one time leader of your nation did. Your nation is much better off now, I am sure you would agree.
Edit: I did not mean for this to sound as horrible as it probably did. My point was, it took a very bloody war to let your nation reach its potential, and rid itself of a bloody dictator. I grant that was before your time perhaps, but I am surprised how many Europeans were opposed to this action, I would have assumed the facts of tyranny and dictatorship would be ingrained in the European psyche, enough to hate all forms of tyranny.

It is propaganda of the victors because you ignore the reasons for this. The preceding events and what would have been the result, would Hussein not have done what he did. I dare to say that especially the gassing of the kurds, happened due to the US.

OK,... now Gig's shown Gig's true colors...!

Gig is joking..! :D

Excellent sarcasm Gig..!

Keep up the good work..!!

We'll show those non-Americans out there that they can't go blaming EVERYTHING that they want to,... all the evils of the world, on the US..!

Excellent barb at the leftist shit-hole head-lopper-lovers there, dude..! :)

One note to realize is that the majority of prisoners taken by US forces, as well as enemy killed by US forces, at this time, in battle anyway, are foreign fighters, NOT IRAQI.
About it being split, yes, of course, those minority of Iraqis who had power under the Saddam regime, do miss the old days very much. This is the "Sunni Triangle" insurgency.

BTW, our job is to make sure the enemy has a higher death toll than us, do you find it bothersome that more Americans have not died? I am not sure how to take that.

"How many ears must one man have before he can hear people cry? How many deaths will it take till he knows that too many people have died?"

My point was that the US people aren't being informed of how many people have died. It's not just us. I deeply regret our losses. Two of them were friends of mine. You'll have to excuse me for getting a little heated about this topic. Anyway, it's all well and good for us to kill more of them than the reverse, but at the end of the day that's still one more life lost. The letters I received from the soldiers I know hold a slightly different view from yours. The three that made it home wrote about the civil unrest, irritation with US Soldiers, civilian deaths, etc. Maybe they met a different kind of people. Who knows. I don't really care. It's still a BAD situation. We went there under false pretenses, we're occupying the country, things have gotten WORSE for Iraqi citizens (living conditions, etc.). I very much resent that you think I was disturbed by their losses more than ours. I just want to reemphasize that TOO MANY have died... that we aren't, as a nation, aware of their losses... that we aren't getting enough of the story to be objective.

[Riven Dell #163]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff Pileon
Those articles were over a year old and were estimates at best....

Hundreds you say. Well...here a bomb was dropped and killed one and injured 12....fewer than a car bomb. hmmmm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6021654/

Plus MANY of those fighting against the US in Iraq are from third countries, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. They do NOT want a stable Iraq at all. So they can die for their beliefs as well.


Hmm... 12 is still more than the SIX killed last week in a car bomb. Funny, that. You still haven't refuted the causation. And, regardless of the age of the comments, the statement was made. It was the estimates that sent us to war in the first place. And we've been in Iraq quite a bit longer than the past six months. When we went to war with them initially, those comments were current.

Why point the finger at Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia? Have a look in the mirror first. We started the bloody war. What part of that don't you understand?

By the way, thanks for the article proving my point. This bomb killed 12... "most of them children" and was dropped by whom? I believe that was part of my initial point.

You'll have to excuse Riv, folks. He just learned some big words and some cool concepts from his teachers, and he thinks he's a expert.

Forgive the young one his/her silliness.

Riv still thinks that "War is evil and never necessary".

Cut the kid some slack for such youthful foolishness.

[Gigatron #167]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takrai
To be 100% fair, I do understand the reason for this statement about the Kurds..they wanted more freedom, the US led them to believe we would back them in that effort, then didn't. The reasons probably had to do with our NATO allies(Turkey)..however, we flew missions to defend them(no fly zones) after the attack on their homes. The US did not cause the gassing of the Kurds, their dictator did. The US gave them the hope for freedom, the only shame is that we did not , at that time(of the gassing) launch this war immediately to defend them.


The US encouraged the revolts and failed to follow up on the encouragement. Iraq could have been peacefully (more or less) freed from dictatorship, would the US have followed up on the promise to back the kurds. The withdrawal of this support resulting in the gassing of the kurds, to secure his power, was to be expected from Hussein. The whole issue is not as black & white as you want to make it appear. It has also been so long ago, that it is difficult to say now, what all happened to result in this.

And that "encouragement" would have been met with the same howls of protestation from the left as the actual war eventually did.

But I, personally, agree with you. We should have helped the internal powers against Saddam as much as possible.

But, of course, that would be "interfering in another nations affairs" which would have been jeered by your like anyway.

Oh well,.. perhaps we should continue to do the right thing anyway and disregard your ilk's protestations, as you and yours obviously have some other agenda in mind.

Such as "America is evil".

"How many ears must one man have before he can hear people cry? How many deaths will it take till he knows that too many people have died?"

My point was that the US people aren't being informed of how many people have died. It's not just us. I deeply regret our losses. Two of them were friends of mine. You'll have to excuse me for getting a little heated about this topic. Anyway, it's all well and good for us to kill more of them than the reverse, but at the end of the day that's still one more life lost. The letters I received from the soldiers I know hold a slightly different view from yours. The three that made it home wrote about the civil unrest, irritation with US Soldiers, civilian deaths, etc. Maybe they met a different kind of people. Who knows. I don't really care. It's still a BAD situation. We went there under false pretenses, we're occupying the country, things have gotten WORSE for Iraqi citizens (living conditions, etc.). I very much resent that you think I was disturbed by their losses more than ours. I just want to reemphasize that TOO MANY have died... that we aren't, as a nation, aware of their losses... that we aren't getting enough of the story to be objective.

I agree in principle Riven..every loss is unfortunate. However, we are there to help. Life has improved in Iraq since the war, except where FOREIGN fighters, who do not want a free Iraq, have done their best to stir up the pot. Bombing civilian infrastructure, schools, hospitals, police stations, etc. And yes, some of the Iraqi people are becoming angry that we do not do more to curb the violence, that is a question for politicians however. But I assure you that pulling out, would only greatly increase deaths.
I do not know what your friends' specialties are, what roles they filled. I am sorry some died. I believe that the general idea from the protests back here however, is a slap in the face to those who died freeing Iraq.

[Gigatron #168]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takrai
I hadn't realized you are there at this moment. What unit are you attached to if I may ask?
If I may venture a guess, you have never been there. My *were* ended a few short weeks ago, and nothing substantial has changed since then.


Let me on the other hand guess, that you did not set foot in one of the "no-go" areas. You probably had your safe bed in one of the hotels in Baghdad. The situation in Iraq now and the continuing lies from Bush and even Allawi, remove the last sparkle of credibility the US president and his Iraqi puppet government had.

A true believer.

"All things American are EVIL...!"

This ass has nothing further of use to listen to.

The US encouraged the revolts and failed to follow up on the encouragement. Iraq could have been peacefully (more or less) freed from dictatorship, would the US have followed up on the promise to back the kurds. The withdrawal of this support resulting in the gassing of the kurds, to secure his power, was to be expected from Hussein. The whole issue is not as black & white as you want to make it appear. It has also been so long ago, that it is difficult to say now, what all happened to result in this.

It depends on your age as to how long ago this was. It is not ancient history. Many of us remember first hand.

What lies...? What reasons did you take as meaningful for going into Iraq..?

We went in because Saddam's administration was a threat to US interests. Period.

That's good enough reason for me. Period.

If you believe, or believed, anything other than that, then you are a weak minded sheep. You and those like you constantly pose this nonsensical argument, which is sounding more and more like "Mommy, Georgey tricked me..!" The juvenile plaintif whinings of the school yard.

I love that you think you know the first thing about me. Here's an observation for you. Why is it that people like you degrade this kind of debate to a personal argument. It's not about me or you, it's about the ACTIONS of a nation content to decide what's best for everyone else.

You deserve to be tricked. You're tricked by your "axis" (the leftist "leadership) continually. And you do their bidding, and the bidding of the terrorist forces of the world, with religious fervor.

And you'd rather an entire nation of people serve a tyrant as opposed to doing what's necessary to give them the opportunity to become a respectable nation..?

If this is about becoming a respectable nation, why haven't we taken on EVERY country with substandard living situations? Don't fool yourself. Our administration isn't out to help Iraq by unseating a tyrant.

.."if what was happening in Iraq was happening to us, we'd be very angry at the occupying forces."..

Once again the false juxtaposition. This would not be happening to us. It is happening to a country that was a miserable pawn of the British, a miserably weak "democratic" country, and a miserably awful hell-hole under Saddam and crew.

It's not a false comparison at all. It doesn't matter if it WOULD be happening to us. Hence the word "if" in my original statement. IF.

It's a false comparison that serves only to inflame infantile minds (the left) and makes the terrorists stronger.

Who's side are you on..?

Ah, yes, the same old story. If we're not with you, we're against you. If I don't agree with the war it's obviously because I want the United States ground beneath the heel of Iraq. If that's what you believe, go right ahead. You clearly haven't the foggiest idea what my motivations are and you don't care so there's no point in discussing the point with you.

[Riven Dell #170]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takrai
I actually do get your point, as I have stated several times in this thread, I was a part of the war you are referring to. And I can assure you that 80%+ of the Iraqis I met, were GLAD we were there.



This doesn't illustrate at all that you've gotten my point. My point was that their death toll is FAR higher than ours. Since the US started the war and caused that death, their deaths are on our hands. I've had five friends serve in Iraq and have heard diverse stories from all of them. I certainly don't think that ALL Iraqis want us out any more than I think ALL Iraqis want us there. It's split.

If that's really your point, you don't have a point, because their (civilian) death toll is irrelevent to anything at all.

You don't understand the meaning of the word "war".

It's regrettable that civilians have to die in war, but that is war.

Why doesn't the civilian population simply throw out the thugs that draw our fire..?

Oh,.. they're afraid of being killed by said thugs.

Why don't they all move somewhere where there are no thugs..?

Oh,.. the thugs move with them and threaten them with horrible death.

Hmmmm,... this "war" thing is complicated..!!

You'll have to excuse Riv, folks. He just learned some big words and some cool concepts from his teachers, and he thinks he's a expert.

Forgive the young one his/her silliness.

Riv still thinks that "War is evil and never necessary".

Cut the kid some slack for such youthful foolishness.

You wanna get personal? Fine, let's get personal. I happen to be dyslexic. So fuck you if I misread mr. perfect. Despite my disabilities, I've managed to receive a MASTER'S degree in English and currently teach the subject. I highly doubt you have any understanding for the kind of difficulties I've faced in my life (and all I know about you is that you're quick to insult rather than to engage in civilized conversation). You can continue to turn a grey argument into black and white. All you're doing is making yourself look ignorant and insensitive. For the record, you uninformed ass, I'm 42.

You have no right to excuse my statements.

[Riven Dell #170]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takrai
I actually do get your point, as I have stated several times in this thread, I was a part of the war you are referring to. And I can assure you that 80%+ of the Iraqis I met, were GLAD we were there.



This doesn't illustrate at all that you've gotten my point. My point was that their death toll is FAR higher than ours. Since the US started the war and caused that death, their deaths are on our hands. I've had five friends serve in Iraq and have heard diverse stories from all of them. I certainly don't think that ALL Iraqis want us out any more than I think ALL Iraqis want us there. It's split.

If that's really your point, you don't have a point, because their (civilian) death toll is irrelevent to anything at all.

You don't understand the meaning of the word "war".

It's regrettable that civilians have to die in war, but that is war.

Why doesn't the civilian population simply throw out the thugs that draw our fire..?

Oh,.. they're afraid of being killed by said thugs.

Why don't they all move somewhere where there are no thugs..?

Oh,.. the thugs move with them and threaten them with horrible death.

Hmmmm,... this "war" thing is compicated..!!
Neither do you. War is suffering and death. War does not discriminate between innocent and guilty. War is destruction and breeds hate. There is not all that much more to understand other than that war is wrong and should be avoided at all costs, which the US did not do.

Civilian deaths are not simply regrettable. The way civilians continue to die in Iraq due to anonymous US bombardements are war crimes. Atrocities, which every other country would have to answer in front of the ICC for.

And quite contrary to your belief, it's not the Iraqis who need to leave Iraq, but the US who illegally occupy that country. To spell it our for you: YOU HAVE NO FUCKING BUSINESS IN IRAQ!

[Gigatron #172]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takrai
Actually wrong. I was in action in 40+ engagements and saw more than I would hope anyone would have to see.
You continue to make it clear you know nothing of the goings on in the country beyond what the media report, and that is fine, you have a right to your opinion. But as I said, you have not been there. BTW, I said they were GLAD to see us, not sympathetic.
On your other point, I guess you would have preferred a war then, in support of the Kurdish freedom fighters? On that we agree actually, but I seriously doubt your, or any other European govt, would have supported that either.


Would the US have stated this goal before the UN, most likely not, due to this foreign influence by one country being forbidden according to the UN charter. With the help of the UN though (which means everyone, not the US alone), it could have been made a reality, if the US would take the UN seriously for things other than using it to hold other countries accountable while ignoreing or violating the UN charter.

And here we have the REAL point.

"The UN would do wonders if only the US would take it seriously", you say.

"The Toothfairy would solve world hunger and armed conflict if only America would quit being evil!", I hear.

Grow up.

The "Oil for Food" fiasco should dispel any illusions of the UN as anything but a placation of the "little countries" giving them the illusion that have any say in anything.

Let's get back to reality, shall we.

I agree in principle Riven..every loss is unfortunate. However, we are there to help. Life has improved in Iraq since the war, except where FOREIGN fighters, who do not want a free Iraq, have done their best to stir up the pot. Bombing civilian infrastructure, schools, hospitals, police stations, etc. And yes, some of the Iraqi people are becoming angry that we do not do more to curb the violence, that is a question for politicians however. But I assure you that pulling out, would only greatly increase deaths.
I do not know what your friends' specialties are, what roles they filled. I am sorry some died. I believe that the general idea from the protests back here however, is a slap in the face to those who died freeing Iraq.

First, I'd like to thank you for remaining civil on such a touchy topic. It shows character. Having said that, I don't suggest that we pull out. We've already gotten involved. If we punk out, it's just going to look like we've got the ego to start something but haven't got the integrity to clean up our own mess.

Regarding the protests... I don't really think anyone is protesting the soldiers. They're just trying to be heard. After Vietnam, people were spitting on returning soldiers (which I STRONGLY disagreed with). This is completely different. They just want people to have a closer look at the motivations behind the war. While we may eventually make things better for the Iraqi people, I personally don't believe that was the real intent in the first place. If something good can come of it, great, I just wish more diplomatic options had been carried out first.

[Gigatron #172]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takrai
Actually wrong. I was in action in 40+ engagements and saw more than I would hope anyone would have to see.
You continue to make it clear you know nothing of the goings on in the country beyond what the media report, and that is fine, you have a right to your opinion. But as I said, you have not been there. BTW, I said they were GLAD to see us, not sympathetic.
On your other point, I guess you would have preferred a war then, in support of the Kurdish freedom fighters? On that we agree actually, but I seriously doubt your, or any other European govt, would have supported that either.


Would the US have stated this goal before the UN, most likely not, due to this foreign influence by one country being forbidden according to the UN charter. With the help of the UN though (which means everyone, not the US alone), it could have been made a reality, if the US would take the UN seriously for things other than using it to hold other countries accountable while ignoreing or violating the UN charter.

And here we have the REAL point.

"The UN would do wonders if only the US would take it seriously", you say.

"The Toothfairy would solve world hunger and armed conflict if only America would quit being evil!", I hear.

Grow up.

The "Oil for Food" fiasco should dispel any illusions of the UN as anything but a placation of the "little countries" giving them the illusion that have any say in anything.

Let's get back to reality, shall we.
Quit quoting things I did not say. Propaganda tool.

Neither do you. War is suffering and death. War does not discriminate between innocent and guilty. War is destruction and breeds hate. There is not all that much more to understand other than that war is wrong and should be avoided at all costs, which the US did not do.

Civilian deaths are not simply regrettable. The way civilians continue to die in Iraq due to anonymous US bombardements are war crimes. Atrocities, which every other country would have to answer in front of the ICC for.

And quite contrary to your belief, it's not the Iraqis who need to leave Iraq, but the US who illegally occupy that country. To spell it our for you: YOU HAVE NO FUCKING BUSINESS IN IRAQ!

Actually, I believe his point was sarcastic that Iraqis CANT leave Iraq, so were stuck with a dictator unless someone helped them. As for reasons, there are 3 UN resolutions which authorized this war, Iraq broke a ceasefire agreement, thereby nullifying the ceasefire. This is commonly accepted rules of war. And US forces are not *bombarding*Iraqi civilians, terrorists are.

[Riven Dell #180]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takrai
One note to realize is that the majority of prisoners taken by US forces, as well as enemy killed by US forces, at this time, in battle anyway, are foreign fighters, NOT IRAQI.
About it being split, yes, of course, those minority of Iraqis who had power under the Saddam regime, do miss the old days very much. This is the "Sunni Triangle" insurgency.

BTW, our job is to make sure the enemy has a higher death toll than us, do you find it bothersome that more Americans have not died? I am not sure how to take that.


"How many ears must one man have before he can hear people cry? How many deaths will it take till he knows that too many people have died?"

My point was that the US people aren't being informed of how many people have died. It's not just us. I deeply regret our losses. Two of them were friends of mine. You'll have to excuse me for getting a little heated about this topic. Anyway, it's all well and good for us to kill more of them than the reverse, but at the end of the day that's still one more life lost. The letters I received from the soldiers I know hold a slightly different view from yours. The three that made it home wrote about the civil unrest, irritation with US Soldiers, civilian deaths, etc. Maybe they met a different kind of people. Who knows. I don't really care. It's still a BAD situation. We went there under false pretenses, we're occupying the country, things have gotten WORSE for Iraqi citizens (living conditions, etc.). I very much resent that you think I was disturbed by their losses more than ours. I just want to reemphasize that TOO MANY have died... that we aren't, as a nation, aware of their losses... that we aren't getting enough of the story to be objective.

And a surgeon does not stop in the middle of a procedure because of a little blood and gore.

The surgery was started for a purpose. That purpose was valid then, regardless of what you were "tricked" into believing, and it is valid still.

Thank god that you are not a "surgeon".

Feeling bad for lives lost is fine. Do something with that feeling. Comfort someone somehow.

But remember the purpose of the procedure, and don't be such a child.

First, I'd like to thank you for remaining civil on such a touchy topic. It shows character. Having said that, I don't suggest that we pull out. We've already gotten involved. If we punk out, it's just going to look like we've got the ego to start something but haven't got the integrity to clean up our own mess.

Regarding the protests... I don't really think anyone is protesting the soldiers. They're just trying to be heard. After Vietnam, people were spitting on returning soldiers (which I STRONGLY disagreed with). This is completely different. They just want people to have a closer look at the motivations behind the war. While we may eventually make things better for the Iraqi people, I personally don't believe that was the real intent in the first place. If something good can come of it, great, I just wish more diplomatic options had been carried out first.

I agree..diplomacy should get a chance. My opinion is that 12 years worth of diplomacy was already too much however, but that is my opinion. I understand nobody is protesting the soldiers, I am glad of this, but what most soldiers see in the protests is that their sacrifice was meaningless, and in my opinion that is a horrible message to send.
I lost people under my command in Iraq as well, and had to write too many letters to wives,mothers,etc. I resent the implication that their deaths were somehow from an act of aggression, which was NOT the case. Regardless of the reasons our leaders went in, we on the ground did our best to help the people of that country. And for the record, I do believe the reasons were honest and honorable from the leaders as well.

And a surgeon does not stop in the middle of a procedure because of a little blood and gore.

The surgery was started for a purpose. That purpose was valid then, regardless of what you were "tricked" into believing, and it is valid still.

Thank god that you are not a "surgeon".

Feeling bad for lives lost is fine. Do something with that feeling. Comfort someone somehow.

But remember the purpose of the procedure, and don't be such a child.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Refer to my earlier post to Takrai who has the balls not to become insulting. We're there now, we have to finish the job. Speaking of being a child, I believe you're the one who started with the mudslinging, namecalling, and third-grade temper tantrums.

The original purpose for the procedure was to remove Saddam because we were worried that he had weapons of mass destruction. There were no weapons. We have Saddam. Now we're stuck there fighting some psychotic zealots becasue we put Iraq in a precarious enough situation to make them easy to take over. The insurgents are opportunistic. They had a great opportunity. Now that we've alienated the UN by going ahead with all this, we're stuck trying to clean it up. Our military men and women are doing the best job they can.

I'm going. Thanks to everyone who's been civil and intelligent in all this.

I agree..diplomacy should get a chance. My opinion is that 12 years worth of diplomacy was already too much however, but that is my opinion. I understand nobody is protesting the soldiers, I am glad of this, but what most soldiers see in the protests is that their sacrifice was meaningless, and in my opinion that is a horrible message to send.
I lost people under my command in Iraq as well, and had to write too many letters to wives,mothers,etc. I resent the implication that their deaths were somehow from an act of aggression, which was NOT the case. Regardless of the reasons our leaders went in, we on the ground did our best to help the people of that country. And for the record, I do believe the reasons were honest and honorable from the leaders as well.

A last note before I go... regarding the diplomacy, I don't think the current administration was very open to the possibility of diplomacy. I also don't think any protesting implies that their sacrifices didn't have meaning. Some of us see the sacrifice they made on behalf of the Iraqi people. Some see the sacrifice they made for their government. Some see their sacrifice as a means to focus on other options a little more seriously. However you see it, it's still a sacrifice. I don't personally agree that our leaders had honorable intentions, but at least we can agree to disagree on that one.

Out. --Riven

[Riven Dell #186]
Quote:
What lies...? What reasons did you take as meaningful for going into Iraq..?

We went in because Saddam's administration was a threat to US interests. Period.

That's good enough reason for me. Period.

If you believe, or believed, anything other than that, then you are a weak minded sheep. You and those like you constantly pose this nonsensical argument, which is sounding more and more like "Mommy, Georgey tricked me..!" The juvenile plaintif whinings of the school yard.



I love that you think you know the first thing about me. Here's an observation for you. Why is it that people like you degrade this kind of debate to a personal argument. It's not about me or you, it's about the ACTIONS of a nation content to decide what's best for everyone else.


Quote:
You deserve to be tricked. You're tricked by your "axis" (the leftist "leadership) continually. And you do their bidding, and the bidding of the terrorist forces of the world, with religious fervor.

And you'd rather an entire nation of people serve a tyrant as opposed to doing what's necessary to give them the opportunity to become a respectable nation..?



If this is about becoming a respectable nation, why haven't we taken on EVERY country with substandard living situations? Don't fool yourself. Our administration isn't out to help Iraq by unseating a tyrant.


Quote:
.."if what was happening in Iraq was happening to us, we'd be very angry at the occupying forces."..

Once again the false juxtaposition. This would not be happening to us. It is happening to a country that was a miserable pawn of the British, a miserably weak "democratic" country, and a miserably awful hell-hole under Saddam and crew.



It's not a false comparison at all. It doesn't matter if it WOULD be happening to us. Hence the word "if" in my original statement. IF.


Quote:
It's a false comparison that serves only to inflame infantile minds (the left) and makes the terrorists stronger.

Who's side are you on..?

Ah, yes, the same old story. If we're not with you, we're against you. If I don't agree with the war it's obviously because I want the United States ground beneath the heel of Iraq. If that's what you believe, go right ahead. You clearly haven't the foggiest idea what my motivations are and you don't care so there's no point in discussing the point with you.


.."It's not about me or you, it's about the ACTIONS of a nation content to decide what's best for everyone else."..

It's about my view of your views. I don't need to know anything about you other than what you write. My opinions of you are mine, and valid as my opinions.

All arguments are personal.

.."If this is about becoming a respectable nation, why haven't we taken on EVERY country with substandard living situations? Don't fool yourself. Our administration isn't out to help Iraq by unseating a tyrant."..

Because you can't do everything in a day. And, this is NOT about America becoming a "respectable nation".

WE ARE A RESPECTABLE NATION.

If you don't see it that way, then do what you can to change it into one. :) It's nice to know where you stand on the "Evilness of America" scale.

Our administration IS out to help Iraq, and ourselves, by trying to better the prospects of Iraq being a productive member of the world of nations.

.."It's not a false comparison at all. It doesn't matter if it WOULD be happening to us. Hence the word "if" in my original statement. IF."..

It IS a false comparison, to me, because it is a hypothetical with no basis in reality whatsoever.

.."Ah, yes, the same old story. If we're not with you, we're against you. If I don't agree with the war it's obviously because I want the United States ground beneath the heel of Iraq."..

I find your position (re: Iraq) to be dispicable and childish, but you have a prefect right to it.

Please continue promoting it, as it illustrates the nonsense of the left perfectly.

I'm SURE you don't want the US under the heal of Iraq (another amusingly impossible scenario) because you rely on the prosperity and "produce" of America.

You are merely confused in your childish way that "War is always evil" and "America is always to blame for that evil".

[Riven Dell #188]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

You'll have to excuse Riv, folks. He just learned some big words and some cool concepts from his teachers, and he thinks he's a expert.

Forgive the young one his/her silliness.

Riv still thinks that "War is evil and never necessary".

Cut the kid some slack for such youthful foolishness.


You wanna get personal? Fine, let's get personal. I happen to be dyslexic. So fuck you if I misread mr. perfect. Despite my disabilities, I've managed to receive a MASTER'S degree in English and currently teach the subject. I highly doubt you have any understanding for the kind of difficulties I've faced in my life (and all I know about you is that you're quick to insult rather than to engage in civilized conversation). You can continue to turn a grey argument into black and white. All you're doing is making yourself look ignorant and insensitive. For the record, you uninformed ass, I'm 42.

You have no right to excuse my statements.

I applaud you in your accomplishments..! :)

And,... I can mock whomever I like. You're a VERY good, and enjoyable, target. :D

I'm not commenting on anything but your writings, and my comments are only my opinions.

You DO seem to be takng this (rather trivial discussion) very seriously.

I'd suggest you either lay off for a while, or go buy some perspective somewhere.

What lies...? What reasons did you take as meaningful for going into Iraq..?

Lies that we were fighting because we were going to be attacked by Iraq. Reasons like humaniraians reasons would have been better reasons but we were not told that. Guess Bush didn't trust you.

We went in because Saddam's administration was a threat to US interests. Period.

That's good enough reason for me. Period.

I don't want to insult but Baaaa. Sorry, I couldn't help it. You act too much of a follower. Saddam wasn't a threat...

If you believe, or believed, anything other than that, then you are a weak minded sheep. You and those like you constantly pose this nonsensical argument, which is sounding more and more like "Mommy, Georgey tricked me..!" The juvenile plaintif whinings of the school yard.

I believe the truth... I believe in Kant's Moral theory. If you believe its okay to fool people to get them to follow your ideals right or wrong then you sir believe in immortal actions. Unless you can accept that as a universal thing then it shouldn't be done. And it can't, if everyone uses lies then no one would believe anyone and then you couldn't have lies. You have to have people trust you for lies to work.
If Bush was tricked or fool by "bad" intelligehnce then he should be a man and apologize!

You deserve to be tricked. You're tricked by your "axis" (the leftist "leadership") continually. And you do their bidding, and the bidding of the terrorist forces of the world, with religious fervor.

And you'd rather an entire nation of people serve a tyrant as opposed to doing what's necessary to give them the opportunity to become a respectable nation..?

Yes people deserve to be lied to. How wonderful! Democrats have never tricked their own. Terrorists are closer to religious right then democrats...
Ah yes the: I can break the law because its for a good purpose argument. Yeah, let me see you try that in a court.
No Fly Zones were not legal by UN so what justification did we have? UN resolutions don't count because UN according to US isn't credible.
So what justification do you have to break Iraq's sovernty?

.."if what was happening in Iraq was happening to us, we'd be very angry at the occupying forces."..

Once again the false juxtaposition. This would not be happening to us. It is happening to a country that was a miserable pawn of the British, a miserably weak "democratic" country, and a miserably awful hell-hole under Saddam and crew.

It's a false comparison that serves only to inflame infantile minds (the left) and makes the terrorists stronger.

Yes it could. But you agree it was a democracy... so how can you give it something it already has? Isn't that outting new wine in a old bottle...

Who's side are you on..?
Whose side are you? I hope you are on Americas... A true Patriot will dissant when its unpopular to do so.

[Gigatron #189]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[Riven Dell #170]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takrai
I actually do get your point, as I have stated several times in this thread, I was a part of the war you are referring to. And I can assure you that 80%+ of the Iraqis I met, were GLAD we were there.



This doesn't illustrate at all that you've gotten my point. My point was that their death toll is FAR higher than ours. Since the US started the war and caused that death, their deaths are on our hands. I've had five friends serve in Iraq and have heard diverse stories from all of them. I certainly don't think that ALL Iraqis want us out any more than I think ALL Iraqis want us there. It's split.

If that's really your point, you don't have a point, because their (civilian) death toll is irrelevent to anything at all.

You don't understand the meaning of the word "war".

It's regrettable that civilians have to die in war, but that is war.

Why doesn't the civilian population simply throw out the thugs that draw our fire..?

Oh,.. they're afraid of being killed by said thugs.

Why don't they all move somewhere where there are no thugs..?

Oh,.. the thugs move with them and threaten them with horrible death.

Hmmmm,... this "war" thing is compicated..!!


Neither do you. War is suffering and death. War does not discriminate between innocent and guilty. War is destruction and breeds hate. There is not all that much more to understand other than that war is wrong and should be avoided at all costs, which the US did not do.

Civilian deaths are not simply regrettable. The way civilians continue to die in Iraq due to anonymous US bombardements are war crimes. Atrocities, which every other country would have to answer in front of the ICC for.

And quite contrary to your belief, it's not the Iraqis who need to leave Iraq, but the US who illegally occupy that country. To spell it our for you: YOU HAVE NO FUCKING BUSINESS IN IRAQ!

War is nasty and no fun, no doubt, but sometimes necessary.

Your childish refusal to see that war is often the necessary excision of evil is the root of your angst.

You (are you non-American?) have no right to tell America what to do. What we do, we do for good.

If no one else will do the dirty work, we will do it ourselves, and the world will be better for it. :)

[Gigatron #192]Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[Gigatron #172]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takrai
Actually wrong. I was in action in 40+ engagements and saw more than I would hope anyone would have to see.
You continue to make it clear you know nothing of the goings on in the country beyond what the media report, and that is fine, you have a right to your opinion. But as I said, you have not been there. BTW, I said they were GLAD to see us, not sympathetic.
On your other point, I guess you would have preferred a war then, in support of the Kurdish freedom fighters? On that we agree actually, but I seriously doubt your, or any other European govt, would have supported that either.


Would the US have stated this goal before the UN, most likely not, due to this foreign influence by one country being forbidden according to the UN charter. With the help of the UN though (which means everyone, not the US alone), it could have been made a reality, if the US would take the UN seriously for things other than using it to hold other countries accountable while ignoreing or violating the UN charter.

And here we have the REAL point.

"The UN would do wonders if only the US would take it seriously", you say.

"The Toothfairy would solve world hunger and armed conflict if only America would quit being evil!", I hear.

Grow up.

The "Oil for Food" fiasco should dispel any illusions of the UN as anything but a placation of the "little countries" giving them the illusion that have any say in anything.

Let's get back to reality, shall we.


Quit quoting things I did not say. Propaganda tool.

.."Quit quoting things I did not say. Propaganda tool."..

And the typical leftist retort, "Quit putting WORDS in my mouth..!"

I can't put words in your mouth. And your own words are quite telling, and amusing, enough.

I'd like to thank you for your words. They illustrate the leftist "mind" quite well. :)

[Riven Dell #196]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And a surgeon does not stop in the middle of a procedure because of a little blood and gore.

The surgery was started for a purpose. That purpose was valid then, regardless of what you were "tricked" into believing, and it is valid still.

Thank god that you are not a "surgeon".

Feeling bad for lives lost is fine. Do something with that feeling. Comfort someone somehow.

But remember the purpose of the procedure, and don't be such a child.


Refer to my earlier post to Takrai who has the balls not to become insulting. We're there now, we have to finish the job. Speaking of being a child, I believe you're the one who started with the mudslinging, namecalling, and third-grade temper tantrums.

The original purpose for the procedure was to remove Saddam because we were worried that he had weapons of mass destruction. There were no weapons. We have Saddam. Now we're stuck there fighting some psychotic zealots becasue we put Iraq in a precarious enough situation to make them easy to take over. The insurgents are opportunistic. They had a great opportunity. Now that we've alienated the UN by going ahead with all this, we're stuck trying to clean it up. Our military men and women are doing the best job they can.

I'm going. Thanks to everyone who's been civil and intelligent in all this.

I'm merely describing what I see (in you and others).

If you take that as insult, that's your problem. Remember "Sticks and Stones.." :)

I'm not overly troubled with being PC (politically correct) as are you and your ilk. Sometimes the truth, as perceived by me, and expressed honestly as MY OPINION,... hurts.

We haven't alienated "the UN" (an imaginary "thing" in my opinion) any more than they are habitually alienated from us to begin with.

If they decide they want to be pissy because we short-circuited their little oil-for-money deal, oh well. So be it.

I reiterate,.. the goal was worthy then (to remove the WMD called Saddam and his regime so that Iraq could TRY to become a respectable nation), and it's worthy still.

Your lily-liveredness is of no consequence to anyone.

[Gigatron #192]Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[Gigatron #172]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takrai
Actually wrong. I was in action in 40+ engagements and saw more than I would hope anyone would have to see.
You continue to make it clear you know nothing of the goings on in the country beyond what the media report, and that is fine, you have a right to your opinion. But as I said, you have not been there. BTW, I said they were GLAD to see us, not sympathetic.
On your other point, I guess you would have preferred a war then, in support of the Kurdish freedom fighters? On that we agree actually, but I seriously doubt your, or any other European govt, would have supported that either.


Would the US have stated this goal before the UN, most likely not, due to this foreign influence by one country being forbidden according to the UN charter. With the help of the UN though (which means everyone, not the US alone), it could have been made a reality, if the US would take the UN seriously for things other than using it to hold other countries accountable while ignoreing or violating the UN charter.

And here we have the REAL point.

"The UN would do wonders if only the US would take it seriously", you say.

"The Toothfairy would solve world hunger and armed conflict if only America would quit being evil!", I hear.

Grow up.

The "Oil for Food" fiasco should dispel any illusions of the UN as anything but a placation of the "little countries" giving them the illusion that have any say in anything.

Let's get back to reality, shall we.


Quit quoting things I did not say. Propaganda tool.

.."Quit quoting things I did not say. Propaganda tool."..

And the typical leftist retort, "Quit putting WORDS in my mouth..!"

I can't put words in your mouth. And your own words are quite telling, and amusing, enough.

I'd like to thank you for your words. They illustrate the leftist "mind" quite well. :)
You quoted things that I did never say and will never say - just out of principle so you don't get the satisfaction of "putting words" in my mouth. Though I get your rightist and arrogant attitude which I will not debate any longer with. Feel yourself added to my ignore list. I am sure you will like it in the company of individuals such as Biff Pileon... *mutes the offender*

Quote:
What lies...? What reasons did you take as meaningful for going into Iraq..?

Lies that we were fighting because we were going to be attacked by Iraq. Reasons like humaniraians reasons would have been better reasons but we were not told that. Guess Bush didn't trust you.

Quote:
We went in because Saddam's administration was a threat to US interests. Period.

That's good enough reason for me. Period.

I don't want to insult but Baaaa. Sorry, I couldn't help it. You act too much of a follower. Saddam wasn't a threat...

Quote:
If you believe, or believed, anything other than that, then you are a weak minded sheep. You and those like you constantly pose this nonsensical argument, which is sounding more and more like "Mommy, Georgey tricked me..!" The juvenile plaintif whinings of the school yard.


I believe the truth... I believe in Kant's Moral theory. If you believe its okay to fool people to get them to follow your ideals right or wrong then you sir believe in immortal actions. Unless you can accept that as a universal thing then it shouldn't be done. And it can't, if everyone uses lies then no one would believe anyone and then you couldn't have lies. You have to have people trust you for lies to work.
If Bush was tricked or fool by "bad" intelligehnce then he should be a man and apologize!

Quote:
You deserve to be tricked. You're tricked by your "axis" (the leftist "leadership") continually. And you do their bidding, and the bidding of the terrorist forces of the world, with religious fervor.

And you'd rather an entire nation of people serve a tyrant as opposed to doing what's necessary to give them the opportunity to become a respectable nation..?

Yes people deserve to be lied to. How wonderful! Democrats have never tricked their own. Terrorists are closer to religious right then democrats...
Ah yes the: I can break the law because its for a good purpose argument. Yeah, let me see you try that in a court.
No Fly Zones were not legal by UN so what justification did we have? UN resolutions don't count because UN according to US isn't credible.
So what justification do you have to break Iraq's sovernty?

Quote:
.."if what was happening in Iraq was happening to us, we'd be very angry at the occupying forces."..

Once again the false juxtaposition. This would not be happening to us. It is happening to a country that was a miserable pawn of the British, a miserably weak "democratic" country, and a miserably awful hell-hole under Saddam and crew.

It's a false comparison that serves only to inflame infantile minds (the left) and makes the terrorists stronger.

Yes it could. But you agree it was a democracy... so how can you give it something it already has? Isn't that outting new wine in a old bottle...

Quote:
Who's side are you on..?

Whose side are you? I hope you are on Americas... A true Patriot will dissant when its unpopular to do so.






[B].."Lies that we were fighting because we were going to be attacked by Iraq."..

We would have been attacked by those that would have used resources provided by Saddam's regime. Period. That is cause for action.


.."I don't want to insult but Baaaa. Sorry, I couldn't help it. You act too much of a follower. Saddam wasn't a threat..."..

We may disagree on Saddam's threat.

But are you privy to information that is of concern to those who's responsibility it is to defend the US..? I doubt it.


.."I believe the truth... I believe in Kant's Moral theory. If you believe its okay to fool people to get them to follow your ideals right or wrong then you sir believe in immortal actions."..

"Immoral",... right..? :)

You once again show your immature mind. Let's deal with reality, not childish fantasy.


.."No Fly Zones were not legal by UN so what justification did we have? UN resolutions don't count because UN according to US isn't credible.
So what justification do you have to break Iraq's sovernty?.."

The US only obeys extra-national authority if it is in US interest to do so. Period.

Threaten the US and pay the price.


.."Yes it could. But you agree it was a democracy... so how can you give it something it already has? Isn't that outting new wine in a old bottle..."..

The Iraqi democratic experiment died when Saddam (or Saddam's predecessor) came to power. You're not seriously saying that Saddam's regime was any form of democracy, are you..? :)


.."Whose side are you? I hope you are on Americas... A true Patriot will dissant when its unpopular to do so."..

I'm on the side of America actively doing good in the world.

A true partiot will not simply dissent when it is "popular" to do so.

Within your clique, it is no doubt very popular to follow the party line and be a Bush hating anti-american, posing as the "patriotic dissenter".

But consider what you actually stand for..?

[Gigatron #204]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[Gigatron #192]Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[Gigatron #172]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takrai
Actually wrong. I was in action in 40+ engagements and saw more than I would hope anyone would have to see.
You continue to make it clear you know nothing of the goings on in the country beyond what the media report, and that is fine, you have a right to your opinion. But as I said, you have not been there. BTW, I said they were GLAD to see us, not sympathetic.
On your other point, I guess you would have preferred a war then, in support of the Kurdish freedom fighters? On that we agree actually, but I seriously doubt your, or any other European govt, would have supported that either.


Would the US have stated this goal before the UN, most likely not, due to this foreign influence by one country being forbidden according to the UN charter. With the help of the UN though (which means everyone, not the US alone), it could have been made a reality, if the US would take the UN seriously for things other than using it to hold other countries accountable while ignoreing or violating the UN charter.

And here we have the REAL point.

"The UN would do wonders if only the US would take it seriously", you say.

"The Toothfairy would solve world hunger and armed conflict if only America would quit being evil!", I hear.

Grow up.

The "Oil for Food" fiasco should dispel any illusions of the UN as anything but a placation of the "little countries" giving them the illusion that have any say in anything.

Let's get back to reality, shall we.


Quit quoting things I did not say. Propaganda tool.

.."Quit quoting things I did not say. Propaganda tool."..

And the typical leftist retort, "Quit putting WORDS in my mouth..!"

I can't put words in your mouth. And your own words are quite telling, and amusing, enough.

I'd like to thank you for your words. They illustrate the leftist "mind" quite well.

You quoted things that I did never say and will never say - just out of principle so you don't get the satisfaction of "putting words" in my mouth. Though I get your rightist and arrogant attitude which I will not debate any longer with. Feel yourself added to my ignore list. I am sure you will like it in the company of individuals such as Biff Pileon... *mutes the offender*

Heh he he he he...

Then you have failed to respond as a mature adult, once again, and are more than free to slink off with the world watching. :)

Those who consider me an asshole, which I do myself BTW, in these forums, as I like to present my views honestly and boldly, will see our interchanges in their own light.

But my goal is to provoke my discussion-mates into either accepting that they can display their opinions and view other's opinions AS OPINIONS, or spiral out of control into childish tantrum.

I leave it to the audience to decide their opinions of us. :D

To the person who mentioned the no-fly zones..and what right did we have to violate Iraqi sovereignty..well, the UN resolutions, 678, 687, and 1441.
As for the no fly zones as well, the US and allies were the victors, driving out the aggressors(Iraq) from Kuwait which they had attacked. The terms of a ceasefire are laid out by the winners..if the loser doesn't like it, to be blunt, they can go back to fighting. Iraq signed the ceasefire, agreeing to the terms, but from the very start, failed to live up to the terms. One of the terms was the no fly zones, designed to protect Kurds, who had been attacked with Gas(WMD) in the north, and Shiites, in the south who had been put down bloodily by the Republican Gds units that we allowed to escape from Kuwait.

Well, going back to that article.
If 3,300 people died from violence?
More than that get shot in 1 day.
More people than that die in auto accidents every day.
More people than that die from smoking every day.
So basically, I'm saying, it a stupid article and its pointless.

Well, going back to that article.
If 3,300 people died from violence?
More than that get shot in 1 day.
More people than that die in auto accidents every day.
More people than that die from smoking every day.
So basically, I'm saying, it a stupid article and its pointless.

Not to seem callous, but that is true.It was apparently some "academic" trying to make a point.

BTW, Iaekaekao or however its spelled.
You need to make your posts less complicated.
Pretty colors do not make you sound more intelligent. Quotes should include the name of the person you quote, and in a quote box.
Try to make it easier to read, and don't triple space after every sentence so you take up so much room.
Otherwise I won't bother to read what you have to say, because I don't want my eyes to get even worse than they are from the strain.

Those who consider me an asshole, which I do myself BTW, in these forums, as I like to present my views honestly and boldly, will see our interchanges in their own light.

But my goal is to provoke my discussion-mates into.....Hi mini-me, Im back, comon down from your high horses, and give me a hug, :D

Hi evil Twin-Brother, Im back, comon down from your high horses, and give me a hug, :D
Lol..great....I think...

Lol..great....I think...Oh, so you and Iakeokeo are...like the same person?
I do not mind, its part of the game.

Either way, I hope you are not Tired of kicking the collective Leftists Arses...and saved something for me :D

Iakeokeo ;)
Besides that the name is great lol..some points.
Most of what I have seen, spending today pretty much following the threads here in studying for a Masters Degree, is that the majority of the "left" you speak of, becomes hostile at any suggestion their carefully held ideals may perhaps be incorrect. I would include you in this however. While I actually have agreed with everything you have said , for the most part anyway ;)
I do sincerely hope the "right" gets better at persuading rather than just arguing, before the upcoming election(did I give away my preference?lol)
Other than that, thanks for giving me an actually entertaining time, I thought this day would crawl, but it has been interesting:)

[HadesRulesMuch #210]
BTW, Iaekaekao or however its spelled.
You need to make your posts less complicated.
Pretty colors do not make you sound more intelligent. Quotes should include the name of the person you quote, and in a quote box.
Try to make it easier to read, and don't triple space after every sentence so you take up so much room.
Otherwise I won't bother to read what you have to say, because I don't want my eyes to get even worse than they are from the strain.

I like to include the context from the previous posts, so...

I take out the quotes, because when you use the quote button, it removes the sub-quoted material,.. so I take the quote boxes out to help the following quoters.

(( Oh,.. that was some ugly verbage...! ))

You more than welcome to not read my posts.

I'll be less likely to be reported as an "asshole" that way. :D

Oh, so you and Iakeokeo are...like the same person?
I do not mind, its part of the game.

Not the same lol.

[OceanDrive #211]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

Those who consider me an asshole, which I do myself BTW, in these forums, as I like to present my views honestly and boldly, will see our interchanges in their own light.

But my goal is to provoke my discussion-mates into.....

Hi mini-me, Im back, comon down from your high horses, and give me a hug,

Big smoochies to you,.. my wuvwy wyddle wuvbird..!

:D

[OceanDrive]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

Those who consider me an asshole, which I do myself BTW, in these forums, as I like to present my views honestly and boldly, will see our interchanges in their own light.

But my goal is to provoke my discussion-mates into.....

Hi mini-me, Im back, comon down from your high horses, and give me a hug,

Big smoochies to you,.. my wuvwy wyddle wuvbird..!

:D

:D :D :eek: :D
Thats the spirit....

[OceanDrive #213]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takrai
Lol..great....I think...

Oh, so you and Iakeokeo are...like the same person?
I do not mind, its part of the game.

No,... I don't think so...

Wait,.. let me check

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...

Nope,.. not the same person..! :)

[Takrai #215]
Iakeokeo
Besides that the name is great lol..some points.

Most of what I have seen, spending today pretty much following the threads here in studying for a Masters Degree, is that the majority of the "left" you speak of, becomes hostile at any suggestion their carefully held ideals may perhaps be incorrect.

I would include you in this however. While I actually have agreed with everything you have said , for the most part anyway.

I do sincerely hope the "right" gets better at persuading rather than just arguing, before the upcoming election (did I give away my preference?lol)
Other than that, thanks for giving me an actually entertaining time, I thought this day would crawl, but it has been interesting

Heh he he he... :)

The left is notoriously hair-triggered, because they're so used to being immersed in their own clique-culture that an opposing view, actually SPOKEN OUT LOUD, is seen as heresy.

And the only folks more religious in their fervor than the left are those snake-charmer people in the swamps..!

I don't argue, actually, as argument with the left is utterly futile. They can always find "facts" to support their opinions, and I find it more interesting to simply state my opinion than play fact-fencing.

Persuasion is for those who can look at a someones else's conversation and infer who they "trust" more.

That's one reason I'm not overly worried about this election going any way but for Bush.

Kerry is simply too bizarre to trust.

And the left is simply too spastic to convince anyone not already convinced of anything at all.

I do wish I was studying for a masters.

Oh well,.. better things to do.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7092436&posted=1#post7092436
:D

[OceanDrive #222]
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7092436&posted=1#post7092436
:D

Heh he he he he he...

Moi:
"The Bane of Leftists and Adolescents (same thing) Everywhere"

..Thank you. You were great. I'll be here through next thursday! Tip your waitress generously..!

:)

I find it more interesting to simply state my opinion than play fact-fencing.
Why is that? Because you can't come up with any facts to support your position?

Why is that? Because you can't come up with any facts to support your position?
Because I get the impression that she (he?) likes playing the devil's advocate.

And,... I can mock whomever I like. You're a VERY good, and enjoyable, target. :D

I'm not commenting on anything but your writings, and my comments are only my opinions.

You DO seem to be takng this (rather trivial discussion) very seriously.

I'd suggest you either lay off for a while, or go buy some perspective somewhere.[/FONT][/COLOR]

It is the lot of the mindless, schoolyard bully to mock people just for fun. Thanks for being so clear on your real intentions.

It makes your argument that much stronger if you point fingers and "nyah nyah" your opposition. That certainly makes ME look more childish. You're right.

You weren't entering into discussion, you were launching a smear campaign. Namecalling and insults don't add any veracity to your argument. You're clearly not interesed in looking at things from differing perspectives. There isn't any point in discussing opposing points with you as you aren't open-minded enough to truly hear someone else's ideas without resorting to insults. I seem to remember watching a video of someone with the same basic attitude cutting someone's head off.

Well done.

[Demented Hamsters #224]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I find it more interesting to simply state my opinion than play fact-fencing.

Why is that? Because you can't come up with any facts to support your position?

Precisely. My positions are unassailable as they are entirely opinion.

I'll leave the research to the experts, such as yourself. :)

Keep presenting your lovely "facts". They make good discussion fodder.

[Riven Dell #226]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And,... I can mock whomever I like. You're a VERY good, and enjoyable, target.

I'm not commenting on anything but your writings, and my comments are only my opinions.

You DO seem to be takng this (rather trivial discussion) very seriously.

I'd suggest you either lay off for a while, or go buy some perspective somewhere.


It is the lot of the mindless, schoolyard bully to mock people just for fun. Thanks for being so clear on your real intentions.

It makes your argument that much stronger if you point fingers and "nyah nyah" your opposition. That certainly makes ME look more childish. You're right.

You weren't entering into discussion, you were launching a smear campaign. Namecalling and insults don't add any veracity to your argument. You're clearly not interesed in looking at things from differing perspectives. There isn't any point in discussing opposing points with you as you aren't open-minded enough to truly hear someone else's ideas without resorting to insults. I seem to remember watching a video of someone with the same basic attitude cutting someone's head off.

Well done.




.."It is the lot of the mindless, schoolyard bully to mock people just for fun. Thanks for being so clear on your real intentions."..

My intention, singular, is lively discussion. You can not be bullied while having a discussion unless you allow yourself to be bullied..! :)

.."You weren't entering into discussion, you were launching a smear campaign. Namecalling and insults don't add any veracity to your argument. You're clearly not interesed in looking at things from differing perspectives."..

I can't smear you. You show yourself in your words, as do I.

My opinions of you are meaningless if you disagree with me. Who exactly is the target audience of this so-called smear campaign..?

Everyone has a different perspective. That is where the "differing perspectives" come from. I am not obligated to present anyone's perspective other than my own.

.."I seem to remember watching a video of someone with the same basic attitude cutting someone's head off."..

Well put..!

Though they're operating in the realm of physical violence directed at helpless innocents.

This is the realm of DISCUSSION, not physical violence, and you are not a helpless innocent.

Or are you..? :D

I can't smear you. You show yourself in your words, as do I.

My opinions of you are meaningless if you disagree with me. Who exactly is the target audience of this so-called smear campaign..?

Everyone has a different perspective. That is where the "differing perspectives" come from. I am not obligated to present anyone's perspective other than my own.

.."I seem to remember watching a video of someone with the same basic attitude cutting someone's head off."..

Well put..!

Though they're operating in the realm of physical violence directed at helpless innocents.

This is the realm of DISCUSSION, not physical violence, and you not a helpless innocent.

Or are you..? :D

The tie-in for the comment was that the terrorists are just as narrow-minded and refuse to see other perspectives and entertain the possibility of fallibilty. But nevermind, I'm going to reserve the right to abstain from juvenile arguments in this case. If this is a discussion, it shouldn't be riddled with insults and accusations. They don't add anything to anybody's point of view. When you resort to insulting other posters on this board, you are employing brute tactics. Those tactics are akin to terrorist tactics. Calling someone a child because they don't see things your way is just a way of dismissing someone else's opinions. If you're here to discuss, you won't dismiss the validity of other people's statements, you'll take them into account, consider them, and rebut (not insult).

[Riven Dell #229]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I can't smear you. You show yourself in your words, as do I.

My opinions of you are meaningless if you disagree with me. Who exactly is the target audience of this so-called smear campaign..?

Everyone has a different perspective. That is where the "differing perspectives" come from. I am not obligated to present anyone's perspective other than my own.

.."I seem to remember watching a video of someone with the same basic attitude cutting someone's head off."..

Well put..!

Though they're operating in the realm of physical violence directed at helpless innocents.

This is the realm of DISCUSSION, not physical violence, and you not a helpless innocent.

Or are you..?


The tie-in for the comment was that the terrorists are just as narrow-minded and refuse to see other perspectives and entertain the possibility of fallibilty. But nevermind, I'm going to reserve the right to abstain from juvenile arguments in this case. If this is a discussion, it shouldn't be riddled with insults and accusations. They don't add anything to anybody's point of view. When you resort to insulting other posters on this board, you are implying brute tactics. Those tactics are akin to terrorist tactics. Calling someone a child because they don't see things your way is just a way of dismissing someone else's opinions. If you're here to discuss, you won't dismiss the validity of other people's statements, you'll take them into account, consider them, and rebut (not insult).


.."The tie-in for the comment was that the terrorists are just as narrow-minded and refuse to see other perspectives and entertain the possibility of fallibilty."..

I realize Riv's inference, and accept his opinion.

But Riv's opinion, an "insult", does exactly what my "insults" do..!

If they don't "bolster" Riv's "agrument",.. then why did Riv use it..? :)

And I'm FAR from infallible..! That should be so obvious as to not need comment. Heh he he he....

.."When you resort to insulting other posters on this board, you are implying brute tactics. Those tactics are akin to terrorist tactics. Calling someone a child because they don't see things your way is just a way of dismissing someone else's opinions."..

Once again,... if you allow yourself to be insulted by the opinions of others, then you should really work on strengthening your ego. To be insulted by the "hallucinations" of others is "CRAZY"..! :)

Calling someone I see displaying a childish point of view is,.. well,.. calling someone I see displaying a childish point of view. Let the audience decide on the value of my meager opinion.

I COUNT on the fact that Riv's views are in fact valid, for Riv.

..and that's what I comment on.

Very simple. :)

I realize Riv's inference, and accept his opinion.
But Riv's opinion, an "insult", does exactly what my "insults" do..!
If they don't "bolster" Riv's "agrument",.. then why did Riv use it..? :)
And I'm FAR from infallible..! That should be so obvious as to not need comment. Heh he he he....

I tried it because I wasn't at all sure if there was any other way to get you to understand (or even acknowledge) my point of view. Second, what I said wasn't meant as simple insult, it expressed an observation and drew a parallel. The insults you've been lobbing have drawn no such paralles and so have not served to strengthen your arguments.

.."When you resort to insulting other posters on this board, you are employing brute tactics. Those tactics are akin to terrorist tactics. Calling someone a child because they don't see things your way is just a way of dismissing someone else's opinions."..

Once again,... if you allow yourself to be insulted by the opinions of others, then you should really work on strengthening your ego. To be insulted by the "hallucinations" of others is "CRAZY"..! :)

Insult is in the eye of the beholder, true. Insulting my intelligence or maturity will annoy me more than anything else. I very much enjoy debate and discussion. When it degrades like this, the point is lost. Open your mind a little. Discuss intelligently. Let's end this nonsense.

Calling someone I see displaying a childish point of view is,.. well,.. calling someone I see displaying a childish point of view. Let the audience decide on the value of my meager opinion.

The main difference between us is that I'm not playing to the crowd. I'm genuinely trying to discuss these topics. You're vying for attention. That much is clear by your desperate need to increase your font size beyond all reason. Larger text infers a more valid point of view, but it doesn't CREATE a more valid point of view. It's yet another mindless tactic you use to get attention. I'd rather not play at this nonsense anymore.

I COUNT on the fact that Riv's views are in fact valid, for Riv.
..and that's what I comment on.
Very simple.

If you really felt that way, you wouldn't dismiss others' responses as "childish" you would intelligently refute their arguments using clear logic and awaiting their equally inoffensive response. This is beyond over. If you continue with this pettiness, you'll just be the first person on my ignore list and we'll be done with it. I don't have time for playground behavior, I get enough of that at work.

Just stopped by to see the "progress" of this discussion..

I don't think there have been any surveys questioning the insurgents where they were from.

Any absolute numbers are only guesses and any percentages made are only speculation. Besides it suits the White House fine if they convince everyone that foreigners are behind the insurgency because if the Iraqis were mostly behind it then it would look extremely bad. So you can't really trust their opinion on this matter.

If you look how they dance in the streets after US troops get killed and from looking at Sadr's militia quite a few of them, if not most, have to be Iraqi. Although I wouldn't ignore the fact they may get finiancial support from foreign groups. (weapons aren't hard to get in Iraq though.)

well with france and germany still selling rpg's to irreputable groups weapons will always be easy to get

[Riven Dell #231]
I tried it because I wasn't at all sure if there was any other way to get you to understand (or even acknowledge) my point of view. Second, what I said wasn't meant as simple insult, it expressed an observation and drew a parallel. The insults you've been lobbing have drawn no such paralles and so have not served to strengthen your arguments.

Insult is in the eye of the beholder, true. Insulting my intelligence or maturity will annoy me more than anything else. I very much enjoy debate and discussion. When it degrades like this, the point is lost. Open your mind a little. Discuss intelligently. Let's end this nonsense.

The main difference between us is that I'm not playing to the crowd. I'm genuinely trying to discuss these topics. You're vying for attention. That much is clear by your desperate need to increase your font size beyond all reason. Larger text infers a more valid point of view, but it doesn't CREATE a more valid point of view. It's yet another mindless tactic you use to get attention. I'd rather not play at this nonsense anymore.

If you really felt that way, you wouldn't dismiss others' responses as "childish" you would intelligently refute their arguments using clear logic and awaiting their equally inoffensive response. This is beyond over. If you continue with this pettiness, you'll just be the first person on my ignore list and we'll be done with it. I don't have time for playground behavior, I get enough of that at work.

Please voice your opinions in your way.

I shall voice them in mine.

The agora is a marvelous place, and your attempts to control it are silly, yet quite funny.

Enjoy the market, my friend..! :D

well with france and germany still selling rpg's to irreputable groups weapons will always be easy to get
"well with france and germany companies still selling rpg's to irreputable groups weapons will always be easy to get"
would have been better. I am not aware that the government of France and/or Germany are selling weapons...

"well with france and germany companies still selling rpg's to irreputable groups weapons will always be easy to get"
would have been better. I am not aware that the government of France and/or Germany are selling weapons...

This is true to some extent, but government approval IS required to sell weapons out of the country, so the governments in that case would either be guilty of lax controls or outright accomplices.
For the record however, most of the weaponry I saw there was ex-Soviet, with only a very few exceptions.

"well with france and germany companies still selling rpg's to irreputable groups weapons will always be easy to get"
would have been better. I am not aware that the government of France and/or Germany are selling weapons...

I am most amused at the obvious double standard.

Surely we don't see before us an American advocating gun control?

I would have though that the availability of weapons to those who see themselves as being oppressed by their government would have been an unquestioned right.

But comparing Iraqis to Americans is obviously impossible.

After all these people aren't even white or Christian (for American readers this is sarcasm).

This is true to some extent, but government approval IS required to sell weapons out of the country, so the governments in that case would either be guilty of lax controls or outright accomplices.
For the record however, most of the weaponry I saw there was ex-Soviet, with only a very few exceptions.

I wasn't aware of that fact. Then again, are you sure that the law of France and Germany requires this?

I am most amused at the obvious double standard.

Surely we don't see before us an American advocating gun control?

I would have though that the availability of weapons to those who see themselves as being oppressed by their government would have been an unquestioned right.
Two things:
1- I am not american, I'm Canadian.
2- I never went in the gun control debate. IF you look at my post, I was merely correcting a previous poster on his innacuracies.

And, for the record, I am for gun control. I don't believe that you need an M-16 to protect your family.

I wasn't aware of that fact. Then again, are you sure that the law of France and Germany requires this?

To be honest, no..however, I would assume that responsible countries(of which France and Germany both are) would have regulations regarding it.

Yeesh ... this is still goin' on? Wow ...

Originally Posted by Upitatanium
I don't think there have been any surveys questioning the insurgents where they were from.

Any absolute numbers are only guesses and any percentages made are only speculation. Besides it suits the White House fine if they convince everyone that foreigners are behind the insurgency because if the Iraqis were mostly behind it then it would look extremely bad. So you can't really trust their opinion on this matter.

If you look how they dance in the streets after US troops get killed and from looking at Sadr's militia quite a few of them, if not most, have to be Iraqi. Although I wouldn't ignore the fact they may get finiancial support from foreign groups. (weapons aren't hard to get in Iraq though.)

Actually surveys are taken among those captured, and IDs made among those killed. In very many instances this has shown a 2:1 ratio of foreign fighters to Iraqi fighters.

Originally Posted by Upitatanium
I don't think there have been any surveys questioning the insurgents where they were from.

Any absolute numbers are only guesses and any percentages made are only speculation. Besides it suits the White House fine if they convince everyone that foreigners are behind the insurgency because if the Iraqis were mostly behind it then it would look extremely bad. So you can't really trust their opinion on this matter.

If you look how they dance in the streets after US troops get killed and from looking at Sadr's militia quite a few of them, if not most, have to be Iraqi. Although I wouldn't ignore the fact they may get finiancial support from foreign groups. (weapons aren't hard to get in Iraq though.)

Actually surveys are taken among those captured, and IDs made among those killed. In very many instances this has shown a 2:1 ratio of foreign fighters to Iraqi fighters.


Do "Coalition of the Willing" troops count as foreign fighters?

[Smeagol-Gollum #243]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takrai
Originally Posted by Upitatanium
I don't think there have been any surveys questioning the insurgents where they were from.

Any absolute numbers are only guesses and any percentages made are only speculation. Besides it suits the White House fine if they convince everyone that foreigners are behind the insurgency because if the Iraqis were mostly behind it then it would look extremely bad. So you can't really trust their opinion on this matter.

If you look how they dance in the streets after US troops get killed and from looking at Sadr's militia quite a few of them, if not most, have to be Iraqi. Although I wouldn't ignore the fact they may get finiancial support from foreign groups. (weapons aren't hard to get in Iraq though.)

Actually surveys are taken among those captured, and IDs made among those killed. In very many instances this has shown a 2:1 ratio of foreign fighters to Iraqi fighters.


Do "Coalition of the Willing" troops count as foreign fighters?


Why yes,... yes they would..! :)

But they're the "good guys"..!

And there's the rub. Your people consider all sides equal in moral value.

Thus showing your utterly fanstasy oriented mindset.

Do "Coalition of the Willing" troops count as foreign fighters?

I believe it was plain by reference that enemy insurgents were the ones being discussed. I give the benefit of the doubt that English may not be a particular strength in your case, much as knowledge of what is going on in Iraq seems not to be.
I infer this in part also because on the previous page you flamed against a Canadian, who was actually on YOUR side, because you did not bother to take what he said in context. In the same post you flamed Americans in general as well.

This is true to some extent, but government approval IS required to sell weapons out of the country, so the governments in that case would either be guilty of lax controls or outright accomplices.
For the record however, most of the weaponry I saw there was ex-Soviet, with only a very few exceptions. .
What you say is pretty outrageous. Or should I follow your logic. The US government (via its border controll) allowed terrorists into the country.
Those terrorist conducted mass murder.
Without the approval of US border patrol they wouldn´t have been able to get into the US. So, the US government is either guilty of lax controls or outright accomplices of the terrorists.
You would reject that and you are right. And I reject your statement with the same right. NO country can give 100% assurance that its people or some comapanies are breaking the law. For Germany I can say that during the 90s several company leaders were arrested and punished for violations of arms controll laws - especially regarding Iraq.
When I say that there are some evil people who only think about profits and don´t care about the law that is true for all countries though.

What you say is pretty outrageous. Or should I follow your logic. The US government (via its border controll) allowed terrorists into the country.
Those terrorist conducted mass murder.
Without the approval of US border patrol they wouldn´t have been able to get into the US. So, the US government is either guilty of lax controls or outright accomplices of the terrorists.
You would reject that and you are right. And I reject your statement with the same right. NO country can give 100% assurance that its people or some comapanies are breaking the law. For Germany I can say that during the 90s several company leaders were arrested and punished for violations of arms controll laws - especially regarding Iraq.
When I say that there are some evil people who only think about profits and don´t care about the law that is true for all countries though.
I'd say the US government is guilty of lax control.

What you say is pretty outrageous. Or should I follow your logic. The US government (via its border controll) allowed terrorists into the country.
Those terrorist conducted mass murder.
Without the approval of US border patrol they wouldn´t have been able to get into the US. So, the US government is either guilty of lax controls or outright accomplices of the terrorists.
You would reject that and you are right. And I reject your statement with the same right. NO country can give 100% assurance that its people or some comapanies are breaking the law. For Germany I can say that during the 90s several company leaders were arrested and punished for violations of arms controll laws - especially regarding Iraq.
When I say that there are some evil people who only think about profits and don´t care about the law that is true for all countries though.


Might I suggest you read my statement in context rather than assuming what I am saying. My statement was partially contradicting an earlier statement blaming the German and French governments. I do, however, believe that there are areas(including in my nation) where security needs improvement.
I also , unfortunately, agree with your close, there are people who will do nearly ANYTHING for money.
As I said however, most weapons that in my own experience are being used, in Iraq, are older ex-Soviet models.

The terrorists in Iraq are killing their people, American forces are not targetting them. I should say, terrorists in Iraq, are TARGETTING Iraqis, American forces sometimes KILL Iraqi civilians, but never target them.
And during the war, yes, we killed Iraqi soldiers, who also tried to kill us, that is war.

Yes, but the terrorists are there because we distabilized the whole country and caused them into existence.

What you are saying is that we should blame the water for killing an entire town and not the people who destroyed the dam that kept the water back.

The terrorists in Iraq are killing their people, American forces are not targetting them. I should say, terrorists in Iraq, are TARGETTING Iraqis, American forces sometimes KILL Iraqi civilians, but never target them.
And during the war, yes, we killed Iraqi soldiers, who also tried to kill us, that is war.

Yes, but the terrorists are there because we distabilized the whole country and caused them into existence.

What you are saying is that we should blame the water for killing an entire town and not the people who destroyed the dam that kept the water back.

They are targetting civilians, yes because it makes us look really bad. Really really bad. It shows we can't save the civilians and a civilian will think that if we leave thye will be safe, so anti-US sentiment grows and the militias acting against us get more support and are harder to destroy. In fact if we kill one they are proud and shout 'Allah Akbar!' because another brother has gone to heaven. You can't beat guys like this. They are fully ready to die and will never ever surrender. Kill one, three take his place.

And yes we have killed plenty of Iraqi. This isn't 'collateral damage'. These are people being killed. Sons, fathers, sisters, mothers. You'll never convince an Iraqi otherwise. Even the most stoic supporter of the US occupation (if you can find one) can only stand much loss until he begins to question US presence.

But I shouldn't have to spell that out to a smart man such as yourself :D