NationStates Jolt Archive

Below is what was written by an Iraqi. We here in the United States have the idea that we can speak for the people of Iraq. But we can't. What is below is pure, unadultarated speech from the keyboard of an Iraqi (who, a year ago, couldn't even dream about writing this because he would have been shot). After reading this, I honestly do not know how anyone could be against what we in the US are doing overseas.





Founds in Falluja!

Our hearts is with the innocent people of Falluja who were exposed to a lot of pressure and hardship from the anomalous and pervert insurgents.

Until now horrible atrocities have been found in Falluja by the outlawed outsiders and their supporters. Examples of the atrocities are:

1. Thousands of Arabs from different countries have been killed or captured. Some were from Iran, Chechnya, Afghanistan and other countries.

2. Several sites for beheadings tortures and videoing
3. Captured victims with miserable states
4. Mutilated bodies and one of them was a limbless body for a western woman whose throat was cut, face was disfigured and her limbs were amputated!
5. Large amounts of weapons and using worship places for that.
6. Lists of those who were kidnapped and beheaded and other lists of names of targeted people
7. Some documents related to the previous beheaded hostages like the Passport of the Japanese S Kudo who was beheaded few weeks ago!
More secret will certainly be revealed soon.

It looks that the new strategy is not to allow the insurgents to regroup in another city and to get them before they can catch the breath.

In Ramadi the Iraqi/Coalition forces refused to give a truce and entered the city with tanks and armoured vehicles while in Baji the insurgents' positions are under continuous air and ground bombardments.

One of the most dangerous areas which is called the triangle of death is still to be managed! This is south of Baghdad in Yosfyiah, Mahmodyiah and Latyfiyah where many people (Iraqis and non-Iraqis) killed daily by the insurgent groups there.


11/14/2004 08:18:21 AM

No one?

If Army B of Country B invaded my country (Country D) and started telling us, "We are here to liberate you!" you can bet your butt, that I'd take each and every opportunity to deal blows to the soldiers of Army B and the people of Country B, and the Country B itself. War is a total war, if you go into a land your nation is at war with, except no quarter. Especially when the war is unjust.

There are no Arabs in Chechnya, Iran, of Afghanistan (well very few in Iran)


Iranians are Persians. Chechens are white muslims, Afghans are Pashtu (asiatic)

They are muslims (religion) not arabs (race) get it right.

A "heartfelt" letter of thanks from an as yet unidentified, newly-liberated "Iraqi" from Falluja. Sure.

Where's that bridge you wanted to sell me again. Oh, and you mother's a virgin, too. :rolleyes:

If Army B of Country B invaded my country (Country D) and started telling us, "We are here to liberate you!" you can bet your butt, that I'd take each and every opportunity to deal blows to the soldiers of Army B and the people of Country B, and the Country B itself. War is a total war, if you go into a land your nation is at war with, except no quarter. Especially when the war is unjust.

There are no Arabs in Chechnya, Iran, of Afghanistan (well very few in Iran)


Iranians are Persians. Chechens are white muslims, Afghans are Pashtu (asiatic)

They are muslims (religion) not arabs (race) get it right.
I agree with the whole deal blows thing. And i just learned something new that there are way to many different titles to be politicaly correct...Pashtu never knew thats what you could say afghans were.

I find it difficult to believe that a single keystroke of that was performed by an Iraqi.

Killing is immoral. Killing those who have killed, such as execution of the death penalty, is immoral. Starting a war is immoral, and killing those who attack you is immoral.

Or, all death is sanctioned, and religion encourages the use of death as a part of life.

These are the two choices. One choice condemns both Saddam Hussein and the Iraq War; the other choice permits the war but does not disagree with Saddam's methods of rule.

Which do you choose?

Oh, and don't try and take a middle path. The middle path is for hypocrites who say that only 'some' death is permissible, like the government and the churches.

Thus is my stance. I choose to condemn all killing. If my family were to be killed by a serial killer, I would try to spare the killer's life on the grounds that his life is no less important than mine and my dead family's; it's not like his death will resuscitate my parents, siblings, children, and neighbors.

Which do you choose?

~ CD

I'm one of those eye for an eye folks so i'd choose killing is ok.

And here is an article where Iraqis are saying the exact opposite.
Both sides can present emotional heartfelt testimonials.
It doesn't make anybody right.

Children pay price of US offensive

Tuesday 16 November 2004, 19:25 Makka Time, 16:25 GMT


Ala Barham slumps in his hospital bed and stares blankly into the air in front of him.

Twelve years old and still deeply in shock, he can barely speak.

Ala's family had fled the Iraqi city of Falluja before last Monday's all-out offensive began. He was happily playing with his brother in the garden of their uncle's house in a village outside the city. Then the rocket hit.

"My uncle died. They took us to hospital," he mumbles, speaking in little more than a whisper.

His brother lies face down on the bed next to him, a bandage around his leg, a tube feeding into his stomach.

Their mother sits on another bed, cradling her now fatherless two-year-old nephew.

Across the room, another two-year-old lies on a bed in a nappy, a blanket covering one tiny leg. The other one was blown off by a shell.

Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi says not a single civilian has died in the assault to retake Falluja from anti-US forces allegedly led by al-Qaida ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

But the charred bodies in the streets of the city and the children in Baghdad's Naaman hospital tell a different story.

"Is this child one of Zarqawi's followers?" asks Nusum Hasan, flatly, holding out her nephew's bandaged right arm.

"Is any of this his fault?"

Allawi's accusations

The families of these children were staying with relatives in the villages of Saqlawiya and Azraqiya, just outside Falluja, when they were wounded by air and artillery bombardments.

This two-year-old child lost a leg
when his home was shelled
First, they rushed to Falluja's main hospital, separated from the city proper by the Euphrates river. Then, they were evacuated to Baghdad when US and Iraqi forces seized the hospital before the full-scale attack began last Monday night.

Allawi has accused the hospital of exaggerating casualties.

In April, US forces had to abandon their attempt to capture Falluja in part because images of wounded women and children caused an outcry.

This latest assault has stoked resentment - already high in Iraq's Sunni heartland - against the government and its US backers.

Mujahidin support

Marking the Muslim celebration that ends the month of Ramadan on Sunday, doctors at Falluja's general hospital, prayed to God for the resistance to defeat the US and Iraqi troops.

"I want God to make the mujahidin victorious against the American occupiers who have spared no woman or child"

Saria Karim Ubais,
Falluja refugee
"God, make the mujahidin in Falluja victorious," one doctor told the 22-strong medical team gathered in a corridor.

His prayer was echoed by Saria Karim Ubais, who fled Falluja's Julan district, a hotbed for fighters, and now lives with her family in a tent pitched on the grounds of a Baghdad exhibition centre.

"We were displaced by the American bombardment. They bombed families without mercy," she said. "We went to the mosque as refugees and they sent us to this camp.

"I want God to make the mujahidin victorious against the American occupiers who have spared no woman or child."
Agencies

And i just learned something new that there are way to many different titles to be politicaly correct...Pashtu never knew thats what you could say afghans were.

Hell, I just call them all terrorists and it eliminates the guesswork.

i think this letter is pure BS imo, i know this shit is happening, but was it happening before or after the US invaded?

or is this just another Pro-War, up in arms, lets go kill a bunch of people, campain setup by the nice people in D.C

Hell, I just call them all terrorists and it eliminates the guesswork.
And i call all americans warmongering gun toting red necks to eliminate the need for democrats and republicans and all those other independants.

And i call all americans warmongering gun toting red necks to eliminate the need for democrats and republicans and all those other independants.

Yay for you.

A) I did not write the letter. I am not from Iraq. I am an American. If you would like the source, I would gladly give it to you, and many like it. Ready?

http://www.hammorabi.blogspot.com/
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
http://www.rosebaghdad.blogspot.com/
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/
http://www.roadofanation.com/blog/
http://baghdadgirl.blogspot.com/

Would you like more?

B) The Middle East is a unit. They work together. That is what is meant by "Arab." You can ask the author yourself. At the site.

C) Ironic that most of the "pervert insurgents," as this Iraqi called them are not from Iraq at all. So, when you say, "you can bet your butt, that I'd take each and every opportunity to deal blows to the soldiers of Army," you can't really apply it to Iraq at all.


I know many of you doubt my sources. This is because I have been mistaken about something. I had hoped that reading about how they have found people with slashes across their throats, with all the bones in their bodies taken out, of IRAQI people who have lived in slaughter houses since the insurgents regained control (which they are now loosing) of Faluja, that you would acutally reconsider your ways. Interesting. You call yourselves proggressives, and yet you seem to be more set in your ways than any conservative I have ever met. You call yourselves humanitarians, yet you sit on your butts while people are bieng mass murdered and tortured by terrorists. But, I was wrong. You won't.

So this one Iraqi speaks for all Iraqis? Neat.

i just don't beleive 95% of the bullshit thats thrown on the internet by people with nothing better to do.

its getting increasingly harder to make me beleive anything on the internet that isn't published by a reliable and well known source, and even they're subject to propoganda efforts

So this one Iraqi speaks for all Iraqis? Neat.

No, as of today I speak for all Iraqis. Now stop flapping your gums and go get me some thunderbird and pork rinds.

Killing is immoral. Killing those who have killed, such as execution of the death penalty, is immoral. Starting a war is immoral, and killing those who attack you is immoral.

Or, all death is sanctioned, and religion encourages the use of death as a part of life.

These are the two choices. One choice condemns both Saddam Hussein and the Iraq War; the other choice permits the war but does not disagree with Saddam's methods of rule.

Which do you choose?

Oh, and don't try and take a middle path. The middle path is for hypocrites who say that only 'some' death is permissible, like the government and the churches.

Thus is my stance. I choose to condemn all killing. If my family were to be killed by a serial killer, I would try to spare the killer's life on the grounds that his life is no less important than mine and my dead family's; it's not like his death will resuscitate my parents, siblings, children, and neighbors.

Which do you choose?

~ CD

Yes but what if by not killing the serial killer, he kills someone elses family. You had a chance to stop him and you didn't. You might as well have pulled the trigger yourself. If it comes down to some innocents life, and the serial killer, i'm going to gun down the serial killer myself. I personally believe that if no one stands up against evil, then we will all be enslaved by it.

I have said what I have to say. There is no more. You can either believe me, or not. Either yes or no. Nothing I can say will convince you otherwise.

A) I did not write the letter. I am not from Iraq. I am an American. If you would like the source, I would gladly give it to you, and many like it. Ready?

http://www.hammorabi.blogspot.com/
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
http://www.rosebaghdad.blogspot.com/
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/
http://www.roadofanation.com/blog/
http://baghdadgirl.blogspot.com/

Would you like more?

B) The Middle East is a unit. They work together. That is what is meant by "Arab." You can ask the author yourself. At the site.

C) Ironic that most of the "pervert insurgents," as this Iraqi called them are not from Iraq at all. So, when you say, "you can bet your butt, that I'd take each and every opportunity to deal blows to the soldiers of Army," you can't really apply it to Iraq at all.


I know many of you doubt my sources. This is because I have been mistaken about something. I had hoped that reading about how they have found people with slashes across their throats, with all the bones in their bodies taken out, of IRAQI people who have lived in slaughter houses since the insurgents regained control (which they are now loosing) of Faluja, that you would acutally reconsider your ways. Interesting. You call yourselves proggressives, and yet you seem to be more set in your ways than any conservative I have ever met. You call yourselves humanitarians, yet you sit on your butts while people are bieng mass murdered and tortured by terrorists. But, I was wrong. You won't.

None of those sites provide any sort of context for the letter, nor do they present any sort of evidence that would even remotely verify its authenticity. It's always written by "an Iraqi" who lived in Fallujah and just happens to support the opinions of those who are posting it. Provide even a shred of verifiable proof and then we'll talk.

It's even neater that you present this without stating your stance on the issue. I don't care if you answer my previous question; I can see that you're not interested in owning up to your own beliefs. What I do want to know is how you care to call a BLOG, a ****ing BLOG, a reliable source. The internet is shaky enough as is, but a blog is NOT, and never will be, a reliable means of conveying libel-free, honest, undeniably true information.

~ CD

I was talking about if the killer is brought to trial, but I wouldn't shoot him, even if I had a gun to his head and he was begging for his life while reaching for a knife to stab me. I, unlike the hypocrites, will stand by my beliefs.

None of those sites provide any sort of context for the letter, nor do they present any sort of evidence that would even remotely verify its authenticity.

There are several points- the language used, for example, is characteristic of one attempiting to convert Arabic into English. The very first site I mentioned was the one I got the information from.

It's always written by "an Iraqi" who lived in Fallujah and just happens to support the opinions of those who are posting it. Provide even a shred of verifiable proof and then we'll talk.

It just so happens that this "fate Iraqi" was featured in the Wall Street Journal. If that is not evidence enough, I am not sure what is.

It's even neater that you present this without stating your stance on the issue. I don't care if you answer my previous question; I can see that you're not interested in owning up to your own beliefs. What I do want to know is how you care to call a BLOG, a ****ing BLOG, a reliable source. The internet is shaky enough as is, but a blog is NOT, and never will be, a reliable means of conveying libel-free, honest, undeniably true information.

~ CD

If you can't figure out the fact that I am for the war by reading this (I even say "I can't say how anyone could be against the war after reading this. Thought people could read :)) then I am not sure what they are reading.

There are several points- the language used, for example, is characteristic of one attempiting to convert Arabic into English. The very first site I mentioned was the one I got the information from.



It just so happens that this "fate Iraqi" was featured in the Wall Street Journal. If that is not evidence enough, I am not sure what is.

Then post it! Show us the Wall Street Journal article where this guy is interviewed. Show us proof that he wrote that letter. Don't just say, "I saw this and you should believe me", that's weak.

Did I? Again, I said, "Many won't believe me." I will look for the article now.

I was talking about if the killer is brought to trial, but I wouldn't shoot him, even if I had a gun to his head and he was begging for his life while reaching for a knife to stab me. I, unlike the hypocrites, will stand by my beliefs.

and then you would be dead, the next people he meets would be dead, and so on and so on and so on until everyone dies and the seriall killer wins. So you can go die, i'll kill the serial killer, and i save all the people he would have killed after me. I refues to submit to evil. Someone has to stand against it.

Running into a snag at www.wsj.com. It appears I need a credit card account to access this, and I don't feel like going through that process. If anyone here does have a WSJ account, please search either Paul Wolfowitz (the person who did the article) or Hammorabi (the person who appeared in the article. Thank you for your time.

Killing is immoral. Killing those who have killed, such as execution of the death penalty, is immoral. Starting a war is immoral, and killing those who attack you is immoral.

Or, all death is sanctioned, and religion encourages the use of death as a part of life.

These are the two choices. One choice condemns both Saddam Hussein and the Iraq War; the other choice permits the war but does not disagree with Saddam's methods of rule.

Which do you choose?

Oh, and don't try and take a middle path. The middle path is for hypocrites who say that only 'some' death is permissible, like the government and the churches.

Thus is my stance. I choose to condemn all killing. If my family were to be killed by a serial killer, I would try to spare the killer's life on the grounds that his life is no less important than mine and my dead family's; it's not like his death will resuscitate my parents, siblings, children, and neighbors.

Which do you choose?

~ CD
Haven't read the entire thread, so not sure if anyone replied to this yet, but I'd like to see you say that if your child was killed in a senseless act of violence, or if someone came after you and tried to kill you. If they do not care enough for your life, or the life of others, to the point that they go out and kill for joy, they deserve what they get - death.

As for this thread...
Give me proof that some Iraqi wrote that... hell, most Americans, English, and other english-speaking people wouldn't even be able to write that well, let alone some Iraqi or any other non-english speaking person.

But do you really think just anyone would sit down and create a site so elaborate, and put so much time into the information as someone who actually knows what he is talking about?

Running into a snag at www.wsj.com. It appears I need a credit card account to access this, and I don't feel like going through that process. If anyone here does have a WSJ account, please search either Paul Wolfowitz (the person who did the article) or Hammorabi (the person who appeared in the article. Thank you for your time.

The guy's name is Hammorabi???

He would be quoted with the site, so it would come up either way. Now, I have another site that is less hard to doubt.

http://www.dearamerica.us/html/home.html

Letters from Iraqi's and Americans, some of them good, some of them bad, about the war. And for and outside perspective go to www.brookings.org and look for the Iraq Index. It has all the polls that have been taken in Iraq by the Iraqis. They show some quite startling results. IN fact, I happen to have the link saved in favorites (Note: It is a PDF)

http://www.brookings.org/dybdocroot/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

It was updated yesterday.

A) I did not write the letter. I am not from Iraq. I am an American. If you would like the source, I would gladly give it to you, and many like it. Ready?

http://www.hammorabi.blogspot.com/
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
http://www.rosebaghdad.blogspot.com/
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/
http://www.roadofanation.com/blog/
http://baghdadgirl.blogspot.com/

Would you like more?

B) The Middle East is a unit. They work together. That is what is meant by "Arab." You can ask the author yourself. At the site.



C) Ironic that most of the "pervert insurgents," as this Iraqi called them are not from Iraq at all. So, when you say, "you can bet your butt, that I'd take each and every opportunity to deal blows to the soldiers of Army," you can't really apply it to Iraq at all.


I know many of you doubt my sources. This is because I have been mistaken about something. I had hoped that reading about how they have found people with slashes across their throats, with all the bones in their bodies taken out, of IRAQI people who have lived in slaughter houses since the insurgents regained control (which they are now loosing) of Faluja, that you would acutally reconsider your ways. Interesting. You call yourselves proggressives, and yet you seem to be more set in your ways than any conservative I have ever met. You call yourselves humanitarians, yet you sit on your butts while people are bieng mass murdered and tortured by terrorists. But, I was wrong. You won't.

WE can all, with a bit of searching, find links to pages on the web showing one sides excuses for the atrocities being meted out in Iraq, there is no "justification" for either side killing in the way they do, but the US has at it's disposal, weapons that mutilate people in ways that terrorists can only dream of. http://fallujapictures.blogspot.com

It's getting that no one can truley believe anything you read about this war, we get one propaganda report after another, each condemning the other for cruelty beyong reason (isn't all war cruel beyond reason?). The bottom line in Iraq is this, the US is an invading force, there are Iraq's who see this as a threat to their culture and status in the east and western democracy trying to force it'self, once again, in the name of freedom.
If another country invaded yours, wouldn't you fight to get them out?

This is true, which is why I made this thread in the first place. To show what actual people, not governments, believe.

edit - it is not true that the US condones torture or mutilation

Halabja
http://images.google.com/images?q=Halabja&hl=en

Halabja
http://images.google.com/images?q=Halabja&hl=en


What ever happened to warnings ?

He would be quoted with the site, so it would come up either way. Now, I have another site that is less hard to doubt.

http://www.dearamerica.us/html/home.html

Letters from Iraqi's and Americans, some of them good, some of them bad, about the war. And for and outside perspective go to www.brookings.org and look for the Iraq Index. It has all the polls that have been taken in Iraq by the Iraqis. They show some quite startling results. IN fact, I happen to have the link saved in favorites (Note: It is a PDF)

http://www.brookings.org/dybdocroot/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

It was updated yesterday.

There is ONE (1) letter on that DearAmerica site, and it is not the one that you have in this thread.

Thus is my stance. I choose to condemn all killing. If my family were to be killed by a serial killer, I would try to spare the killer's life on the grounds that his life is no less important than mine and my dead family's; it's not like his death will resuscitate my parents, siblings, children, and neighbors.
~ CD

You live in a world that is too ideal.
Unfortunately, there's all kinds of mad people out there who would hurt, maim and kill their fellow neighbours because it makes them feel powerful.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back on topic.

Yes, there's those that still believe US is an invading force, and not here to help liberate them. I agree. Thats why the US is trying to push for their own elections so that they would govern their nation by themselves.

(And there would always be US involved somehow, which in turns, there would be those that think their government is phoney and is a puppet for the US)

But also other problem about Iraq. Is that they themselves hate each other as well. The Sunni's, the Shi'ites, who under Saddam's regime been racially killing each other. And of course, we have the next door neighbours coming in to suicide bomb themselves.

If not why are they bombing their own police stations? Financial districts? Markets? Their hurting themselves more than their actually firebombing the military facilities or US outposts.

we go after weak 3rd world countries that we claim have weapons of mass destruction. But isn't it true that we ourselves have over 10,000 nuclear bombs. we origionally went to war because of the twin towers and terrorism. Osama Bin Laden admitted to the deed and being the main consperitor. sure we looked for him in afghanistan for a few months but after that decided to focus our main attempts on locating saddam.....who from all intelligence reports had no involvment in the twin tower bombing...so the origional "War on Terror" as Bush called it then turns into the "War on Iraq"....first his reasoning was terrorism then months later it turns in to war to find weapons of mass destruction. At the beginning of all of this the N. Korean leader states "we have weapons of mass destruction that are highly capable of reaching california and farther with no problem"....Bush takes that comment with a grain of salt. Any idiot can clearly see that Daddy Bush couldnt get Saddam in the first war in Kuwait so now little boy Bush is trying to finish what his father began so many years ago. Saddam has never been and would have never been a threat to us. The main reason we as the united states continue to be in the shadow of terrorist threats is because we basically invade the "holy Land" as it would be and think that we can so easily take control. you dont see other rich nations being terrorized now do we...look at austrailia, canada and over 100's of other countries that have either never been or only a few times been terrorized. you know why..because they mind their own business and take care of there own. in america there are hundreds of thousands of homeless people but yet we care more about iraq then we do our own people...the politicians of america are only influenced by greed and dishonesty. and any bush supporter should walk right back into their trailor and hope another tornado doesnt sweep through because for the rest of us that actually have a brain...well...we voted for someone other then bush...a known crack user in his hay-day. and buy the way, do you know how drunk you would have to of been in the 70's to get a DUI....pretty damned drunk and bush got one...so all of you supporters of this war...support the troops that are dying out there...do not however support the cause because it is un-just and will not cause anything other then further seperate the people of the u.s.....just take a look around i have never seen such animosity towards one another since bush started this war...i feel that until we can make our own country a happy place to live, we have no right what so ever to force our beliefs and democratic beliefs on another country. thats it im done ranting and raving

My applogies for upsetting you. I didn't see any warnings around Blobites' link to causualties caused by Americans. I guess its ok to freely disperse images as long as they do not offend your side's views.

Saddam has never been and would have never been a threat to us.

Europeans said the same thing about Hitler when he was breaking accords and sanctions levied against Germany after the first world war.

Europeans said the same thing about Hitler when he was breaking accords and sanctions levied against Germany after the first world war.

thats because at the beginning of ww1 us americans decided to supply the germans with all sorts of goodies for a few yrs until the british blockade came up and then the germans built cargo submarines to travel to our ports past the blockades for supplies....im quite sure we learned our lesson with that one and werent planning on supplying saddam with weapons and munitions

thats because at the beginning of ww1 us americans decided to supply the germans with all sorts of goodies for a few yrs until the british blockade came up and then the germans built cargo submarines to travel to our ports past the blockades for supplies....im quite sure we learned our lesson with that one and werent planning on supplying saddam with weapons and munitions

That has got to be some of the most outrageous conspiracy theories I have ever heard. Could you please give us a solid source to colaborate any of that.

Europeans said the same thing about Hitler when he was breaking accords and sanctions levied against Germany after the first world war.
Your are aware of course that you are making the most overplayed, irrational argument of all time. Hussien had no airforce, no navy, no wmd's, no ties to Al-Quaeda, his people were starving and dying in droves, his military technology was from the Soviet era, most of the Iraqi people did not support him, the USAF patrolled Iraqi airspace and his economy was in ruins.

How in God's name was he going to possibly threaten anybody?

Europeans said the same thing about Hitler when he was breaking accords and sanctions levied against Germany after the first world war.

Good point. In fact, that is why the US didn't enter the war for many years.


"But isn't it true that we ourselves have over 10,000 nuclear bombs," says Come Get Us. One problem with that statistic: The amount of nuclear bombs a country has is usually Classified information. So, unless you know some top secret infromation that we don't, this fact cannot be true.


"There is ONE (1) letter on that DearAmerica site, and it is not the one that you have in this thread," says Sdaeriji. That would be my fault. I linked to that through a website and threw the link right on here. I should have done some more research about that. I truly appologize about wasting your time there. And, to clarify, what was first posted was not a letter. It was what is called a Blog.

Dictionary.com defines blog:

Main Entry: weblog
Function: noun
Definition: a personal Web site that provides updated headlines and news articles of other sites that are of interest to the user, also may include journal entries, commentaries and recommendations compiled by the user; also written web log, Weblog; also called blog
Usage: computing


"Any idiot can clearly see that Daddy Bush couldnt get Saddam in the first war in Kuwait so now little boy Bush is trying to finish what his father began so many years ago," says Come Get Us. First off, your grammar sucks. I was ready to scream at the computer when I saw all this horrible grammar. Also, when did Bush get dragged into this? Doesn't he have enough on his hands? This is also the same stuff that opposition to the war has been saying over and over, just like the Presidential debates was just each candidate re-listing their positions over and over. Please come up with a new argument next time. Also: I must be below an idiot, because I don't really see the connection.

"first his reasoning was terrorism then months later it turns in to war to find weapons of mass destruction. At the beginning of all of this the N. Korean leader states "we have weapons of mass destruction that are highly capable of reaching california and farther with no problem"....Bush takes that comment with a grain of salt," says Come Get Me, again. Iraq was not backed openly by almost every country in its region. If we were to attack N. Korea, we would not only have Korea to deal with, but China, which has a massive "voulenteer" *coughcoughcough* Army. If this were to happen, there would be a draft. As of now, there isn't and won't be, but I am just stating a point.

If he was so innocent, and so weak, please tell me why he threw out the UN weapon inspectors. And why where his people starving with the millions of dollars funnelled to him through the Oil for Food program.... oh yeah thats right, he was illegaly spending that money on other things.

If he was so innocent, and so weak, please tell me why he threw out the UN weapon inspectors. And why where his people starving with the millions of dollars funnelled to him through the Oil for Food program.... oh yeah thats right, he was illegaly spending that money on other things.

He didn't kick out the inspectors. The US pulled them out so we could bomb Iraq in 1998. CIA spies were amongst them so he refused to let them back in. He later let them in again in 2002 but we pulled them out a second time so we could invade. Now it turns out Hans Blix was right all along. Good job Hans. The oil for food program wasn't even established until 1997. Hundreds of thousands had already perished by then. Of course we also destroyed their infrastructure including water purification centers causing rampant epidemics which took a heavy toll as well.

last night on the history channel as a matter of fact. it was part of the deep sea detectives show on the sinking of the san diego....also for more information go here http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1096.html here http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwone/battle_atlantic_ww1_03.shtml and if that isnt enough which its very mild information you can also watch the same show i watched on the history channel this sat at 11 A.M if you have the history channel heres the link for that show http://www.historychannel.com/global/listings/series_showcase.jsp?EGrpType=Series&Id=274739&NetwCode=THC if you want more proof id be more then happy to find it for you tomorrow...its 240 at night where im at and im getting kind of tired

*If we were to attack N. Korea, we would not only have Korea to deal with, but China, which has a massive "voulenteer" *coughcoughcough* Army. If this were to happen, there would be a draft. As of now, there isn't and won't be, but I am just stating a point. * so says privelege.....hmmm considering we currently have troops on the borders of n.korea and south korea we would only have to deal with n.korea and the odds of china being involved are slim to none...the fact is that n. korea has nothing that we want ie. oil :-D

Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence linking China and North Korea. I would happily show you, but it is almost midnight, so I would like to get to bed. Goodnight, everyone.

Good point. In fact, that is why the US didn't enter the war for many years.
"But isn't it true that we ourselves have over 10,000 nuclear bombs," says Come Get Us. One problem with that statistic: The amount of nuclear bombs a country has is usually Classified information. So, unless you know some top secret infromation that we don't, this fact cannot be true..

hmm where should i start with this....we didnt enter the war because we were neutral on all grounds..which im sure your aware of...while we were neutral we supplied germany with goods an munitions....because of that britain set up the british blockade to thwart our involvement in supplying germany...as our boats began being attacked by britain we told germany to help with safe passing and eventually germany couldnt help us even with their u-boats hence us becoming involved in the war because we were losing too many ships not from germany but from the british fleet....and the 10,000 nuclear bombs...thats a rough estimation by quite swell resources.. just because you dont read or have no military knowledge doesnt mean everyone is talking out of their ass..i was stationed in hawaii for 3 yrs in the Army Infantry...you learn a lot of things when your in...and then all the civilian yahoo's decide that you dont know anything...so keep on thinking you know it all slim...because when it comes to anything pertaining to weapons and what america has an hasnt got i will win every time

After reading this, I honestly do not know how anyone could be against what we in the US are doing overseas.I think someone else alluded to it this already, but when did these events occur, in reference to the war? The point I am trying to make it is this: the beheadings and murders and all that other fun stuff are happening *because* of the war.

You can't justify going to war with a country, citing the backlash of the same war as evidence. Don't confude 'cause' and 'effect'.

I have said what I have to say. There is no more. You can either believe me, or not. Either yes or no. Nothing I can say will convince you otherwise.

I love how you boil everything down to blacks and whites. That's so mature and intelligent.
I have news for all you Republicans vs. Democrats, America vs. Terrorism, Christianity vs. Immorality fools. WE LIVE IN A POST-MODERN WORLD. The ancient's concepts of good and evil are dead, and we have to live our lives the best we know how, because there aren't absolutes. Arabs don't equal terrorists. Americans don't equal rednecks (though half of them, according to the election, fit that description). Most importantly and most hypocritically, according to your formula, KILLING ARABS ISN'T EVIL. In fact, it's not just a good thing, it's a ticket to heaven! What exactly was Saddam Hussein guilty of that we haven't done since the invasion? Being a dictator by acting on behalf of only some of his people? Sounds familiar. Thumbing his nose at the UN? There's a reason we went in under a banner of a concocted coalition of the willing. Killing Iraqi's? Supreme Being knows we've done that and done it well. Compare your military views to your humanitarian ones and you'll see where you stand.

I am a soilder in Iraq. My brigade has been here for 11 months now, and we see all the good that is being done here in Iraq. All you guys back in the states only see all the bad stuff the CNN and ABC and all choose to show. How can you say "this was isnt just", or "killing is bad" or whatever the hell else you say when you have never been in Iraq and seen the good that is being done. You cant rightly protest a war and say its bad without being there in the first place. Its people like Micheal Moore that put a very bad spin on things we are trying to do here. And Liberals that eat that shit up and say "Yeah Micheal Moore knows what he is talking about so it must be true". When in actuallity everything he says a damn lie. If you have seen Ferinhiet 9/11 and believe what he said in that movie to be true, I strongly suggest watching Ferinhype 9/11 and see what the real truth is. Cause not one thing in Ferinhiet 9/11 is true, not one damn thing. And if you wanna believe everything you hear and see on the news thats your deal, but it shows how stupid you people really are. Oh and for you miss "killing is bad", what if you lived in Iraq and Saddam killed you mother and father right in front of you? Would you still be "killing is bad for anyreason" or would you be happy that killer was gone. Dead or taken from power what ever the case may be. Cause thats what Saddam use to do was kill mothers and fathers in front of their children with no remorse. And if you were that kid I can promise you that you would be happy either way when the US Army can and got rid of him. So for all of you Liberal pussies out there think before you speak cause we are doing a world of good here in Iraq. Oh and another damn thing, THIS WAR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FUCKN OIL! So get off that kick, cause if this war was about oil do you really think gas prices would be as high as the are?

I have a great deal of respect for soldiers, and I have many friends in the military, so I murmur a quiet apology for what I am about to say to Gage, Johnny, Rob, Dave, and the rest of you.
Listen, Bush was quoted in one of the debates as saying "I don't think you can lead and say 'wrong war, wrong time.' What message does that send to the troops?" You have your experiences but I've had friend's who've come back and told me that everyone there hates America. They've put blinders on you; that's the whole point of basic...to break you all down so they can build you all up as a team...as one unit rather than individuals. The point isn't that the war isn't doing good, because that's too controversial. The problem is that if it's so wonderful, why haven't we done it before? Why dethrone Saddam when there are countless dictators roaming the world unopposed? Why leave Osama Bin Laden free in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or wherever he is and move on to Iraq, a place with no ties to the war on terror? It is because I support the war on terrorism that I oppose the war in iraq. It's not unjust, it's stupid. You, my poor deluded friend, are there because of a mistake, and it's a mistake that Bush unintentionally confessed in the debate. How many people have died for Bush's pride to remain unblemished? Do me one favor. Think back on things, removing all the emotions, removing all your mind-numbing training, removing the pain you feel for wasting 11 months of your life. Why did we invade Iraq? Why are you there?

It is not important if these statements of an Iraqi are authentic or not. The U.S. did not enter Iraq because of the insurgents. All these uprisings including terrorists entering the country were triggered by the U.S. invasion. So what we just have to compare is the situation before the U.S. entered Iraq (innocent people killed by Sadam, no democracy, kind of law and order if somebody agreed with Sadam's "law" and Sadam's "order", no WMD as we at least know now - there are people thinking we knew all the time but I won't start this discussion again, no possibilities for Al Quaida to operate in Iraq) and now with U.S. troops in the country (innocent people killed by terrorists insurgents or also the U.S. Military - no offend but this happens in war even if you do not intend to do it, no democracy as the country is not stabilized enough for free elections, top of the notch breeding ground for Al Quaeda and other foreign terrorists). So was there really so much improvement? Was the invasion not inefficient with respect to the war on terrorism (destroy the possiblities of Al Quaeda to live happy in Afghanistan but establishing huge areas in Iraq out of reach of the U.S. army where they can redeploy not to mention the "public relations" for Al Quaeda all over in the arabic world). So in my opinion neither Iraq nor the world has improved due to the invasion of Iraq by the U.S.. Even worse I also believe that everybody who is not totally out of her/his mind could have figured out before that the invasion would produce the situation (insurgency, foreign terrorists) we have actually in Iraq. And this is my main problem. As an inhabitant of this planet I am really worried to see the government of the biggest superpower acting with such a degree of unprofessionalism and stupidity.

Omg. The Paragraphs. Spare the dyslexic please.

Yeah? Try THIS Iraqi.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
"They killed a wounded man. It's hard to believe. They killed a man who was completely helpless- like he was some sort of diseased animal. I had read the articles and heard the stories of this happening before- wounded civilians being thrown on the side of the road or shot in cold blood- but to see it happening on television is something else- it makes me crazy with anger.

And what will happen now? A criminal investigation against a single Marine who did the shooting? Just like what happened with the Abu Ghraib atrocities? A couple of people will be blamed and the whole thing will be buried under the rubble of idiotic military psychologists, defense analysts, Pentagon officials and spokespeople and it will be forgotten. In the end, all anyone will remember is that a single Marine shot and killed a single Iraqi 'insurgent' and it won't matter anymore.

It's typical American technique- every single atrocity is lost and covered up by blaming a specific person and getting it over with. What people don't understand is that the whole military is infested with these psychopaths. In this last year we've seen murderers, torturers and xenophobes running around in tanks and guns. I don't care what does it: I don't care if it's the tension, the fear, the 'enemy'… it's murder. We are occupied by murderers. We're under the same pressure, as Iraqis, except that we weren't trained for this situation, and yet we're all expected to be benevolent and understanding and, above all, grateful. I'm feeling sick, depressed and frightened. I don't know what to say anymore… they aren't humans and they don't deserve any compassion.

So why is the world so obsessed with beheadings? How is this so very different? The difference is that the people who are doing the beheadings are extremists… the people slaughtering Iraqis- torturing in prisons and shooting wounded prisoners- are "American Heroes". Congratulations, you must be so proud of yourselves today."
And why aren't you over there doing your part if this is what you believe is right? Go for it. HOOAH!

By your logic, I could present you with tales of atrocities from North Korea, Sudan, China, India (2000 Muslims butchered in Gujarat in 2000), Burma, Congo, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or any of a dozen other nations and you would then be in favor of American intervention to help straighten those countries out?

The issue was never is Saddam a bad guy or are Iraqi people being oppressed. Not only has that always gone on, but often throughout history the United States has supported the oppressor (like when Rumsfelt, Cheney, Bush, sr., and Reagan all provided chemicals and sensitive weapons material to Saddam in the 1980s).

The issue is why did we go to war against Iraq?

First is was because they had weapons of mass destruction. Well, no, I guess not.

Okay, they were the ones behind 9-11. Hmmmm, okay maybe not.

Alright, but they had direct, substantial dealings with al-Qaeda. No? Oh.

Well, then it must be because we want to liberate the Iraqi people and give them democracy. Yea, sure, sure, that's it. We lie awake at night worrying about those poor Iraqis.

The reality is that the Neo-Cons have wanted to invade Iraq for decades because control of the world's second largest oil supply allows the U.S. to control Europe, Russia, and especially, China. Look at the growth in U.S. military basis in the Persian Gulf.

This is a war for American Empire and no true conservative in the past would have countenanced such a break from traditional conservative ideology.

Yes but what if by not killing the serial killer, he kills someone elses family. You had a chance to stop him and you didn't. You might as well have pulled the trigger yourself. If it comes down to some innocents life, and the serial killer, i'm going to gun down the serial killer myself. I personally believe that if no one stands up against evil, then we will all be enslaved by it.
Who's this serial killer?

Surely the police could be brought in at some stage.You don't have to kill him yourself.And what if when you kill the serial killer you develop an unquenchable bloodlust.....ah!! well, lets just kill everyone.

I am a soilder in Iraq. My brigade has been here for 11 months now, and we see all the good that is being done here in Iraq. All you guys back in the states only see all the bad stuff the CNN and ABC and all choose to show. How can you say "this was isnt just", or "killing is bad" or whatever the hell else you say when you have never been in Iraq and seen the good that is being done. You cant rightly protest a war and say its bad without being there in the first place. Its people like Micheal Moore that put a very bad spin on things we are trying to do here. And Liberals that eat that shit up and say "Yeah Micheal Moore knows what he is talking about so it must be true". When in actuallity everything he says a damn lie. If you have seen Ferinhiet 9/11 and believe what he said in that movie to be true, I strongly suggest watching Ferinhype 9/11 and see what the real truth is. Cause not one thing in Ferinhiet 9/11 is true, not one damn thing. And if you wanna believe everything you hear and see on the news thats your deal, but it shows how stupid you people really are. Oh and for you miss "killing is bad", what if you lived in Iraq and Saddam killed you mother and father right in front of you? Would you still be "killing is bad for anyreason" or would you be happy that killer was gone. Dead or taken from power what ever the case may be. Cause thats what Saddam use to do was kill mothers and fathers in front of their children with no remorse. And if you were that kid I can promise you that you would be happy either way when the US Army can and got rid of him. So for all of you Liberal pussies out there think before you speak cause we are doing a world of good here in Iraq. Oh and another damn thing, THIS WAR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FUCKN OIL! So get off that kick, cause if this war was about oil do you really think gas prices would be as high as the are?

OK, so your out there fighting and we are sitting behind computers typing out crap and dissin' the good 'ol US of A for doing good!???
Get real! your out there because that is the job you chose to do (How long will the average American have before they lose the right to choose?), I don't doubt that you believe passionately that you are out there doing a job that needs done, but that's because your commanding officer has told you it's a job that needs doing.
If I had a religious bone in my body I would pray for you and all the brave soldiers out there, Iraq, US, British, whoever! but the bottom line is that Saddam posed NO threat to the US, the UN warned Bush off invading but he went on and did it anyway, using WMD's as an excuse (BTW, have you found any yet?)
The war in Iraq has simply made the world a LESS safe place to be in right now.

Killing is immoral. Killing those who have killed, such as execution of the death penalty, is immoral. Starting a war is immoral, and killing those who attack you is immoral.

Or, all death is sanctioned, and religion encourages the use of death as a part of life.

These are the two choices. One choice condemns both Saddam Hussein and the Iraq War; the other choice permits the war but does not disagree with Saddam's methods of rule.

Which do you choose?

Oh, and don't try and take a middle path. The middle path is for hypocrites who say that only 'some' death is permissible, like the government and the churches.

Thus is my stance. I choose to condemn all killing. If my family were to be killed by a serial killer, I would try to spare the killer's life on the grounds that his life is no less important than mine and my dead family's; it's not like his death will resuscitate my parents, siblings, children, and neighbors.

Which do you choose?

~ CD

No, the middle path is for reasonable people with the capacity for logical thought who do not have to see things in only black and white. You choose a black-and-white standard, it's either always ok or never. We choose to use our brains and reject your childish standards. If someone is trying to kill me, I have the absolute right to kill him. You can call that hypocricy, I call it absence of idiocy.

[/QUOTE]It just so happens that this "fate Iraqi" was featured in the Wall Street Journal. If that is not evidence enough, I am not sure what is.[/QUOTE]

So you believe everything you read in the newspapers then? Regardless of whether the source is accurate or not, the point is that some Iraqis do think that way and some don't. The real question is whether the human cost of going to war is lesser or greater than having Sadaam Hussein as a leader. Don't forget that more people are dying under coalition occupation than died under Sadaam's regime (the figure reached the estimated number of 100,000 civilian deaths recently by the way).

Of course every civilised person on the planet was not in favour of Sadaam Hussein, but through going to war we have found ourselves in a totally untenable position. Make no mistake, the majority of Iraqis have historically hated the West, mostly because of sanctions imposed upon their country. They are not ready to accept Western democracy. You have to want it and believe in it surely? Forcing democracy is like forcing a toddler to build a house. He's just not ready for it.

There are several points- the language used, for example, is characteristic of one attempiting to convert Arabic into English. The very first site I mentioned was the one I got the information from.

It just so happens that this "fake Iraqi" was featured in the Wall Street Journal. If that is not evidence enough, I am not sure what is.

You apparently do not know what evidence is. A story appearing in a newspaper is only evidence that somebody wrote it and somebody decided to print it. Now, you can assume that the Journal did a good job in sourcing it, but that would be a conclusion based on reputation, not evidence.

STOP arguing for this disgusting war, our countries (US most of all and britain, spain, etc etc) should be utterly ashamed of ourselves! can non of you war mongerors understand that getting rid of saddam was possible WITHOUT WAR! you make me want to be sick. to think that the only way to "help" a country is to forcefully "liberate" them is dispicable behaviour. this war was illegal, immoral and wholly unneccesary. you should be deeply ashamed.

Killing is immoral. Killing those who have killed, such as execution of the death penalty, is immoral. Starting a war is immoral, and killing those who attack you is immoral.

Or, all death is sanctioned, and religion encourages the use of death as a part of life.

These are the two choices. One choice condemns both Saddam Hussein and the Iraq War; the other choice permits the war but does not disagree with Saddam's methods of rule.

Which do you choose?

Oh, and don't try and take a middle path. The middle path is for hypocrites who say that only 'some' death is permissible, like the government and the churches.

Thus is my stance. I choose to condemn all killing. If my family were to be killed by a serial killer, I would try to spare the killer's life on the grounds that his life is no less important than mine and my dead family's; it's not like his death will resuscitate my parents, siblings, children, and neighbors.

Which do you choose?

~ CD

then he will kill someone elses family.
killing is wrong,EXCEPT IN THE DEFENSE OF THE EXTENDED SELF.not being a hypocrit at all to say that.

STOP arguing for this disgusting war, our countries (US most of all and britain, spain, etc etc) should be utterly ashamed of ourselves! can non of you war mongerors understand that getting rid of saddam was possible WITHOUT WAR! you make me want to be sick. to think that the only way to "help" a country is to forcefully "liberate" them is dispicable behaviour. this war was illegal, immoral and wholly unneccesary. you should be deeply ashamed.

How was it possible without a war?

Who gave you the fuckin' right to "liberate" Iraq?
When will u learn to think vice versa? Why are you still sleeping?
Do not you hang people up if they revolt against your regime?
Isn't mr Bush kill your fathers, brothers, sons, daughters, sisters by sending them to war in Iraq? Like you claim Saddam Hussein did during his regime, in another way but with a same result? yes he killed Kurds and Shi-ites by using mustard gas, but only after their US motivated upheaval posed a threat to the stability of his country...
Why do you think your core principles must be applied to all world, regardless other reasons affecting societies?
Do you think only having sattelite TVs, mobile phones, Mc Donalds, internet connection make people happy?
Is freedom yours?
Freedom without a society to have, means nothing but a word...
you fuckin killed at least 15 thousand civilians (www.iraqbodycount.net) since the end of war and another 1 million during emborgoes...(UN)
I was in Iraq with American troops, embedded as a journalist...yes there was good things, like, ???? ah, some centers for the children, new job opportunities for those who speak english, open borders for Kurds, all I remember in first instance...But the division I was embedded with was crushing down the doors and enter houses, after midnight...yes, the division I was with was very cool, the commander was a nice person and ordering his troops to cool down, but just think once, when at home sleeping with your family somebody crshs in and kick and punch the military ages males down in the most disgusting manner...what happened to holy "private property"
I dont count the rest, but you americans, fucked up a country, killed tens of thousands of innocent people, dont know how to clean up the mess and now trying to move you asses out, because of some "arab terrorists"
they are the freedom fighters, I bet you, more than you!
Stay in your ranch and please dont try to export your rules, because societies are different because of geography, cultural heritages, natural resources..
rest of the world do not need cowboy hats...
If you force a nation with tanks, F 111s, long range missiles which they dont have, they will respond with their bodies, only weapon they have...
And for last, every nation is being ruled as how they deserve.You deserve an idiot like Mr Bush, but if there is one god you all fuckin idiots will burn in his hell, because of non-skepticism and misleaded beliefs, I promise u.

Call me crazy.. hell, even call me biased if you wish, but the last damn place I am trusting "Evidence" from is a bunch of web log sites. I can blog all day about my wild affair with J.Lo and have tons of people copy & paste the article from there citing "Ex-Lover confesses all!"

Oh yeah. That makes it real. :rolleyes:

the UN warned Bush off invading but he went on and did it anyway, using WMD's as an excuse (BTW, have you found any yet?)

The UN warned Bush not off invading, but off catching their collective asses with their hand in the cookie jar (oil for food)

ok since no one can see history repeating itself...every single war america has been in dating back to the french american war has involved "americans" invading different territories/countries....its how america works...we went to war to take the new world from the indians...the french and the british went to war over new world land...the north and the south went to war for slavery but in the end it became land rights....we seized alaska and hawaii for strategic military positions....its an evil revolving circle....we are the iron fist of the world in a bad way....name one outside country that has large mechinized and naval bases here in america...you dont see a german mechinized infantry base sitting in the new england states do you...we have military bases on islands throughout the pacific, navy and marine bases in japan, army bases in germany and france...and they have been growing ever since ww2...and all you people that think you know what military propaganda the u.s has...take a look at nellis air-force base where "area 51" is located...the american people still have no clue what goes on there weather it be aircraft testing or something more.....on oahu, there are 2 navy bases,2 army bases, 2 marine bases, 2 air force bases and a coast gaurd...at the western side of the mountain that the japanese flew over in ww2 there are miles of underground bunkers large enough for semi's to drive through with enough ammunition and bombs to supply the entire u.s. army for 6 yrs....also enough to wipe oahu off the face of the earth....IMO the u.s. needs to either let our allies build military bases on our land or we should pull out of every other country and focus on homeland security and the well being of our people...as for the oil prices going up...that is the governments doing not private oil companies...we have hundreds of off shore oil platforms in the gulf..and if that isnt enough the government limits how many hybrid gas/electric cars are made every yr so that they wont lose money on gas...toyota is only allowed to make 50 prius's each year...why?...wouldnt it make more sense to flood the market with gas saving vehicles that are better fo the economy?...according to our ever so honest government..to hell with the ecosystem...lets make money off of the gas prices that we ourselves set

No, the middle path is for reasonable people with the capacity for logical thought who do not have to see things in only black and white. You choose a black-and-white standard, it's either always ok or never. We choose to use our brains and reject your childish standards. If someone is trying to kill me, I have the absolute right to kill him. You can call that hypocricy, I call it absence of idiocy.

So why all the shouting and throwing of toys out the pram when the Iraq's start killing US and British soldiers who are currently occupying their country?

I think calling people who have a zero tolerance for killing idiots is very short sighted, I just wish more people had the same qualities and valued life more.

Just for the record, if someone murdered my family and was caught I *know* I wouldn't ask for the death penalty, I would want the person locked up in a 6'X4' cell with the key thrown away but I couldn't take a life, or be party to the taking of a life under any circumstances.
This is not for religious reasons (I am athiest) but for humanitarian reasons only.

So why all the shouting and throwing of toys out the pram when the Iraq's start killing US and British soldiers who are currently occupying their country?

Because of the black-or-white views of people who believe that a war of aggression can never be justified, on the one side (yours, apparently), or that any war by their own nation is justified, on the other.

I think calling people who have a zero tolerance for killing idiots is very short sighted, I just wish more people had the same qualities and valued life more.

I did not call them idiots. I called their views idiocy, which they are.

Just for the record, if someone murdered my family and was caught I *know* I wouldn't ask for the death penalty, I would want the person locked up in a 6'X4' cell with the key thrown away but I couldn't take a life, or be party to the taking of a life under any circumstances.
This is not for religious reasons (I am athiest) but for humanitarian reasons only.

OK just for the record: if somebody was about to murder your family, or a stranger for that matter, and the only way you could stop this was to kill the murderer, what would you do?

Running into a snag at www.wsj.com. please search either Paul Wolfowitz (the person who did the article)
THE Paul Wolfowitz (http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/wolfowitz.html)? The Deputy Secretary of Defense who is widely credited with writing the Bush administration's take on US foreign policy in the Middle East? The one who wrote the position papers for the PNAC (http://www.newamericancentury.org/) while he sat as its chair? The guy who revels in his self-given nickname, "Wolfowitz of Arabia"?

This is the impartial 'source from Iraq' that is supposed to convince me the war in Iraq is the right thing? Privilege, look up your counterpart Duty, and research how you and your sources are being used by the American right. Anything with Wolfowitz' fingerprints on it is by definition a statement from the Bush administration which is promoting this war. Hardly impartial, yes?

:headbang:
Ok...
so im new to this right...
but my thing is this...
i want to know HOW many of you all voted...
i may be young but one thing i do know is this
if you dont vote...
you have NO right to complain about ANYTHING thats going on in our country
and i know alot of people say..."one vote doesnt change the world" but it can..
alot of people dont like bush because they feel he's just daddys little boy and finshing whatever daddy started
which may or may not be true..
but if you have such STRONG feelings on the matter maybe instead of sitting your ass's here on the computer you should have gone out and voted...
me personaly i didnt like any of the people i could have voted for..
its a matter of who you trust the most...
as far as "bush did drugs and had a DUI"
well...
can you say you dont know anyone who ever has??
atleast he didnt do it while he was in office right?
un like Clinton who cheeted on his wife in the damn WHITE HOUSE
lol
i dont care if our leader has smoked a bowl when he was younger
or if he's gotten pulled over when he was younger...
we've all made mistakes
the point is
what are they doing now...

OK just for the record: if somebody was about to murder your family, or a stranger for that matter, and the only way you could stop this was to kill the murderer, what would you do?

Shoot him in the arm or leg, incapacitate him in one way or another. Just because someone refuse to take a life doesn't mean he'll stand there helpless.

This isn't black and white (like you love to remind us). It's not kill or be killed. If the killer is in your home, a baseball bat can be just as effective in stopping him as a .44 caliber magnum.

:headbang:
what are they doing now...

yes...what he is doing now and for the past 4 yrs is entirely rediculous and his reasons are malicious....as for the voting part....voting doesnt determine the presidents motives on going to war for no apparent reason...voting doesnt say "hey lets send thousands of troops to a unnecissery war and kill off thousansds of our own....voting doesnt help anything especially because of the way voting is made...electoral votes isnt fair on the people in any way...its only fair to the destructive force of our future and past leaders who win by electoral vote and lose by popular vote...:-D

Killing is immoral. Killing those who have killed, such as execution of the death penalty, is immoral. Starting a war is immoral, and killing those who attack you is immoral.

Or, all death is sanctioned, and religion encourages the use of death as a part of life.

These are the two choices. One choice condemns both Saddam Hussein and the Iraq War; the other choice permits the war but does not disagree with Saddam's methods of rule.

Which do you choose?

Oh, and don't try and take a middle path. The middle path is for hypocrites who say that only 'some' death is permissible, like the government and the churches.

Thus is my stance. I choose to condemn all killing. If my family were to be killed by a serial killer, I would try to spare the killer's life on the grounds that his life is no less important than mine and my dead family's; it's not like his death will resuscitate my parents, siblings, children, and neighbors.

Which do you choose?

~ CD
Do you live in the real world?

yes...what he is doing now and for the past 4 yrs is entirely rediculous and his reasons are malicious....as for the voting part....voting doesnt determine the presidents motives on going to war for no apparent reason...voting doesnt say "hey lets send thousands of troops to a unnecissery war and kill off thousansds of our own....voting doesnt help anything especially because of the way voting is made...electoral votes isnt fair on the people in any way...its only fair to the destructive force of our future and past leaders who win by electoral vote and lose by popular vote...:-D

um are you stupid???
We vote to PICK who WE would want in office....
which MEANS if YOU dont vote...you didnt have a say in who get put into office...you VOTE for the person who Determines...if we go to war and if we dont....DID YOU VOTE??
cause Kerry said if he was in office he would have gotten ALLLL our troops outa there...
so if YOUR saying Voting doesnt do anything...
we are lucky to be able to vote..unlike some places where our leader is either a king or qween....there must be something good about the way we do things other wise why would all these people for other countrys be coming over here???? :headbang:

there must be something good about the way we do things other wise why would all these people for other countrys be coming over here???? :headbang:

obviously they dont come over here for the right reasons because once they get here 95% of them live in poverty for the rest of their lives and so do their offspring and so on and so on...so which is better...being rich in your own country or poor in a foreign land where racism runs rampant?

One letter means nothing. Many, maybe, but one? No chance. "Every 22,375,317 (this atlas site said 22,675,617, but it was from before the US and UK invaded :( ) of the Iraqis loves the US, look, I can prove it, I've got a letter from one of them!" :rolleyes:

B) The Middle East is a unit. They work together. That is what is meant by "Arab."
I could say that all Americans are "white" because the USA works as a unit (nation). :rolleyes:

Iraqis aren't Arabs, by the way.

The Middle East works as a unit?! India and Pakistan were at the brink of war only a few years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait in '91; Israel was at war with Syria in the 70's and Israel and Palestine have completely deteriorated into killing grounds. And you say that the Middle East works together as a unit?!

You can ask the author yourself. At the site
I'd rather not.
The fact that you -and him- put all these countries together, label them, and say that they are all identical, means I want to have nothing to do with you. I assume that you think China, Taiwan, Korea, and Viet Nam are all the same as well, "working together as a unit" (never mind the Korean war; the missiles fired by China on Taiwan... :rolleyes: )? Learn some geography and then return to voice your opinions. :mad:

C) Ironic that most of the "pervert insurgents," as this Iraqi called them are not from Iraq at all. So, when you say, "you can bet your butt, that I'd take each and every opportunity to deal blows to the soldiers of Army," you can't really apply it to Iraq at all.
Except it does. Many resistance fighters are Iraqi.

STOP arguing for this disgusting war, our countries (US most of all and britain, spain, etc etc) should be utterly ashamed of ourselves!
Agreed.

can non of you war mongerors understand that getting rid of saddam was possible WITHOUT WAR!
Technically, yes. Realistically, no. The US has tried alternatives in the past with other leaders, but without much success.

to think that the only way to "help" a country is to forcefully "liberate" them is dispicable behaviour.
Agreed again.
I'm not in favour of "helping" Iraq, though, as money given to the people of a dictatorship often ends in the hand of the dictator and the dictator only.

This war was illegal, immoral and wholly unneccesary.
That sums it up.

You should be deeply ashamed.
Indeed.

OK just for the record: if somebody was about to murder your family, or a stranger for that matter, and the only way you could stop this was to kill the murderer, what would you do?
I thought this was about the war on Iraq...? :confused:

Totally invalid analogy. Enough said.

"They killed a wounded man. It's hard to believe. They killed a man who was completely helpless- like he was some sort of diseased animal. I had read the articles and heard the stories of this happening before- wounded civilians being thrown on the side of the road or shot in cold blood- but to see it happening on television is something else- it makes me crazy with anger.


Articles like this leave out many details. He was not just any man, he was a terrorist.
Put yourself in his position. You have been in Iraq for a long time. You have recently been swept up into combat in Falujah. You have been doing house to house searches for days (which any soldier would say is a total nightmare). Suddenly, you have a "wounded," person in front of you. You have two choices: let him live, or end his "misery." I put those in parenthesis for a reason. If you let him live, many things could happen. There is a slim chance that he was an innocent civilian, but that is highly improbable. This man was a terrorist. I said it before. Because of this, there could have been any number of booby traps on his person. Chances are high that, if they had apporoached them, he would have done a suicide bombing, killing not only himself, but the soldier in question, and all his comrades. A soldier has the right to defend himself, and his fellow soldiers, especially when dealing with an enemy as deadly as this.

The only reason it got on television was because of that reporter. I think a reporter who sees fit to release information like that to the world has no right to be in the buisness. As it is said, "A good commander reports only good news, and keeps all others to himself." Reporters do not realize the consequences of their actions. When they do this, they give the rest of the world a scab to pick on the US with. They also lower Morale at home and abroad.


Weezlepops said, "can non of you war mongerors understand that getting rid of saddam was possible WITHOUT WAR!"

Since you think the world is as simple as just asking other countries to not attack us (which didn't work on September 11th, now, did it?), why don't you tell us how it should be done?



Sacrifice is a funny word. You can look it up in the dictionary easily and read what it says.But, you will still not know the meaning of the word. You can only truly know what "sacrifice" means when you have expirienced it. It pain me to know what people who have never even considered putting on a uniform see fit to judge what those who are in uniform do. To think that you have even an inkling of what military life is like, YOU. ARE. WRONG. You say that the war is unjust, that it is useless. Well, I have news for you, pall. This is an insult to me, and all other Military Families all across the country. You are saying that the 9 months I spent away from my father, my own flesh and blood, the person who has meant more than anyone else in my entire life, was unjust and useless. And I got off easily. As was pointed out before (by someone who was actually fighting in Iraq) people are there for 12 or more months. I think that these are the people who can pass judgement. As was demostrated, soldiers who come home are genuinley shocked to see how half of the US reacts. They were under the impression that they were liberators. Instead, when they come home, they find out that they are not. Is this truly the message we want to send to our soldiers? That they are fighting a useless war? That they are occupiers? I have an idea: Get a uniform. Put it on. Go to Iraq. I will as soon as I am old enough. Not because I am a war monger, but becasue I feel it is my duty to my country to protect it both at home and abroad. Anyway, put on that uniform, go to combat for a year. Talk to the people of Iraq. Go see what war is really like. Then, come home to a country that says that you shouldn't have gone in the first. I think those who protest should be ashamed of themselves for putting the soldiers in this position. They are, after all, the last line of defense for our country. If you put them in such a slump that they will not fight, who will save you then?

Think about it.

I am assuming none of you read this...

I am a soilder in Iraq. My brigade has been here for 11 months now, and we see all the good that is being done here in Iraq. All you guys back in the states only see all the bad stuff the CNN and ABC and all choose to show. How can you say "this was isnt just", or "killing is bad" or whatever the hell else you say when you have never been in Iraq and seen the good that is being done. You cant rightly protest a war and say its bad without being there in the first place. Its people like Micheal Moore that put a very bad spin on things we are trying to do here. And Liberals that eat that shit up and say "Yeah Micheal Moore knows what he is talking about so it must be true". When in actuallity everything he says a damn lie. If you have seen Ferinhiet 9/11 and believe what he said in that movie to be true, I strongly suggest watching Ferinhype 9/11 and see what the real truth is. Cause not one thing in Ferinhiet 9/11 is true, not one damn thing. And if you wanna believe everything you hear and see on the news thats your deal, but it shows how stupid you people really are. Oh and for you miss "killing is bad", what if you lived in Iraq and Saddam killed you mother and father right in front of you? Would you still be "killing is bad for anyreason" or would you be happy that killer was gone. Dead or taken from power what ever the case may be. Cause thats what Saddam use to do was kill mothers and fathers in front of their children with no remorse. And if you were that kid I can promise you that you would be happy either way when the US Army can and got rid of him. So for all of you Liberal pussies out there think before you speak cause we are doing a world of good here in Iraq. Oh and another damn thing, THIS WAR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FUCKN OIL! So get off that kick, cause if this war was about oil do you really think gas prices would be as high as the are?

Poor Mikie Moore. Wait. I feel absolutely no sympathy for that bottom-feeding, dirt eating, lying, twisting, evil, butt-sucking, SOB. (Note: SOB stands for something that I have not said in over 4 years. The fact that I will break my no-swearing policy should show you how much I hate this man.)

Where did you encounter this pro-invading letter? Alink might compliment your statement.

I posted several links on the second page. It is the first one in the list that I posted.

THIS WAR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FUCKN OIL![/U][/B][/I] So get off that kick, cause if this war was about oil do you really think gas prices would be as high as the are?

I understand then, that this theory has not influenced your impressions of your leaders, or at least shadowed a little piece of your mind with doubt. Could it not, in any way, give you a wee niggle that there is more to the scenes than the stage directions? Is your faith blinding your trust?

He is not living life blindly, he is reliving his expiriences. I believe it is time for me to use the most dealy weapon I own: Pictures. I will get some pictures on here in a minute.

Here are all the pictures that may help prove what I have been saying all along.

http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/LBOX/mini/1069459.jpg
http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/LBOX/mini/1069975.jpg
http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/LBOX/mini/1070494.jpg
http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/LBOX/mini/1070236.jpg

I'll start adding captions.
http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/LBOX/mini/1070266.jpg
Lt. Col. Smyrski, the Task Force Wing Flight Surgeon, examines an Afghan child's eyes during a humanitarian aid and medical assistance visit to the village of Jegdalek, Afghanistan, Nov. 1, 2004.

http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/LBOX/mini/1070302.jpg
Iraqi citizens unload a portion of approximately 180 tons of high-grade wheat provided by Soldiers of the 443rd Civil Affairs Company and the 2nd Battalion, 15th Field Artillery Regiment, 10th Mountain Division, in Baghdad, Iraq

http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/LBOX/mini/1070725.jpg
Capt. Batty, Information Operations (IO) Officer, with 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, hands out pens and paper to the Iraqi children in the village of Abu Akash, Iraq, Oct. 5, 2004. 1st Marine Division in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom is engaged in Security and Stabilization Operations (SASO) in the Al Anbar Province

http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/LBOX/mini/1070836.jpg
Capt. Crawford, top left, of Headquarters Headquarters Company (HHC) of 1st Battalion 18th Infantry Regiment (1-18th IN) 1st Infantry Division gives members of the Emergency Services Unit (ESU), a specialized section of the Iraqi Police, a review of their actions during a hostage response exercise in Tikrit, Iraq.


Would you like more?

No one?

Perhaps if you sourced the document instead of just blindly posting it more people would take it seriously.

I understand then, that this theory has not influenced your impressions of your leaders, or at least shadowed a little piece of your mind with doubt. Could it not, in any way, give you a wee niggle that there is more to the scenes than the stage directions? Is your faith blinding your trust?

I can see how being a soldier on the ground would say make you an expert on how the Iraqis feel about the Americans in your immediate vicinity or the moral of the troops or something, but I don't see how it makes you an expert on the US's motivations and intentions on going to war. It is not like your commanding officer is going to be like

"sorry you got your balls shot off son, at least you sacraficed your nuts for a good cause--strenghtening the US's monopoly over middle eatern oil reserves."

I mean if the US reeally cared about helping oppressed people we would send a batallion or two to Sudan where there are mountains of corpses pilling up every day. That is a lot more pressing and urgent than Iraq where Sadam gassed his own people in the 1980s. If we really cared about saving lives it would have been easy to prevent genocide in Rwanda, even a few hundred troops could have thwarted the machete armed death squads there that killed nearly a million people. A little diplomatic pressure could have been applied to Russia while they were killing off 1/4th the population of Chechneya. We could clean up our mines and unexploded ordinance in Vietnam and Laos which still kill people.

I am a soilder in Iraq. My brigade has been here for 11 months now, and we see all the good that is being done here in Iraq. All you guys back in the states only see all the bad stuff the CNN and ABC and all choose to show. How can you say "this was isnt just", or "killing is bad" or whatever the hell else you say when you have never been in Iraq and seen the good that is being done. You cant rightly protest a war and say its bad without being there in the first place. Its people like Micheal Moore that put a very bad spin on things we are trying to do here. And Liberals that eat that shit up and say "Yeah Micheal Moore knows what he is talking about so it must be true". When in actuallity everything he says a damn lie. If you have seen Ferinhiet 9/11 and believe what he said in that movie to be true, I strongly suggest watching Ferinhype 9/11 and see what the real truth is. Cause not one thing in Ferinhiet 9/11 is true, not one damn thing. And if you wanna believe everything you hear and see on the news thats your deal, but it shows how stupid you people really are. Oh and for you miss "killing is bad", what if you lived in Iraq and Saddam killed you mother and father right in front of you? Would you still be "killing is bad for anyreason" or would you be happy that killer was gone. Dead or taken from power what ever the case may be. Cause thats what Saddam use to do was kill mothers and fathers in front of their children with no remorse. And if you were that kid I can promise you that you would be happy either way when the US Army can and got rid of him. So for all of you Liberal pussies out there think before you speak cause we are doing a world of good here in Iraq. Oh and another damn thing, THIS WAR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FUCKN OIL! So get off that kick, cause if this war was about oil do you really think gas prices would be as high as the are?

First off if ya see my cousin over there arriving in the next couple weeks..in an mortar unit from Wis/Tennessee tellem i say hi,

Second of all, we liberal pussies as you may call us, don't say that you don't do good things, we dont say that you aren't liberating people. We don't debate the fact that Saddam Hussein wasn't the nicest of people, and terrible things went on in Iraq. But let me ask you one question, Why are we in Iraq which happens to be where a lot of oil lies, and also in the vicinity (Afghanistan) of where Halliburton wants to run a gas line, instead of South America and helping to build up their cities and their poverty stricken families along with helping to rid them of HIV or Aids?

Let's see why? If we go to Iraq, we'll A-remove Saddam from power and help a lot of people B get a potential return on our investment with its natural resources.

If we go to Africa we'll A-Help a lot of people and get their thanks.

Let's go back to why we're at war to begin with. September 11th. Our retaliation to Sept. 11th (this war) is killing more Americans than Sept. 11th did to begin with. If we were to relate this to chess....it's like sacraficing your queen, two rooks and a bishop to capture a knight. It's downright illogical. We dont have any proof that Iraq was involved with Sept. 11, even after we've invaded.

Now to the war at hand. WTF are we doin? We are afraid that a tyrannical government is going to take over so we keep our troops in harms way? Way back when our United States was founded, did we ask the French to stay a while? Do you think we WANTED the french to stay a while to make sure that England didn't come back? Hell No! Of course there were English sympathizers still here..(Whig party) but we survived. We have to let a nation stand on its own two feet in order for it to survive. Otherwise it would be like a mother still breastfeeding his 16 yr old child.

You are doing a world of good over there I'm sure. I dont debate that what you are doing is noble. I fully support the troops and their safety. I just do NOT support the motives that sent you there in the first place, nor the people that made the decision to send you there. Call me a pussey if you will, but I'm willing to question my government, which is my RIGHT that our forefathers DIED for. So i will use it to the best of my ability.

I mean if the US reeally cared about helping oppressed people we would send a batallion or two to Sudan where there are mountains of corpses pilling up every day. That is a lot more pressing and urgent than Iraq where Sadam gassed his own people in the 1980s. If we really cared about saving lives it would have been easy to prevent genocide in Rwanda, even a few hundred troops could have thwarted the machete armed death squads there that killed nearly a million people. A little diplomatic pressure could have been applied to Russia while they were killing off 1/4th the population of Chechneya. We could clean up our mines and unexploded ordinance in Vietnam and Laos which still kill people.

We didn't start any of this. We didn't start in Vietnam. Do you think we should have gone to Vietnam? (That is not a rehatorical question). We did not start in Laos. We did not start in Chechneya. We don't even have anything to do with that country. We can't take either side, because both are dangerous there. Keep in mind Chechens killed many Russians, as well. Chechneya is not longer a fight for freedom, but another hate war. We have sent soldiers to Africa, to Rwanda, but you wouldn't hear about it, because the news doesn't consider it important. We didn't start in Iraq. They have been a thorn in our sides since they invaded Kuwait years ago. We didn't start this.

Articles like this leave out many details. He was not just any man, he was a terrorist.
Put yourself in his position. You have been in Iraq for a long time. You have recently been swept up into combat in Falujah. You have been doing house to house searches for days (which any soldier would say is a total nightmare). Suddenly, you have a "wounded," person in front of you. You have two choices: let him live, or end his "misery." I put those in parenthesis for a reason. If you let him live, many things could happen. There is a slim chance that he was an innocent civilian, but that is highly improbable. This man was a terrorist. I said it before. Because of this, there could have been any number of booby traps on his person. Chances are high that, if they had apporoached them, he would have done a suicide bombing, killing not only himself, but the soldier in question, and all his comrades. A soldier has the right to defend himself, and his fellow soldiers, especially when dealing with an enemy as deadly as this.

The only reason it got on television was because of that reporter. I think a reporter who sees fit to release information like that to the world has no right to be in the buisness. As it is said, "A good commander reports only good news, and keeps all others to himself." Reporters do not realize the consequences of their actions. When they do this, they give the rest of the world a scab to pick on the US with. They also lower Morale at home and abroad.


Weezlepops said, "can non of you war mongerors understand that getting rid of saddam was possible WITHOUT WAR!"

Since you think the world is as simple as just asking other countries to not attack us (which didn't work on September 11th, now, did it?), why don't you tell us how it should be done?



Sacrifice is a funny word. You can look it up in the dictionary easily and read what it says.But, you will still not know the meaning of the word. You can only truly know what "sacrifice" means when you have expirienced it. It pain me to know what people who have never even considered putting on a uniform see fit to judge what those who are in uniform do. To think that you have even an inkling of what military life is like, YOU. ARE. WRONG. You say that the war is unjust, that it is useless. Well, I have news for you, pall. This is an insult to me, and all other Military Families all across the country. You are saying that the 9 months I spent away from my father, my own flesh and blood, the person who has meant more than anyone else in my entire life, was unjust and useless. And I got off easily. As was pointed out before (by someone who was actually fighting in Iraq) people are there for 12 or more months. I think that these are the people who can pass judgement. As was demostrated, soldiers who come home are genuinley shocked to see how half of the US reacts. They were under the impression that they were liberators. Instead, when they come home, they find out that they are not. Is this truly the message we want to send to our soldiers? That they are fighting a useless war? That they are occupiers? I have an idea: Get a uniform. Put it on. Go to Iraq. I will as soon as I am old enough. Not because I am a war monger, but becasue I feel it is my duty to my country to protect it both at home and abroad. Anyway, put on that uniform, go to combat for a year. Talk to the people of Iraq. Go see what war is really like. Then, come home to a country that says that you shouldn't have gone in the first. I think those who protest should be ashamed of themselves for putting the soldiers in this position. They are, after all, the last line of defense for our country. If you put them in such a slump that they will not fight, who will save you then?

Think about it.

Ok I thought about it and since there wasn't any threat from Iraq, as has been admitted by the Bush administration...PAL, seems I didn't need to be saved from anything. There isn't anyone gearing up to invade the US anytime soon, that's just ridiculous. Sept. 11 was not a country attacking us, I can't even believe I'm responding to this nonsense. I HAVE talked to soldiers who have come back from Iraq and happen to agree with me, or more precisely the viewpoint of this young Iraqi woman. This is what it looks like to a civilian inside of a warzone that we created. Exactly as she says, anyone killed will be labled as an insurgent/terrorist so that you don't have to feel bad about it back in Idaho.

The thing is, we are liberating people, whether that was the origional purpose aside. They are free now. They have met the requirements of a liberated country. They are no longer oppressed, they can say what they want, they will be having elections. They are free.



Here are all the pictures that may help prove what I have been saying all along.

http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/LBOX/mini/1069459.jpg
http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/LBOX/mini/1069975.jpg
http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/LBOX/mini/1070494.jpg
http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/LBOX/mini/1070236.jpg

I'll start adding captions.
http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/LBOX/mini/1070266.jpg
Lt. Col. Smyrski, the Task Force Wing Flight Surgeon, examines an Afghan child's eyes during a humanitarian aid and medical assistance visit to the village of Jegdalek, Afghanistan, Nov. 1, 2004.

http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/LBOX/mini/1070302.jpg
Iraqi citizens unload a portion of approximately 180 tons of high-grade wheat provided by Soldiers of the 443rd Civil Affairs Company and the 2nd Battalion, 15th Field Artillery Regiment, 10th Mountain Division, in Baghdad, Iraq

http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/LBOX/mini/1070725.jpg
Capt. Batty, Information Operations (IO) Officer, with 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, hands out pens and paper to the Iraqi children in the village of Abu Akash, Iraq, Oct. 5, 2004. 1st Marine Division in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom is engaged in Security and Stabilization Operations (SASO) in the Al Anbar Province

http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/LBOX/mini/1070836.jpg
Capt. Crawford, top left, of Headquarters Headquarters Company (HHC) of 1st Battalion 18th Infantry Regiment (1-18th IN) 1st Infantry Division gives members of the Emergency Services Unit (ESU), a specialized section of the Iraqi Police, a review of their actions during a hostage response exercise in Tikrit, Iraq.


Would you like more?

This is what it looks like to a civilian inside of a warzone

Key word =

whoops. Let me finish that.

Key words = "This Iraq'i girl." At least I provided a source...

If I had a source, it would be easier for me to believe.

The thing is, we are liberating people, whether that was the origional purpose aside. They are free now. They have met the requirements of a liberated country. They are no longer oppressed, they can say what they want, they will be having elections. They are free.


who have we liberated? the same amount of iraqi's are being killed now if not more then there ever were...only now its our bombs that are doing the killing and the bombs from terrorist attacks...not from just one man who doesnt like people going against him

I will go look up the statistics right now while you look at the pictures I posted above of the people we have liberated.

They have been a thorn in our sides since they invaded Kuwait years ago. We didn't start this.

id have a thorn in my ass if some random country tried to invade my country too....the u.s. had no reason to go to kuwait...therefore we did start this...it was started with reagan...bush1 tried to finish it but didnt know what he was doing so only acquired kuwait...now bush2 is trying for iraq...i hate to say it but this will not be resolved before bush's second term...no way near being finished

I will go look up the statistics right now while you look at the pictures I posted above of the people we have liberated.

notice over half of the people in those pictures are children under the age of 12.....

IRAQI CIVILIANS KILLED AS A RESULT OF ACTS OF WAR SINCE MAY 2003
(This means both sides)

August, 2004 = 290
September, 2004 = 216
October, 2004 = 421
November, 2004 = 273


Now is the part where you do the math. Below is how many civilians were killed due to insurgent bombings alone, not including the other attacks by the insurgents or accidents on the part of Americans.

MASS CASUALTY BOMBINGS IN IRAQ SINCE MAY, 2003

August, 2004 = 228
September, 2004 = 200
October, 2004 = 350
November, 2004 = 150

This leaves, by month, a small number of remaining civilians.

August, 2004 = 62
September, 2004 = 16
October, 2004 = 71
November, 2004 = 130

When you factor in the other attacks by the insurgents, such as mass beheadings and murderings, that leaves a very small number indeed that the Americans killed through friendly fire.

Note: November is not yet finished, these statistics are as of this afternoon.

Source: www.brookings.org

Brookings Institute is in DC. It is a non-partisan think tank that does no analysis, but gives the facts as reported from many sources. Some of the other things you will find in there are statistics of the Iraqi's, and polls given to the Iraqi's, anf their results.

notice over half of the people in those pictures are children under the age of 12.....

You want older ones? Gladly. Give me a sec to copy/paste

http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/LBOX/mini/1066300.jpg
A member of Iraqi's 306th National Guard inspects a trunk load of rifles being turned in at Al-Jezaaer Police Station during the initial day of Sadr Bureau's weapons buy-back program in Sadr City, Iraq, Oct. 11, 2004. Insurgents were encouraged to bring their weapons to the local police precincts throughout Sadr city.

The next picture is the response by the insurgents to the above request

http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/LBOX/mini/1066303.jpg
A trunk load of rifles arrives at Al-Jezaaer Police Station during the initial day of Sadr Bureau's weapons buy-back program in Sadr City, Iraq Oct. 11, 2004. Insurgents were encouraged to bring their weapons to the local police precincts throughout Sadr city.

http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/LBOX/mini/1062585.jpg
Local residents of Qalat, Afghanistan leave a polling place after casting their vote for President of Afghanistan.

http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/LBOX/mini/1061964.jpg
The Iraqi Coastal Defense Force (ICDF) was officially launched at the port of Umm Qasr, Southern Iraq, Sept. 30, 2004. The ICDF were formed in Jan 2004 and trained by a team made up of a combination of Royal Navy & Marines, Australian Navy, US Navy and Netherlands Navy personnel.

http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/LBOX/mini/1063946.jpg
Capt. Grant Wilz,141st Engineer Combat Battalion, checks a villager's blood at a clinic at a village near Forward Operating Base Speicher, Iraq, Sept. 14, 2004. The 141st ECB set up a makeshift clinic and brought a doctor to the village.


Would you like more?

Key words = "This Iraq'i girl." At least I provided a source...

If I had a source, it would be easier for me to believe.

It's just a person's own blog they write. That's the source. It's not sanctioned by anyone but the writer. It hasn't been sanitized by the embedded media. This is someone's first hand account of their experience. I suppose it could be propaganda, but i'm pretty sure she's been checked out and she's been interviewed.
I hope you're right and things are getting better, but I just don't see it happening with what is going on in Washington. Our new Secretary of State is not a diplomat, but rather an implementer of what amounts to corporate policy vs. human issues. Look at what Chevron did in Nigeria and how she responded to angry shareholders.

:headbang:
Ok...
so im new to this right...
but my thing is this...
i want to know HOW many of you all voted...
i may be young but one thing i do know is this
if you dont vote...
you have NO right to complain about ANYTHING thats going on in our country
and i know alot of people say..."one vote doesnt change the world" but it can..
alot of people dont like bush because they feel he's just daddys little boy and finshing whatever daddy started
which may or may not be true..
but if you have such STRONG feelings on the matter maybe instead of sitting your ass's here on the computer you should have gone out and voted...
me personaly i didnt like any of the people i could have voted for..
its a matter of who you trust the most...
as far as "bush did drugs and had a DUI"
well...
can you say you dont know anyone who ever has??
atleast he didnt do it while he was in office right?
un like Clinton who cheeted on his wife in the damn WHITE HOUSE
lol
i dont care if our leader has smoked a bowl when he was younger
or if he's gotten pulled over when he was younger...
we've all made mistakes
the point is
what are they doing now...

1) what makes you think that anyone here, who was old enough and a citizen, didn't vote?

2) EVERYBODY has a right to complain about ANYTHING ANYWHERE, even if they could have voted but did not. It's called "freedom of speach" and it is not limited to voters. Bush seems to want to enforce democracy on the whole planet, so that includes freedom of speach for EVERYONE. Informed, Intelligent, or Otherwise.

3) Right now Bush is stretching our military AND our national guard thin by fighting two wars, only one of which could be remotely seen as needed, pissing away any support we have had from the rest of the world, eroding the Bill of Rights, and not catching, or even "thinking much about", in his own words, his dad's latest rogue puppet, Bin Laden.

Shoot him in the arm or leg, incapacitate him in one way or another. Just because someone refuse to take a life doesn't mean he'll stand there helpless.

This isn't black and white (like you love to remind us). It's not kill or be killed. If the killer is in your home, a baseball bat can be just as effective in stopping him as a .44 caliber magnum.

Unless you have a bat and he has a magnum.

My example said that the only way to stop him is to kill him, so... you shoot at his shoulder, and as he falls his other hand goes to the bomb trigger and the innocents are just as dead. Nice going, Mr. Humanitarian!

In addition, as any cop will tell you, you shoot the guy attempting to murder until the threat is over. Maybe you can just wound him, but maybe he will die because you didn't hit the target perfectly but instead hit his heart or lung. Or maybe you will miss the other way, and not even hit him at all.

It's just a person's own blog they write. That's the source. It's not sanctioned by anyone but the writer. It hasn't been sanitized by the embedded media. This is someone's first hand account of their experience. I suppose it could be propaganda, but i'm pretty sure she's been checked out and she's been interviewed.
I hope you're right and things are getting better, but I just don't see it happening with what is going on in Washington. Our new Secretary of State is not a diplomat, but rather an implementer of what amounts to corporate policy vs. human issues. Look at what Chevron did in Nigeria and how she responded to angry shareholders.


Hmmm... So, when you post a blog I am supposed to accept it as absolute truth, yet when I post that letter at the start of the post, it isn't credible? My guy was interviewed too... I am not trying to be rude, I just want you to see where I am comming from. I will take a look at the blog as soon as you provide a link.

*Reads the first post*

Incredible. We should invade Ethiopia. People are suffering there, too.
Those assessments certainly can't be proved, and using them for self-propaganda is ridiculous.

*Reads the first post*

Incredible. We should invade Ethiopia. People are suffering there, too.
Those assessments certainly can't be proved, and using them for self-propaganda is ridiculous.


COngratulations Tycoony, you are a case in point.

Unless you have a bat and he has a magnum.

My example said that the only way to stop him is to kill him, so... you shoot at his shoulder, and as he falls his other hand goes to the bomb trigger and the innocents are just as dead. Nice going, Mr. Humanitarian!

In addition, as any cop will tell you, you shoot the guy attempting to murder until the threat is over. Maybe you can just wound him, but maybe he will die because you didn't hit the target perfectly but instead hit his heart or lung. Or maybe you will miss the other way, and not even hit him at all.

Well, you add specification all the time, now do you?
At first it was "killing is wrong, even if it's killing a mass murderer" and now it's "if you have no choice between killing him and be killed" and it went through the gamut. Yes, if you put me in that corner, I will agree that shoot to kill is a good option if you have in front of you someone with a nuclear bomb strapped to his back and is threathening to blow it up in front of you.

I find it idiotic, however, to attack the people saying that killing is wrong by saying that if you don't want to kill a murderer, he will continue on killing. As if there's no choice between picking a gun and shooting and cowering in a corner and letting the guy do as he wish. Just because you have moral qualms about killing someone doesn't mean you'll let him go free if he breaks the law. Let's not go from black to white in a single stroke. There's plenty of grey to go around.

Well, you add specification all the time, now do you?
At first it was "killing is wrong, even if it's killing a mass murderer" and now it's "if you have no choice between killing him and be killed" and it went through the gamut. Yes, if you put me in that corner, I will agree that shoot to kill is a good option if you have in front of you someone with a nuclear bomb strapped to his back and is threathening to blow it up in front of you.

I find it idiotic, however, to attack the people saying that killing is wrong by saying that if you don't want to kill a murderer, he will continue on killing. As if there's no choice between picking a gun and shooting and cowering in a corner and letting the guy do as he wish. Just because you have moral qualms about killing someone doesn't mean you'll let him go free if he breaks the law. Let's not go from black to white in a single stroke. There's plenty of grey to go around.

Actually I specified that it was the only way to stop him in my initial example.

Is a nuclear bomb then where you would cross the line? What about the life of one person? Would you be willing to kill an attempting murderer if it was the only way to save that?

What about if it was only the most certain way? Is the life of somebody in the act of murder worth enough to risk the life of his intended victim?

BTW I have never advocated executing a serial killer, at least not without trial, to protect potential future victims. I am merely talking about homicide in defence of self or others. Even that's not black-or-white; for ex: who here would kill somebody who was about to murder the murderer of his child?

Hmmm... So, when you post a blog I am supposed to accept it as absolute truth, yet when I post that letter at the start of the post, it isn't credible? My guy was interviewed too... I am not trying to be rude, I just want you to see where I am comming from. I will take a look at the blog as soon as you provide a link.

I never made any such assertion. I'm saying that the news we're getting, letters like the one you have posted isn't the only reality happening in Iraq. I want to point out the over-simplification of all things coming from the Whitehouse. It's not just black and white, we liberated these people. That point of view is one that doesn't want to deal with the suffering that is happening. I also don't believe that anyone before the war gave a flying leap about what the Iraqi people were going thru under Saddam. If anyone did, it was definately the Liberals in publications like Harper's. I do remember reading about the problems there in a 2000 issue. It's become a lame excuse after all the other reasons proved false. This blog is one point of view from a very intelligent young woman. She writes in english better than most of us here on these boards. I thought I had posted the link, but here it is...

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

"They killed a wounded man. It's hard to believe. They killed a man who was completely helpless- like he was some sort of diseased animal. I had read the articles and heard the stories of this happening before- wounded civilians being thrown on the side of the road or shot in cold blood- but to see it happening on television is something else- it makes me crazy with anger."


This is an example of what I found on that site. Articles like this leave out many details. The “Innocent Civilian,” was not just any man, he was a terrorist.
Put yourself in his position. You have been in Iraq for a long time. You have recently been swept up into combat in Falujah. You have been doing house to house searches for days (which any soldier would say is a total nightmare). Suddenly, you have a "wounded," person in front of you. You have two choices: let him live, or end his "misery." I put those in parenthesis for a reason. If you let him live, many things could happen. There is a slim chance that he was an innocent civilian, but that is highly improbable. This man was a terrorist. I said it before. Because of this, there could have been any number of booby traps on his person. Chances are high that, if they had approached them, he would have done a suicide bombing, killing not only himself, but the soldier in question, and all his comrades. A soldier has the right to defend himself, and his fellow soldiers, especially when dealing with an enemy as deadly as this, who had booby trapped people in these exact situations before.



Way back when our United States was founded, did we ask the French to stay a while? Do you think we WANTED the french to stay a while to make sure that England didn't come back? Hell No!

Don’t even try to use history against me; I am an expert on American History. This is not an assertion you can make. The country was split almost down the middle on this view. The South, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, wanted to work with the French, while New England, lead by John Adams, wanted nothing to do with the French. You can’t compare them in that way.

How is it you know this man was a terrorist? Do you have some divine insight to the situation? I haven't watched it, but what's been related is that this was a helpless, wounded, unarmed man. You seem to take some kind of personal pleasure in this killing.
And the site is again not "articles" as in the press but just one civilian relating her experience to the world. It's not reviewed or edited by anyone but herself. It's just pure undiluted truth as she sees it. We don't have that luxory when the only news we see in the US is from embedded journalists. We only see one point of view, the official view from the government. That's not what the traditional role of the media has been in our great country and it's a shame on all of us.
It's a great irony that this battle in Falujah happens in a place that was a stronghold of opposition to Saddam. Doesn't sound exactly right does it? Seems it's not all cut and dry now is it?

To Privelege,

Clearly the Iraqi people love you there...Clearly your views and dependancy make a difference.

Shut the hell up you rambling idiot, for one that single letter doesn't stand for crap, if the country of Iraq wants you there so much, why are your troops dying and killing in the numbers they are? That letter is the only thing of support I've seen from a non-American. Everyone else thinks it's stupid, but republicans a'course. Your letter would be invisible amidst a pile of dead bodies, American and Iraq. I will never support this lie of a war.

And the site is again not "articles" as in the press but just one civilian relating her experience to the world. It's not reviewed or edited by anyone but herself. It's just pure undiluted truth as she sees it. We don't have that luxory when the only news we see in the US is from embedded journalists. We only see one point of view, the official view from the government. That's not what the traditional role of the media has been in our great country and it's a shame on all of us.
It's a great irony that this battle in Falujah happens in a place that was a stronghold of opposition to Saddam. Doesn't sound exactly right does it? Seems it's not all cut and dry now is it?

You are saying the exact same thing I was earlier on, exactly the same thing, yet, you aren’t getting blasted at in this forum.



To Privelege,

Clearly the Iraqi people love you there...Clearly your views and dependancy make a difference.

Shut the hell up you rambling idiot, for one that single letter doesn't stand for crap, if the country of Iraq wants you there so much, why are your troops dying and killing in the numbers they are? That letter is the only thing of support I've seen from a non-American. Everyone else thinks it's stupid, but republicans a'course. Your letter would be invisible amidst a pile of dead bodies, American and Iraq. I will never support this lie of a war.

Do me a favor, before you start calling me names. Go to this site: http://www.brookings.org/dybdocroot/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf.

This is a site that is not endorsed by any party or point of view, because they refuse to be partisan. What they have done here is take the facts and compile them into a report. Read about the 77.5% of households that HAVE NOT been affected by “violence
in terms of death, handicap,” or the 64.6% of Iraqi’s who say their life will be better in the future because of what the US is doing today. Maybe, after you have eaten your words, of course, you will read about how half of the Itaqi’s said they felt scared expressing religious views before we went in there, COMPARED TO 8% AFTER, (In case you get confused by the math, that means that only 8% of Iraqi’s are now scared to express religious views) or the mere 2% who said they felt free to express political views before we went, COMPARED TO 76% (yes, seventy-six) WHO SAY THEY ARE NOW FREE TO SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT.

Sorry to make you endure my idiotic ramblings, but the numbers are on my side.

well I read the letter and I totally disagree with you. One letter from an Iraqi doesn't negate the fact that the US had no business being in Iraq in the first place. The war is and shall remain in my mind, a war that is illegal, immoral, and unjustified.

I do believe that world sentiment would concur with my thoughts on this matter.

DOes it matter what the world thinks? Or what the people that this war is about thinks?

DOes it matter what the world thinks? Or what the people that this war is about thinks?
Well it is funny that you ask those questions after stating the following in your opening paragraph:


"After reading this, I honestly do not know how anyone could be against what we in the US are doing overseas."

So yeah it does matter......A LOT!! :eek:

??

??
What are you confused about.....your question or my answer?

Your answer...

I apologize, I won't be able to respond until Saturday. I won't be home until very late tommorow, so I will just hold off until Saturday. See you guys then! :)

Killing is immoral. Killing those who have killed, such as execution of the death penalty, is immoral. Starting a war is immoral, and killing those who attack you is immoral.

Or, all death is sanctioned, and religion encourages the use of death as a part of life.

These are the two choices. One choice condemns both Saddam Hussein and the Iraq War; the other choice permits the war but does not disagree with Saddam's methods of rule.

Which do you choose?

Oh, and don't try and take a middle path. The middle path is for hypocrites who say that only 'some' death is permissible, like the government and the churches.

Thus is my stance. I choose to condemn all killing. If my family were to be killed by a serial killer, I would try to spare the killer's life on the grounds that his life is no less important than mine and my dead family's; it's not like his death will resuscitate my parents, siblings, children, and neighbors.

Which do you choose?

~ CD

Yeah lets let the killer live, because if he's alive and in jail it's just wasting tax money. If he's out of jail, what's to stop him from killing again?

You are saying the exact same thing I was earlier on, exactly the same thing, yet, you aren’t getting blasted at in this forum.





Do me a favor, before you start calling me names. Go to this site: http://www.brookings.org/dybdocroot/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf.

This is a site that is not endorsed by any party or point of view, because they refuse to be partisan. What they have done here is take the facts and compile them into a report. Read about the 77.5% of households that HAVE NOT been affected by “violence
in terms of death, handicap,” or the 64.6% of Iraqi’s who say their life will be better in the future because of what the US is doing today. Maybe, after you have eaten your words, of course, you will read about how half of the Itaqi’s said they felt scared expressing religious views before we went in there, COMPARED TO 8% AFTER, (In case you get confused by the math, that means that only 8% of Iraqi’s are now scared to express religious views) or the mere 2% who said they felt free to express political views before we went, COMPARED TO 76% (yes, seventy-six) WHO SAY THEY ARE NOW FREE TO SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT.

Sorry to make you endure my idiotic ramblings, but the numbers are on my side.

Explain to everyone the procedure taken to get these stats.

DOes it matter what the world thinks? Or what the people that this war is about thinks?
Why post this board then?

1) While I don't like Saddam, I do not agree with the war in Iraq.........The US should have gone after Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and bigger threats (North Korea and Iran).....I judge the war in Iraq by "How has this war benefited the War on Terror?....

2) This strikes me as a domino theory in reverse.....Install a Democracy in Iraq, other countries will undergo revolts and Coup e'tat's and change their governments to Democracy......

3) It is a well circulated fact amoung Republicans that "The terrorists in Iraq are Al-Qaeda and Saddam Loyalists".....Are you trying to tell me that the majority of people in Iraq don't oppose the US? Beheadings and Terrorists in Iraq were caused by the war in Iraq, not the other way around....

4) In 1992, when Cheney was the Secretary of Defense, he basically said (I'll try and find the exact quotes) "The [first] war in Iraq was not worth the cost in lives...Now some of you would say "After we were attacked on 9\11, we had to change our opinion of the world"....Now that is true, but just remember NONE OF THE TERRORISTS WERE IRAQI....NONE, ZERO, ZIP....AND 15 WERE FROM SAUDI ARABIA, which is our "faithfull" ally....

(Pro-War, I'm not pulling these out of my ass, he said these things to the news and interviewers, look it up)

Quotes:

"If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it."

"How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?"

"I was not an enthusiast about getting U.S. forces and going into Iraq. We were there in the southern part of Iraq to the extent we needed to be there to defeat his forces and to get him out of Kuwait, but the idea of going into Baghdad, for example, or trying to topple the regime wasn't anything I was enthusiastic about."

" [Interviewer] Now you can say, well, you should have gone to Baghdad and gotten Saddam. [Cheney] I don't think so. I think if we had done that we would have been bogged down there for a very long period of time with the real possibility we might not have succeeded."


"I felt there was a real danger here that you would get bogged down in a long drawn-out conflict, that this was a dangerous, difficult part of the world"


" [Interviewer] Now you can say, well, you should have gone to Baghdad and gotten Saddam. [Cheney] I don't think so. I think if we had done that we would have been bogged down there for a very long period of time with the real possibility we might not have succeeded."

"If Saddam wasn't there, his successor probably wouldn't be notably friendlier to the United States than he is. I also look at that part of the world as of vital interest to the United States; for the next hundred years it's going to be the world's supply of oil. We've got a lot of friends in the region. We're always going to have to be involved there. Maybe it's part of our national character, you know, we like to have these problems nice and neatly wrapped up, put a ribbon around it. You deploy a force, you win the war, and the problem goes away, and it doesn't work that way in the Middle East; it never has and isn't likely to in my lifetime"

Link= http://slate.msn.com/?id=2072609&device=

Just remember, You can run but you can't hide.....

"They killed a wounded man. It's hard to believe. They killed a man who was completely helpless- like he was some sort of diseased animal. I had read the articles and heard the stories of this happening before- wounded civilians being thrown on the side of the road or shot in cold blood- but to see it happening on television is something else- it makes me crazy with anger."


This is an example of what I found on that site. Articles like this leave out many details. The “Innocent Civilian,” was not just any man, he was a terrorist.

Put yourself in his (???)position. You have been in Iraq for a long time. You have recently been swept up into combat in Falujah. You have been doing house to house searches for days (which any soldier would say is a total nightmare). Suddenly, you have a "wounded," person in front of you. You have two choices: let him live, or end his "misery." I put those in parenthesis for a reason. If you let him live, many things could happen. There is a slim chance that he was an innocent civilian, but that is highly improbable. This man was a terrorist. I said it before. Because of this, there could have been any number of booby traps on his person. Chances are high that, if they had approached them, he would have done a suicide bombing, killing not only himself, but the soldier in question, and all his comrades. A soldier has the right to defend himself, and his fellow soldiers, especially when dealing with an enemy as deadly as this, who had booby trapped people in these exact situations before.

. . .



Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

He broke the law, by executing a POW.

Also GC3 does not have a "terrorist exemption" from the POW rights it provides. Assuming the guy, whom we have no reason to believe was guilty of anything more than an ambush attack, was a terrorist.

A) The Stats for Brookings Institute were compiled from numerous sources, such as CNN (some of the polls), World Bank (for money stats), or looked at the facts about the country, like the power production stats, or the amount of deaths, etc. This is common knowledge.

B) So, when our guy kills someone in self defence, it is horrible, but when they rip all the bones out of a womans body after slashing her throat, or behead people, it is OK? Hmmm.... Oh, and, by the way, he wasn't declared prisoner of war at the time, just for formalities.

Umm i didn`t read any postes or anything but I did want to point this out. How could you spell your own cities name wronge? It's Fallujah you umm the iraqie forgot the H LOL ok im done now

And i call all americans warmongering gun toting red necks to eliminate the need for democrats and republicans and all those other independants.

well one certainly can't accuse you of being politically correct. ;) you are joking i assume. SSo was the guy you were responding to. i hope, many of us stupid, <-(you forgot this one shame on you) warmongering gun toting rednecks actually think that. it's kinda depressing.

Umm i didn`t read any postes or anything but I did want to point this out. How could you spell your own cities name wronge? It's Fallujah you umm the iraqie forgot the H LOL ok im done now

Yeah if he doesn't use the proper ENGLISH spelling he's probably not a real Iraqi, huh? After all, English is the native tongue of all true Iraqis, and "Fallujah" is obviously an english word, so the english spelling commonly used in the media of the English-speaking world is obviously the only proper spelling. :rolleyes:

A) The Stats for Brookings Institute were compiled from numerous sources, such as CNN (some of the polls), World Bank (for money stats), or looked at the facts about the country, like the power production stats, or the amount of deaths, etc. This is common knowledge.

B) So, when our guy kills someone in self defence, it is horrible, but when they rip all the bones out of a womans body after slashing her throat, or behead people, it is OK? Hmmm.... Oh, and, by the way, he wasn't declared prisoner of war at the time, just for formalities.

If you consider bleeding on him, then yeah maybe the self defense would hold up. I noticed the polls from Brookings after spring or summer all came from Republican sources. But this is way off topic with the shooting. There is a thread for that already. You came out on the attack against those opposed to the war. Do you really want the execution of an unarmed man to be a part of your attack? We don't know for sure anything other than that. This is the kind of event that adds more to the insurgency. It doesn't really matter to the civilians there who the man was being shot, all they see is this american killing an unarmed Iraqi.

Haven't read the entire thread, so not sure if anyone replied to this yet, but I'd like to see you say that if your child was killed in a senseless act of violence, or if someone came after you and tried to kill you. If they do not care enough for your life, or the life of others, to the point that they go out and kill for joy, they deserve what they get - death.

As for this thread...
Give me proof that some Iraqi wrote that... hell, most Americans, English, and other english-speaking people wouldn't even be able to write that well, let alone some Iraqi or any other non-english speaking person.

I would assume the original poster that said they would not kill a killer has no first hand experience. I agree in that I think Killing is immoral wrong etc. am against the war and the death penalty...well I was until my ex husband murdered my childrens half siblings...now I would give anything to be in a room alone with him for all the pain he has put my children through not to mention all the tax payers money being spent to keep this "man" alive in prison for the rest of his life. It is easy to state a position until it hits too close to home then you never know what you are capable of.

as for a non-english person not being able to write such a thing I would think the opposite is true, we take our language for granted and those that have english as a second language actually are better spoken then the majority of us. at least that is in my personal experience.

All this words, all this hatre ! Incredible ! Did you really thinks these men were on the planes ? And the soldiers who kiled their childrens who are they ? the bomb's who destroyed their countrywhere are they from ?

Do you think you're god ? It's not too conceited to pretend resume al thigns by only way : The Way of Hatre ?

Only thing i'm sure about it's all of you are obstruct by the question of the war, some are hiding behind imported ideas, i think your country is on frigthen i understand that, also your réaction, but i just wan to tell you : do you really trustk a war like this is killing terrorism ? Do you wana come in france to kill all the arabian communauty who are become to hate you ? Do you wana Armagedon ? and Judgement Day ? And only one vision about the good and another for the evil ?

Are you think you'r some angels , in a mission for god ?

I read you and i understand you, frigthen is here i smell it, so god is an explication (like the power of our kings in france) an apology for that you called "neccesary to établish the good"
After Irak What country ? And when all the words can be explorate and evacuate about this terrorism will you go on your towns, on your subrurbs, ou your familly to see if ther's no terrorists here ?

Please before answer me, try to ask you the question more deeply !

A) The Stats for Brookings Institute were compiled from numerous sources, such as CNN (some of the polls), World Bank (for money stats), or looked at the facts about the country, like the power production stats, or the amount of deaths, etc. This is common knowledge.

B) So, when our guy kills someone in self defence, it is horrible, but when they rip all the bones out of a womans body after slashing her throat, or behead people, it is OK? Hmmm.... Oh, and, by the way, he wasn't declared prisoner of war at the time, just for formalities.

Read again(?) my Post #128. If his status was undetermined, then he was under the full protections of the Geneva Convention. Period.

No one here has been saying that the crimes of the insurgents and terrorists are not serious crimes against humanity. As I mentioned in the other thread, however, TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT. We are supposed to be the good guys. We are supposed to respect human rights and human life. We are supposed to follow the Rule of Law, no matter WHAT they do.

Privelege,

Thank you for another perspective that can be in NO WAY considered as the totality of OPINION for the IRAQI people.

Ken

Then of course is this...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/19/uuniforms.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/11/19/ixportaltop.html&sSheet=/portal/2004/11/19/ixportaltop.html
"Insurgents have acquired thousands of police uniforms after officers deserted their posts when rebels attacked stations in Mosul.

About 3,200 of the Iraqi town's 4,000 police officers dropped their weapons and ran off, intimidated into submission by groups of armed insurgents during a 48-hour period, it has emerged.

American-led troops will now potentially face rebels wearing police uniforms making it extremely difficult to distinguish them from policemen."

Things are shaping up very nicely in Iraq. Good job. Mission accomplished. Thanks for changing my mind on that.

insurgent

Definition

noun
1 [C usually plural] FORMAL someone who is fighting against the government in their own country:
All approaches to the capital are now under the control of the insurgents.

2 [C] US someone who opposes especially political authority

I think many people confuse an insurgent with a terrorist.

An insurgent is fighting against the Government of his country, in Iraqs case a temporary government put in place by the USA and not recognised by the Iraq people.
The insurgents in Iraq are just the same as you would be if someone invaded your country and put a new Government in place.

American foreign policy and the ideas that perpetuate it are a lot like American TV - predictable, simple, self interested and somwhat entertaining. The idea that America has done all of this to bring "freedom" to Iraq is nonsense. It's pretty obvious to most of the world that the real reason is oil.

If Army B of Country B invaded my country (Country D) and started telling us, "We are here to liberate you!" you can bet your butt, that I'd take each and every opportunity to deal blows to the soldiers of Army B and the people of Country B, and the Country B itself. War is a total war, if you go into a land your nation is at war with, except no quarter. Especially when the war is unjust.

There are no Arabs in Chechnya, Iran, of Afghanistan (well very few in Iran)


Iranians are Persians. Chechens are white muslims, Afghans are Pashtu (asiatic)

They are muslims (religion) not arabs (race) get it right.

1. Arab isnt a fucking race you moron. I am pretty sure you are the one that needs to "get it right".
2. If country D had a corrupt leader that like to torture my cousins, I would most definately refrain from hurting Army B. Hell i would probably help them.
3. I am so tired of you hippy douches that keep saying the Iraqis don't want us there. Do you even look at the polls, or listen to the people who can finally live their lives after years of torture. Did you notice it was the citizens of Iraq beating down Saddam's statue with a hammer? Of course you didn't, because you're too worried about a couple lost lives.

"Afghans are Pashtu (asiatic)"

not tecnically true, Afghanistan is made up of many ethnic minorities and most do not refer to themselves as Pashtu's, they will refer to there own ethnic group and trust me there are many ethnic minorities in that state.

1. Arab isnt a fucking race you moron. I am pretty sure you are the one that needs to "get it right".
2. If country D had a corrupt leader that like to torture my cousins, I would most definately refrain from hurting Army B. Hell i would probably help them.
3. I am so tired of you hippy douches that keep saying the Iraqis don't want us there. Do you even look at the polls, or listen to the people who can finally live their lives after years of torture. Did you notice it was the citizens of Iraq beating down Saddam's statue with a hammer? Of course you didn't, because you're too worried about a couple lost lives.

You might want to hold back on calling people morons and douches. That doesn't go over well here, which you might not yet know with your total of 10 whole posts so far. Keep it up and the next warning you get will probably be from a Mod. Keep it up further and you will likely be banned.

arab

\Ar"ab\ (?; 277), n. [Prob. ultimately fr. Heb. arabah a desert, the name employed, in the Old Testament, to denote the valley of the Jordan and Dead Sea. Ar. Arab, Heb. arabi, arbi, arbim: cf. F. Arabe, L. Arabs, Gr. ?.] One of a swarthy race occupying Arabia, and numerous in Syria, Northern Africa, etc.

how about both sides showing us some sources? Links?

how about both sides showing us some sources? Links?

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68?OpenDocument

You might want to hold back on calling people morons and douches. That doesn't go over well here, which you might not yet know with your total of 10 whole posts so far. Keep it up and the next warning you get will probably be from a Mod. Keep it up further and you will likely be banned.

1. I am not one to be scared of getting banned. There are in fact more forums then there are people that post in them.
2. If the mods can't handle the word moron or douche they have serious problems.
3. I only have 10 posts because I have heard bad thing about the forum. My friend showed me one of the posts on here and I couldn't refrain.
4.
Modern Concepts About Human Races

"Race does not exist. Racism does exist."
Charles Keyes, Anthropologist, University of Washington, 1996

Modern research has shown that human populations cannot be divided into clearly defined, biologically distinct groups. Skull measurements, for example, vary widely not only within communities but even during a person's lifetime.

The old "three-race" model has been discarded by science, as has the idea that "racial" differences are linked to intelligence and behavior. Some noted scholars have suggested that the concept of race should be dropped altogether; others propose "ethnic group" as a more accurate term for human differences.

"Human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that there is greater variation within racial groups than between them. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective."
American Anthropological Association, 1998


5. Here is the link if you want it : http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/kman/the_idea_of_race.htm

6. Aww what the hell. Moron Douche.

1. I am not one to be scared of getting banned. There are in fact more forums then there are people that post in them.
2. If the mods can't handle the word moron or douche they have serious problems.
3. I only have 10 posts because I have heard bad thing about the forum. My friend showed me one of the posts on here and I couldn't refrain.
4.

5. Here is the link if you want it : http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/kman/the_idea_of_race.htm

6. Aww what the hell. Moron Douche.

So some douche comes up with the idea that race is a myth and morons like you suck it up, huh? I guess that's good enough cause to be insulting. What did your friend tell you was bad about this forum? Maybe that the Mods frown upon moron douches like you? Do you really think this idea that race doesn't really exist will take on popularity when a shit-slurping fucktard like you calls anyone who uses the words by their traditional and majority-agreed-upon definitions moronic and douches? Did you ever read anything on the matter other than that quote and that link? Did you know that the vast majority of physical/forensic anthropologists disagree with the cultural anthropology popular view that you have quoted? Or do you think that because you can cut and paste some moronic douche who says that modern science has disproven and rejected the idea of race that that makes it true? And does it occur for you for even a moment in that moronic douche-bag that you use as a brain that using a word the way that 99% of the population uses it is in no way a negative reflection of the intelligence of, nor a positive reflection of the vaginal clensing capabilities of, the person or persons thus using it?

Welcome, ass-hat. :) Make yourself at home.

And just in case... goodbye all... it's been fun, it's been real fun, but it hasn't been real. ;)

It does not matter why America got into this war. It does not matter if USA is doing good or evil. It does not matter if Arab is a race or a culture.

America is at war and it had better win. The whole object of a war is to beat the opposition or to negotiate a settlement from a position of strength. Failure to win this war will lead to America becoming a second rank superpower, equivalent to Europe or China.

If America continues to fight the war by sitting in the desert getting shot at it will not win. It will continue to lose unless it does one of the following:

Get enough troops in country to rule by force, 300,000 to 500,000 should be sufficient.

or

Suppress the funding and supplies given to the Sunni insurgents from the Sunni Saudi, Gulf and Syrian states.

or

Install a brutally efficient dictatorship, replete with facist or mercenary death squads capable of running the country in a friendly Saddam-lite kind of way.

It does not matter why America got into this war. It does not matter if USA is doing good or evil. It does not matter if Arab is a race or a culture.

America is at war and it had better win. The whole object of a war is to beat the opposition or to negotiate a settlement from a position of strength. Failure to win this war will lead to America becoming a second rank superpower, equivalent to Europe or China.

If America continues to fight the war by sitting in the desert getting shot at it will not win. It will continue to lose unless it does one of the following:

Get enough troops in country to rule by force, 300,000 to 500,000 should be sufficient.

or

Suppress the funding and supplies given to the Sunni insurgents from the Sunni Saudi, Gulf and Syrian states.

or

Install a brutally efficient dictatorship, replete with facist or mercenary death squads capable of running the country in a friendly Saddam-lite kind of way.

Could you explain how we become a second rate superpower by withdrawing from Iraq?

Could you explain how we become a second rate superpower by withdrawing from Iraq?


If America withdraws now (which it is extremely unlikely to do) it does not lose anything much, only a little face.

If it continues the fight with the current methods then the rebels will continue to bleed the army and marines. Recruitment numbers for the American military will plummet. The war if it continues another 3 - 4 years will cost the American taxpayer and the American currency dearly. If the American currency becomes unstable, China will float the Renmimbi and the Euro will become the trading currency.

If the war continues as it is the USA has a weaker dollar so less corporate power and a smaller less capable military. That makes it a second rate superpower.

If America withdraws now (which it is extremely unlikely to do) it does not lose anything much, only a little face.

If it continues the fight with the current methods then the rebels will continue to bleed the army and marines. Recruitment numbers for the American military will plummet. The war if it continues another 3 - 4 years will cost the American taxpayer and the American currency dearly. If the American currency becomes unstable, China will float the Renmimbi and the Euro will become the trading currency.

If the war continues as it is the USA has a weaker dollar so less corporate power and a smaller less capable military. That makes it a second rate superpower.

There's more information there than I have ever heard from someone who says we will be weaker.

I'm not sure the war has that big of an effect on our currency. If the fed wanted to level it off it could.

There's more information there than I have ever heard from someone who says we will be weaker.

I'm not sure the war has that big of an effect on our currency. If the fed wanted to level it off it could.



The War on Terrorism appears to be the main reason the federal budget has expanded more quickly now than at any time in the past. Government borrowing is at high levels - this effects currency.


Yes the fed could raise interest rates. This would increase strength of the dollar, at the same time as increasing the cost of borrowing on houses, credit cards and company loans. An increase would benefit the holders of US bonds, which at this time (I think) are largely Japanese and European banks and the Chinese central bank.

this war will be on-going and an issue for govts of the world for decades, until the resentment of the invaded peoples has been quelled

Well, I'll tell you exactly why I'm against it.
First and foremost, there was no connection between Osama Bin Laden and Sadam Hussein or any part of Iraq. On that premise, we had no business invading Iraq.
Secondly, the war in Iraq has created more terrorists, thus making America and the world less safe.
Thirdly, although this heart felt letter from an Iraqi is glad for what the US is doing there, I highly doubt that the villages that were bombed because there "might be" terrorists there, and the over 100,000 Iraqi civillians that died are happy about what the US is doing.