NationStates Jolt Archive

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/041107/481/bag10211070833

Nasty, isn't it? :(

Oh, and it seems that the rate of civilian deaths since the US-led occupation of Iraq is greater than under Saddam.

Perhaps the insurgents should stop shooting at US troops. I love how they place all the blame on America.

so what! when the insurgents use people as human shields casualties are gonna happen.

war is hell, just ignore it and carry on eating your twinkies

Well, the insurgents didn't exist before the US troops were there. When a country is illegally invaded, don't expect a legal response.

so what! when the insurgents use people as human shields casualties are gonna happen.

war is hell, just ignore it and carry on eating your twinkies

And are you a believer of liberating the people of Iraq? One minute you're saying "we're liberating them!" and the next you show such callous disregard for others.

What if someone just said "Ahhh 9/11, who cares? War is Hell." That's just as bad.

http://www.superlaugh.com/fun/soldier.jpg

not disregard, just acceptance.

9/11 is over, its more important to think of the next 9/11 scenario

not disregard, just acceptance.

9/11 is over, its more important to think of the next 9/11 scenario

So you just accept what the 9/11 terrorists did and forget about it? You're letting people die, from US troops shooting at insurgents - that wouldn't be around had Iraq not been invaded. Is the blood of an Iraqi worth less than the blood of an American?

---

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

so what all the pacifists franks think now on america, after we see france do the same at africa.
(sarcasm)but sure, this is something different. now they liberate them from something, not like evil USA at Iraq(end of sarcasm)

Well, the insurgents didn't exist before the US troops were there. When a country is illegally invaded, don't expect a legal response.

But the troops are there now, and the insurgents are not going to accomplish anything besides pointless deaths...the civilians' blood is on their hands as well.

http://www.superlaugh.com/fun/soldier.jpg

haha...it's all in the eye of the beholder

When insurgents chose to fight among civilians...this is what happens. It is their fault. I'm sure the American army, given the choice, would rather fight in an open field/forest/desert/etc. than in the cities, especially since they would destroy the insurgents in a war of that fashion. The insurgents know that if they fight among the houses of their families, the amount of "smackdown" US and Coalition forces can use will be limited, and therefore, that's where the insurgents hide in their coward's war.

But the troops are there now, and the insurgents are not going to accomplish anything besides pointless deaths...the civilians' blood is on their hands as well.

That's a point - but just recklessly invading was a mistake to begin with. The US would do good by pulling out of Iraq and handing it over to the UN.

haha...it's all in the eye of the beholder

When insurgents chose to fight among civilians...this is what happens. It is their fault. I'm sure the American army, given the choice, would rather fight in an open field/forest/desert/etc. than in the cities, especially since they would destroy the insurgents in a war of that fashion. The insurgents know that if they fight among the houses of their families, the amount of "smackdown" US and Coalition forces can use will be limited, and therefore, that's where the insurgents hide in their coward's war.

More cowardly than say, hiding in a plane and dropping bombs?

http://www.eriposte.com/war_peace/iraq/post_war/911/iraq_soldier_kiss2.jpg http://www.eriposte.com/war_peace/iraq/post_war/911/iraq_soldier_flower.jpg

Well, the insurgents didn't exist before the US troops were there. When a country is illegally invaded, don't expect a legal response.
Since when was war legal? I understand that there are certain conventions most countries follow, I'm not aware of any laws. Besides, even if there are certain laws for invasions and wars and such, they're pretty much useless if you ask me. Honestly, what is there to stop a another country from invading and going to war with another?

Since when was war legal? I understand that there are certain conventions most countries follow, I'm not aware of any laws. Besides, even if there are certain laws for invasions and wars and such, they're pretty much useless if you ask me. Honestly, what is there to stop a another country from invading and going to war with another?

A war can be "legal", and International Law dictates what is legal and what isn't. However, if a country is strong and influential enough (for example, the US) then it can go to war with few repurcussions.

so what! when the insurgents use people as human shields casualties are gonna happen.

war is hell, just ignore it and carry on eating your twinkies

"Insurgents", you mean freedomfighters (not those terrorists of Zarkawi but the Suni and Shihites) that have the support of 90% of the Iraqi people. while the US puppet government is seen by 85% as a marionet regime.

That's a point - but just recklessly invading was a mistake to begin with. The US would do good by pulling out of Iraq and handing it over to the UN.
Do you honestly think the UN would take over for the US after all the hard feelings between the US and the other UN nations over Iraq? I doubt it, but maybe its possible.

Still either way you're looking at troops still being over there over quite some time to come. At least a few years if you ask me, considering all the disorder over there.

Sukafitz:

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/photos/war/grief01.jpg
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/photos/war/dead02.jpg
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/photos/war/dead04.jpg

"Insurgents", you mean freedomfighters (not those terrorists of Zarkawi but the Suni and Shihites) that have the support of 90% of the Iraqi people. while the US puppet government is seen by 85% as a marionet regime.

Apparantly the Sunni and Shi'a are beginning to work together in areas; it's beginning to be a popular resistance. And I'm not surprised, that CIA lackey Allawi has declared martial law. Some "freedom", eh?

More cowardly than say, hiding in a plane and dropping bombs?

Honestly, "commie-pinko scum," I hope that was a joke. If it is, forgive the following. If not...

If I am in a plane dropping bombs, I am attacking something by going into enemy airspace and either destroying a site or clearing the way for ground troops. I am protected, or shielded, by metal, a nice non-living material that for all intents and purposes could be considered "working for my side of the war," even though we all know that metal is non-living." This is considered by military men a strong tactic.

If I am in my neighbor's house, using his wife or his child as a hostage and a shield to stop bullets from reaching my body as I send others with bombs strapped on their backs towards the opposition, I am a coward. I am not putting my life on the line for my cause, in this case my "holy cause", but rather the lives of innocents who may or may not have the same feelings and beliefs that I do. What is the contrast between non-living and "sided" metal and living and neutral civilians? If you cannot answer that...you need a morality check and swift kick in the ass.

Begging your pardon (and I don't want to start a flame war here), but I am in Iraq at the moment, not all that far from Fallujah, though far enough away that I am out of danger.

In the picture we have been directed to observe, would you care to hazzard a guess as to the employer of the Doctor treating the child?

If I may be so bold as to provide a hint, his rank is most likely MAJ or above.

Saddam and his sons were not well known for providing medical treatment for their victims.

You're in Iraq and playing Nationstates? :D

Perhaps the insurgents should stop shooting at US troops. I love how they place all the blame on America.

I found it interesting that you removed the last bit, your second statement about power best being 'taken'.

You're in Iraq and playing Nationstates? :D
Why are you happy about that?

Hmmmm ...

Insurgent ...

1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

I'm thinking it's a good thing to be an Insurgent.

Amazing how people can spin a word to try to make it a bad thing.

Hey! Now that I think about it .... I am an insurgent!

Schweet.

Why are you happy about that?

I just had this image in my head of a soldier sitting behind a PC while a battle rages behind him.

I just had this image in my head of a soldier sitting behind a PC while a battle rages behind him.
And that's funny somehow? :confused:

You're in Iraq and playing Nationstates? :D

I find it an effective means of getting my head out of my work for brief periods.

Besides, you meet the most interesting people here. ;)

That's a point - but just recklessly invading was a mistake to begin with. The US would do good by pulling out of Iraq and handing it over to the UN.

Ah, yes. The people who've handled Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan and the former Yugoslavia so well.

Give me a break.

Honestly, "commie-pinko scum," I hope that was a joke. If it is, forgive the following. If not...

If I am in a plane dropping bombs, I am attacking something by going into enemy airspace and either destroying a site or clearing the way for ground troops. I am protected, or shielded, by metal, a nice non-living material that for all intents and purposes could be considered "working for my side of the war," even though we all know that metal is non-living." This is considered by military men a strong tactic.

If I am in my neighbor's house, using his wife or his child as a hostage and a shield to stop bullets from reaching my body as I send others with bombs strapped on their backs towards the opposition, I am a coward. I am not putting my life on the line for my cause, in this case my "holy cause", but rather the lives of innocents who may or may not have the same feelings and beliefs that I do. What is the contrast between non-living and "sided" metal and living and neutral civilians? If you cannot answer that...you need a morality check and swift kick in the ass.

It was tongue-in-cheek, but I still don't think it's particularly "brave" to sit in a plane safely, bombing the hell out of people without defense - while you may say that they use "human shields", a bomb dropped kills just as many people indisciminately. And using human shields isn't "cowardly", its just seriously fucked up. What would drive people to using them if they were? And what makes you think that these AREN'T PEOPLE who genuinely have a right to resist an illegal occupation?

I find it an effective means of getting my head out of my work for brief periods.

Besides, you meet the most interesting people here. ;)

Charmed *takes off his hat*

I just had this image in my head of a soldier sitting behind a PC while a battle rages behind him.

Clarification: I'm not a soldier. I am a civillian, hired by the American military, to keep computer systems running so that they can concentrate on "other matters".

Hmmmm ...

Insurgent ...

1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

I'm thinking it's a good thing to be an Insurgent.

Amazing how people can spin a word to try to make it a bad thing.

Hey! Now that I think about it .... I am an insurgent!

Schweet.

Hmm...what rebellion or revolt are you taking place in Keruvalia? Are you listening to punk music? Wearing patches on your hoody that say "not my president"? Writing anarchy symbols on your school notebook? Keruvalia, tell me frankly, are you against the "man" or the "establishment"?

Perhaps the insurgents should stop shooting at US troops. I love how they place all the blame on America.

Yes ... it's essential we never place blame with the invaders.

Ah, yes. The people who've handled Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan and the former Yugoslavia so well.

Give me a break.
You forgot Korea.

*US invades Iraq*

*Iraq puts up resistance*

*US detroys the resistance and a whole lot of other people, too*

US: "Now look you made me do!"

add to list Vietnam, nicuragua, etc, etc

It was tongue-in-cheek, but I still don't think it's particularly "brave" to sit in a plane safely, bombing the hell out of people without defense - while you may say that they use "human shields", a bomb dropped kills just as many people indisciminately. And using human shields isn't "cowardly", its just seriously fucked up. What would drive people to using them if they were? And what makes you think that these AREN'T PEOPLE who genuinely have a right to resist an illegal occupation?

Is osama bin laden a person? Yeah...he is. Is timothy mcveigh or whoever a person? Yep. Are the Columbine shooters people. Well they were. Being a "person" doesn't automatically give you a right to life. If you have done something, such as being a saddam flunky or say...a nazi soldier working in a camp...then your right to life is tainted, if not non-existant.

Clarification: I'm not a soldier. I am a civillian, hired by the American military, to keep computer systems running so that they can concentrate on "other matters".
Still I think he is sick to find that remotely funny. People are getting seriously injured, and some are even dying. Yet, he finds it amusing. That's just sick. Just my two cents (And no I'm not trying to start anything).

Still I think he is sick to find that remotely funny. People are getting seriously injured, and some are even dying. Yet, he finds it amusing. That's just sick. Just my two cents (And no I'm not trying to start anything).

Sense of humour. Get one. And telling me I'm sick while yourself supporting a war is a bit...y'know...odd?

Either way, I wasn't finding humour in the death and dying, was a - wait for it - CONTRAST OF IMAGES. Over the top. Almost comical.

Black comedy.

Geddit?

You forgot Korea.

I left Korea out of it, since it only had UN sanction because the USSR stormed out and therefore didn't get to vote on it. :)

Is osama bin laden a person? Yeah...he is. Is timothy mcveigh or whoever a person? Yep. Are the Columbine shooters people. Well they were. Being a "person" doesn't automatically give you a right to life. If you have done something, such as being a saddam flunky or say...a nazi soldier working in a camp...then your right to life is tainted, if not non-existant.

That takes us to the "does eveyone have the right to life" debate. But you forget that PLENTY of others are dying not just those who are "tainted". And there is no judge or jury here, no one can judge in this situation. Plenty of innocents are dying.

It's only one man's opinion, but let me throw it out anyway.

<rant>

I have seen the shooting, and the bombing, and the pain that is going on here. I have also see the prisons and the torture facilities that were here for years before the Coalition arrived. I have seen people lined up outside of Abu Ghraib for a kilometer or more, not to see anyone that was there, but to see if they could get information on a friend or relative that was thrown in there a decade ago and was never heard from again.

I have seen the stuff that doesn't get talked about on the news. If you were the editor of the local newspaper in Burgsvilleburough, Idaho, and you had to choose between the story about a new school that was built in Iraq, or a hospital that was restored in Baghdad after 15 years of neglect, or the latest IED in the Green Zone, which would you run?

There is more good being done here that most people know about. The Iraqi people that I have had any contact with are hopeful for the future for the first time in their lives, or so they say.

</rant>

But that's just my opinion.

add to list Vietnam, nicuragua, etc, etc

VietNam is a different story. Kennedy started to send troops in addition to the material aid we'd been sending the French in order to keep France in NATO. From there, the slippery slope was ensured. As such, there was no "invasion" per se, but rather a standing refusal to allow the 1945 vote for Ho to stand as legitimate.

Hmm...what rebellion or revolt are you taking place in Keruvalia? Are you listening to punk music? Wearing patches on your hoody that say "not my president"? Writing anarchy symbols on your school notebook? Keruvalia, tell me frankly, are you against the "man" or the "establishment"?

Fortunately, I live in a country where rebellion can be peacefully acheived. Nothing in the defintion of insurgent says anything about "taking up arms". I do listen to punk music sometimes, yes, but I don't think I've ever owned a hoody.

Anyway, you asked how I rebel:

1] I do not use my GI Bill or my VA benefits because I believe the war in which I participated was a sham against the American people. (Operation Desert Storm)

2] I actively spent a lot of time and money campaigning for candidates in this most recent election who were most outspoken against the current war. Some of them won, some of them didn't.

3] I am openly a Muslim sympathizer and regularly donate to Islamic charities. (I'm sure this alone has me on some watch lists somewhere, but I don't care)

4] Through my church, I have openly offered sanctuary to any Al Qaeda members who may be still in the United States. I will keep that offer open until the United States decides to recognize the Geneva Convention and the current administration stops forming its own interpretation of Article II of the Constitution.

Shall I continue?

Sense of humour. Get one. And telling me I'm sick while yourself supporting a war is a bit...y'know...odd?

Either way, I wasn't finding humour in the death and dying, was a - wait for it - CONTRAST OF IMAGES. Over the top. Almost comical.

Black comedy.

Geddit?
I still don't find it funny. And yes I got a sense of humor. It's a bit odd and twist, but apparently not like that.

And who said I supported the war? I never stated that explicitly. I was just trying to provide some constructive critism and maybe become more informed in the process.

That takes us to the "does eveyone have the right to life" debate. But you forget that PLENTY of others are dying not just those who are "tainted". And there is no judge or jury here, no one can judge in this situation. Plenty of innocents are dying.

my point, that has been already made in a previous post, was that it is the fault of the insurgents that so many of their civilians are dying. it is where they chose to fight their "freedom fight" or whatever you called it.

It's only one man's opinion, but let me throw it out anyway.

rant

I have seen the shooting, and the bombing, and the pain that is going on here. I have also see the prisons and the torture facilities that were here for years before the Coalition arrived. I have seen people lined up outside of Abu Ghraib for a kilometer or more, not to see anyone that was there, but to see if they could get information on a friend or relative that was thrown in there a decade ago and was never heard from again.

I have seen the stuff that doesn't get talked about on the news. If you were the editor of the local newspaper in Burgsvilleburough, Idaho, and you had to choose between the story about a new school that was built in Iraq, or a hospital that was restored in Baghdad after 15 years of neglect, or the latest IED in the Green Zone, which would you run?

There is more good being done here that most people know about. The Iraqi people that I have had any contact with are hopeful for the future for the first time in their lives, or so they say.
/rant

But that's just my opinion.

But instead of invading Iraq, why did the US leave the revolt against Saddam to die in 1991 after promising to support them? And the Kurds? (Henry Kissinger: "Foreign policy should not be confused with missionary work" or words to that effect)

My family are also living in Iraq (Baghdad and Karbala), and they're seeing the violence. Many of my family have also suffered under Saddam's regime, too - but violence is violence, death is death. Saddam told the people that he was defending them from western imperialism, the US is telling them they're liberating them. Go figure.

I still don't find it funny. And yes I got a sense of humor. It's a bit odd and twist, but apparently not like that.

And who said I supported the war? I never stated that explicitly. I was just trying to provide some constructive critism and maybe become more informed in the process.

Apologies for the assumption that you supported the war, and sorry that you didn't find it funny :P

Ah, yes. The people who've handled Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan and the former Yugoslavia so well.

Give me a break.

And the ones that handled the peace processes of Angola, Mozambique, East timor, Kosovo..

Fortunately, I live in a country where rebellion can be peacefully acheived. Nothing in the defintion of insurgent says anything about "taking up arms". I do listen to punk music sometimes, yes, but I don't think I've ever owned a hoody.

Anyway, you asked how I rebel:

1] I do not use my GI Bill or my VA benefits because I believe the war in which I participated was a sham against the American people. (Operation Desert Storm)

2] I actively spent a lot of time and money campaigning for candidates in this most recent election who were most outspoken against the current war. Some of them won, some of them didn't.

3] I am openly a Muslim sympathizer and regularly donate to Islamic charities. (I'm sure this alone has me on some watch lists somewhere, but I don't care)

4] Through my church, I have openly offered sanctuary to any Al Qaeda members who may be still in the United States. I will keep that offer open until the United States decides to recognize the Geneva Convention and the current administration stops forming its own interpretation of Article II of the Constitution.

Shall I continue?

No need. You seem to be worse off than a disillusional american teen. 1-3 are your right and your choice. Nothing I can or should say about that. #4 is a insult to every American and I hope to god you're on some list for that, traitor.

my point, that has been already made in a previous post, was that it is the fault of the insurgents that so many of their civilians are dying. it is where they chose to fight their "freedom fight" or whatever you called it.

Read my previous post then - "LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!"

No need. You seem to be worse off than a disillusional american teen. 1-3 are your right and your choice. Nothing I can or should say about that. #4 is a insult to every American and I hope to god you're on some list for that, traitor.

And America's treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo is an insult to the rest of the world. And people are gagging to put G W in front of a war crimes tribunal.

No need. You seem to be worse off than a disillusional american teen. 1-3 are your right and your choice. Nothing I can or should say about that. #4 is a insult to every American and I hope to god you're on some list for that, traitor.


Holding complete disregard for Article II of the US Constitution makes the entire current administration traitors. They all swore an oath to defend the Constitution and they are abandoning that oath.

I swore an oath to defend the Consitution from all enemies - foreign and domestic - and I will hold myself to that.

Deal with it how you like, but even George Washington was a "traitor".

I hope to god you're on some list for that, traitor.

Oh ... and I'm sure I am ... but so what. Unlike GWB and people like you want me to, I will not live in fear.

But instead of invading Iraq, why did the US leave the revolt against Saddam to die in 1991 after promising to support them? And the Kurds? (Henry Kissinger: "Foreign policy should not be confused with missionary work" or words to that effect)

My family are also living in Iraq (Baghdad and Karbala), and they're seeing the violence. Many of my family have also suffered under Saddam's regime, too - but violence is violence, death is death. Saddam told the people that he was defending them from western imperialism, the US is telling them they're liberating them. Go figure.

Well, I can't answer why we abandoned the Kurds. It was among the most stupid acts of an administration that made many stupid mistakes.

Violence is violence, and death is death, and there is nothing new under the sun. I can only ask you to consider who, in the final analysis, you trust. Did the people need to be protected from the West, or from Saddam? Or perhaps from both?

If Afghanistan is any example, there is hope that Iraq will be sovereign in the near future. I know that the service members I have around me have no interest in being here any longer than required, especially whith the rainy season upon us. We were as excited as the local citizens when Iraq made such a fine showing in the Olympics, and we are eager to see free elections begin on schedule. Whether the American government has the same intentions is beyond my ability to say, but I have hope.

And the ones that handled the peace processes of Angola, Mozambique, East timor, Kosovo..

That you're adding those to the pile of UN failures, as none of them went well? (Sorry, I'm not sure how you mean your post...)

It's only one man's opinion, but let me throw it out anyway.

<rant>

I have seen the shooting, and the bombing, and the pain that is going on here. I have also see the prisons and the torture facilities that were here for years before the Coalition arrived. I have seen people lined up outside of Abu Ghraib for a kilometer or more, not to see anyone that was there, but to see if they could get information on a friend or relative that was thrown in there a decade ago and was never heard from again.

I have seen the stuff that doesn't get talked about on the news. If you were the editor of the local newspaper in Burgsvilleburough, Idaho, and you had to choose between the story about a new school that was built in Iraq, or a hospital that was restored in Baghdad after 15 years of neglect, or the latest IED in the Green Zone, which would you run?

There is more good being done here that most people know about. The Iraqi people that I have had any contact with are hopeful for the future for the first time in their lives, or so they say.

</rant>

But that's just my opinion.


At least it's an informed opinion which is something we don't get much of around here. Perhaps you would like to act as NS's imbedded reporter in some of your free time? Actual point of source facts could be refreshing.

Oh ... and I'm sure I am ... but so what. Unlike GWB and people like you want me to, I will not live in fear.

Strictly off the record:

I'm sure you are, too.

Well, I can't answer why we abandoned the Kurds. It was among the most stupid acts of an administration that made many stupid mistakes.

Violence is violence, and death is death, and there is nothing new under the sun. I can only ask you to consider who, in the final analysis, you trust. Did the people need to be protected from the West, or from Saddam? Or perhaps from both?

If Afghanistan is any example, there is hope that Iraq will be sovereign in the near future. I know that the service members I have around me have no interest in being here any longer than required, especially whith the rainy season upon us. We were as excited as the local citizens when Iraq made such a fine showing in the Olympics, and we are eager to see free elections begin on schedule. Whether the American government has the same intentions is beyond my ability to say, but I have hope.

Iraqis just want to live, with Saddam and the West wanting to take power/get its oil respectively, its all demeaning and results in great violence. That's why I support neither and am furious at the way the resistance of the Shia and Kurds were ignored after being told they would recieve support. They were butchered.

I can only hope that they have honourable intentions but their past actions suggest otherwise. Afghanistan is a mess however, the country is essentially controlled by warlords. Karzai only really has authority over Kabul.

And America's treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo is an insult to the rest of the world. And people are gagging to put G W in front of a war crimes tribunal.

Get Arafat for the Palestinian suicide bombings, first.
Actually SENTENCE Milosovich, whom The Hague has had for what? 4 years now?
Get half the heads of African states (esp. Mugabe, Museveni and Obasanjo).

Then speak to me of war crimes.

At least in GitMo, no one is being beheaded.

At least it's an informed opinion which is something we don't get much of around here. Perhaps you would like to act as NS's imbedded reporter in some of your free time? Actual point of source facts could be refreshing.

I can't guarantee I will have as much free time as I have had tonight, and there is a lot I can't discuss due to operational security, but I'm always glad to point out something good coming of all this.

Oh ... and I'm sure I am ... but so what. Unlike GWB and people like you want me to, I will not live in fear.

If this mental "resistance" of yours helps you sleep at night...

It's not Bush that you should be afraid of. Its the very people you try and seem to want to protect. Try telling that to the family of a 9/11 victim. Think of their reaction to your ways, traitor.

At least in GitMo, no one is being beheaded.

and there are no war criminals down in gitmo, only terrorists...criminals and murderers

Strictly off the record:

I'm sure you are, too.


Yes, well, I have no plans on ever running for public office, so it shouldn't be a problem. The only thing I have to worry about is questioning by the FBI and I don't really worry about that either.

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution defines treason and I am not in violation by virtue of Amendment I. So, again, no fear.

Now, I could be on other country's watch lists and I'm pretty sure I'm on some Muslim watch lists (though not the bad kind) ... but, hey, life is a Cabaret, old chum.

and there are no war criminals down in gitmo, only terrorists...criminals and murderers

Let's use that justification to bomb the white house then.

They are war criminals, captured in a war. You must abide by the Geneva convention, or guess what? You too are war criminals.

Get Arafat for the Palestinian suicide bombings, first.
Actually SENTENCE Milosovich, whom The Hague has had for what? 4 years now?
Get half the heads of African states (esp. Mugabe, Museveni and Obasanjo).

Then speak to me of war crimes.

At least in GitMo, no one is being beheaded.

check...check...check...

that's beside the point. Bush is still a criminal.

Iraqis just want to live, with Saddam and the West wanting to take power/get its oil respectively, its all demeaning and results in great violence. That's why I support neither and am furious at the way the resistance of the Shia and Kurds were ignored after being told they would recieve support. They were butchered.

I can only hope that they have honourable intentions but their past actions suggest otherwise. Afghanistan is a mess however, the country is essentially controlled by warlords. Karzai only really has authority over Kabul.

I have to disagree on the oil grab hypothesis. Oil is much cheaper and easier to get by purchasing it, and America has the lowest retail petroleum prices in the West. If it were going to be about oil, it would have been started by one of those countries that makes a lot of money off of taxing their gasoline, like Canada.

I join you in hoping for honourable intentions.

Well I'm off for a sleep. I'll leave it all to you lot...

Let's use that justification to bomb the white house then.

They are war criminals, captured in a war. You must abide by the Geneva convention, or guess what? You too are war criminals.

And what war is this? The "war on terror"? Come now, be reasonable. These bastards are no different that airplane hijackers...well...bad example...but other terrorists. Just because we're hunting them down does not make it a war in Geneva terms.

If this mental "resistance" of yours helps you sleep at night...

It's not Bush that you should be afraid of. Its the very people you try and seem to want to protect. Try telling that to the family of a 9/11 victim. Think of their reaction to your ways, traitor.


I lost family, close family, in the 9/11 attacks. So I can merely ask myself and my family to get an answer to that.

and there are no war criminals down in gitmo, only terrorists...criminals and murderers

Those are the words of a traitor. Not only a traitor to the US Constitution, but a global traitor to the Geneva Convention. They are prisoners of war, not "enemy combatants" (a phrase carefully selected by Donald Rumsfeld to ensure they didn't have to give these POWs any rights).

They have rights whether you like it or not. They have not even been given due process. Their guilt is merely assumed without one iota of public proof offered. The current administration has set it up so that proof against these men can be classified and nobody is allowed to see it - not even the defendants!

Until those rights are recognized, my offer of sanctuary stands and there isn't thing one you, or anybody else, can do about it.

Imagine another country capturing US soldiers and treating them the same way. No access to medical care, no access to religious articles, no access to attourneys, no access to the charges against them. Would the US then decry breech of the Geneva Convention? Why yes we would! We would be hyprocitical for doing so.

I hope your petty little world helps you sleep better at night.

Perhaps the insurgents should stop shooting at US troops. I love how they place all the blame on America.

hahahaha ignorant.. baby's don't know how to handle guns..

and the next thing you're going to tell me is that there is no difference between a terrorist and a US soldier? right?

hahahaha ignorant.. baby's don't know how to handle guns..

hahahaha...idiot...no one said the baby was the shooter

And what war is this? The "war on terror"? Come now, be reasonable. These bastards are no different that airplane hijackers...well...bad example...but other terrorists. Just because we're hunting them down does not make it a war in Geneva terms.

We officially declared war. It is a war by every definition of the term. Just saying "it's a different kind of war" doesn't make it so different that we cannot abide by the Geneva Convention.

War is War no matter what flowery rhetoric you spit on it.

and the next thing you're going to tell me is that there is no difference between a terrorist and a US soldier? right?

Oh, sure, there is a difference. Funding.

Perhaps the insurgents should stop shooting at US troops. I love how they place all the blame on America.

What are you talking about? Everything is our fault!!! Hell if it weren't for our damn "Imperialism" the dinosaurs might still be around! And the Cro-Magnons would've never wiped out the Neanderthals!!! I mean, come on America! How can we live with ourselves????


:rolleyes:

hahahaha...idiot...no one said the baby was the shooter

no one said that wasn't what he ment... stop die idiot owke?..you are the american here so who is the idiot?!

*US invades Iraq*

*Iraq puts up resistance*

*US detroys the resistance and a whole lot of other people, too*

US: "Now look you made me do!"

At this point in time they are nothing more than criminals. They are engaging in conflict they have no hope of winning, completely out manned and out gunned, with nary a jungle to hide in. They are only causing more deaths and making the US occupation last longer. Idiots, all of them.

But the troops are there now, and the insurgents are not going to accomplish anything besides pointless deaths...the civilians' blood is on their hands as well.
You can bet is someone invaded the US there'd be plenty of people fighting the invaders. You'd all be really proud of it, too. Why should it be different for Iraq?

At this point in time they are nothing more than criminals. They are engaging in conflict they have no hope of winning, completely out manned and out gunned, with nary a jungle to hide in. They are only causing more deaths and making the US occupation last longer. Idiots, all of them.

What would you do if someone invaded your home? Just give up? Coward.

I, personally, would defend my home until my last breath regardless of whether or not I was outmanned or outgunned.

you are the american here so who is the idiot?!

...wow...

bye bye now

steel butterfly isn't really prepared for some backfire isn't he?.. wel maybe we can just blame america's propaganda..

You can bet is someone invaded the US there'd be plenty of people fighting the invaders. You'd all be really proud of it, too. Why should it be different for Iraq?

Because nationalism is bullshit and I'm not a religious fanatic.

What would you do if someone invaded your home? Just give up? Coward.

I, personally, would defend my home until my last breath regardless of whether or not I was outmanned or outgunned.


Hmmm...live in a democracy with personal freedom or be worm food? Good choice.

steel butterfly isn't really prepared for some backfire isn't he?

Newp. Just figures he can scream "traitor" and hit the ignore button. That works on the internet ... too bad it doesn't work in real life.

.. wel maybe we can just blame america's propaganda..

Nah ... I didn't fall for it and I'm certainly not the sharpest tool in the shed. I hold the blame squarely where it should rest: on the individual.

That's a point - but just recklessly invading was a mistake to begin with. The US would do good by pulling out of Iraq and handing it over to the UN.


As much I support the UN, I do in as much as I'm head of an International Relations Soc whos main activitiy is going to Model United Nations, the insurgents aren't going to go right so here are the blue helmets lets all be nice and put down our weapons. The US got itself in to this-This is NOT an invitation to argue if the US should have gone in. And for once they can do the clean up themselves, yes I do believe that the UN shoulf give AID, but it's gonna be a while before they ask as ol Georgie and hsi pal Rummie won't be too happy at the notion of 'needing the UN'

Also I bet there is far worse than that picture. Is anyone else really surprised that according to CNN there were only 6 US soldiers killed and 10 wounded. It said on the news this morning that apparently it was the worst hand to hand combat seen since Viet Nam...

...wow...

bye bye now

your a laugh.. you call iraqi peeps terrorists murderers.. hell knows, maybe your government can even get you so far you will callem rapers.. i'm just saying that you guys in that continent far far away give the most stuppiest man on this entire Earth, the power of mass destruction, the most powerful army in the world, and allot of money.. you did it not once.. nooo mate you did it twice.. that is why the rest of the world isn't really fond of THE USA.. go listen to mosh.. you have your own problems on your own soil. Cause I thought it was this way: manage to get your own problems straight first before you stick your head in other problems.. or i'm just mistaking :P.
First you just lead a revolution and hang bush before you kill some poor iraqi people :D

Hmmm...live in a democracy with personal freedom or be worm food? Good choice.

Democracy? If the US were a democracy, then Al Gore (who won the popular vote) would have been President in 2000. We are a Republic, not a Democracy.

Define "personal freedom".

In the US, homosexuals do not have the "personal freedom" to get married, which means they do not have the "personal freedom" to see about their loved ones' property or even stay with them in the hospital if they get sick.

In the US, land owners do not have the "personal freedom" to keep their property unless they pay tax (read: rent) to the State.

I could go on, but I know the average NS reader doesn't get passed the 4th or 5th line of any given post.

In the US, "personal freedom" means cowing and accepting the current regime without question.

Yes ... by that definition ... I'd rather be worm food.

..you are the american here so who is the idiot?!

Isn't name-calling based on someone's nationality just a bit closed-minded? It doesn't speak well for your own people, if the same standard were to be applied.

However, as everyone knows that Americans just don't care what the rest of the world thinks of them, since they have most of the money, most of the guns, and the vast majority of the influence in the world, no harm is done.

Democracy? If the US were a democracy, then Al Gore (who won the popular vote) would have been President in 2000. We are a Republic, not a Democracy.

In the US, "personal freedom" means cowing and accepting the current regime without question.

Yes ... by that definition ... I'd rather be worm food.

Your american right?.. wel this kind of peeps should rule the most powerful country on this planet not some 'WAR' president like bush calls himself..

quote.. George W Bush: 'We strive for democracy around the globe'

earlier: 'Yes an Dictatorship in America would be easier for me now'

steel butterfly isn't really prepared for some backfire isn't he?.. wel maybe we can just blame america's propaganda..

Amazing what I see when I go to exit out a window...sure go ahead...blame corporate america...maybe if we had better schools *rolls eyes*

Newp. Just figures he can scream "traitor" and hit the ignore button. That works on the internet ... too bad it doesn't work in real life.

Yes, I IGNORE j00!

It's amazing how right you may seem when you have others supporting you, or when you "finish" the argument after someone leaves. However, I have class in a half hour, and must be leaving. I'm neither ignoring or running away from you or your "point"...I'm merely continuing with real life.

So fire away Dutch European Union, spout some more real life cliches karutraitor, and maybe later I'll bring some friends and gang up on your beliefs when you're "all alone". Then we'll see...then we'll see...

*rolls eyes*

You people scare me,
It's almost like a bad cartoon, and your over exaggerated idiots, to make the 'normal' people, seem more normal.

Hell you make ME feel sane, and I'm definitly not. I'll just throw this in:


The Sheepdogs

Most humans truly are like sheep
Wanting nothing more than peace to keep
To graze, grow fat and raise their young,
Sweet taste of clover on the tongue.
Their lives serene upon Life’s farm,
They sense no threat nor fear no harm.
On verdant meadows, they forage free
With naught to fear, with naught to flee.
They pay their sheepdogs little heed
For there is no threat; there is no need.

To the flock, sheepdog’s are mysteries,
Roaming watchful round the peripheries.
These fang-toothed creatures bark, they roar
With the fetid reek of the carnivore,
Too like the wolf of legends told,
To be amongst our docile fold.
Who needs sheepdogs? What good are they?
They have no use, not in this day.
Lock them away, out of our sight
We have no need of their fierce might.

But sudden in their midst a beast
Has come to kill, has come to feast
The wolves attack; they give no warning
Upon that calm September morning
They slash and kill with frenzied glee
Their passive helpless enemy
Who had no clue the wolves were there
Far roaming from their Eastern lair.
Then from the carnage, from the rout,
Comes the cry, “Turn the sheepdogs out!”

Thus is our nature but too our plight
To keep our dogs on leashes tight
And live a life of illusive bliss
Hearing not the beast, his growl, his hiss.
Until he has us by the throat,
We pay no heed; we take no note.
Not until he strikes us at our core
Will we unleash the Dogs of War
Only having felt the wolf pack’s wrath
Do we loose the sheepdogs on its path.

And the wolves will learn what we’ve shown before;
We love our sheep, we Dogs of War.

Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66

This brought a tear to my eye when I read this, and that doesnt happen. Somthing to think about, everyone has a place in this world, whats yours?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/041107/481/bag10211070833

Nasty, isn't it? :(

Oh, and it seems that the rate of civilian deaths since the US-led occupation of Iraq is greater than under Saddam.
Ahhhh "liberation" at last?

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20041109/mdf751644.jpg

:(

Isn't name-calling based on someone's nationality just a bit closed-minded? It doesn't speak well for your own people, if the same standard were to be applied.

However, as everyone knows that Americans just don't care what the rest of the world thinks of them, since they have most of the money, most of the guns, and the vast majority of the influence in the world, no harm is done.

hahahaha.. your a little arrogant aren't you?.. let me remind you that you guys have debt over 2 trillion dollars.. you didn't know that right?. and my nation managed to be one of the richest country of the world (BNP). And the education is obe of the best in the whole world.. and you maybe have more guns mate.. but if you guys can't handle them properly you don't need them.. fool

So fire away Dutch European Union, spout some more real life cliches karutraitor, and maybe later I'll bring some friends and gang up on your beliefs when you're "all alone". Then we'll see...then we'll see...

*rolls eyes*

owke.. if that's a threat im not scared at all.. go finish first grade first please :D so bring on your GanG.. come to amsterdam.. damm i'll even gibe you some free weed and/or hasj before we fight. I'll also recommend you the red light district :D just because humans like yourself want to get laid once in a while :D. A country where you may f*ck someone for money and smoke some hasj.. is a free country not some supressed ignorant strongly believing people who listen to some clown called george W bush :D bye bye have fun at your class economy.. study some numbers :D

fool

But of course my stereotype-loving friend...name-calling is bad....baaaad

owke.. if that's a threat im not scared at all.. go finish first grade first please so bring on your GanG.. come to amsterdam.. damm i'll even gibe you some free weed and/or hasj before we fight. I'll also recommend you the red light district just because humans like yourself want to get laid once in a while . A country where you may f*ck someone for money and smoke some hasj.. is a free country not some supressed ignorant strongly believing people who listen to some clown called george W bush bye bye have fun at your class economy.. study some numbers

...there's no need to flame or troll. If you can't handle yourself in an internet environment...I suggest leaving. Heh...maybe a time out.

maybe later I'll bring some friends and gang up on your beliefs when you're "all alone". Then we'll see...then we'll see...


I must go to work, myself, but shall return later and look forward to you bringing your thugs into the mix.

I have no fear of standing alone. Bring 1,000 of your friends and I will take you all on with my words and I shall win the day. Why? Because you cower in fear behind thugs. I have already won.

But of course my stereotype-loving friend...name-calling is bad....baaaad



...there's no need to flame or troll. If you can't handle yourself in an internet environment...I suggest leaving. Heh...maybe a time out.

Yep i'm a stereo type :P serious :P you hit me there.. who can't handle himself on the internet?! your talking to a mirror right? well if your not.. please you have something else to do right? go sign up for iraq or something :D

that was a good poem :D

And as for the US "debt" :rolleyes: yeah like it will ever be called in. If anyone tried to "collect" on the "debt" the US would likely crash and burn and the rest of the world would go with us. You know why? Cuz we are the big dog on the block. Without the US the world would be a lot smaller :D in "metaphoric" terms of course :)

and the thought of an invasion of the US is laughable :D considering that there is like 1 gun for every adult or something like that? Well I can attest to that, 4 guns in our house, 4 adults... :D :sniper:

haha...it's all in the eye of the beholder

When insurgents chose to fight among civilians...this is what happens. It is their fault. I'm sure the American army, given the choice, would rather fight in an open field/forest/desert/etc. than in the cities, especially since they would destroy the insurgents in a war of that fashion. The insurgents know that if they fight among the houses of their families, the amount of "smackdown" US and Coalition forces can use will be limited, and therefore, that's where the insurgents hide in their coward's war.
"Coward's war"? The US should not even be in Iraq. They are fighting for the kind of liberty they want, not the one imposed by the USA?

I must go to work, myself, but shall return later and look forward to you bringing your thugs into the mix.

I have no fear of standing alone. Bring 1,000 of your friends and I will take you all on with my words and I shall win the day. Why? Because you cower in fear behind thugs. I have already won.

Listen to our wise friend here.. please.. owh yeah same for me :P;).. and instead of 1000 friends you can also take 10,000 friends with you.. doesn't really mather to me.. THUG.. Gangsta...

Everybody be silent please.. tha gangsta is speaking, and if you disagree with him.. run cause he will hunt you down with his terror squad.. muhahaha.

WHAHAHAHA

"Coward's war"? The US should not even be in Iraq. They are fighting for the kind of liberty they want, not the one imposed by the USA?

The kind of "freedom" they want involves anyone but Muslims being second-class citizens, women having ---ZERO--- rights and I could go on...hmmmmm gee I wonder what kind of freedom is preferable?

...the fact that you didn't find the sarcasm in me saying "I'm going to bring friends" or whatever, followed by "*rolls eyes*" scares me...

you're not worth the time...now unfortunately...I must be going. Don't cry cause I'm gone.

I'm just curious what happened to the Europe that clawed and scratched and fought against fascism in the 40's? There was a time when there were countries other than Britain and Poland who were willing to step up to the plate and do something difficult (and certainly distasteful) in order to further the cause of humanity in the world. I hear comments about Spain getting what it deserved for helping out in Iraq and it makes me physically ill. Anyone can equate soldiers fighting bravely and causing some collateral damage (which has occured in every conflict in the history of warfare. The scale of collateral damage has been reduced dramatically in this conflict. Anyone ever heard of the carpet bombing campaigns waged by the allies in WWII? You don't think that was horrific for civilians?) to some subhuman, vicious, lunatic intentionally bombing a train station full of people innocently going to work, or strapping explosives to himself and blowing up a school bus, or terrorizing and beheading civilians who are in a country to lend HUMANITARIAN AID is either sick or a monosynaptic fool.

I hear whining about the American propaganda machine. The fact of the matter is that your are just buying the propaganda on the other side. Stop trying to pretend that your european press is soooo objective and truthful. They have an agenda just like everyone else in this world.

War is hell. Nobody likes it. I am a supporter of this war, but I fervently wish it didn't have to be. Americans are not bloodthirsty cowboys. Everyone I know wishes we didn't have to fight. But what we will not do is be cowed by an enemy whose tactics include intentionally shooting schoolchildren to get their way.

Also, nobody I know claims that Iraq was involved in planning or executing 9/11. They have been however a sponsor nation of terrorism for decades. And we aren't interested in catching one rat and going back upstairs while the cellar is still full of them. So why not Iran? North Korea? blah blah blah... You have to start somewhere, and unless you have an army of a billion people and unlimited resources you can't attack on all fronts. Besides we are hoping this does 2 things. 1. Sends a message to other terror sponsor nations that this sort of crap isn't going to be tolerated anymore. 2. that we draw the crazies out of hiding and into Iraq to meet our military. This isn't a popular notion but it's effective and a good plan if you think about it.

What makes me sad is that the "old europe" is going to wake up one day with a cloud of smoke over one of their cities and realize that capitulation and negotiation only encourages this enemy to be bolder (i.e. withdrawing from Mogadishu inspired Bin Laden to attempt 9/11). Someday you are going to realize you have been on the wrong side of history. And I don't view that as a reason to celebrate. It shouldn't be US versus EU. We're supposed to be friends.

that was a good poem :D

And as for the US "debt" :rolleyes: yeah like it will ever be called in. If anyone tried to "collect" on the "debt" the US would likely crash and burn and the rest of the world would go with us. You know why? Cuz we are the big dog on the block. Without the US the world would be a lot smaller :D in "metaphoric" terms of course :)

and the thought of an invasion of the US is laughable :D considering that there is like 1 gun for every adult or something like that? Well I can attest to that, 4 guns in our house, 4 adults... :D :sniper:


I'm not really intimidated by you.. sorry.. let me remind you that your government screw it up, and that they have no money to send an invasion force to europe cause when you attack a country like china, or any country in europe.. you are the one having a problem not me. or we both have a problem cause you guys start using your nuclair weapons.. :|.. America can never ever scare me anymore.. the messed it too much up for that to happen, sorry mate. I would have tried hard to please you but i can't be afraid for a big dog without a home

The kind of "freedom" they want involves anyone but Muslims being second-class citizens, women having ---ZERO--- rights and I could go on...hmmmmm gee I wonder what kind of freedom is preferable?
Are you saying that "your" freedoms are better than "theirs", that "your" religion is better than "theirs"? They seem to be fighting very hard not to want "your" "freedoms"?

...the fact that you didn't find the sarcasm in me saying "I'm going to bring friends" or whatever, followed by "*rolls eyes*" scares me...

you're not worth the time...now unfortunately...I must be going. Don't cry cause I'm gone.

nope I won't :| sarcastic *** :P So your going to iraq? :P please hurry or you'll miss the next plane:D.. And i really do not hope that you see terrible things and your traumatized for life i really dont ;)

I gotto go now :D seeya all laterzz and yes I do hate BUSH!..my total country does.. everybody in europe does I guess.. Yep it would be allot more peacefull without president bush ;) (better kill one person than you guys killing thousends).. nice chattign guys cya'll

Truly I have not seen a more asinine argument recently. Instead of adopting an easy to swallow cookie cutter argument maybe you could put some effort into your posts? I'm not saying everybody is doing this, but after reading seven pages of this buzzword compliant drivel I really just have to complain.

People against the war!
Despite some of your remarks, the united states military actually does have more important things to do than hold infanticide parties nonstop and torture prisoners. Yes, more civilians die now than when saddam was in power, but that is because he ran an extremely stable totalitarian state. He would have had to torture people non-stop to reach the civilian casualty rate of even a very humane war. We actually have a fairly good record for prisoners rights throughout history. Yes, we've done some fucked up shit, but most major countries in world history have done alot worse. We are not getting dirty rich from Iraq, in fact it is one of the most expensive things america has done in a while.

People for the war!
Saying we're better than african dictators and Saddam Hussein is a dubious honor. It isn't ok what we're doing because we are america. We are and must be held to a higher standard as a world power. You can't just wave the flag at these things and say its all in the name of democracy. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Play NICE, kiddies, or the evil MODS will sew yer lips shut!

I'm not really intimidated by you.. sorry.. let me remind you that your government screw it up, and that they have no money to send an invasion force to europe cause when you attack a country like china, or any country in europe.. you are the one having a problem not me. or we both have a problem cause you guys start using your nuclair weapons.. :|.. America can never ever scare me anymore.. the messed it too much up for that to happen, sorry mate. I would have tried hard to please you but i can't be afraid for a big dog without a home

Sorry, but I've picked you to pick on. This is what I'm talking about. This post displays a complete lack of effort and a complete denial of complexity in the world. The debt is a rolling thing. America is not "broke" nor will it be in the near future. The idea of a war with europe or china is laughable for plenty of reasons. It would never happen in the recent future, no cause, our economies are too interdependant. The idea of us using "nuclair" (sounds like a pastry!) weapons is idiotic as well, since the threat of nuclear retalliation would be too severe. The rest of the post just seems to be some sort of misplaced bravado at the US in general.

That's a point - but just recklessly invading was a mistake to begin with. The US would do good by pulling out of Iraq and handing it over to the UN.
so the u.n. can what...bomb the hell out of targets from heights that make it incapable of accurate targeting...see bosnia..oh and then pull out when they have set up a nice oil pipeline and let ethnic cleansing re-start..see again; bosnia

:sniper: :sniper: :gundge: : :mp5: : :mp5: : :gundge:

Violence is a necessary part of government, we need it to help govern and protect the most marginalised of those living in our society. What most right wing conservative smelly yanks dont realise is that they have no right to invade a country on the thinest of premises and expect to be justified, its by the same token as Bin laden attacking the US. If he wasnt right and had no reason, then so dont the US. There is no evidence, and the general peace loving public is expected to swallow this garbage? There is no democracy in that? Where is the justice? Nothing substantive in it in the least. So excuse me when I think that US occupation in Iraq is in fact a war crime, much similar to the Nazis of Pre-WW2.

:sniper: :sniper: :gundge: : :mp5: : :mp5: : :gundge:

Violence is a necessary part of government, we need it to help govern and protect the most marginalised of those living in our society. What most right wing conservative smelly yanks dont realise is that they have no right to invade a country on the thinest of premises and expect to be justified, its by the same token as Bin laden attacking the US. If he wasnt right and had no reason, then so dont the US. There is no evidence, and the general peace loving public is expected to swallow this garbage? There is no democracy in that? Where is the justice? Nothing substantive in it in the least. So excuse me when I think that US occupation in Iraq is in fact a war crime, much similar to the Nazis of Pre-WW2.

I agree that the war may have had dubious justification but calling the entire thing a war crime is a serious accusation. I think war crimes should be applied to individual acts and people that are currently being protected and defended by the current administration.

EDIT: And I suppose you could make an argument for it. But saying what wars are and aren't justified gets into a very muddy water between international affairs and national interests. I think that while it could be done, it wont and probably shouldn't. A strong denouncement of the war by the international community will do I hope.

I say those that feel really heartstruck by the loss and fighting volunteer their time by going over and aiding with the redcross.

I view from inside
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3996111.stm


And for those who want some red cross records to proof deaths in Iraq: How on earth you think someone could count the casualties in places like that?

Perhaps the insurgents should stop shooting at US troops. I love how they place all the blame on America.

I love how none of the war's responsibility is accepted by its instigators.

check...check...check...

that's beside the point. Bush is still a criminal.

Riiiiight. As soon as you can produce some *proof*, feel free to share it. You can' t tell me that Bush has ever TOLD a pilot:
"Hey, while you're straffing that ammo dump, hit a couple of houses to scare the populace while you're at it. We gotta kill all these desert rats."

Putting Bush in the same league as the rest is like calling Ghandi a peer of Malcolm X. It's BS!

I love how none of the war's responsibility is accepted by its instigators.

No one said that

Democracy? If the US were a democracy, then Al Gore (who won the popular vote) would have been President in 2000. We are a Republic, not a Democracy.

wow, thanks for clearing that up...I see the light!


Define "personal freedom".

In the US, homosexuals do not have the "personal freedom" to get married, which means they do not have the "personal freedom" to see about their loved ones' property or even stay with them in the hospital if they get sick.

In the US, land owners do not have the "personal freedom" to keep their property unless they pay tax (read: rent) to the State.

I could go on, but I know the average NS reader doesn't get passed the 4th or 5th line of any given post.


Are you seriously trying to compare the freedoms of the US with those of Iraq? C'mon now, let's try to be a bit reasonable.


In the US, "personal freedom" means cowing and accepting the current regime without question.

Yes ... by that definition ... I'd rather be worm food.

Really? Well, if that's what you claim, shouldn't you be killing yourself right now?

....the insurgents are not going to accomplish anything .....They are stoping Bush from politically and economically benefiting with their Oil

They are stoping Bush from politically and economically benefiting with their Oil

Well, that's obviously working out well for them. :rolleyes:

As seems to be rather commonplace on subjects with strong emotional appeal, a great deal of reason has been left out of many of your arguments. Being able to look at things like war and negotiating international relationships is difficult to do objectively. This is especially true during such actions. The end result is clouded, given that there is no proven case of foresight.

There are several things that an objective observer must keep in mind when making judgments about wars.

1) War: A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

This definition does not carry with it any confines of justification, humanity, or public approval. A nation, state or party who decides they would like to go to war, for whatever reason, are going to go to war. Public appeal, whether positive or negative, can influence decisions, but in the end, what the state wants will eventually happen.

What is happening around the world is something known classically as War Weariness. It is the state of discontent a people have for their governance when a war does not go as easily as planned. Anyone with knowledge of the Civilization games has first hand experience with this. Do you think the game designers added that on whim. Not the case, war weariness has been a thorn in the sides of leaders since the days of Rome.

In the case of foreign nations, it shows evidence of how much the world looks upon the U.S. as leadership. Otherwise, what care would they have for a war happening thousands of miles from their own soil. This is especially true of nations that have chosen to not send troops, for they have absolutely nothing risked in the venture whatsoever. Their interest in said war can only be that of public appeal.

Propaganda is a political tool. I find it amusing when propoganda is denounced by peace activists, since propoganda is the most peaceful method of government persuasion out there. I am peace-loving, and therefore, I love propoganda.

I would like to share an anecdote to show some flawed misconceptions about the US involvement in Iraq.

I am a member of the National Guard. I was activated to serve in Iraq, which I did proudly for 15 months. I would like those of you reading this to hazard a guess at what I did in Iraq...

I was (and still am) an engineer. I carried an M-16 rifle with me wherever I went. I wore tactical gear and dressed in combat fatigues, but do you know what I did in Iraq.

I built schools, and hospitals, and bridges, and prisons. I was even involved in assiting with the restoration of some of the ancient ruins in Babylon. I never fired a single round while doing my duty. The only fighting required of me was while I traveled from one place to another. I worked with Iraqis every single day. They outnumbered us sometimes as much as 15 to one. I was never afraid. I was only supposed to be there for only 6 months. We were extended... twice, because the Coalition forces wanted to provide the very best for the people of Iraq.

I hope this sheds an iota of light on some of the things you don't hear on CNN.

To touch on a couple of other things. I would like to know exactly how one can commit a war crime. War is necessary to the survival of mankind, but it truly is the sanctioned murder of the enemy. What crime is greater.

I will answer my own rhetorical question.

A war crime is anything done by an individual that is (and this is highly subjective) worse than murder.

Mangele would do experiments of the most unthinkable kind to jewish prisoners. There are documented instances of prisoners begging to be allowed to die. Mussolini insighted an entire country to rush headlong into something he knew they could not win in the hopes that Hitler would reward him personally for his support, Stalin was a monster who slaughtered thousands of innocents simply because he wanted to make a point. Which one is the war criminal?

Mussolini, while his motives were tainted and deliberate, did not force his country into nationalism. Stalin commited his atrocities during "peacetime" Therefore, only Mangele could be called a war criminal.

Bush, even if his entire justification for the Iraqi Freedom campaign is based on lies and half truths, is not a war criminal. Even if he holds the Guantanimo Bay prisoners indefinitely, he is not a war criminal. Even if he begins illegal searches in the US for "suspected terrorists" is not a war criminal. These acts are all insidious in their own ways, but are far from war crimes. The US being a sovereign nation and all, these things must be handled and dealt with internally, and through the proper channels, or you are no better than he.

Finally, to say that this war is about oil is laughable. The US has spent more on this campaign than it could recoup from 10 years of free oil from Iraq.

I hope that everyone has taken the time to actually consider these remarks. They are tainted as little as is possible, for I have my own ideals as well and therefore cannot "completely" remove myself from them. I only ask that you have an open, and more important, realistic mind if you are going to debate any subject.

PS: Notice please that it is possible to post on a subject without subject to debasement. I'm sure the moderation staff would appreciate it if everyone could follow suit.

The message above is well reasoned and cited. It is one of the best I've read here.

Which is why I pity the fact that it will be roundly ignored by those who don't like what it says.

That's a point - but just recklessly invading was a mistake to begin with. The US would do good by pulling out of Iraq and handing it over to the UN.

What so the UN could sit in a room and argue about what needs to be done and listen to Europe cry and bitch about how bad Bush is? Yeah the UN is a really effective.

hahahaha ignorant.. baby's don't know how to handle guns..

And yet we have by my count, defeated Britain in 1783, Tied Britain in 1812, defeated Mexico in the Mexican War, Defeated the South in the Civil War, Defeated Spain in 1898, Assisted in the defeat of Germany in 1917, Help liberate France in 1944 and was a key player (in the Form of General Patton) in the defeat of Germany in 1945, Defeated Japan in 1945, Kept South Korea (along with our allies) free from the North in 1953, Lost Nam but not because of Military Action, lead a Coalition of Forces in Desert Storm, led the Bosnian Campaign in the '90s, and led a coalition for the 2nd Gulf War!

Yep, babies don't know how to handle guns. Just the mere fact that we defeated a couple of Super Powers, (Britain in 1783 and then Bankrupting the Soviet Union), knocked Spain out in 4 months, and took out two powerful armies in the form of Japan and Germany, speaks otherwise.

You can bet is someone invaded the US there'd be plenty of people fighting the invaders. You'd all be really proud of it, too. Why should it be different for Iraq?

Your right but we would be going after the military personel that is invading and not the Civilians though I am willing to concede that some will hit civilians too.

that was a good poem :D

And as for the US "debt" :rolleyes: yeah like it will ever be called in. If anyone tried to "collect" on the "debt" the US would likely crash and burn and the rest of the world would go with us. You know why? Cuz we are the big dog on the block. Without the US the world would be a lot smaller :D in "metaphoric" terms of course :)

and the thought of an invasion of the US is laughable :D considering that there is like 1 gun for every adult or something like that? Well I can attest to that, 4 guns in our house, 4 adults... :D :sniper:

Griffins, if anyone calls on our debt, we'll just call on the debt of most of the world too since most of the world owes us money as well.

They are stoping Bush from politically and economically benefiting with their Oil

And as someone pointed out here, THIS IS NOT A WAR FOR OIL!!!!!

And as someone pointed out here, THIS IS NOT A WAR FOR OIL!!!!!
Just because someone else suggested that it is not a war for oil doesn't make it fact?

It is about control of oil, control of the Iraqi economy, and control of the middle east political situation. That is why the US is building so many bases in Iraq.

Also, the soldier talked about rebuilding the infastructure (using US taxpayer dollars), and guess who will benefit most from this? Obviously the US companies that take control of Iraqi businesses through Bremer's Orders, will have the most to gain from improvements to the infastructure.

BTW, these repairs to Iraqi infastructure would not have been necessary if the US had not bombed the crap out of everything in the first place?

Actually, those repairs would be necessary whether America invaded or not. Saddam stole the money meant for water treatment plants, power plants, and other services to build all his palaces. They were falling apart even before the invasion.

Actually, those repairs would be necessary whether America invaded or not. Saddam stole the money meant for water treatment plants, power plants, and other services to build all his palaces. They were falling apart even before the invasion.
Somehow, I think the salient point has alluded you?

Just because someone else suggested that it is not a war for oil doesn't make it fact?

And if this was a war for oil then why are gas prices so high? If you can anser that then magic can happen.

It is about control of oil, control of the Iraqi economy, and control of the middle east political situation. That is why the US is building so many bases in Iraq.

we don't have control of oil or control of the Iraqi economy. That control belong to the Iraqi Oil Minitry and Economic Minitry.

Also, the soldier talked about rebuilding the infastructure (using US taxpayer dollars), and guess who will benefit most from this? Obviously the US companies that take control of Iraqi businesses through Bremer's Orders, will have the most to gain from improvements to the infastructure.

Do you have proof of this? as far as I can see, the Iraqis are also doing alot of the rebuilding. We are using iraqi civilians to rebuild their infrastructure with tapayer dollars.

BTW, these repairs to Iraqi infastructure would not have been necessary if the US had not bombed the crap out of everything in the first place?

It also ouldn't be necessary if they eren't runned don from years of neglect under Hussein's rule. Nice to try to place blame on us hen he is just as guilty.

Just because someone else suggested that it is not a war for oil doesn't make it fact?

It doens't not make it a fact, either.

It is about control of oil, control of the Iraqi economy, and control of the middle east political situation. That is why the US is building so many bases in Iraq.
Yes. Because lord knows, there isn't enough to do here in the US. :rolleyes:
The US is building the bases there because they're NEEDED, just as they were needed in Japan and Germany in 1945.
We could leave Iraq tomorrow. Then, say HELLO Rwanda. Or Sarajevo. Or Cambodia. If the US left, the situation would become exponentially worse in a matter of DAYS.


Also, the soldier talked about rebuilding the infastructure (using US taxpayer dollars), and guess who will benefit most from this? Obviously the US companies that take control of Iraqi businesses through Bremer's Orders, will have the most to gain from improvements to the infastructure.

As opposed to the illegal French and German profiteering after Gulf War I? The UN's crooked dealings in the oil for food program, which they've SEALED their documents from? Please. At the end of the day, the US will spend WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more on Iraq than it will get out of it.


BTW, these repairs to Iraqi infastructure would not have been necessary if the US had not bombed the crap out of everything in the first place?

Yep. Just like it's the cop's fault you're car is crashed into a telephone pole after a high speed persuit. SADDAM REFUSED to allow free and open inspections and broke resolutions for **years**.
We've covered this ground in other forums, I'd prefer not to open up that whole argument again. But I'd also like to point out that lots of this damage which is pointed to was never fixed from Gulf War I.

Bush, even if his entire justification for the Iraqi Freedom campaign is based on lies and half truths, is not a war criminal. Even if he holds the Guantanimo Bay prisoners indefinitely, he is not a war criminal. Even if he begins illegal searches in the US for "suspected terrorists" is not a war criminal. These acts are all insidious in their own ways, but are far from war crimes. The US being a sovereign nation and all, these things must be handled and dealt with internally, and through the proper channels, or you are no better than he.

Wasn't the Guantanamo prisoners caught during the campaign in Afghanistan? If so they are prisoners of war, and as such has a whole lot of rights - or at least that's what I learned during my military training. Denying prisoners of wars there rights given by the Geneva convention would count as a warcrime, or at least that's what I think.

And as a member of UN I belive that each state has signed a document that says that the only way a war is legal is if the war is defending from another nation that has attacked you or if the security council has approved it.

Sorry about the spelling, english is not my native tounge.

Well, that's obviously working out well for them. :rolleyes:

They are good ... FYI Oil prices have actually gone up

My heart does go out to any innocent civilians killed. But this is war. A few will inevitably be killed. Just know that the insurgents deliberatly target civilians, as they have done in most of their recent attacks.

Perhaps the insurgents should stop shooting at US troops. I love how they place all the blame on America.

Tell you what. Watch any country invade the US and see how many "insurgents" fight back. It's insane to expect otherwise. (I'm not justifying their methods, by the way, before anyone flames me)

And are you a believer of liberating the people of Iraq? One minute you're saying "we're liberating them!" and the next you show such callous disregard for others.

What if someone just said "Ahhh 9/11, who cares? War is Hell." That's just as bad.
Terrorists TARGETED civilian targets on 9/11. Insurgents USE CIVILIANS as human shields. US TARGETS insurgents, terrorists, not civilians. By the way, I don't believe the US has quite reached a million casualties yet.

war is hell,

On that part I do not agree. I think war is worse than hell!!
Why? Because only evil people suffer in hell. Inocent children suffer in war.
Sad but ture

Tell you what. Watch any country invade the US and see how many "insurgents" fight back. It's insane to expect otherwise. (I'm not justifying their methods, by the way, before anyone flames me)

Read my other posts.

On that part I do not agree. I think war is worse than hell!!
Why? Because only evil people suffer in hell. Inocent children suffer in war.
Sad but ture

Well if you think of it that way, then the innocent children are going to heaven anyway...so no harm done

On the "war for oil" thing; just because gas prices haven't lowered or because the oil's dollar value over 10 years would not recoup the war cost (thus making a profit) doesn't exclude the possibility that gaining control over the source of oil wasn't a viable motive. No one said the war was to for CHEAP oil for consumers. If I were a national leader, say, in NS, I might be inclined to grab strategic resource producing regions myself. Think about it.

I'm not saying it was or wasn't, but I seriously doubt no one in DC took it into consideration.

haha...it's all in the eye of the beholder

When insurgents chose to fight among civilians...this is what happens. It is their fault. I'm sure the American army, given the choice, would rather fight in an open field/forest/desert/etc. than in the cities, especially since they would destroy the insurgents in a war of that fashion. The insurgents know that if they fight among the houses of their families, the amount of "smackdown" US and Coalition forces can use will be limited, and therefore, that's where the insurgents hide in their coward's war.

my, how quickly and conveniently we forget history.

The majority of the fighting done in one war that comes to mind was guerrilla-style. The invading forces were mowed down like grass by the rebel forces that ambushed them. When the two armies came face-to-face in the "traditional" style of warfare, the rebel army usually fell (with some notable exceptions). Knowing they were outnumbered, outgunned and outtrained, they chose to fight what Steel Butterfly here would call a "coward's war." Who are these cowards, and what war am I talking about?
Why, the Colonial forces in the American Revolutionary War, of course.
Our founding fathers...such cowards.

Terrorists TARGETED civilian targets on 9/11.Falluhians have absolutelly nothing to do with 9-11..... nothing whatsoever.

Somehow, I think the salient point has alluded you?
"alluded". Eluded.

Falluhians have absolutelly nothing to do with 9-11..... nothing whatsoever.
Didn't say they did. They do have something to do with, let's see here . . . roadside bombs, car bombs, suicide bombers, slaughtering houses for captured foreigners, and, BTW, mostly killing their own people.

Sense of humour. Get one. And telling me I'm sick while yourself supporting a war is a bit...y'know...odd?

Either way, I wasn't finding humour in the death and dying, was a - wait for it - CONTRAST OF IMAGES. Over the top. Almost comical.

Black comedy.

Geddit?
So you would volunteer to live under the sway of "people" like Saddam and his sons? Oh, that's right, didn't think so.

It's only one man's opinion, but let me throw it out anyway.

<rant>

I have seen the shooting, and the bombing, and the pain that is going on here. I have also see the prisons and the torture facilities that were here for years before the Coalition arrived. I have seen people lined up outside of Abu Ghraib for a kilometer or more, not to see anyone that was there, but to see if they could get information on a friend or relative that was thrown in there a decade ago and was never heard from again.

I have seen the stuff that doesn't get talked about on the news. If you were the editor of the local newspaper in Burgsvilleburough, Idaho, and you had to choose between the story about a new school that was built in Iraq, or a hospital that was restored in Baghdad after 15 years of neglect, or the latest IED in the Green Zone, which would you run?

There is more good being done here that most people know about. The Iraqi people that I have had any contact with are hopeful for the future for the first time in their lives, or so they say.

</rant>


But that's just my opinion.

I've definitely heard that before...and agree with it. And to think people hate the '"fascist, conservative" media....

my, how quickly and conveniently we forget history.

The majority of the fighting done in one war that comes to mind was guerrilla-style. The invading forces were mowed down like grass by the rebel forces that ambushed them. When the two armies came face-to-face in the "traditional" style of warfare, the rebel army usually fell (with some notable exceptions). Knowing they were outnumbered, outgunned and outtrained, they chose to fight what Steel Butterfly here would call a "coward's war." Who are these cowards, and what war am I talking about?
Why, the Colonial forces in the American Revolutionary War, of course.
Our founding fathers...such cowards.

Good story...but I think guerilla war is a bit different from terrorism. Guerilla war is a tactic generally used when one army is greatly outgunned by another. Terrorism is the use of fear to promote an agenda - this terrorism happens to be in the form of suicide bombs, booby traps, killing of civilians, etc...

Saddam Huessin has killed more Muslims all over the Middle East then the United States has, ever. Where Saddam hits over one million, the United States doesn't get anywhere near that. An if memory serves me right, it is "insurgents" blowing up more Iraqi's not American's who when targeting "insurgents" kill civilians. Sad yes, but it is called Collateral Damage.

American Soldiers do more for the Iraqi people in ways of helping to treat them than Saddam ever did. One one hand you have a force trying to help stabilze your country after getting rid of the bastard that killed millions of people in your nation and neighboring nations, or leaving the crazy person in power. Hmmm, that's a no brainer. :rolleyes:

The UN is nothing more than a European attempt to try and thrust themselves onto the political limelight after falling out of importance when more important nations like the United States and USSR started to make all the world's decisions. I think the UN is a joke and should be disbanded and all those diplomats sent packing, Kofi Annan is a fucking joke, where is he even from and couldn't he do more good helping his own nations as opposed to trying to tell the US what to do?

Now about legitimacy of wars: War itself is chaos. The legality of a war is not for the world to decide, it is for that nations government to decide and as far as I know the United States Government said that the Iraqi War was legal. Or in their words, "Giving the president the authorizartion he needs to go to war," now everyone knows that is fancy talk for going to war. An Bush is not a criminal. Every nation incarcerates people without "one ioda of public proof" and no bitches when they do it. Don't kid yourself and ask my to prove it becase they do it quietly, and they can actually keep a tight reign on thier damn slanted, left wing, media. The only reason people care about the Guantanamo Bay prisoners is because they want something to bitch about. Well ok, lets let the fucking terrorists go so they can blow up some more American people, that idea works just great.

Seems to me that Micheal Moore has gotten into some of you all. *sarcasm* It makes me all warm and fuzzy to know there are people like pinko_commie and Al-Queda supporter here in the US when i go to boot camp and go defend their right to fucking idiots, oh yay! *end sarcasm*

And the ones that handled the peace processes of Angola, Mozambique, East timor, Kosovo..

I wouldn't be lauding Kosovo as a success.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-498339.php

[QUOTE= Commie-Pinko Scum
Oh, and it seems that the rate of civilian deaths since the US-led occupation of Iraq is greater than under Saddam.[/QUOTE]

Yes, mostly killed in the name of Islam by terrorists, but dont let that little

important fact slip by you. :rolleyes:

Yes, mostly killed in the name of Islam by terrorists, but dont let that little

important fact slip by you. :rolleyes:the Iraqui Terrorists and the American terrorists (of 1776) are the same....I would be on their side...

You can bet is someone invaded the US there'd be plenty of people fighting the invaders. You'd all be really proud of it, too. Why should it be different for Iraq?

About 80,000,000 someones, if gun ownership is any indication.

Oceandive. Just say you love Osama Bin Laden and get over it.

Anyway no. 1776 possessed two militaries, the American revolutionaries and the British Armies. The Americans did not storm houses looking for children to use as shields or behead the doctors or traders of the British.

You're dumb as hell and I'm done with this ridiculous thread which just has American haters, liberal fascits, and Republican intellectuals.

the Iraqui Terrorists and the American terrorists (of 1776) are the same....I would be on their side...

Now your calling the American Revolution a terrorit act? Let me refresh your memory.

The founding Fathers DID NOT want to split from Great Britain. We did that as a last resort hen King George the Third failed to look at the Olive Branch Petition. Only then did they declare Independence from them.

Here though, the Iraqi terrorists is NOT the same. They are targeting the civilian Populace intentionally while they kill hostages when nations don't negiotate for their release.

Please tell me how they are the same. Back up your statement!

Americans in 1776 weren't terrorists, they were guerilla fighters and also made many attempts to engage the British in conventional warfare, but were annihilated in the early doings and only really started to perform well after they started to be trained, so they had to fire, shoot, and run. But then again you are compraing two times that had vastly diffrent political systems with diffrent belief system. So your argument is really invalied because comparing a war where using other people as a shield was un heard of, and today where it is commonplace is not a fair way to compare wars.

Oceandive. Just say you love Osama Bin Laden and get over it.

Anyway no. 1776 possessed two militaries, the American revolutionaries and the British Armies. The Americans did not storm houses looking for children to use as shields or behead the doctors or traders of the British.

You're dumb as hell and I'm done with this ridiculous thread which just has American haters, liberal fascits, and Republican intellectuals.

Don't forget that the British did terrorist acts on the American Colonies during the Revolutionary War!

Oceandive. Just say you love Osama Bin Laden and get over it.

Anyway no. 1776 possessed two militaries, the American revolutionaries and the British Armies. The Americans did not storm houses looking for children to use as shields or behead the doctors or traders of the British.

You're dumb as hell and I'm done with this ridiculous thread which just has American haters, liberal fascits, and Republican intellectuals.
To my liberal adversaries: please do not take this idiot as representative of conservative America. His hyperbole and name-calling is certainly not how the majority of us operate, MSM and talk radio notwithstanding.

:mp5: :sniper:

ok, now that my artillery has provided me some cover fire...:)

Here's something for all the bleeding-heart pantywaists to chew on.

(By the way, folks, I write these essays *for fun*)

War Or Peace?

Well, folks, get out your old tie-dyed tees and faded jeans, pop on the old Bob Dylan discs (pardon me, records) and groove down to Harvard Yard or Times Square. It seems that we’re caught in a time warp again. Flower children have raised their own children these days, it seems, and those misguided, short-sighted, arrogant children (with trust funds, no less) have decided that the best thing to do with their college education that Mr. And Mrs. Hippie are paying for is to march for peace.
For starters, let’s think this through logically. To properly discuss a topic, definitions and guidelines are generally required. First off, what is peace? Peace is the absence of pain or conflict. But what is conflict? Conflict is an extension of the human survival instinct. Humans compete for territory, for food, and for water, and such competition will inevitably lead to conflict. Despite the evolution that humans have gone through, we are still animals; we walk upright, use tools, and form civilizations, but we are, nonetheless, animals. One must accept what man is before we determine what is necessary. Man is not born with a moral instinct. My Latin teachers had a beautiful phrase for this, they said to each student who had a bad quarter, that each new quarter was a tabula rasa or blank slate. What that means is that they had the chance to improve that time, and learn from their mistakes. Well, a human is born as a blank slate, the same as a horse or a puppy. We do not know right from wrong, and therefore must be taught, wherein lies the first of many problems.
Whose teachings are correct? We in the “modern era” have come to accept that everyone is correct and that we cannot make moral judgments about others and their cultures, even when we feel it may be necessary, because that would be us “forcing our morality” upon others. Horse hockey and other comments. All correct moral imperatives are born from the instinct to survive. Whatever contributes to the safety and survival of the group as a whole is a good starting place, but there must be some consensus about what should and shouldn’t happen. For example, if one culture condones euthanasia and another doesn’t, consensus must be attained for true global harmony. But we as a culture in the United States have condoned ignorance in the name of personal freedom, which ultimately will lead to self-destruction, because suffrage, the right to vote, is the supreme authority in a democratic state, and it cannot be allowed to exist without responsibility attached to it. We preach equality and authority without responsibility. No nation so constituted can long endure.
And a note to those who believe that conflict is evil and should be shunned. Conflict is a necessary trait in the human condition. It allows us to evolve. Think about it this way: if you were forced to eat roast beef for 3 meals a day, seven days a week, for the rest of your life, simply because you don’t know what other options are out there, then you will never evolve, and, quite simply, you will stagnate. Conflict is good, because it forces us to think creatively and analyze things differently and make decisions to adapt to the new surroundings. Hegel wrote that history is synthesis. We can expand that to encompass other things, politics, relationships, and conflict. Put simply, two things exist and conflict, they reach an agreement, and something new is synthesized. Peace is when conflict is resolved, but it is merely the absence of conflict, therefore, the period of coming to grips with the growth one has experienced.
Pacifism for its own sake, any ideal for its own sake, is the height of arrogance; there must be a purpose to it. The purpose of any form of government is simple; to be more efficient in guiding the people at large towards a more perfect form of existence. The key word is guiding, not forcibly deciding. Governments cannot decide pacifism or militarism for it’s citizens, only the individual human heart and mind can determine that. But individuals who refuse to stand for their core beliefs and defend themselves will always fall prey to their fears and will ultimately cease to exist. Races and species that cease to strive and expand get crowded out by those that don’t, resulting in evolution on a social and biological scale.
In the end result, pacifism is a nice ideal, but without the muscle and/or determination to act to make certain your dreams come true, they will fail utterly and never come to fruition.

Addendum: Iraq War Justification Analysis
1. There are many who oppose the use of force because it will result in the loss of life. The human body, when burned to its base elements, only amounts, in raw value, to $0.95. The physical value of human life, then, is not what we are discussing, but rather the value of an impossible-to-price intangible, known as the soul, or life force, depending on one’s beliefs. This intangible power, then, is what we mourn at the end of a life, regardless of who it is. We do not know, as a matter of philosophy or of science, what makes a person decide to choose evil over good, we only know the cosmetic rationale for the change, namely greed, envy, etc. Now, it is generally accepted that all innocent life is sacred, but there are those that argue, unsuccessfully in my opinion, that the lives of evil men are also sacred. But if a thing is sacred, then destroying it would be blasphemy, and thus evil. Something that is blasphemous, and thus evil, has no merit in this world and must be destroyed.
2. War, many believe, is unnecessary and evil. War is not killing for thrill, it is not senseless butchery, it is not mindless savagery in the hands of a skillful commander. It is violence, tightly controlled and purposeful, designed to force by fighting what cannot be accomplished by diplomacy. It is true that politics is war by other means, conversely, war is politics by other means. It is also a last resort, which we have chosen to entertain as an option after 12 years of defiance and deceit. Hussein and his troops represent evil, in its purest form. To put it in perspective, say it was Hussein and 99 of his closest men. That’s 100 brains and 200 trigger fingers and other body parts with which to enact an appalling and stunning combination of evil acts and plans. How can one argue that the efforts of the few (our military) to spare the many (the rest of us) are not noble?
3. Peace is only realized through battle, and ultimately, victory. Unfortunately, humankind has not found a way to resolve their differences without physical violence, but it is through efforts like these that we truly remind ourselves the value of peace and prosperity. Humanity must have this kind of personal stake in the battles we fight, or else victory and defeat become meaningless. If we had a force of robotic soldiers and Saddam did, too, then who would care if both forces wiped each other out? They’re soulless and not valuable, except in terms of construction costs. Both sides would throw more machines at each other until one side went broke and couldn’t afford to do it any more. And what purpose would it serve? None. Humanity would learn nothing and battles would rage eternally. Besides, if conflict was meaningless, then creativity would become irrelevant and other virtues, such as love and passion, would melt away as well. If there is no risk there is no gain, and if there is no danger there is no attraction to the event; just ask mountain climbers or bungee jumpers.
4. The question also rises up about the timing and motivations of our leaders for pressing this case now. Well, among other things, we cannot allow a ruthless, paranoid dictator access to weapons whose effects would give most people unrelenting nightmares if they knew what they were. North Korea is also an issue, but if we turn to face them and ignore Saddam, we’re missing an opportunity to head off another crisis like the one in Korea. More simply, we turned a blind eye once; we cannot afford to do so again. An old military rule of engagement is brought to mind: it is unwise to leave a castle to threaten our rear flank. Hypothetical: there is a run down section of town, and gangs run rampant. One house in the neighborhood is known to be a supply depot for the local gangs for weapons and shelter. When police go in after gang members, would they not be negligent in their duty if they failed to shut down this house, to prevent further violence? Of course they would. The same issue is in play here. Iraq has sponsored terrorists like Abu Nidal and others who have wreaked havoc on the region and the world. Shouldn’t they be targeted as a state sponsor of terrorism?
5. There are those who claim that we “made” Saddam Hussein. For starters, Saddam has only made alliances of convenience and has never molded himself to the whims of an outside power. Secondly, the USSR and France contributed far more to the Iraqi military than the USA ever did, and they also contributed supplies for a nuclear weapons program. This, in a nutshell, is the crux of their opposition to disarmament; they are afraid that their involvements will become more widely known and that they will suffer the price for their actions.
6. “But he hasn’t shown that he will attack his neighbors in the future.” Then what, pray tell, were the invasions of Iran and Kuwait? Saddam sees a plot around every corner. If he had a suspicion that Syria or Jordan was conspiring against him, he would take steps to move against them. He is ruthless against his opponents and would invade any country on a timetable of his own choosing, whatever that may be.
7. This war is not about oil. If we had imperialist urgings and oil acquisition dreams, then we would have occupied Kuwaiti oil fields after the ‘91 Gulf War.
8. Most dedicated opposition to the war is based on intense dislike for President Bush. Many are still attempting to re-fight the 2000 election, opposing him based on irrational, hate-filled propaganda, comparing him to Hitler, saying that he is a bloodthirsty maniac, et al. Bush has not ordered the use of chemical weapons on American citizens, he has nor rounded up political opponents for execution or imprisonment, he has not entered into alliances and treaties in bad faith, only to break them when it was politically expedient. Hussein has done so and will continue to do so to ensure the survivability of his career and his regime.
9. The United Nations is irrelevant. They have passed 17 resolutions concerning the disarmament of Iraq, but have failed to enforce them. They desire peace but attempt to seek it by double-parking in Manhattan and sipping double-lattes instead of aggressively backing up their resolutions. In addition, they have elected Libya, a brutal regime in its own right, to chair the Committee on Human Rights, as well as let the rotating chairmanship of the Disarmament Conference to be chaired and vice-chaired by Iraq and Iran. This body is so anti-US and UK, it is a wonderment that it still exists on US soil. The League of Nations helped to partition the Middle East after World War I spelled the end of the Ottoman Empire, but their efforts have led to the present complications, which we are suffering under. Unless it learns from history, it will pass into the dustbin of history. Their method is best illustrated by the parable of the Little Red Hen, with world peace being the substitute for the bread in the story. They all want world peace, but refuse to do the heavy lifting. In every UN operation, the US has provided the bulk of the peacekeeping forces and supplies. Without our support, they will flounder. Yet they ignore our contribution to their efforts and deem us renegades. They should be left to their own devices and exposed for the useless, vestigial organ that they are. World peace is a wonderful dream, but it cannot be achieved by just talking. And the UN has refused to heed that fact, to its own detriment.
10. “War will only bring more terrorism.” Usama bin Laden declared his jihad against the west in 1988. In that time, we have had the Twin Towers bombed twice, the Pentagon has been attacked once, two embassies in Africa have been destroyed, the U.S.S. Cole has been damaged, and a military barracks in Saudi Arabia has been bombed. In all that time, we did nothing, save lobbing a few cruise missiles at an aspirin factory in the Sudan. And look what happened to us, in return. Evil cannot be avoided, or hidden from, nor can we afford to let this run unchecked around the globe.


P.S. - Comparing the civilian casualties suffered during the US liberation of Iraq to the deliberate mass murder and genocide under Saddam Hussein is like comparing a car accident to Tieneman Square. The first is an accident, the second is cold, calculated and indifferent slaughter. There is NO comparison between the two. Yes, yes, we didn't get a resolution from the spaghetti committee, aka the UN...but considering how 90% of the nations there are either despotic regimes or support despotic regimes, especially the French, can there be any doubt in your mind that they wouldn't have done a bloody thing to stop their friend Saddam from doing anything naughty? The UN is corrupt, and will fail. If it lasts more than 5 years longer, I'll be totally shocked. And to see the whining and bitching and psychotic ramblings of some people on this board, one would think that the US was a rogue nation. Well, then, who the hell else would have enforced 17 resolutions? Were the resolutions written on toilet paper for the Security Council members to use, or did the members expect them to be obeyed? If the UN can't enforce its own resolutions, especially an armistice treaty that ended a war, then what good is it? The US is acting on behalf of the world. We have made a crucible, which, in chemistry, one uses to force out impurities from a combustible substance. Well, this crucible is going to reveal our true allies from our fair-weather friends who only ask for money to save their crumbling and failing economies. This will reveal who wants to defend civilization and who wants to destroy it. There is no middle ground. We must rally to defend civilization as we know it. If we do not, then who will? Botswana? Bosnia? Lichtenstein? Answer me this and maybe I'll be convinced. Think it over, and try to be logical and reasonable when replying. The last thing we need is more vitriol and mental shortcuts to reasoning and logic.

You can bet is someone invaded the US there'd be plenty of people fighting the invaders. You'd all be really proud of it, too. Why should it be different for Iraq?

Because the situation in Iraq is like random Canadians, Mexicans, and Australians coming into America and then killing random american women and children on purpose to keep the vast majority of americans from cooperating with the "enemy". Get your facts straight.

Also what so many stupid people don't realize is that the vast majority of these "insurgents" are actually foreign terrorists who poured in from other countries and then took over areas like Fallujah. They aren't even Iraqi!

So to say if it happened here and we would do the same thing. Yeah. We would. We're also Americans so we feel it's our native duty to do so. They're not even Iraqi over there!

the Iraqui Terrorists and the American terrorists (of 1776) are the same....I would be on their side...
You aren't seriously saying that you would join the Iraqi terrorists? The same ones that have beheaded hostages while filming for posterity, that have now been discovered to have "slaughter houses" where they tortured and killed, and recorded those acts, multiple foreign kidnap victims?

Saddam Huessin has killed more Muslims all over the Middle East then the United States has, ever. Where Saddam hits over one million, the United States doesn't get anywhere near that. An if memory serves me right, it is "insurgents" blowing up more Iraqi's not American's who when targeting "insurgents" kill civilians. Sad yes, but it is called Collateral Damage.

American Soldiers do more for the Iraqi people in ways of helping to treat them than Saddam ever did. One one hand you have a force trying to help stabilze your country after getting rid of the bastard that killed millions of people in your nation and neighboring nations, or leaving the crazy person in power. Hmmm, that's a no brainer. :rolleyes:

The UN is nothing more than a European attempt to try and thrust themselves onto the political limelight after falling out of importance when more important nations like the United States and USSR started to make all the world's decisions. I think the UN is a joke and should be disbanded and all those diplomats sent packing, Kofi Annan is a fucking joke, where is he even from and couldn't he do more good helping his own nations as opposed to trying to tell the US what to do?

Now about legitimacy of wars: War itself is chaos. The legality of a war is not for the world to decide, it is for that nations government to decide and as far as I know the United States Government said that the Iraqi War was legal. Or in their words, "Giving the president the authorizartion he needs to go to war," now everyone knows that is fancy talk for going to war. An Bush is not a criminal. Every nation incarcerates people without "one ioda of public proof" and no bitches when they do it. Don't kid yourself and ask my to prove it becase they do it quietly, and they can actually keep a tight reign on thier damn slanted, left wing, media. The only reason people care about the Guantanamo Bay prisoners is because they want something to bitch about. Well ok, lets let the fucking terrorists go so they can blow up some more American people, that idea works just great.

Seems to me that Micheal Moore has gotten into some of you all. *sarcasm* It makes me all warm and fuzzy to know there are people like pinko_commie and Al-Queda supporter here in the US when i go to boot camp and go defend their right to fucking idiots, oh yay! *end sarcasm*
damn straight

Are you saying that "your" freedoms are better than "theirs", that "your" religion is better than "theirs"? They seem to be fighting very hard not to want "your" "freedoms"?

Hmm, agnosticism isn't exacly a religion, and they ain't fighting hard. If the actual populace was truly opposing our actions it would be a hell of a lot worse. They aren't. As for our freedoms, yes, yes they are.

:mp5: :sniper:

ok, now that my artillery has provided me some cover fire...:)

Here's something for all the bleeding-heart pantywaists to chew on.

(By the way, folks, I write these essays *for fun*)

War Or Peace?

Well, folks, get out your old tie-dyed tees and faded jeans, pop on the old Bob Dylan discs (pardon me, records) and groove down to Harvard Yard or Times Square. It seems that we’re caught in a time warp again. Flower children have raised their own children these days, it seems, and those misguided, short-sighted, arrogant children (with trust funds, no less) have decided that the best thing to do with their college education that Mr. And Mrs. Hippie are paying for is to march for peace.
For starters, let’s think this through logically. To properly discuss a topic, definitions and guidelines are generally required. First off, what is peace? Peace is the absence of pain or conflict. But what is conflict? Conflict is an extension of the human survival instinct. Humans compete for territory, for food, and for water, and such competition will inevitably lead to conflict. Despite the evolution that humans have gone through, we are still animals; we walk upright, use tools, and form civilizations, but we are, nonetheless, animals. One must accept what man is before we determine what is necessary. Man is not born with a moral instinct. My Latin teachers had a beautiful phrase for this, they said to each student who had a bad quarter, that each new quarter was a tabula rasa or blank slate. What that means is that they had the chance to improve that time, and learn from their mistakes. Well, a human is born as a blank slate, the same as a horse or a puppy. We do not know right from wrong, and therefore must be taught, wherein lies the first of many problems.
Whose teachings are correct? We in the “modern era” have come to accept that everyone is correct and that we cannot make moral judgments about others and their cultures, even when we feel it may be necessary, because that would be us “forcing our morality” upon others. Horse hockey and other comments. All correct moral imperatives are born from the instinct to survive. Whatever contributes to the safety and survival of the group as a whole is a good starting place, but there must be some consensus about what should and shouldn’t happen. For example, if one culture condones euthanasia and another doesn’t, consensus must be attained for true global harmony. But we as a culture in the United States have condoned ignorance in the name of personal freedom, which ultimately will lead to self-destruction, because suffrage, the right to vote, is the supreme authority in a democratic state, and it cannot be allowed to exist without responsibility attached to it. We preach equality and authority without responsibility. No nation so constituted can long endure.
And a note to those who believe that conflict is evil and should be shunned. Conflict is a necessary trait in the human condition. It allows us to evolve. Think about it this way: if you were forced to eat roast beef for 3 meals a day, seven days a week, for the rest of your life, simply because you don’t know what other options are out there, then you will never evolve, and, quite simply, you will stagnate. Conflict is good, because it forces us to think creatively and analyze things differently and make decisions to adapt to the new surroundings. Hegel wrote that history is synthesis. We can expand that to encompass other things, politics, relationships, and conflict. Put simply, two things exist and conflict, they reach an agreement, and something new is synthesized. Peace is when conflict is resolved, but it is merely the absence of conflict, therefore, the period of coming to grips with the growth one has experienced.
Pacifism for its own sake, any ideal for its own sake, is the height of arrogance; there must be a purpose to it. The purpose of any form of government is simple; to be more efficient in guiding the people at large towards a more perfect form of existence. The key word is guiding, not forcibly deciding. Governments cannot decide pacifism or militarism for it’s citizens, only the individual human heart and mind can determine that. But individuals who refuse to stand for their core beliefs and defend themselves will always fall prey to their fears and will ultimately cease to exist. Races and species that cease to strive and expand get crowded out by those that don’t, resulting in evolution on a social and biological scale.
In the end result, pacifism is a nice ideal, but without the muscle and/or determination to act to make certain your dreams come true, they will fail utterly and never come to fruition.

Addendum: Iraq War Justification Analysis
1. There are many who oppose the use of force because it will result in the loss of life. The human body, when burned to its base elements, only amounts, in raw value, to $0.95. The physical value of human life, then, is not what we are discussing, but rather the value of an impossible-to-price intangible, known as the soul, or life force, depending on one’s beliefs. This intangible power, then, is what we mourn at the end of a life, regardless of who it is. We do not know, as a matter of philosophy or of science, what makes a person decide to choose evil over good, we only know the cosmetic rationale for the change, namely greed, envy, etc. Now, it is generally accepted that all innocent life is sacred, but there are those that argue, unsuccessfully in my opinion, that the lives of evil men are also sacred. But if a thing is sacred, then destroying it would be blasphemy, and thus evil. Something that is blasphemous, and thus evil, has no merit in this world and must be destroyed.
2. War, many believe, is unnecessary and evil. War is not killing for thrill, it is not senseless butchery, it is not mindless savagery in the hands of a skillful commander. It is violence, tightly controlled and purposeful, designed to force by fighting what cannot be accomplished by diplomacy. It is true that politics is war by other means, conversely, war is politics by other means. It is also a last resort, which we have chosen to entertain as an option after 12 years of defiance and deceit. Hussein and his troops represent evil, in its purest form. To put it in perspective, say it was Hussein and 99 of his closest men. That’s 100 brains and 200 trigger fingers and other body parts with which to enact an appalling and stunning combination of evil acts and plans. How can one argue that the efforts of the few (our military) to spare the many (the rest of us) are not noble?
3. Peace is only realized through battle, and ultimately, victory. Unfortunately, humankind has not found a way to resolve their differences without physical violence, but it is through efforts like these that we truly remind ourselves the value of peace and prosperity. Humanity must have this kind of personal stake in the battles we fight, or else victory and defeat become meaningless. If we had a force of robotic soldiers and Saddam did, too, then who would care if both forces wiped each other out? They’re soulless and not valuable, except in terms of construction costs. Both sides would throw more machines at each other until one side went broke and couldn’t afford to do it any more. And what purpose would it serve? None. Humanity would learn nothing and battles would rage eternally. Besides, if conflict was meaningless, then creativity would become irrelevant and other virtues, such as love and passion, would melt away as well. If there is no risk there is no gain, and if there is no danger there is no attraction to the event; just ask mountain climbers or bungee jumpers.
4. The question also rises up about the timing and motivations of our leaders for pressing this case now. Well, among other things, we cannot allow a ruthless, paranoid dictator access to weapons whose effects would give most people unrelenting nightmares if they knew what they were. North Korea is also an issue, but if we turn to face them and ignore Saddam, we’re missing an opportunity to head off another crisis like the one in Korea. More simply, we turned a blind eye once; we cannot afford to do so again. An old military rule of engagement is brought to mind: it is unwise to leave a castle to threaten our rear flank. Hypothetical: there is a run down section of town, and gangs run rampant. One house in the neighborhood is known to be a supply depot for the local gangs for weapons and shelter. When police go in after gang members, would they not be negligent in their duty if they failed to shut down this house, to prevent further violence? Of course they would. The same issue is in play here. Iraq has sponsored terrorists like Abu Nidal and others who have wreaked havoc on the region and the world. Shouldn’t they be targeted as a state sponsor of terrorism?
5. There are those who claim that we “made” Saddam Hussein. For starters, Saddam has only made alliances of convenience and has never molded himself to the whims of an outside power. Secondly, the USSR and France contributed far more to the Iraqi military than the USA ever did, and they also contributed supplies for a nuclear weapons program. This, in a nutshell, is the crux of their opposition to disarmament; they are afraid that their involvements will become more widely known and that they will suffer the price for their actions.
6. “But he hasn’t shown that he will attack his neighbors in the future.” Then what, pray tell, were the invasions of Iran and Kuwait? Saddam sees a plot around every corner. If he had a suspicion that Syria or Jordan was conspiring against him, he would take steps to move against them. He is ruthless against his opponents and would invade any country on a timetable of his own choosing, whatever that may be.
7. This war is not about oil. If we had imperialist urgings and oil acquisition dreams, then we would have occupied Kuwaiti oil fields after the ‘91 Gulf War.
8. Most dedicated opposition to the war is based on intense dislike for President Bush. Many are still attempting to re-fight the 2000 election, opposing him based on irrational, hate-filled propaganda, comparing him to Hitler, saying that he is a bloodthirsty maniac, et al. Bush has not ordered the use of chemical weapons on American citizens, he has nor rounded up political opponents for execution or imprisonment, he has not entered into alliances and treaties in bad faith, only to break them when it was politically expedient. Hussein has done so and will continue to do so to ensure the survivability of his career and his regime.
9. The United Nations is irrelevant. They have passed 17 resolutions concerning the disarmament of Iraq, but have failed to enforce them. They desire peace but attempt to seek it by double-parking in Manhattan and sipping double-lattes instead of aggressively backing up their resolutions. In addition, they have elected Libya, a brutal regime in its own right, to chair the Committee on Human Rights, as well as let the rotating chairmanship of the Disarmament Conference to be chaired and vice-chaired by Iraq and Iran. This body is so anti-US and UK, it is a wonderment that it still exists on US soil. The League of Nations helped to partition the Middle East after World War I spelled the end of the Ottoman Empire, but their efforts have led to the present complications, which we are suffering under. Unless it learns from history, it will pass into the dustbin of history. Their method is best illustrated by the parable of the Little Red Hen, with world peace being the substitute for the bread in the story. They all want world peace, but refuse to do the heavy lifting. In every UN operation, the US has provided the bulk of the peacekeeping forces and supplies. Without our support, they will flounder. Yet they ignore our contribution to their efforts and deem us renegades. They should be left to their own devices and exposed for the useless, vestigial organ that they are. World peace is a wonderful dream, but it cannot be achieved by just talking. And the UN has refused to heed that fact, to its own detriment.
10. “War will only bring more terrorism.” Usama bin Laden declared his jihad against the west in 1988. In that time, we have had the Twin Towers bombed twice, the Pentagon has been attacked once, two embassies in Africa have been destroyed, the U.S.S. Cole has been damaged, and a military barracks in Saudi Arabia has been bombed. In all that time, we did nothing, save lobbing a few cruise missiles at an aspirin factory in the Sudan. And look what happened to us, in return. Evil cannot be avoided, or hidden from, nor can we afford to let this run unchecked around the globe.


P.S. - Comparing the civilian casualties suffered during the US liberation of Iraq to the deliberate mass murder and genocide under Saddam Hussein is like comparing a car accident to Tieneman Square. The first is an accident, the second is cold, calculated and indifferent slaughter. There is NO comparison between the two. Yes, yes, we didn't get a resolution from the spaghetti committee, aka the UN...but considering how 90% of the nations there are either despotic regimes or support despotic regimes, especially the French, can there be any doubt in your mind that they wouldn't have done a bloody thing to stop their friend Saddam from doing anything naughty? The UN is corrupt, and will fail. If it lasts more than 5 years longer, I'll be totally shocked. And to see the whining and bitching and psychotic ramblings of some people on this board, one would think that the US was a rogue nation. Well, then, who the hell else would have enforced 17 resolutions? Were the resolutions written on toilet paper for the Security Council members to use, or did the members expect them to be obeyed? If the UN can't enforce its own resolutions, especially an armistice treaty that ended a war, then what good is it? The US is acting on behalf of the world. We have made a crucible, which, in chemistry, one uses to force out impurities from a combustible substance. Well, this crucible is going to reveal our true allies from our fair-weather friends who only ask for money to save their crumbling and failing economies. This will reveal who wants to defend civilization and who wants to destroy it. There is no middle ground. We must rally to defend civilization as we know it. If we do not, then who will? Botswana? Bosnia? Lichtenstein? Answer me this and maybe I'll be convinced. Think it over, and try to be logical and reasonable when replying. The last thing we need is more vitriol and mental shortcuts to reasoning and logic.

You're my hero!!!!

And if this was a war for oil then why are gas prices so high? If you can anser that then magic can happen.
The "magic" will happen when you realize that I meant control of the oil reserves, I didn't say anything about the cost of the oil.

we don't have control of oil or control of the Iraqi economy. That control belong to the Iraqi Oil Minitry and Economic Minitry.As long as the US has troops in Iraq, and that will be for a very long time, the US will have a certain control over the oil. The Iraqi economy is under US control under Bremer's Orders....you really should do some reading to stay with the topic?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/after/2004/0120ambitions.htm

Bremer Order #39: Foreign Investment

The order on foreign investment five key elements:

(1) Privatization of state-owned enterprises;
(2) 100% foreign ownership of businesses in all sectors except oil and mineral extraction, banks and insurance companies (the latter two are addressed in a separate order);
(3) "national treatment" of foreign firms;
(4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all funds associated with the investment, including, but not limited to, profits; and
(5) 40 year ownership licenses which have the option of being renewed.

If that isn't hijacking the economy, I don't know what is.

Do you have proof of this? as far as I can see, the Iraqis are also doing alot of the rebuilding. We are using iraqi civilians to rebuild their infrastructure with tapayer dollars.
There are numerous US companies in Iraq doing a brisk business and yes those companies brought in lots of personnel from the US. Look it up. Halliburton is probably the biggest violator, especially on overcharging the US taxpayers.

It also ouldn't be necessary if they eren't runned don from years of neglect under Hussein's rule. Nice to try to place blame on us hen he is just as guilty.
The vast majority of damage to Iraqi infastructure occurred with the "shock and awe" bombing raids, and much more has been destroyed since then.

Here's a drive-by post. Even in war, this tactic is NASTY. I'm more than a little shocked by what the US is doing here.

http://www.boingboing.net/2004/11/10/white_phosphorous_am.html

my, how quickly and conveniently we forget history.

The majority of the fighting done in one war that comes to mind was guerrilla-style. The invading forces were mowed down like grass by the rebel forces that ambushed them. When the two armies came face-to-face in the "traditional" style of warfare, the rebel army usually fell (with some notable exceptions). Knowing they were outnumbered, outgunned and outtrained, they chose to fight what Steel Butterfly here would call a "coward's war." Who are these cowards, and what war am I talking about?
Why, the Colonial forces in the American Revolutionary War, of course.
Our founding fathers...such cowards.
Hmmm, can't think of any foreigners we beheaded to get the Brits to leave. We hid behind trees and other cover. We DID NOT use civilians as shields from gunfire or kill women and children to terrorize other americans into joining us. There is a pretty big difference and if you can't see it you should move to Syria and have fun.

Here's a drive-by post. Even in war, this tactic is NASTY. I'm more than a little shocked by what the US is doing here.

http://www.boingboing.net/2004/11/10/white_phosphorous_am.html


If the enemy fights with no restraints, and we have to resort to nasty measures to combat them, then where is the shame and dishonor? I can see it as overkill if the Marines did that to a bunch of school kids throwing rocks...but against dedicated insurgents who show no mercy to captives and follow no rules of warfare, what is the point in limiting ourselves and handicapping our military?

:mp5: :sniper:

ok, now that my artillery has provided me some cover fire...:)

Here's something for all the bleeding-heart pantywaists to chew on.

(By the way, folks, I write these essays *for fun*)

War Or Peace?

~~SNIP~~

Well you surely did write a lot of words that would probably fall on deaf ears right after the first insult?

While I did take the time to read your entire post, I suggest that you failed to make your case for a "just" war against Iraq. Iraq was relatively quiet before the US went barging in and now the coalition has its' hands full. While the US might have been successful in removing a dictator from power, it appears that during the process, a lot of bad will has been created around the world.

You asked the question....War Or Peace?.....well I say peace but I do believe that there is going to be a helluva lot more war before that peace comes about. Peace will come some day and won't that just piss you off?

They are good ... FYI Oil prices have actually gone up

And that has impacted Bush from "profiting economically or politically" from it how? The terrorist blowing up oil infrastructure in Iraq only keeps the US in their country longer.

~~SNIP~~

Well you surely did write a lot of words that would probably fall on deaf ears right after the first insult?

While I did take the time to read your entire post, I suggest that you failed to make your case for a "just" war against Iraq. Iraq was relatively quiet before the US went barging in and now the coalition has its' hands full. While the US might have been successful in removing a dictator from power, it appears that during the process, a lot of bad will has been created around the world.

You asked the question....War Or Peace?.....well I say peace but I do believe that there is going to be a helluva lot more war before that peace comes about. Peace will come some day and won't that just piss you off?

Actually, I would welcome peace...I just don't want a peace through surrendering to absurdity and anarchy...hence the support for the war in Iraq. By the way, what is your definition of a just war? If the UN declares itself to be the end-all and the be-all of global peace, then why in HELL does it lack the balls to enforce its own resolutions? And why does it then criticize one of its members, who actually is in the UN illegally (the US Senate never formally ratified the UN charter) for enforcing the will of the global body? Global peace is something that needs to be forged in the fires of a crucible, and that is what we're in right now.

the Iraqui Terrorists and the American terrorists (of 1776) are the same....I would be on their side...

Their not the same OceanDrive, the ISLAMIC terrorists are after power, the

American revolutionarys were fighting for freedom.

It's a shame that collateral damage is necessary, but let's face it, when it comes down to it at the end of the day, this death is just another senseless act of violence whether it was intended or not.

peace is a by-product of war, always has been and always will be till humanity grows up, or uses robots to fight. those who say war is evil and bad, look at human history...yeah...enough said. War followed by peace and then more war followed by peace and than a *gasp!* war! look at it, humanity will remain the same. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Get over it and accept human nature.

Well, the insurgents didn't exist before the US troops were there. When a country is illegally invaded, don't expect a legal response.

yeah there werent insurgents against saddam right? people dont like dictators so naturally they rebelled. if there are insurgents now then who cares? kill 'em all anyway

That's a point - but just recklessly invading was a mistake to begin with. The US would do good by pulling out of Iraq and handing it over to the UN.
HAHAHA!!!

That nation would completely collapse within two weeks under UN control. At least now there is a semblance of order. By the way, I would also point out that most people were smart enough to leave Falluja months ago. I would think knowing US troops are massing around your city would be enough to prompt you to leave the city. If you determine not to, and instead remain, then you have placed yourself into a volatile situation where insurgents will almost certainly use you to protect themselves. We could not leave the city as a base of operations for acts of terrorism. it was simply not an option.

I gotto go now :D seeya all laterzz and yes I do hate BUSH!..my total country does.. everybody in europe does I guess.. Yep it would be allot more peacefull without president bush ;) (better kill one person than you guys killing thousends).. nice chattign guys cya'll
Funny. I know Germans, Poles, British and Spainards that like Bush.

I understand English isn't your first language, however, can you at least ACT like you're older than four?

nope I won't :| sarcastic *** :P So your going to iraq? :P please hurry or you'll miss the next plane:D.. And i really do not hope that you see terrible things and your traumatized for life i really dont ;)

...or I was going to class...

And that has impacted Bush from "profiting economically or politically" from it how? If the Iraquis had greeted us with "Flowers and candy" just like Bush predicted....Bush would have a much better Image. Here and Abroad.

If the enemy fights with no restraints, and we have to resort to nasty measures to combat them, then where is the shame and dishonor? I can see it as overkill if the Marines did that to a bunch of school kids throwing rocks...but against dedicated insurgents who show no mercy to captives and follow no rules of warfare, what is the point in limiting ourselves and handicapping our military?The Iraquis say we used some Chemical weapons and Napalm...

the merican revolutionarys were fighting for freedom.and so are the Iraquis.

Their not the same OceanDrive, the ISLAMIC terrorists are after power, the

American revolutionarys were fighting for freedom.
The American terrorists where fighting their legitimit rulers cause they didn't want to pay their taxes.

and so are the Iraquis.

Just like the "freedom" they had under Saddam, right? They're fighting for freedom from an occupation, not "freedom" as the colonial Americans did. Colonial America was never "occupied" by the British as Iraq is by America now, but instead was a part of England that decided to break free so that they could rule themselves and not be ruled by a Monarch hundreds of miles away. We are trying to establish this successful and beneficial form of government in Iraq. Those who still want a dictatorship or a theocracy are the ones fighting. Obviously they wouldn't want the average person to rule. Where would their power be then?

Just like the "freedom" they had under Saddam, right? They're fighting for freedom from an occupation, not "freedom" as the colonial Americans did. Colonial America was never "occupied" by the British as Iraq is by America now, but instead was a part of England that decided to break free so that they could rule themselves and not be ruled by a Monarch hundreds of miles away.
Sounds like Iraq. Who don't want to be ruled by a president thousands of miles away.
We are trying to establish this successful and beneficial form of government in Iraq. Those who still want a dictatorship or a theocracy are the ones fighting. Obviously they wouldn't want the average person to rule. Where would their power be then?
Yep. Thats what the Americans are fighting for right now alright. They already elected a religiouse fundamentalist. Now all thats left to do is shove a puppet regime down the Iraqi's throats.

Well, the insurgents didn't exist before the US troops were there. When a country is illegally invaded, don't expect a legal response.
Saddam was there. If you think that him being there permanently was a better choice than us being their temporarily, you're more confused than I thought. :mp5:

You said that it's just as bad for us to be there because the death toll is the same, right? Well..., in that case, temporary is better. Face it.

What better way to rid the world of terrorism than to challenge them to a battle and wait for them to show up. While they futily try to evict us from Iraq, they aren't attacking innocent workers, commuters, passengers, students, and partiers around the globe, ARE they? :rolleyes:

They are losing and no amount of patronage or support from YOU is going to help them, so just stop, will ya? :headbang: You're embarrassing yourself. :p

If a certain American president hadn't ordered a retreat from Somalia when the terrorists, and other goons had been confined to Mogadishu, there would be a precedent for what Bush, Blair, and others are trying to accomplish now. Just once..., we must follow through on our promises to fight back. Once that precedent has been set, the terrorists will have a harder time recruiting, getting funding, and carrying out hanous acts of terror against innocent folks. Eventually, they will be containable, if not extinct. People like you are hindering that effort. You are welcome to do so now, but if the people you condemn fail to stop those whom you equate with freedom fighters, you will lose that precious priviledge and have no one to blame but yourself.

Sure it's terrible that innocent people suffer due to the insatiable, power-hungry extremists who resort to terror... But, would you prefer that the people who are trying to help the innocents, like those who died on 9-11, get killed in their place. All life is precious, but some is more productive, and innocent folks who have nothing but their daily lives to live for are giving those lives for their fellow citizens that they might one day be able to lead lives similar to those of Americans and other free peoples. If we were to pull out now, the lives lost to date (all of them) will have been be lost in vain. The U.N. has proven that it will not act on the behalf of the Iraqi people. They have proven that they will not act on behalf of the neighbors of the Iraqi dictator. They have proven that they will not act on behalf of their own viability as arbitrator of international problems by upholding and enforcing their own charter. What good are they when their leaders are as corrupt as Saddam and Kim Jong il, even if they aren't as tyrannical?

Forget your discomfort for a moment and consider the potential for the people of Iraq and other places to finally experience freedom. If it's good enough for us, shouldn't they have it too?

haha...it's all in the eye of the beholder

When insurgents chose to fight among civilians...this is what happens. It is their fault. I'm sure the American army, given the choice, would rather fight in an open field/forest/desert/etc. than in the cities, especially since they would destroy the insurgents in a war of that fashion. The insurgents know that if they fight among the houses of their families, the amount of "smackdown" US and Coalition forces can use will be limited, and therefore, that's where the insurgents hide in their coward's war.
Bingo!!! Thank you for saying it.

What better way to rid the world of terrorism than to challenge them to a battle and wait for them to show up. While they futily try to evict us from Iraq, they aren't attacking innocent workers, commuters, passengers, students, and partiers around the globe, ARE they? :rolleyes:



Um....actually yeah, theyve been attacking all around the world since the "war on terror" started.

Saddam was there. If you think that him being there permanently was a better choice than us being their temporarily, you're more confused than I thought. :mp5:

You said that it's just as bad for us to be there because the death toll is the same, right? Well..., in that case, temporary is better. Face it.

What better way to rid the world of terrorism than to challenge them to a battle and wait for them to show up. While they futily try to evict us from Iraq, they aren't attacking innocent workers, commuters, passengers, students, and partiers around the globe, ARE they? :rolleyes:

They are losing and no amount of patronage or support from YOU is going to help them, so just stop, will ya? :headbang: You're embarrassing yourself. :p

If a certain American president hadn't ordered a retreat from Somalia when the terrorists, and other goons had been confined to Mogadishu, there would be a precedent for what Bush, Blair, and others are trying to accomplish now. Just once..., we must follow through on our promises to fight back. Once that precedent has been set, the terrorists will have a harder time recruiting, getting funding, and carrying out hanous acts of terror against innocent folks. Eventually, they will be containable, if not extinct. People like you are hindering that effort. You are welcome to do so now, but if the people you condemn fail to stop those whom you equate with freedom fighters, you will lose that precious priviledge and have no one to blame but yourself.

Sure it's terrible that innocent people suffer due to the insatiable, power-hungry extremists who resort to terror... But, would you prefer that the people who are trying to help the innocents, like those who died on 9-11, get killed in their place. All life is precious, but some is more productive, and innocent folks who have nothing but their daily lives to live for are giving those lives for their fellow citizens that they might one day be able to lead lives similar to those of Americans and other free peoples. If we were to pull out now, the lives lost to date (all of them) will have been be lost in vain. The U.N. has proven that it will not act on the behalf of the Iraqi people. They have proven that they will not act on behalf of the neighbors of the Iraqi dictator. They have proven that they will not act on behalf of their own viability as arbitrator of international problems by upholding and enforcing their own charter. What good are they when their leaders are as corrupt as Saddam and Kim Jong il, even if they aren't as tyrannical?

Forget your discomfort for a moment and consider the potential for the people of Iraq and other places to finally experience freedom. If it's good enough for us, shouldn't they have it too?
What did Iraq have to do with 9/11? NADA!!

[QUOTE=Ruggedindividualand]

What better way to rid the world of terrorism than to challenge them to a battle and wait for them to show up. While they futily try to evict us from Iraq, they aren't attacking innocent workers, commuters, passengers, students, and partiers around the globe, ARE they? :rolleyes:
[QUOTE]


Um....actually yeah, theyve been attacking all around the world since the "war on terror" started.
Actually, terrorism has actually increased since the illegal invasion of Iraq.

The Iraquis say we used some Chemical weapons and Napalm...

we did not use napalm or Chemical Weapons. And its spelled Iraqi not Iraquis.

we did not use napalm ...
The United States has reportedly been using napalm in the 2003 invasion of Iraq [2] (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/21/1047749944836.html). In August 2003, the Pentagon stopped denying the charge, admitting it did use "Mark 77 firebombs".

"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the cockpit video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."
A generic form of napalm can be produced with gasoline and polystyrene. A common recipe circulated on the Internet for a thickened gasoline substance (technically not napalm but considered similar), involves mixing gasoline and styrofoam. Actually producing such a substance is highly dangerous and may be illegal.

The use of napalm and other incendiaries against civilian populations was banned by a United Nations convention in 1980 [1] (http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/BH790.txt). The United States did not sign the agreement, but claimed to have destroyed its arsenal in 2001.

The United States has reportedly been using napalm in the 2003 invasion of Iraq [2] (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/21/1047749944836.html). In August 2003, the Pentagon stopped denying the charge, admitting it did use "Mark 77 firebombs".

"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the cockpit video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."
A generic form of napalm can be produced with gasoline and polystyrene. A common recipe circulated on the Internet for a thickened gasoline substance (technically not napalm but considered similar), involves mixing gasoline and styrofoam. Actually producing such a substance is highly dangerous and may be illegal.

The use of napalm and other incendiaries against civilian populations was banned by a United Nations convention in 1980 [1] (http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/BH790.txt). The United States did not sign the agreement, but claimed to have destroyed its arsenal in 2001.

And that is a war crime how? Last time I checked, using napalm WAS NOT a war crime if used on enemy soldiers.

we did not use napalm ....
whateva

Yep, babies don't know how to handle guns. Just the mere fact that we defeated a couple of Super Powers, (Britain in 1783 and then Bankrupting the Soviet Union), knocked Spain out in 4 months, and took out two powerful armies in the form of Japan and Germany, speaks otherwise.


please read the whole context.. There was a discussion if US army soldiers may shoot on Iraqi Terrorists if they use baby's as their shield. It had nothing to do with the USA being a country full of baby's :|. But anyway people say I do not see the complexity of modern world, however, I think I'm one of the only ones who does understand this world we live in.

In earlier ages, wars were mostly fought because of religious conflicts. These days wars are fought by the madd and the power hungry people, people blinded by the fact that killing someone else is an evil thing to do, no mather what the reason is. But I can't deny the fact that there are wars and people who struggle for global domination or.. well.. easily said want money. \

Propaganda is a way to 'convince' people of you, or your government (whatever) being the right ones to choose or support (although there are a million other ways propaganda can be used). Sad enough, the world today is fed up with propaganda. Some propaganda is there although we can't see it, some is there to be seen. Communism country's use propaganda to boost the moral, democratic country's or like america aristrocratic country's use it to covince people of them being the good in a conflict or they use propaganda to efficiently improve the moral, or to support a ideal. Commercials is not propaganda, the tv spots about politicalsor government functionsn are propaganda. What I like to call half-propaganda is the way 2 party's can change facts of something.. like a demostration.. the labor union involves says there were 200 thousend people, the government declares there were only 50 thousend people.

Propaganda is everywhere.. some parts of the world clearly and in some harly noticable. I hope this clears things up about my ' not knowing complexity of the world" syndrom :D

And apparently DEU,

You've fallen for propaganda!

Have you traveled outside of your nation or out of Europe for that matter? I have traveled outside of this country and so have my parents. We have probably seen more things and learn about more cultures than you.

I'm a student of History. I'm also a student of Political Affairs. I have been following International News as well as National News for years. I know I'm not expert but I am trying to be one. I rely on first hand accounts to add to what I'm seeing on the news and you know what (brace yourself), I know of all the good that we are doing over in the theaters of war because of said first hand accounts.

hmm nope I just like my name.. I don't believe sjit my government tells me.. partly because their crap.. and because they can't change things.

hmm nope I just like my name.. I don't believe sjit my government tells me.. partly because their crap.. and because they can't change things.

But have you traveled outside your country?

so what! when the insurgents use people as human shields casualties are gonna happen.

war is hell, just ignore it and carry on eating your twinkies
also when you shoot missiles into civilian buildings casualties are going to heppen...

and i dont recall any stories of insurgents walking out holding innocents in front of their bodies

also when you shoot missiles into civilian buildings casualties are going to heppen...

If people are shooting at you from a civilian building then under the Geneva Convention, it becomes a legal target to hit.

and i dont recall any stories of insurgents walking out holding innocents in front of their bodies

Hiding among Civilians is using Civilians as human shields too.

if i was somewhere that america was going to attack, i would've left... staying either says either the insurgents kept you or you wanted to stay... so your death is either due to the terrorists, or your own retardation

:sniper:

http://www.superlaugh.com/fun/soldier.jpg
I would just like to say that if I was ever in that situation, I'd be doing exactly what that soldier's doing.
What a cute kitten!

BTW I didn't read all the posts, so forgive if it's already been mentioned, but has anyone read the BBC reports from a reporter stuck inside Fallujah? Well worth reading:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4004873.stm
At the bottom, there's links to the other stories he's filed. Even taking the reports with a grain of salt, I think it's a helluva lot tougher and violent than the Pentagon's let on. In one report he talks about coming across 4 crippled US tanks, 3 burned out Humvees and at least 6 dead US soldiers (too many body parts to make an accurate estimate), all except two stripped of their weapons. If the Marines were forced to pull back, leaving their dead behind, it's pretty bad.
He also says that nearly all the fighters are from Fallujah.

If people are shooting at you from a civilian building then under the Geneva Convention, it becomes a legal target to hit.
i know and you know im not talking about targets already shooting at them



Hiding among Civilians is using Civilians as human shields too.
point

i know and you know im not talking about targets already shooting at them

Your right I did know that wasn't what you were talking about. That was my mistake and I apologize.



point

Thanks!

if i was somewhere that america was going to attack, i would've left... staying either says either the insurgents kept you or you wanted to stay... so your death is either due to the terrorists, or your own retardation

:sniper:
Or maybe....just maybe...You're got nowhere else to go and no money to take you there even if you did. You may also be afraid of if you did leave you may never be able to return, perhaps to the land that's been held in your family for generations. You may be too sick/old to move or staying to look after your sick and old.
You should consider that before you start shooting women and children and/or bombing their homes, simply because they're there and you decide them being there shows support of terrorism. That sort of thinking ('You either with us or against us') is why America is disliked around the World.

Or maybe....just maybe...You're got nowhere else to go and no money to take you there even if you did.
yay, sarchasm... last i checked it doesn't cost a thing to use your legs and walk away

You may also be afraid of if you did leave you may never be able to return, perhaps to the land that's been held in your family for generations.
property or my life... property or my life... hmmm, tough choice

You may be too sick/old to move or staying to look after your sick and old.
those that are staying to "help" them have to be some of the most ignorant dimwitted people i've ever heard of... "Hmmm, the #1 military power of the planet is coming to attack... I know grandma, let's stay here!"
congratulations numbskulls, you have just doomed yourself

You should consider that before you start shooting women and children and/or bombing their homes, simply because they're there and you decide them being there shows support of terrorism. That sort of thinking ('You either with us or against us') is why America is disliked around the World.

stop assuming what i think and putting words in my mouth... i never said them being there was a sign that they were in support of the terrorists there

hahahaha.. your a little arrogant aren't you?.. let me remind you that you guys have debt over 2 trillion dollars.. you didn't know that right?. and my nation managed to be one of the richest country of the world (BNP). And the education is obe of the best in the whole world.. and you maybe have more guns mate.. but if you guys can't handle them properly you don't need them.. fool

Great another unwashed, hairy European who somehow thinks that Americans care what his opinion is. Well I say until the Europeans are the ones who start running my country (which will never happen), giving me my orders and giving me my mlitary paycheck they can keep bitching all they want because I do not care what some eurotrash with a sloping forehead has to say. Yeah your education is "obe of best in the whole world." Right. :upyours:

P.S. Why is it that when Euros start bashing a American no one says a thing but if a American bashes a European people start having grand mal siezures?

Because the Euros forgot who saved them. Twice!

Also, the Dutch have no right to compare themselves to the USA. Their country is nowhere near the size of the USA. They would have no idea how to govern one of the largest in land, one of the largest in people, and the most diverse country on the face of the planet.

If the Iraquis had greeted us with "Flowers and candy" just like Bush predicted....Bush would have a much better Image. Here and Abroad.

I'm a little confused. Your original post was: "They are stoping Bush from politically and economically benefiting with their Oil." Now you're talking image. But all they are doing is ruining an Islamic country even further.

It fails the litmus test: by killing Iraqis and beheading foreigners, they are KEEPING the Americans and Allies in their country.

So... please explain how they are stopping Bush doing anything?

I'm just curious what happened to the Europe that clawed and scratched and fought against fascism in the 40's? There was a time when there were countries other than Britain and Poland who were willing to step up to the plate and do something difficult (and certainly distasteful) in order to further the cause of humanity in the world. I hear comments about Spain getting what it deserved for helping out in Iraq and it makes me physically ill. Anyone can equate soldiers fighting bravely and causing some collateral damage (which has occured in every conflict in the history of warfare. The scale of collateral damage has been reduced dramatically in this conflict. Anyone ever heard of the carpet bombing campaigns waged by the allies in WWII? You don't think that was horrific for civilians?) to some subhuman, vicious, lunatic intentionally bombing a train station full of people innocently going to work, or strapping explosives to himself and blowing up a school bus, or terrorizing and beheading civilians who are in a country to lend HUMANITARIAN AID is either sick or a monosynaptic fool.

I hear whining about the American propaganda machine. The fact of the matter is that your are just buying the propaganda on the other side. Stop trying to pretend that your european press is soooo objective and truthful. They have an agenda just like everyone else in this world.

War is hell. Nobody likes it. I am a supporter of this war, but I fervently wish it didn't have to be. Americans are not bloodthirsty cowboys. Everyone I know wishes we didn't have to fight. But what we will not do is be cowed by an enemy whose tactics include intentionally shooting schoolchildren to get their way.

Also, nobody I know claims that Iraq was involved in planning or executing 9/11. They have been however a sponsor nation of terrorism for decades. And we aren't interested in catching one rat and going back upstairs while the cellar is still full of them. So why not Iran? North Korea? blah blah blah... You have to start somewhere, and unless you have an army of a billion people and unlimited resources you can't attack on all fronts. Besides we are hoping this does 2 things. 1. Sends a message to other terror sponsor nations that this sort of crap isn't going to be tolerated anymore. 2. that we draw the crazies out of hiding and into Iraq to meet our military. This isn't a popular notion but it's effective and a good plan if you think about it.

What makes me sad is that the "old europe" is going to wake up one day with a cloud of smoke over one of their cities and realize that capitulation and negotiation only encourages this enemy to be bolder (i.e. withdrawing from Mogadishu inspired Bin Laden to attempt 9/11). Someday you are going to realize you have been on the wrong side of history. And I don't view that as a reason to celebrate. It shouldn't be US versus EU. We're supposed to be friends.
yep thats a good point so whats up europe's ass anyway?

Speakin' as a Brit, I totally agree with you about Old Europe. Don't lump us in with them... we've done a lot of fighting to not be included, we're only in the EU for the cheap alcohol.

But its the same all over, really. Countries are fragmenting, people to scared of lawsuits to speak their minds, people caring more about obscure political tenets than their countrymen. Personally, I wasn't sure about George Bush until I realised the guy is not a politician; He doesn't change his opinions with whats popular, he does what he believes is right. You have to respect it, even if not agreeing with it.

As to Iraq - well, both sides have their arguments whether it was good or bad to start the war. To be honest, I can't decide whether or not it was right. Saddam Hussein was a prick, but the casus belli used in the UK was a joke.

As far as I'm concerned, this war is a good thing started for bad reasons.

And now to go totally schizo;

The whole war for oil thing could be feasible; Not so much to acquire oil for the US, but to deny it for others. Think about it. Oil reserves are going to become increasingly important in the next couple of years as the wells are tapped out. In those circumstances, the country that can control the amount of oil available to the rest of the world is the one thats gonna have all the power.

Err... oops, EVEN MORE power. Heh.

And don't forget yanks - us limeys are playing our blood price alongside you.

As a proud American and a Bush supporter, I have can say that I have alot of respect for the British. I wish the rest of the world could follow the USA, Great Britian, and our allies; and stop being corrupt.

And don't forget yanks - us limeys are playing our blood price alongside you.

I for one have not forgotten the price the Brits and the Poles and the Autralians and the Spaniards and the rest of the coalition forces that have lost forces and civilians in this war.

Because the Euros forgot who saved them. Twice!

uhm... Hello? anybody home?.. was it not that europe settlers founded the first froms of the usa.. New York was first New Amsterdam. And the size and wealth doesn't mather (speaking about country's :P), that's just what they tell you. you don't need a genius to control a country you need a community who wants to be controlled. I'm not proud of my government neither of the european parlement, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be proud to be A dutch citizen. And if you do want to speak in terms of greatness. The Netherlands where the richest people for a hunderd years, we have defeated the spanish opposition that at the time had an army like 10 times greater than our forces, but we won. We went from a aristrocratic government to one of the free country's on this entire world. Freedom is something americans don't have, because they do not have the freedom of fear. Please get your arrogant butt of that office chair and rebel yourself a little, just for the sake of The United States Of America or should I Say The Aristrocrat States Of George W. Bush

I'm a little confused. Your original post was: "They are stoping Bush from politically and economically benefiting with their Oil." Now you're talking image. But all they are doing is ruining an Islamic country even further...Thats probably what the King of England used to say...by fighting back...you are ruining your country even further...

....He doesn't change his opinions with whats popular, he does what he believes is right.....Bush said to the News:"The War on Terror cant be won"....Less than 24 hours later He Flip-Floped...

Bush is told what to say...and what not to say ...

he is a dumbass...and he knows it...thats why he asks what to say....thats why Cheney had to be with him at the 9-11 comission...

Thats probably what the King of England used to say...by fighting back...you are ruining your country even further...

Saying that the US wants to make Iraq into a state?

This is not a rational arguement --

1) The US does not have any territorial ambitions in Iraq. We want to leave!
2) The US Gov't is certainly not the government of Iraq, nor are Iraqis Americans.
3) I hope you're not comparing the American Revolutionaries to the Iraqi insurgency. On one hand, you had a group with about a 50% backing that wanted to forge a new nation from tyranny. On the other side, you have a group with about a 10% backing, that wants to form a tyranny out of a newly freed nation.

And you still have failed to prove your point that the terrorists targeting Iraqi targets are doing any good for their cause.

Saying that the US wants to make Iraq into a state?When...Where did I ever say that?

...I hope you're not comparing the American Revolutionaries to the Iraqi insurgency.....exactamente...Thats what I do...thats what I been doing for months...

exactamente...Thats what I do...thats what I been doing for months...

And that is very very wrong! There is NO relation between the two. If you want to equate the Revolutionary War with the Iraqi Insurgency in that of the terrorist acts that the Insurgency has done, look at the terrorist acts that the British did on the Colonists.

innocent people always die... :mp5:

When...Where did I ever say that?

When you compare the US to the British Monarchy and the Iraqis to the US Colonials, you're saying that the US wants to make Iraq into a colony.

Which, BTW, is utter hogwash.

exactamente...Thats what I do...thats what I been doing for months...

In that case, I feel very, very sorry for you. Not because you're un-American, or ultra liberal, or any of that old BS that people throw around. No, I feel sorry for you because you have no concept of right and wrong.

I'm not saying this to be offensive, please do not take it as such.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/041107/481/bag10211070833

Nasty, isn't it? :(

Oh, and it seems that the rate of civilian deaths since the US-led occupation of Iraq is greater than under Saddam.

Saddam is responsible for 1.5 million deaths of both his own people and the Iranians and god knows who else.

add to list Vietnam, nicuragua, etc, etc
What about Haiti and Venezuela with the IRI? It's always left off these lists...

I'm not really intimidated by you.. sorry.. let me remind you that your government screw it up, and that they have no money to send an invasion force to europe cause when you attack a country like china, or any country in europe.. you are the one having a problem not me. or we both have a problem cause you guys start using your nuclair weapons.. :|.. America can never ever scare me anymore.. the messed it too much up for that to happen, sorry mate. I would have tried hard to please you but i can't be afraid for a big dog without a home

I'm sorry, but you don't even know what sarcasm means do you? Go back to school and learn the language of money ok? Every single post you have made is either full of insults or blabbering on about something that doesn't make sense. At least the other left-wingers so far in this thread have had a brain.