NationStates Jolt Archive

All I can say is, its about time we do something about this joint.

Go get'em boys and girls.

Be careful. This thread will now be deemed flamebait and locked, because it does not march in lockstep with the moderators' ideology.

All I can say is, its about time we do something about this joint.

Go get'em boys and girls.
It would eliminate a sore-spot, but I don't know if it makes any sense from the tactical point of view. It's already a PR nightmare, plus most of the insurgents have left, at most only a few thousands remain in the city; and, as seen during the weekend, having Fallujah surrounded didn't diminish the attacks.

I fear it will only cause more discontent against the US and not really do much against the insurgent's capacity to attack.

Iztat,

I can agree with you on that but you just never know. All I know is that this has been festering for so long and now its finally being taken care of.

There are Insurgents on Fallujah. Either they are Iraqui or foreigners

If they are Iraqui, tough, but they have the right to defend their homes from foreign invaders, good luck to THEM.

If they are foreign terrorists, then some will stay in fallujah to die as martyrs, they are fond of that. Others will simple flee, dressed as civilians, hide. They will play the old terrorist game of hide 'n seek, and deceit. They hit and run, they don't fight conventional armies. Sending an army into the city is stupid, anyway. What do you expect to accomplish? Without decent information about who the terrorists are (that you get from the population, by being nice to them, not by bombing them)m they will simply migrate to another city, and start bombing again.

Be careful. This thread will now be deemed flamebait and locked, because it does not march in lockstep with the moderators' ideology.

Someone's bitter.

If they are Iraqui, tough, but they have the right to defend their homes from foreign invaders, good luck to THEM.I think they'd do better 'defending' their homes if they didn't fight. Fighting attracts bombs, and bombs are not too good for houses.

Someone's bitter.
Not bitter...Indignant. Half the posts on this board are flamebait, but they're OK when they come from the left. There is a double-standard here; a hypocrisy, if you will.

I think they'd do better 'defending' their homes if they didn't fight. Fighting attracts bombs, and bombs are not too good for houses.

You are absolutely right Shotagon.

I think they'd do better 'defending' their homes if they didn't fight. Fighting attracts bombs, and bombs are not too good for houses.

I bet there was some British saying this when the American's got tired of them.

Keep your heads down boys, and kick some butt. We are all proud of you (here in my town anyway). God be with you. Gods speed, Gods speed.

Go get'em boys and girls.

Ypu mean the 100's of women and children you killed, well must say that you really deserved 9/11 regarding all those death Iraqi citizens since you guys came in Iraq.

BTW, I don't mind the dead rebells, they had it comming but all those death civillians..

Ypu mean the 100's of women and children you killed, well must say that you really deserved 9/11 regarding all those death Iraqi citizens since you guys came in Iraq.

And you are anti-american!

BTW, I don't mind the dead rebells, they had it comming but all those death civillians..

Well not like we gave them enought time to get the hell out of dodge. We did that you know. They had alot of time to flee.

I bet there was some British saying this when the American's got tired of them.The aims of the outside goverments (1776 England and the 2003 US) were quite different. Really, these people in Iraq that are 'fighting back' are actually biting the hand of those that wish to help them set up their own government, elected by the people of Iraq. They're insane, I tell you.

Ypu mean the 100's of women and children you killed, well must say that you really deserved 9/11 regarding all those death Iraqi citizens since you guys came in Iraq.

BTW, I don't mind the dead rebells, they had it comming but all those death civillians..
what




If you're going to flame, at least try to spell correctly, moron.

what is wrong with you people? don't you realize that we can be doing so much else besides sending thousands upon thousands of our men and women in there to die for an unjust cause? we're obviously not being greeted there as liberators as our "great leader" said we would be. if we were, then there wouldn't be resistance in fallujah. wow, what an idiot we have running the country.

what is wrong with you people? don't you realize that we can be doing so much else besides sending thousands upon thousands of our men and women in there to die for an unjust cause? we're obviously not being greeted there as liberators as our "great leader" said we would be. if we were, then there wouldn't be resistance in fallujah. wow, what an idiot we have running the country.

Wow! What an uninformed post!

We were greeted by most parts of the country as liberators. Where we are having the most troubles is in the Sunni Triangle. That is SUNNI! Saddam himself was a Sunni I believe and thus, I'm not surprised by all of the trouble in the triangle.

If you're going to flame, at least try to spell correctly, moron.

Wat je zegt Midwestholbewoner, wil je flamen? Of haat je de waarheid van de dode burgers :rolleyes:

Indeed, you're a simple CRWN bastard. :rolleyes:
Go back to your cornfield :upyours:

30 attacks a day on US forces in Iraq. Imagine if they weren't happy to see the US there.

It could just be another Baghdad. Everyone was saying it was going to be a bloodbath, Stalingrad etc etc. But it wasnt, because the rebels are smarter than that, they will likely just melt away, some headstrong ones will fight but most will probably just try to leave or act as civilans. Then they can send in bombers, ambushes, mortars etc. Or just wait until the Americans get comfy and flare up the fighting again, like in Samara.

And you are anti-american!
.

Why? For saying that you guys deserve 9/11 because of the overkill of civilians?

Well, an eye for an eye say the Bush CRWN voters, isn't it :D

IMO the insurgency is mostly about power, not freedom. The sunnis don't want to cede any power to the shiites, and if they had it their way they'd return to power like in the good ol days under Saddam. I remember reading a story about a sunni man smashing a shiites tape recorder because he was playing shiite music/religious messages. In the old days he wouldn't have been allowed to play it in public. :rolleyes:

IMO while I'm not condoning attacks on our troops, it wouldn't have come to this if they had just kept their attacks on them. They were also killing police and recruits, kidnapping foreigners that were working to improve conditions in Iraq, and other Iraqis including children.

Most of them aren't even Iraqi, so don't hand me that bullshit. They're foreign terrorists looking to create problems.

Ypu mean the 100's of women and children you killed, well must say that you really deserved 9/11 regarding all those death Iraqi citizens since you guys came in Iraq.

BTW, I don't mind the dead rebells, they had it comming but all those death civillians..

Does the flow of time go in different direction where you are?

30 attacks a day on US forces in Iraq. Imagine if they weren't happy to see the US there.
Why are the insurgents murdering innocent Iraqis?

Most of them aren't even Iraqi, so don't hand me that bullshit. They're foreign terrorists looking to create problems.

How do you know this? Took a trip into Fallujah?

There are Insurgents on Fallujah. Either they are Iraqui or foreigners

If they are Iraqui, tough, but they have the right to defend their homes from foreign invaders, good luck to THEM.

If they are foreign terrorists, then some will stay in fallujah to die as martyrs, they are fond of that. Others will simple flee, dressed as civilians, hide. They will play the old terrorist game of hide 'n seek, and deceit. They hit and run, they don't fight conventional armies. Sending an army into the city is stupid, anyway. What do you expect to accomplish? Without decent information about who the terrorists are (that you get from the population, by being nice to them, not by bombing them)m they will simply migrate to another city, and start bombing again.
"Right to defend their homes" my ass! They've been warned repeatedly to leave. If they haven't, the Marines have every right to assume they're terrorists.

Sending the Marines into the city will elminate one more base in which the terrorists can hide. With most of the country under Iraqi government control, there will soon be nowhere to hide. Iraq isn't like Vietnam, which is what you seem to assume. Most of Iraq is open country, not jungle. Out in the open, terrorists don't stand a chance. Yes, there will continue to be suicide bombers and car bombs, but those will gradually decrease as their bases disappear.

Does the flow of time go in different direction where you are?

No, only in your cornfield towns that lack the BBC and other media instead of cosy, happy FOX news. You deny the masses of dead civilians since the invasion? So you do denie that the earth is not flat and turns around the sun? :) Wich is the same denial for ignorants.

Why are the insurgents murdering innocent Iraqis?

It's obvious to me, but probably not the leftists on this board (yep that was flamebait :p). They are attacking innocent Iraqis for the same reason that they are kidnapping foreigners: they are cynically trying to create a situation so that shiites will say that there situation is worse, not better because of American occupation.

No, only in your cornfield towns that lack the BBC and other media instead of cosy, happy FOX news. You deny the masses of dead civilians since the invasion? So you do denie that the earth is not flat and turns around the sun? :) Wich is the same denial for ignorants.

Because the BBC is unbiased? :rolleyes: If they have access to Fox news, they have access to a lot of media outlets. :rolleyes:

The Empire of Presidency offers unequivocal asylum to any one/ thing that requests it from Fallujah.

No, only in your cornfield towns that lack the BBC and other media instead of cosy, happy FOX news. You deny the masses of dead civilians since the invasion? So you do denie that the earth is not flat and turns around the sun? :) Wich is the same denial for ignorants.

I think he means how can 9/11 be an eye for an eye when it happened before the invasion of Iraq.

No, only in your cornfield towns that lack the BBC and other media instead of cosy, happy FOX news. You deny the masses of dead civilians since the invasion? So you do denie that the earth is not flat and turns around the sun? :) Wich is the same denial for ignorants.

Mods: Is this not flaming?

Why? For saying that you guys deserve 9/11 because of the overkill of civilians?

Well, an eye for an eye say the Bush CRWN voters, isn't it :D

No one deserves what we got on 9/11! We didnt' deserve that either and now the guilty party has been paying since October 7, 2001!

No, only in your cornfield towns that lack the BBC and other media instead of cosy, happy FOX news. You deny the masses of dead civilians since the invasion? So you do denie that the earth is not flat and turns around the sun? :) Wich is the same denial for ignorants.


Well, maybe we don't have the BBC in my cornfield town of New York City, but at least we can follow chronological order.

Why are the insurgents murdering innocent Iraqis?

To destabilize the country, out of hatred of perveived colaborators, because they want to.


"Right to defend their homes" my ass! They've been warned repeatedly to leave. If they haven't, the Marines have every right to assume they're terrorists.

Sending the Marines into the city will elminate one more base in which the terrorists can hide. With most of the country under Iraqi government control, there will soon be nowhere to hide. Iraq isn't like Vietnam, which is what you seem to assume. Most of Iraq is open country, not jungle. Out in the open, terrorists don't stand a chance. Yes, there will continue to be suicide bombers and car bombs, but those will gradually decrease as their bases disappear.

Where is it stated that they have "rights" over the iraqui people? Who are they to say that? Would YOU leave your home, if the soviets had invaded your country by any chance, because of their threats? You seem to discount the fact that being a patriot, or plain proud isnt a monopoly of Americans.
And hell, i'm not telling you that Iraq is vietnam. Vietnam is like 5000km to the east. It was bad enough, why would i imply that? Nah.. Iraq is more like.. mmmm Lebanon when the Israelis settled in. Not nice for the Israelis.

Because the BBC is unbiased? :rolleyes: If they have access to Fox news, they have access to a lot of media outlets. :rolleyes:

All news will be biased, papers, TV, radio, all of it. As they are run by HUMANS, who, despite popular opinion are not infallable (unless you are the Pope ;) ). People have to make a call what stories to follow up and publish/air, people are biased. The only way to unbias the media would be to pick stories in a random way via number tables. An even then somebody has to write that story, picking and choosing which information to use.

Mods: Is this not flaming?

No, because it's leftist and therefore not flaming.

Mods: Is this not flaming?

No, but this is:

If you're going to flame, at least try to spell correctly, moron.

Mods: Is this not flaming?

No it is not flaming because it putsthe BBC in a good light and FOX in a bad one. Hence it is considered "gospel truth" and is beyond scrutiny. [/sarcasm]

No, because it's leftist and therefore not flaming.

You denie the earth being round? :rolleyes:
Or you think that the way he points you at the factsis flaiming instead of your rightwing personal namecalling?

Where is that fawlty fellow from anyway?

Well, maybe we don't have the BBC in my cornfield town of New York City, but at least we can follow chronological order.

I live on the Island now, but I am pretty sure that Time Warner carries BBC

Where is that fawlty fellow from anyway?

Manager of Fawlty Towers? :p

You denie the earth being round? :rolleyes:
Or you think that the way he points you at the factsis flaiming instead of your rightwing personal namecalling?


What name calling?

When did I ever engage in "rightwing" personal namecalling? I will if you want though.

He also said everyone from my "cornfield town" are the same as "ignorants". That is namecalling = flaming.

A massive escalation of violence in Fallujah is totally counterproductive to our goal in Iraq (which is to end the violence). Yes, it will likely kill a large number of foreign terrorists and local enemy insurgent combatants, but it will also kill a large number of civilians and cause millions of dollars of property damage.

When the situation gets worse (as it soon will), that recruits insurgents: For every insurgent we kill, we kill about 10 innocent civilians, and wound/maim probably 100 others. Not to mention the lives ruined via property destruction (cars, shops). War is no longer waged: it's inflicted on the people. And those who are ruined by our actions join the insurgency.

No one deserves what we got on 9/11! We didnt' deserve that either and now the guilty party has been paying since October 7, 2001!
I agree that no one deserves a 9/11. Not even the US, no matter what underhanded things it has done in the past or currently, 9/11 was just atrocious and even worse. US people are actually quite understanding, and if they were shown what their government has been doing in their name, I'm pretty sure they would have stopped it. 9/11 was just a terrible thing to do.

But, now innocent are paying along with the guilty in a way that no one deserves either. This and the bullish way in which the US forced the situation in Iraq erased all the simpathy that almost the entire world felt towards the US. Bad foreign policy.

I live on the Island now, but I am pretty sure that Time Warner carries BBC

Well, to be honest, I got DirectTv because of cablevision. It's a long story, but basically I hate those fuckers. So I don't get the BBC. I get BBC america though, but there is no news on that, just shit like cash in the attic.

Regarding 9/11: Osama bin Ladin's reason (as stated quite plainly in his recent speech) for the attack was our actions in Lebanon: War, bombing, destruction- exactly the same situations in Iraq. It doesn't matter what our justification is/was in either case; it's war and it invites retaliation. Yes, we brought 9/11 upon ourselves.

One of the major problems in the big mess that the "intervention"/"invasion" of Iraq has turned out to be is this: Westerners continue to insist on making assumptions, plans, and projections as if the Iraqis and other arabs would react as if they were westerners.

They are not. So, they will not.

I am afraid that an assault on Fallujah is going to be understood, by more in the region than anyone in the US/Western World is going to like to find out, as an attack on normal people defending their homes.

It doesn't matter how WE see it.

If THEY see it this way, then the mess is just going to get messier, and the quagmire deeper, and we will have even less support in Iraq (and it's neighbors) than we do now.

There is no doubt that most Iraqis were glad to be rid of Saddam.

There is also no doubt that most Iraqis would be glad to be rid of the United States.

It is their country. One way or another, for the right reason(s) or the wrong reason(s) or a combination of right/wrong reasons, we rid them of a tyrant.

And replaced it with what they are coming more and more to see as an updated version of colonial rule.

The US needs to get out of Iraq. Iraq needs someone to fill the leadership void until a real viable Iraqi Government can be developed. But it can't be the US/UK. We are, and cannot stop being just because we don't want to be seen that way, the invaders. That viewpoint is what the "insurgents" are able to stir up, quite easily, in a large part of Iraq. And the longer we stay, and the more we toss bullets and bombs around, the easier it's going to get.

Think about this. If the US was invaded (oops..."intervened") by "X" (for our own good, of course), and your brother/cousin/father/uncle joined a resistance, and was killed in "battle"...who are you going to side with? "X"? Or the resistance?

If your entire family agreed with "X" and it's intervention, and the family next door didn't, and "X" bombed the house next door, killing by "collateral damage" your big sister...what would you do?

The US has to get out of Iraq. The UN has to get into Iraq - preferrably with at least a majority of whatever UN force that goes in being from a country with a Muslim majority population - and countries that Iraq has no recent problem(s) with. A force that the vast majority of Iraqis can see as friendly, and TEMPORARY.

Because more and more Iraqis are beginning to see the US/UK forces as not so friendly, and not so temporary.

Sending several thousands US Marines into Fallujah in all-out, house-to-house, street-by-street combat against native Iraqis defending their homes is NOT going to help. And regardless of how we WANT to be seen, that is how we are going to be seen.

Well, maybe we don't have the BBC in my cornfield town of New York City, but at least we can follow chronological order.

I don't think that he said that 9/11 happened after the invasion, he just lays the finger on the wound by saying that the US now knows what it is (and deserved) to have death civilians. Hard world we live in, but I only can agree with some death US civilians, regarding the US acts abroad...

And no, I don't give a shit about death Baath party fighters or GI's, those are both armed groups of fighters, but all those dead children...

...The US has to get out of Iraq...
Yes! Testify!

I don't think that he said that 9/11 happened after the invasion, he just lays the finger on the wound by saying that the US now knows what it is (and deserved) to have death civilians. Hard world we live in, but I only can agree with some death US civilians, regarding the US acts abroad...

And no, I don't give a shit about death Baath party fighters or GI's, those are both armed groups of fighters, but all those dead children...


He said we deserved 9/11 because of the civilian deaths caused by the Iraqi invasion. That means he must think 9/11 happened after we invaded Iraq, otherwise how else could we deserve it. Makes no sense.

Yes! Testify!

Winetesting or tasting? What do you mean :confused:

He said we deserved 9/11 because of the civilian deaths caused by the Iraqi invasion. That means he must think 9/11 happened after we invaded Iraq, .

Actually, he was comparing it by saying that. Never saw him saying that it preceeded it. You are wrong.

BTW what about the facts of the dead civilians? You denie it?

Actually, he was comparing it by saying that. Never saw him saying that it preceeded it. You are wrong.

BTW what about the facts of the dead civilians? You denie it?


What about the facts that the insurgents are intentionally targetting children? do you deny that?

I don't think that he said that 9/11 happened after the invasion, he just lays the finger on the wound by saying that the US now knows what it is (and deserved) to have death civilians. Hard world we live in, but I only can agree with some death US civilians, regarding the US acts abroad...

And no, I don't give a shit about death Baath party fighters or GI's, those are both armed groups of fighters, but all those dead children...You are one sick SOB. Hard perhaps you'd like to volunteer to be a casualty of collateral damage yourself?

Actually, he was comparing it by saying that. Never saw him saying that it preceeded it. You are wrong.

BTW what about the facts of the dead civilians? You denie it?

No, he said we "deserved" 9/.11 for all the Iraqi civillian deaths.

Ypu mean the 100's of women and children you killed, well must say that you really deserved 9/11 regarding all those death Iraqi citizens since you guys came in Iraq.


How could we "deserve" it for those deaths unless it happened after the invasion.

I looks to me like he seems to have his timeline confused.

What about the facts that the insurgents are intentionally targetting children? do you deny that?

Nobody does but why should it be mentioned? Those are insurgents (barbars), US should not behave like them.(Intentionally targetting civilians, Israel style).

To destabilize the country, out of hatred of perveived colaborators, because they want to.

Where is it stated that they have "rights" over the iraqui people? Who are they to say that? Would YOU leave your home, if the soviets had invaded your country by any chance, because of their threats? You seem to discount the fact that being a patriot, or plain proud isnt a monopoly of Americans.
And hell, i'm not telling you that Iraq is vietnam. Vietnam is like 5000km to the east. It was bad enough, why would i imply that? Nah.. Iraq is more like.. mmmm Lebanon when the Israelis settled in. Not nice for the Israelis.
Where did I say anything about "rights?" As a matter of fact, the military waited until the Iraqi government felt it had no other options left after having repeatedly attempting to negotiate with the terrorists.

Iraq is not like Lebanon. Lebanon is a much more urbanized country, and there are many more places to hide, both in urban areas and in the countryside.

Nobody does but why should it be mentioned? Those are insurgents (barbars), US should not behave like them.(Intentionally targetting civilians, Israel style).

First of all, the US is *not* intentionally targetting civilians. Secondly it's important to mention, because it's one of the main reasons why the insurgency must be stopped.

No, he said we "deserved" 9/.11 for all the Iraqi civillian deaths. .
Indeed, you deserve it for those dead Iraqi's.




How could we "deserve" it for those deaths unless it happened after the invasion.
I looks to me like he seems to have his timeline confused.
A timelime has nothing to do with for me, your assumption is wrong. I could say that you deserve them for the dead citizens that will fall everywhere in the world due to US actions in the future.

Nice huh, with a president that believes in dogma's like "An eye for an eye...", you reallly have to learn it the hard way what it means to lose civilians.. :D :upyours:

Of course I wanted that those US innocants would all be Bush voters instead of real innocants that condam dead civillians and understand that their army is not better then Tsahal that also killes lots of innocents.

9/11 should have been in Texas instead of NYC :)

It would eliminate a sore-spot, but I don't know if it makes any sense from the tactical point of view. It's already a PR nightmare, plus most of the insurgents have left, at most only a few thousands remain in the city; and, as seen during the weekend, having Fallujah surrounded didn't diminish the attacks.
I seriously doubt that most of the terrorists have left, considering that it has been surrounded for some time.

Indeed, you deserve it for those dead Iraqi's.




A timelime has nothing to do with for me, your assumption is wrong. I could say that you deserve them for the dead citizens that will fall everywhere in the world due to US actions in the future.

Nice huh, with a president that believes in dogma's like "An eye for an eye...", you reallly have to learn it the hard way what it means to lose civilians.. :D :upyours:

Of course I wanted that those US innocants would all be Bush voters instead of real innocants that condam dead civillians and understand that their army is not better then Tsahal that also killes lots of innocents.

9/11 should have been in Texas instead of NYC :)

So you agree with GITMO then. Because even though those people may not have done anything wrong per se, they could in the future, so they "deserve it," for things they will do in the future.

I seriously doubt that most of the terrorists have left, considering that it has been surrounded for some time.
They gave civilians a lot of time to leave. It wouldn't be a problem for an insurgent to pass as a civilian and get out of there. Perhaps they will lose an great amount of weapons and explosives, but since there are so many of them all over the country it may not be that important.

Indeed, you deserve it for those dead Iraqi's.

A timelime has nothing to do with for me, your assumption is wrong. I could say that you deserve them for the dead citizens that will fall everywhere in the world due to US actions in the future. So I can assume that this applies to you as well? Then why can I not just shoot you dead right here, based on my opinion of what you will do in the future? That's quite reasonable, isn't it?

Nice huh, with a president that believes in dogma's like "An eye for an eye...", you reallly have to learn it the hard way what it means to lose civilians.. :D :upyours:Is there a 'soft' way? What do you propose to do with the terrorists that are right now trying to attack innocents? What sort of dogma do they have? Slightly less nice than 'an eye for an eye', wouldn't you say?
Of course I wanted that those US innocants would all be Bush voters instead of real innocants that condam dead civillians and understand that their army is not better then Tsahal that also killes lots of innocents.

9/11 should have been in Texas instead of NYC :)You are beyond contempt. You say that anyone whose political ideology that is different from yours makes their lives valueless, and that's so revolting it makes me sick.

Where did I say anything about "rights?" As a matter of fact, the military waited until the Iraqi government felt it had no other options left after having repeatedly attempting to negotiate with the terrorists.It's all a matter of viewpoint. For instance, don't be too surprised when you hear:

1. "What Iraqi government? Oh, you mean the one installed by the invaders?"

and'

2. "What do you mean by terrorists? Are you talking about the local Iraqi populace defending their homes in Fallujah?"

Iraq is not like Lebanon. Lebanon is a much more urbanized country, and there are many more places to hide, both in urban areas and in the countryside.I believe the similarity being referred to is not one of geography/urbanization but rather one of similar types of clashes between cultures and between the inhabitants and the "immigrants".

Indeed, you deserve it for those dead Iraqi's.




A timelime has nothing to do with for me, your assumption is wrong. I could say that you deserve them for the dead citizens that will fall everywhere in the world due to US actions in the future.

Nice huh, with a president that believes in dogma's like "An eye for an eye...", you reallly have to learn it the hard way what it means to lose civilians.. :D :upyours:

Of course I wanted that those US innocants would all be Bush voters instead of real innocants that condam dead civillians and understand that their army is not better then Tsahal that also killes lots of innocents.

9/11 should have been in Texas instead of NYC :)
That's just cruel.

I seriously doubt that most of the terrorists have left, considering that it has been surrounded for some time.Did you ever try to surround a city, and let out only the "good" civilians, and keep in the "bad" ones?

Can't be done.

I seriously doubt that most of the terrorists have left, considering that it has been surrounded for some time.

So all those people kidnapped in Bagdhad were whisked away magically?

Indeed, you deserve it for those dead Iraqi's.




A timelime has nothing to do with for me, your assumption is wrong. I could say that you deserve them for the dead citizens that will fall everywhere in the world due to US actions in the future.

Nice huh, with a president that believes in dogma's like "An eye for an eye...", you reallly have to learn it the hard way what it means to lose civilians.. :D :upyours:

Of course I wanted that those US innocants would all be Bush voters instead of real innocants that condam dead civillians and understand that their army is not better then Tsahal that also killes lots of innocents.

9/11 should have been in Texas instead of NYC :)That's ridiculous. All of it. And most of it is simply sick.

If everyone on the planet who "deserved it" for either what their country/countrymen has/have done in the past, or will do in the future, were to be eliminated, we certainly wouldn't have to worry about the population explosion.

Or anything else - because the planet would be totally un-inhabited.

(and i voted against bush, and think his policies are the worst that the US has had in the last hundred years - at least)

and the insurgents are trying what are basically bonzai charges against our troops. amazing...

That's just cruel.

Yeah, but I think that what happens in Iraq with civilians is more cruel then those words.

Did you ever try to surround a city, and let out only the "good" civilians, and keep in the "bad" ones?

Can't be done.

Can't be done true.
But, if the US would have waited to invade with a lot of allies, then...

Well that is the problem with "What if" questions :confused:

Yeah, but I think that what happens in Iraq with civilians is more cruel then those words.There can be no war without civilian casualties. There never has been, and there never will be. That is NOT meant as an excuse for "collateral damage." It is meant as an arguement AGAINST ALL WAR. Once we hand a group of people guns and bombs, no matter how we train them or what we tell them, and tell them to start killing one another, what we're going to wind up with is dead people. Mostly dead people who don't deserve to be dead, a lot of dead people who did not want to be involved, and a lot of dead people who are children, women - true innocents.

Because war is nothing but organized killing.

Indeed, you deserve it for those dead Iraqi's.




A timelime has nothing to do with for me, your assumption is wrong. I could say that you deserve them for the dead citizens that will fall everywhere in the world due to US actions in the future.

Nice huh, with a president that believes in dogma's like "An eye for an eye...", you reallly have to learn it the hard way what it means to lose civilians.. :D :upyours:

Of course I wanted that those US innocants would all be Bush voters instead of real innocants that condam dead civillians and understand that their army is not better then Tsahal that also killes lots of innocents.

9/11 should have been in Texas instead of NYC :)

You, my friend, are sick. Im from the UK, and even though I don't always agree with what America does, no one deserves that. Maybe if you were in the towers, you would have a different view. And as for it being in Texas, texans are some of the nicest people I know. Maybe if it happened where you lived, you would have a much more opposite view.

Can't be done true.
But, if the US would have waited to invade with a lot of allies, then...

Well that is the problem with "What if" questions :confused:THAT is something I completely agree with. The US should have waited however long it took for diplomacy to bring a much larger part of the world around to their opinion before starting this mess.

There could only have been three possible results:
1. The exact same mess we have now.
2. More help, less mess.
3. (granted, this on is a miniscule possibility, but) Iraq changing regeimes on its own as it saw World opinion mount against Saddam.

THAT is something I completely agree with. The US should have waited however long it took for diplomacy to bring a much larger part of the world around to their opinion before starting this mess.

There could only have been three possible results:
1. The exact same mess we have now.
2. More help, less mess.
3. (granted, this on is a miniscule possibility, but) Iraq changing regeimes on its own as it saw World opinion mount against Saddam.

You left out one possibility.

4. A chemical or biological attack in the US using weapons provided to the terrorists by Saddam, while we were waiting for "diplomacy" to work. We couldn't be sure that wouldn't happen, and Saddam wouldn't let inspectors do their job, so we did our own inspection.

Nobody does but why should it be mentioned? Those are insurgents (barbars), US should not behave like them.(Intentionally targetting civilians, Israel style).

We never intentionaly target civilians.

You left out one possibility.

4. A chemical or biological attack in the US using weapons provided to the terrorists by Saddam, while we were waiting for "diplomacy" to work. We couldn't be sure that wouldn't happen, and Saddam wouldn't let inspectors do their job, so we did our own inspection.Would these be the weapons he didn't have?

Yeah, but I think that what happens in Iraq with civilians is more cruel then those words.

What about what Saddam did to his own civilians? Was that cruel too?

We never intentionaly target civilians.That is absolutely true. Unfortunately, we keep killing them by accident. We call it "collateral damage". But they are dead innocent civilians, what ever we choose to call it.

War is killing. People are going to die. And war is, for all the planning that goes in to it, incredibly disorganized. Innocents are going to die.

Which is why war must ALWAYS be the last resort.

Informationally - I'm currently in my 29th year of service in the United States Military.

You left out one possibility.

4. A chemical or biological attack in the US using weapons provided to the terrorists by Saddam, while we were waiting for "diplomacy" to work. We couldn't be sure that wouldn't happen, and Saddam wouldn't let inspectors do their job, so we did our own inspection.
Those inspectors as we all know eventually found so many weapons that they are still trying to count them.

Those inspectors as we all know eventually found so many weapons that they are still trying to count them.I'm working on the assumption that this is sarcasm...

Would these be the weapons he didn't have?
No, these would be the weapons the ENTIRE WORLD, including the all-wise and all-knowing EUropeans, believed he had. The weapons he refused to let inspectors verify the existence (or non-existence) of. Everyone thought he had them, he wouldn't let inspectors verify he didn't (why would he do THAT?), so we did our own inspection to find out once and for all.

We never intentionaly target civilians.

Prove it.Easy to say so.. :rolleyes:

Prove it.Easy to say so.. :rolleyes:


We are punishing Iraqi civilians for crimes Iraq will commit in the future. So you should be happy.

Ypu mean the 100's of women and children you killed, well must say that you really deserved 9/11 regarding all those death Iraqi citizens since you guys came in Iraq.

BTW, I don't mind the dead rebells, they had it comming but all those death civillians..

Oh yes, the millions gassed and tortured by Saddam was much better. So glad you said that American deserved 9/11 because a few hundred Iraqis (if that's even true) died after the U.S. invaded Iraq.

Unfortunately for you, however, the Iraqis themselves don't quite agree with your grossly deficient analysis of the situation.

See for yourself. http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com./

I know how much it hurts that the Iraqis love America and hoped for the re-election of Bush. Maybe if certain European nations weren't too busy impoverishing the Iraqis and supporting Saddam, and cared more about them as a people, they'd love those Europeans just as much.

We are punishing Iraqi civilians for crimes Iraq will commit in the future. So you should be happy.

Hmmm, no you're mixing things up, since you guys deserved your number of death civilians (hell no other post 1945 countrykilled as much as civilians as yours), you try to be on the lead again, war is just like sport for ya.

Hope you'll never be in it kiddo, because in real time it is not like sitting in your chair, gaming.

I'went climbing a lot in the Caucasus (south of Dagestan) and saw enough there. But for you it is just a game that makes ya shout hollow words "support our boys" "terrorisist" (allways the others, never your own...)

Prove it.Easy to say so.. :rolleyes:


Let me see, you think that the most advanced military in the world, who trounced the Iraqi military in a matter of weeks, wouldn't have an exponentially higher civilian casualty count if they were actually gunning for civilians? You actually believe that? Or were you just trying to score some meaningless rhetorical points?

Oh yes, the millions gassed and tortured by Saddam was much better. So glad you said that American deserved 9/11 because a few hundred Iraqis (if that's even true) died after the U.S. invaded Iraq.
.

hundreds, come out of your cave...thousands is more accurate.
But yeah, human right watch and amnesty must be commies or so for ya.

Hmmm, no you're mixing things up, since you guys deserved your number of death civilians (hell no other post 1945 countrykilled as much as civilians as yours), you try to be on the lead again, war is just like sport for ya.

Hope you'll never be in it kiddo, because in real time it is not like sitting in your chair, gaming.

I'went climbing a lot in the Caucasus (south of Dagestan) and saw enough there. But for you it is just a game that makes ya shout hollow words "support our boys" "terrorisist" (allways the others, never your own...)

You said before, that the US deserved 9/11 for the invasion of Iraq.

I am saying that Iraqi deserves this for some unspecified future act. What is the difference?

Hmmm, no you're mixing things up, since you guys deserved your number of death civilians (hell no other post 1945 countrykilled as much as civilians as yours), you try to be on the lead again, war is just like sport for ya.

Hope you'll never be in it kiddo, because in real time it is not like sitting in your chair, gaming.

I'went climbing a lot in the Caucasus (south of Dagestan) and saw enough there. But for you it is just a game that makes ya shout hollow words "support our boys" "terrorisist" (allways the others, never your own...)

Like sport for us? You mean like the millions massacred under Milosevic (which, by the way, we HAD to take the lead given the gross deficiency of European military strength), or the millions massacred under Pol Pot, or the hundreds of thousands being massacred in Sudan right now?

Funny how whenever there is a problem everybody cries for the U.S. to get involved.

Maybe those European nations should start spending their own money to solve the problems they helped to create.

You actually believe that?

That is the problem with you CRWN, better look at the facts instead of believing in a certain right wing image of God or that kind of God's propaganda station Fox News.

We all know where your beliefs in the WMD's. :rolleyes: .ended, on the garbadge.

No, these would be the weapons the ENTIRE WORLD, including the all-wise and all-knowing EUropeans, believed he had. The weapons he refused to let inspectors verify the existence (or non-existence) of. Everyone thought he had them, he wouldn't let inspectors verify he didn't (why would he do THAT?), so we did our own inspection to find out once and for all.Well...everyone except the Chief UN Weapons Inspector...but why would we consider his opinion?

hundreds, come out of your cave...thousands is more accurate.
But yeah, human right watch and amnesty must be commies or so for ya.

OK, thousands. You still didn't answer the question, and you likely won't.

Was it better for European nations to impoverish the Iraqi people and support Saddam's oppression, or was it better for the U.S. to enforce U.N. Resolutions (after the 17th time the U.N. failed to do so) and subsequently free the Iraqi people?

Prove it.Easy to say so.. :rolleyes:Prove we do. Also easy to say/imply

Like sport for us? You mean like the millions massacred under Milosevic .

Wow, you are getting dumber by the minute, the millions massacred by Milosevic :rolleyes:

That is the problem with you CRWN, better look at the facts instead of believing in a certain right wing image of God or that kind of God's propaganda station Fox News.

We all know where your beliefs in the WMD's. :rolleyes: .ended, on the garbadge.

1) I don't watch fox news.
2) I'm not a Christian fundamentalist
3) I don't have a "belief" regarding the WMDs.

Saddam may very well have had no WMDs at all, but, if you recall, that wasn't the point. The point was he wasn't even letting the inspectors go where they wanted to go to even MAKE SURE he didn't have WMDs.

Either you support internationalism and ENFORCE your own Resolutions, or you get out of the way and let someone else do it for you.

You have no right to complain to about how its being done. You relinguished any moral authority to make any judgments. If you wanted it done better then you (presuming you are European -- if you aren't then put yourself in their shoes) should have stepped up to the plate and taken charge instead of shuffling your feet hoping to rip off the Iraqis for a few million more worth of oil vouchers.

Humidity is rising - Barometer's getting low
According to all sources, the arab street's the place to go
Cause tonight for the first time
Just about half-past ten
For the first time in history
It's gonna start raining Bombs.
It's Raining Bombs! Fallujah! - It's Raining Bombs! Amen!
I'm gonna go out to run and let those jihadis get
Absolutely soaking wet!
It's Raining Bombs! Fallujah!
It's Raining Bombs! Every Specimen!
Tall-boy, nuke, dark and lean
Rough and tough and strong and mean
God bless the marine corps, all single minded bastards too
Took off to iraq and did just what they had to do
Taught every pilot to rearrange the sky
So that each and every a-rab could learn exactly how to die
It's Raining Bombs! Fallujah! - It's Raining Bombs! Amen!
It's Raining Bombs! Fallujah!
It's Raining Bombs! Ame---------nnnn!
I feel stormy weather / Moving in about to begin
Hear the thunder / Don't you lose your head
Rip off the roof and give them lead
God bless the marine corps, all single minded bastards too
Took off to iraq and did just what they had to do
Taught every pilot to rearrange the sky
So that each and every a-rab could learn exactly how to die
It's Raining Bombs! Yeah!
Humidity is rising - Barometer's getting low
According to all sources, the arab street's the place to go
Cause tonight for the first time
Just about half-past ten
For the first time in history
It's gonna start raining Bombs.
It's Raining Bombs! Fallujah! - It's Raining Bombs! Amen!
It's Raining Bombs! Fallujah! - It's Raining Bombs! Amen!
It's Raining Bombs! Fallujah!

That is the problem with you CRWN, better look at the facts instead of believing in a certain right wing image of God or that kind of God's propaganda station Fox News.

We all know where your beliefs in the WMD's. :rolleyes: .ended, on the garbadge.

Blah ,blah, blah.

That's all flame. You don't really have a point other than you hate Americans do you?

Was it better for European nations to impoverish the Iraqi people?
Since when is the US part of Europe? :rolleyes:
and support Saddam's oppression?
Since when is old Saddam friend Rummy a European?Forgot all the armdeals with Saddam before 1990, from the begining of his leadership? :rolleyes: The poisson gas and his chemical weapons where soild by the US, it killed thousands of Kurds, and that was before 1990, did not hear you guys suppoprting European nations for a resolution and UN actions, no instead of that you continued selling, bunch of hypocrits.
The only thing in wich EU and US (their idea) are mutualy guilty is the support for the sanctions that killed 100.000's Iraqi's (Amnesty speaks about 400.000 children). BTW, it was the US that used it's veto when the world wanted to let medicine through (because of its multinationals that found that most (crap) medicines had to be delivered by them.

From there the oil for food shit.

, or was it better for the U.S. to enforce U.N. Resolutions (after the 17th time the U.N. failed to do so) and subsequently free the Iraqi people?

No it was not and yes, fine thing that Saddam is gone.
Period

OK, thousands. You still didn't answer the question, and you likely won't.

Was it better for European nations to impoverish the Iraqi people and support Saddam's oppression, or was it better for the U.S. to enforce U.N. Resolutions (after the 17th time the U.N. failed to do so) and subsequently free the Iraqi people?


Such black 'n white view. No European nation wanted Saddam in power, we just believe in one thing called the Rule Of Law. And that rule of Law, the UN law, states that you need reasons to attack a country. Your country attacked Iraq without a resolution stating that Iraq was not cooperating with the UN, was in fact developing WMD, so it could be attacked. And the UN said that there were no WMD in iraq, that the disarmament of the country was being done. So your country attacked another without a reason, just like hitler did with poland, Stalin with Finland, etc..

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7664.p2.doc.htm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/documents/blix_030307.html

Funny thing you have to bring the UN, when you violate its own law. That's like, murdering someone and then saying it was in the name of justice.


Saddam may very well have had no WMDs at all, but, if you recall, that wasn't the point. The point was he wasn't even letting the inspectors go where they wanted to go to even MAKE SURE he didn't have WMDs.

This isnt true, read the reports. Hell, think like this: Saddam knew that the US was after him. He had no WMD (as we all know now). What would he loose in telling the truth?

That is absolutely true. Unfortunately, we keep killing them by accident. We call it "collateral damage". But they are dead innocent civilians, what ever we choose to call it.

War is killing. People are going to die. And war is, for all the planning that goes in to it, incredibly disorganized. Innocents are going to die.

Which is why war must ALWAYS be the last resort.

Informationally - I'm currently in my 29th year of service in the United States Military.

I totally agree with you. My dad is also in the military and will be going back over there next month. He has served in the military now for over thirty years.

Blah ,blah, blah.

That's all flame. You don't really have a point other than you hate Americans do you?

Indead all you can say is blahblahblah, you hate americans when people critisize your government.

That CRWN dogma of a organised worldwide conspiracy against you is something mostly seen by mental patients :rolleyes:

Humidity is rising - Barometer's getting low
According to all sources, the arab street's the place to go
Cause tonight for the first time
Just about half-past ten

...
..
.
It's gonna start raining Bombs.
It's Raining Bombs! Fallujah! - It's Raining Bombs! Amen!
It's Raining Bombs! Fallujah! - It's Raining Bombs! Amen!
It's Raining Bombs! Fallujah!

:D wrote the parody yourself? That is creative :)

Wow, you are getting dumber by the minute, the millions massacred by Milosevic :rolleyes:

That's right. My mistake. Thousands slaughtered, millions displaced.

Nevertheless, your whole attitude underscores the fact that you really don't care about human suffering or freedom and self-determination. Your only concern, apparently, is to be able to get as rich as possible as quickly as possible off the misery.

Blah ,blah, blah.

That's all flame.

No it's not:

flaming

An online argument that becomes nasty or derisive, where insulting a party to the discussion takes precedence over the objective merits of one side or another

Mrbasilfawlty is accusing you of only getting your views from one source, namely FOX. If he was calling you names at the time, it would be flaming. You have every right to denounce his view of you - without flaming of course.

There are Insurgents on Fallujah. Either they are Iraqui or foreigners

If they are Iraqui, tough, but they have the right to defend their homes from foreign invaders, good luck to THEM.

Aye. I agree wholeheartily.

Nobody does but why should it be mentioned? Those are insurgents (barbars), US should not behave like them.(Intentionally targetting civilians, Israel style).

Isreal style?

Guess you're ignoring the tactic of the islamofascist terrorist?

School bombings?

Crowded bus bombing?

When Isreal has been responding to terrorists as of late they have been knocking down the homes of these terrorists as a reprisal. Assasinating
the leaders of Hamas etc. Yes there is minor civilian collateral damage
but the civilians themselves have not been targeted. If Isreal wanted to level the Gaza, believe me, they could do it in very short order. Guerilla war does have it's downside, fighting behind women and children as those cowards in Fallujah and the Gaza for that matter do will cost their families their lives as well.

And you are anti-american!



Well not like we gave them enought time to get the hell out of dodge. We did that you know. They had alot of time to flee.


Hmm dude everywone outside the us. hates the us.
so everywone is anti-american.
face it you are not the nicest guys around.

No it's not:



Mrbasilfawlty is accusing you of only getting your views from one source, namely FOX. If he was calling you names at the time, it would be flaming. You have every right to denounce his view of you - without flaming of course.

I didn't post that, DeaconDave did. Please edit your post to show the correct citation.

And you are anti-american!
And how is that a bad thing?

When Isreal has been responding to terrorists as of late they have been knocking down the homes of these terrorists as a reprisal. Assasinating the leaders of Hamas etc. Yes there is minor civilian collateral damage but the civilians themselves have not been targeted.
Whenever a civilian is killed or there is major collateral damage (destruction of a building, for example), it doesn't matter if they were 'targeted'. It doesn't matter who was 'right' or what the intentions were. It doesn't matter if it's just retaliation against a known terrorist stronghold.

All that the civilians, your average Achmed, hears is "The Zionist Crusaders killed seven more civilians". Maybe one was his wife. Now Achmed's out there with his AK.

War is indiscriminate, self-sustaining violence. It can only get worse. Now that we're there, our only options are to 1) Stay forever or 2) Leave Iraq in shambles. The mistake, you see, was going in the first place.

This attack is the best thing ever to happen. Well, not the best, but good.
With the city surrounded, ther is no way for insurgents to escape. Terrorists live off of this propaganda that we can't hit them hard. We can't hit them hard because they keep running. But when they can't get out, recruitment rates are gonna drop when we start loading insurgent bodies onto trucks. Besides, officials say that insurgents may (MAY) be forcing docors in the hospitals to over state the effects of the invasion. With the docors free, what appears to be terrible casualties may (MAY) become a lot less terrible.

With the city surrounded, ther is no way for insurgents to escape.
unless they just dress like civilians. Or are we planning on killing every living thing in the city?

Terrorists live off of this propaganda that we can't hit them hard.
Terrorists live off the fact that we HAVE been hitting them hard, along with every innocent civilian unlucky enough to be in the vicinity.

recruitment rates are gonna drop when we start loading insurgent bodies onto trucks.
Recruitment rates are going to soar when we kill hundreds of innocents and destroy wide swaths of the city. Al-Jazeera's main story Tuesday will be "Famous Mosque bombed in Fallujah!" and then that's all that matters to the average Arab.

Recruitment rates are going to soar when Ali is unemployed and the only people hiring are the Army and the Insurgents, and he wouldn't dare stain himself by associating with the infidel zionist crusader pig-dogs.

All that the civilians, your average Achmed, hears is "The Zionist Crusaders killed seven more civilians". Maybe one was his wife. Now Achmed's out there with his AK.

I understand the point your making. However, should that be reason to break camp and leave? Unfortunatly, there can be no negotitions with zealots such as these. Unfortunatly it seems they understand one thing, brute force.

Ask yourselves one thing,

What will the insurgents (I call them terrorists) do if they achieve victory?

I believe they will force the Iraqi people into a form of Islamic slavery. MHO

I say the Iraqi people and the world for that matter deserve better....

Democracy :p

It isn't perfect but think of the alternative.

I understand the point your making. However, should that be reason to break camp and leave? Unfortunatly, there can be no negotitions with zealots such as these. Unfortunatly it seems they understand one thing, brute force.
When did we ever try anything else? Sure, they started the violence (though it could be said that we did by invading, the insurgents started the insurgency), but why must we escalate it?

They want simple things: Us out. Soverignty. Self-determination. Safety. Commerce. The same as anyone.

So here is what we should do:
1) We deliniate exactly what cities or sections of those cities are in insurgent hands.
2) We stay out of those sections.
3) We contact the rebel leaders and ask for their terms.
4) No matter what their terms are (unless they're really easy), we ask them to please stop being so impolite (the sarcasm is to loosen the tension).
5) Allow normal commerce and civilian traffic in and out of rebel-held areas. Police, but do not militarily occupy, the rest of the country: Don't go looking for them, but crack down on anything really obvious (like someone shooting at soldiers). There will be attacks, there will be suicide bombs, it will go on, but we MUST NOT retaliate in kind. Once we go looking for insurgents and treating them like deaf mutes (which is our current policy), we are COMPLETELY HOSED.
6) Then just wait for elections and leave.
If we stop bombing/shooting/patrolling, then the insurgents will get bored. Let 'em talk big, move around, take potshots (met with instant retaliation), but don't fight back. It takes two sides for a war.


What will the insurgents (I call them terrorists) do if they achieve victory?
I believe they will force the Iraqi people into a form of Islamic slavery. MHO
Meh, probably not. Iraq's too industrialized. Anyway, if we follow my simple 6-step plan (which will never happen because it's 'wussy'), we won't have to worry about it.

I say the Iraqi people and the world for that matter deserve better....
Democracy :p
Now that we're there, we'd better straighten things out. And the government we pick for them might as well be democracy.
The problem is still, though, that Iraq isn't Missouri. Democracy doesn't 'catch on' in the Middle East like it does here. More important than Democracy is self-determination.

When I heard this on the radio this morning there was a very strong speech saying "there will be no withdrawal". I know that is what you'd like to plan for with a military assault, but if you refuse to acknowledge retreat as an option you end up with a lot of dead soldiers if it all goes to hell. This is a stubborn , pig-headed thing to say, this is how we ended up with the battle at the Nek.

I'm pleased that this is happening. Fallujah has been nothing but trouble from the start, and the insurgents holding it need to be cleaned outta there, and the refugees repatriated. The US military and some Iraqi officials estimate that up to 80% of Fallujah's civilians fled after the invasion. We can't have a city that unsafe, and abandonned to insurgents.
As for the insurgency, even if this doesn't weaken them, it should disorganize them for a while. There's a chance that the insurgents may recover from the Fallujah blow, but I don't think that the insurgency enjoys the broad support among the populace, like many successful insurgencies have.

but I don't think that the insurgency enjoys the broad support among the populace
Neither do the American agressors.

Neither do the American agressors.
That makes it all the better for the US. With broad international support, a superiorly manned and armed army, and with support troops flowing in from the interim Iraqi government, this fight seems a bit lopsided. When we use our strengths, like we are now, we use them to devastating advantage.

That makes it all the better for the US. With broad international support, a superiorly manned and armed army, and with support troops flowing in from the interim Iraqi government, this fight seems a bit lopsided. When we use our strengths, like we are now, we use them to devastating advantage.
To which broad international support for your war of agression are you referring to? There is no such support for the evil empire.

To which broad international support for you war of agression are you referring to?
Well there is no nation on the planet that backs the insurgents, with the possible exception of Syria. The United States enjoys support from the UK, and quite a few nations. Many more are involved in other operations. The insurgency can't do that, and with the central command structure of al-Qaeda all but gone, cells cannot safely cooperate, anymore.

Well there is no nation on the planet that backs the insurgents, with the possible exception of Syria. The United States enjoys support from the UK, and quite a few nations. Many more are involved in other operations. The insurgency can't do that, and with the central command structure of al-Qaeda all but gone, cells cannot safely cooperate, anymore.
You don´t realy grasp the concept of cells do you? Cells are meant to operate indipendintly. They have no command structure. For the sole purpose that they can not be taken out by US asassins.

All I can say is, its about time we do something about this joint.

Go get'em boys and girls.
Yup, it is time to go and kill some more innocent men, women, and children. Yeeehaw!! :eek:

Yup, it is time to go and kill some more innocent men, women, and children. Yeeehaw!! :eek:
You should know by now that civilians killed by Americans are just collatoral damage. Only Americans are innocent by definition.

I think they'd do better 'defending' their homes if they didn't fight. Fighting attracts bombs, and bombs are not too good for houses.
So if your country was being attacked, you would cower in your house and not fight back? If it was my country, I would fight with every ounce of my being and if I died in the process, at least I would die defending MY FREEDOM, and not someone else's definition of "freedom".

You should know by now that civilians killed by Americans are just collatoral damage. Only Americans are innocent by definition.
Oh I am aware of the ideology, or should I say idiot-ology?

I wonder if some of these people look at their families and think of them in terms of "collateral"? Sad. :(

You should know by now that civilians killed by Americans are just collatoral damage. Only Americans are innocent by definition.

Look out Von Witzleben,telling the truth like you will make them (CRWN)call ya a terrorist and ban you with via the US MODS.

Most of them (CRWN)are the same people that enjoy Harris the butcher and Dresden (the "military" target). :rolleyes:

Well there is no nation on the planet that backs the insurgents, with the possible exception of Syria. The United States enjoys support from the UK, and quite a few nations. Many more are involved in other operations. The insurgency can't do that, and with the central command structure of al-Qaeda all but gone, cells cannot safely cooperate, anymore.
You don't think "any nations on the planet" support the insurgents? Think again?

Look out Von Witzleben,telling the truth like you will make them call ya a terrorist and ban you with via the US MODS.

Most of them are the same people enjoy Harris the butcher and Dresden (the "military" target). :rolleyes:
Yeah, I've been around long enough to know that. It doesn't frighten me anymore. Not that it ever did.
PS: Your name makes me hungry. :D

You don't think "any nations on the planet" support the insurgents? Think again?
Anthrus is your run of the mill ultra right wing extremist. Who thinks America should rule the world, and that the world actually wants to be ruled by them, and is more then happy to let his grandparents starve if they haven't enough money for their retirement.

Anthrus is your run of the mill ultra right wing extremist. Who thinks America should rule the world, and that the world actually wants to be ruled by them, and is more then happy to let his grandparents starve if they haven't enough money for their retirement.
If I am not mistaken, Anthrus is also Cornlieu? Yeah and the argument is always the same....the US can do no wrong. Well take a look around and one might actually note that the world is not amused?

If I am not mistaken, Anthrus is also Cornlieu?
I don't know who Cornlieu is. But he's also Purly Euclit.
Yeah and the argument is always the same....the US can do no wrong. Well take a look around and one might actually note that the world is not amused?
Aaaahh....but the world owes them. They saved France!!!!!! :rolleyes: Give them a biscuit.

I don't know who Cornlieu is. But he's also Purly Euclit.
Well I haven't seen Purly for awhile so maybe that is more accurate.

Aaaahh....but the world owes them. They saved France!!!!!! :rolleyes: Give them a biscuit.
Yeah, I kinda laugh at that when I see it posted here. :eek:

Yeah, I kinda laugh at that when I see it posted here. :eek:
Laugh????????? :eek: You are in bed with Osama!!!! Don't you know Americans and their Messiah Mickey Mouse (Tripple M, for the insiders)are the best thing since sliced bread? Which I'm sure was invented by an American.

Laugh????????? :eek: You are in bed with Osama!!!! Don't you know Americans and their Messiah Mickey Mouse (Tripple M, for the insiders)are the best thing since sliced bread? Which I'm sure was invented by an American.
Dear Von Witlessben: Please read all my posts in this thread. Then consider the fact that I'm an American. And consider the fact that I'm about fed up with your tirade against America wherein you place the blame for about everything wrong in the entire world squarely on our doorstep - including sliced bread.

If the United States were completely isolated, the world would screw itself up just as badly, if not worse. Take a look at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. The US was in a fairly deep isolationist mode, and the rest of the world managed to get itself into two world wars. And, in that same timeframe, the rest of the world managed to put the finishing touches on just about every single problem/issue that have resulted in the regional conflicts we have today - including the creation of the state of Iraq by drawing lines on a map and declaring that a country.

The United States is far from perfect - the fact that we just re-elected a clown as president, and the fact that our culture/society can't seem to get a clear grasp on the fact that there are other, valid, viable cultures and societies in the world, are just two examples.

On the other hand, The United States is NOT the great satan/bogeyman either.

If we want to get into a dialogue on what country/countries have screwed up the world the most, frankly, while the US has a big list, it's one of the shortest ones in the world - if only because we've been around for a much shorter time.

So, let's stick to the issue at hand and the facts, and try to avoid all the hyperbole, and the sabre-rattling (which, for a "peace-nik", you seem to be pretty good at).

If the United States were completely isolated, the world would screw itself up just as badly, if not worse. Take a look at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. The US was in a fairly deep isolationist mode, and the rest of the world managed to get itself into two world wars. And, in that same timeframe, the rest of the world managed to put the finishing touches on just about every single problem/issue that have resulted in the regional conflicts we have today - including the creation of the state of Iraq by drawing lines on a map and declaring that a country.

The United States is far from perfect - the fact that we just re-elected a clown as president, and the fact that our culture/society can't seem to get a clear grasp on the fact that there are other, valid, viable cultures and societies in the world, are just two examples.

On the other hand, The United States is NOT the great satan/bogeyman either.

If we want to get into a dialogue on what country/countries have screwed up the world the most, frankly, while the US has a big list, it's one of the shortest ones in the world - if only because we've been around for a much shorter time.

So, let's stick to the issue at hand and the facts, and try to avoid all the hyperbole, and the sabre-rattling (which, for a "peace-nik", you seem to be pretty good at).
Dear Snob Nose. Claiming that the world was in turmoil because of the absence of it's overlords is not a way to gain much support for the empire of darkness. Neither is trying to put blame for your (US) screw ups in Iraq on the creation of Iraq as a country. As if that has anything to do with Saddam or the clowns invasion and make believe WMD's. The Soviets and Americans competition for spheres of influence and constant interference in 3rd world nations, throughout the cold war, is the cause of todays problems. Well, for the most part anyway. Now that the Soviet Union has fallen apart former Communist factions fall from one extreme into another. Be it ultra nationalism or religiouse extremism. And I'm not a complete peace nik. I'm just not a Kybernetian US groopy.

Dear Snob Nose. Claiming that the world was in turmoil because of the absence of it's overlords is not a way to gain much support for the empire of darkness. Neither is trying to put blame for your (US) screw ups in Iraq on the creation of Iraq as a country. As if that has anything to do with Saddam or the clowns invasion and make believe WMD's. The Soviets and Americans competition for spheres of influence and constant interference in 3rd world nations, throughout the cold war, is the cause of todays problems. Well, for the most part anyway. Now that the Soviet Union has fallen apart former Communist factions fall from one extreme into another. Be it ultra nationalism or religiouse extremism. And I'm not a complete peace nik. I'm just not a Kybernetian US groopy.Dear Von: Nice way you have of twisting someone else's words to a meaning you prefer.

1. I was/am not claiming the world was in turmoil due to absence of "it's overlords". Simply stating world without US doesn't do better than world with US - or vice versa. We are all human, and we all continue to make human mistakes. Huge ones.

Please take your words out of my mouth - it's unsanitary.

2. Not interested in support for the empire of darkness. Could use some support for the United States, but you are on your own.

3. Not blaming the US screw-ups in Iraq on the previous incumbent idiots in the area's screw-ups. Just pointing out how we (collective "we" - the human race) manage to pile one screw up on top of another. And that there is no nation out there that is "guiltless"

4. The Soviet/US Cold War did create a hell of a mess. They stacked it up on top of the messes created by Eurpoean Colonialism, and all the screw ups that came before that.

yeah, our invasion of Iraq in 'pre-emptive self defense' is clear-cut imperialism.

yeah, our invasion of Iraq in 'pre-emptive self defense' is clear-cut imperialism.
At least your vision isn't obscured by the posts of the Bush apologists. :cool:

yeah, our invasion of Iraq in 'pre-emptive self defense' is clear-cut imperialism.Has anyone heard of "Leibensraum" (probably spelled wrong)?

Has anyone heard of "Leibensraum" (probably spelled wrong)?


Lebensraum?

Yes.

That makes it all the better for the US. With broad international support, a superiorly manned and armed army, and with support troops flowing in from the interim Iraqi government, this fight seems a bit lopsided. When we use our strengths, like we are now, we use them to devastating advantage.
Unfortunately that is America's problem.Their strengths are indeed great.So how does the enemy fight back.Why terrorism of course.Thus the cycle continues.