NationStates Jolt Archive

Need I say more? (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/03/01/iraq.report/)

Things are not going well there, I think thats all I need to say.

who would have thought? a warzone a human rights abuser? /shrugs

I'm not surprised.

another good article (http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050301-115805-5262r)

just goes to show you, you cant bomb your problems with other countries away.

just goes to show you, you cant bomb your problems with other countries away.

Yeah, but at least it gets them to shut up every once in a while. :P

Need I say more? (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/03/01/iraq.report/)

Things are not going well there, I think thats all I need to say.

If given the choice between fighting terrorists who want to foment rebellion against the United States in Iraq rather than fighting them here, I vote for doing it in Iraq.

They hate us, and if Zarqawi wasn't fighting us there, he would be blowing up shopping malls here.

Better there than here any day.

who would have thought? a warzone a human rights abuser? /shrugs
Need I say more? (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/03/01/iraq.report/)

Things are not going well there, I think thats all I need to say.

Not to be rude but,
"need I say more" was a link use it before you post again please.

Need I say more? (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/03/01/iraq.report/)

Things are not going well there, I think thats all I need to say.

"Concerning Iraq, the report states that Iraq's interim leaders reversed "a long legacy of serious human rights abuses," but "serious problems remained." And it blamed a stubborn and lethal insurgency for creating harsh daily living conditions and hindering the State Department's ability to get complete information to develop its report."

IF you actually READ that article.. you would notice no where does it state Iraq tops the list of human rights abuses. And if you understand anythinga bout tone, the article is quite consilatory citing most of the problems centered around the insurgency and the problems they are creating. It is not as you suggest (in your smug commets and misleading title) that the New Iraqi government is as bad or worse then Saddams.

They are fighting an insurgency.. of course things arn't peachy.. surprised ? id ont see why you should be. Pick any day out of any other conflict and you might say all hope is lost (but it rarely is).

another good article (http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050301-115805-5262r)

god.... these articles are so rediculiously biased... in no way has it been suggested that the elections turned the tide in our favor, or that we suddenly expected rosey pictures and nothing but peace to come out of Iraq. It has been the stance of the administration that they expected to see maintained or even increased levels of voilence as the insurgency becomes more desperate. The elections were simply a mile stone reached in the process of empowering the Iraqi people.. hardly a turning stone...

Yet they speak as though everyone is shocked and awed when the voilence continues.. the average person is not having their jaw hanging in astoundment as car bombs go off.. on the contrary few people bat an eye as it was expected all along

why is it that everybody seems to want things to fall apart in iraq? even if your against the invasion and the war why do you want it to fail? just so you can prove your right, or maybe becuase you hate bush? there's a bigger picture here, its more than what you want or what I want. people are dying in iraq. sitting in your home and blogging against the war for some personal petty reason is selfish and narrow-minded.

why is it that everybody seems to want things to fall apart in iraq?

because they are democrats and socialists, and they cannot stand a compassionate conservative freeing a nation from a maniacal dictator. They read what they want to read. Anything, any straw that gives them an opportunity to bash Bush, they jump right at it, like trained monkeys.

They'd rather Saddam was still in power oppressing and killing thousands every month. Saddam, after all, was one of their kind. A socialist.

sorry, but to paraphrase bill clinton, you cannot bomb, invade, or jail everyone who doesn't agree with you. the world doesn't work that way, george bush.

here's a question: why do we only get rid of dictators in countries we need something from? it seems a bit convenient...

sorry, but to paraphrase bill clinton, you cannot bomb, invade, or jail everyone who doesn't agree with you. the world doesn't work that way, george bush.

here's a question: why do we only get rid of dictators in countries we need something from? it seems a bit convenient...

you cannot bomb, invade, or jail everyone who doesn't agree with you..

Why not? Where is Saddam now? Who owns Iraq? And how many al-Qaeda guys are being tortured at Gitmo as we speak?

Is Saddam going to be President of Iraq now, because the world doesn't work Bush's way?

Is the US suddenly going to hand Iraq back to him, because the world doesn't work Bush's way?

Are the detainees at Gitmo going to get free one-way trips to Mecca because the world doesn't work Bush's way?

You'll notice that since 9-11, the United States has been sticking a large cactus up the world's ass. Want to know how the world works? Rule One: Don't Fuck With The United States Or Else.

sorry, but to paraphrase bill clinton, you cannot bomb, invade, or jail everyone who doesn't agree with you. the world doesn't work that way, george bush.

here's a question: why do we only get rid of dictators in countries we need something from? it seems a bit convenient...

im sure thats why under bill clinton regime chage in IRaq became an offical objective of United States Foregin Policy... Havn't we tried to get rid of Arafat for years (what is it Palestine has we wanted?) havn't we supported regime change in Lebonon? (what is they have)

Exactly why did we move into Vietnam.. i can see how those rice patties are very lucrative for the United States... North Korea must as well be bursting with natural resources we are thristy for.... The US has always used War when it feels MOST threatened.. reguardless of resources.

As i also recall... We made several efforts to overthrow the power structure in Somoila... (lets not even talk about those resources :rolleyes: ) ... and Afganistan.. oh yes maybe Bosnia had oil >.>

Just how many examples are there of us invading countries for resources we want... and of those examples how many have direct evidence of us actually taking those resources.

Damnit, China! You're slacking off to work on that economy again, aren't you?

sorry, but to paraphrase bill clinton, [B]you cannot bomb, invade, or jail everyone who doesn't agree with you[/B..
Clinton did all of those things.

Clinton did all of those things.


If that wre true there wouldn't be any Republicans left on teh face of the Earth.

If that wre true there wouldn't be any Republicans left on teh face of the Earth.

Ah, I see. So you're probably one of those people who believe that when we invaded Iraq, the next morning all should have been well - it should have instantly been a happy place. They should have instantly had flowering meadows and rainbow skies and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.

Otherwise, anyone who is not a Republican could stand up and say that the whole thing was a complete failure.

Taking that same logic, we can just read the book "Losing Bin Laden" and come to the conclusion that Clinton knew about Bin Laden for eight years, had several times when other countries offered to hand him over immediately, and Bill not only dropped the ball, but avoided kicking it at all costs.

Personally, I find that hindsight is 20-20, and I can't fault Clinton for that. But to anyone who things that Iraq is a failure because there are still human rights abuses, I suggest that you ask yourself how long it took certain nations to achieve the economic and political stability that many of us would agree represents "civilization".

War isn't designed to make civilization - but it can certainly turn a nation in that direction. There are anti-American Lebanese imams who are now referring to the election in Iraq as the Berlin Wall of the Arab World. They see the freedom on the horizon. Yes, they have to take the opportunity and run with it - we can't make them take it. But having given them that opportunity, and considering that all they have ever known is inhuman misery and the depravity of their leaders, I think they're going to do better as time goes on.

Just not overnight.

If given the choice between fighting terrorists who want to foment rebellion against the United States in Iraq rather than fighting them here, I vote for doing it in Iraq.

They hate us, and if Zarqawi wasn't fighting us there, he would be blowing up shopping malls here.

Better there than here any day.

How very generous and noble of you. I'm sure the people of Iraq are delighted that you have chosen them as collateral damage.

Clinton did all of those things.

Clinton bombed, invaded, and jailed everyone who didn't agree with him?

Clinton bombed, invaded, and jailed everyone who didn't agree with him?
Of course he did, do you think that big fiasco was just about him sleeping with an intern? :rolleyes:

Of course he did, do you think that big fiasco was just about him sleeping with an intern? :rolleyes:

He obviously did them in quite a subtle, understating way - personally I have no recollection of being bombed, invaded or jailed, but hey, maybe I'm just blocking out all those terrible memories.

How very generous and noble of you. I'm sure the people of Iraq are delighted that you have chosen them as collateral damage.

Apparently, Bin Laden is upset at Zarqawi for also choosing the people of Iraq for collateral damage.

In the collateral damage department, Zarqawi has done far more to kill the random Iraqi on the street than the US.

In the collateral damage department, Zarqawi has done far more to kill the random Iraqi on the street than the US.

The fact that the US has caused less civilian casualties in this case doesn't necessarily make them the good guys: 'somewhat less evil than Zarqawi' isn't exactly a tag of which to be proud.

The fact that the US has caused less civilian casualties in this case doesn't necessarily make them the good guys: 'somewhat less evil than Zarqawi' isn't exactly a tag of which to be proud.

Currently, the total number of Iraqi civilians killed in OIF is around 14,000 - and that includes all the ones killed by Zarqawi. The media gives credit for anyone killed by Zarqawi and adds those to the total blamed on the US. I would bet that the majority of those killed were killed by insurgent bombs or their improvised explosives. It's not inconceivable then that the total number of truly innocent Iraqis directly killed by US forces in OIF might be less than 10,000.

I would bet that if you got the actual number of innocent civilians (let's subtract all Iraqi military casualties and all insurgents killed), it would be less than the total number of French killed in 1940.

Invade a country and see how many people you can avoid killing.

I would bet that if you got the actual number of innocent civilians (let's subtract all Iraqi military casualties and all insurgents killed), it would be less than the total number of French killed in 1940.

Invade a country and see how many people you can avoid killing.

Are you now using the Nazis as a yardstick for measuring the humanity of the US military?

why is it that everybody seems to want things to fall apart in iraq? even if your against the invasion and the war why do you want it to fail? just so you can prove your right, or maybe becuase you hate bush? there's a bigger picture here, its more than what you want or what I want. people are dying in iraq. sitting in your home and blogging against the war for some personal petty reason is selfish and narrow-minded.

It's the Bush and America haters... rather than want the Iraqis to succeed (the vote was a big blow), they want Iraqis to fail and for America and Bush to look bad. It's really an honest, kindhearted stance.

another good article (http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050301-115805-5262r)
"The World Peace Herald?" Uh huh. Now there's an unbiased source! :rolleyes:

Are you now using the Nazis as a yardstick for measuring the humanity of the US military?

Nope. I'm just gauging it against other invasions using modern warfare techniques.

One of the things I've noticed is that a lot of people on this forum seem radically uninformed about the extent to which the US has tried to avoid casualties among non-combatants.

So much more than any nation in history - and to an obvious effect.

Hmm....well.....if we went into iraq for oil then....why are oil prices highest that they have been in 6 months? Why haven't the prices of petroleum products plummeted in the US? Also, tired of bush being called a liar for faulty intelligence. There was cyano-sarin (precursor to sarin) but not warehouses granted. We took out a dictator who did this (http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html) and you are saying it was a bad idea? this is madness. Everyone is just angry because the US waeches out for her own intrests, what's wrong with that? I wouldn;t be pissed if you watched out for your own country, but the thing is, you are afraid to. we aren't. so sorry the EU is being sodamized by OPEC.

Hmm....well.....if we went into iraq for oil then....why are oil prices highest that they have been in 6 months? Why haven't the prices of petroleum products plummeted in the US?1/They didn't want to make oil cheaper. They went there to operate the oil fields. You didn't get any rebate yourself, but Halliburton is rich and you paid for it.
2/ Their plan didn't get exactly as expected.
Also, tired of bush being called a liar for faulty intelligence. There was cyano-sarin (precursor to sarin) but not warehouses granted.
Bush is still liar and I don't have time to list all of his lies here. You will find them pretty easily on google.

We took out a dictator who did this (http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html) and you are saying it was a bad idea? this is madness.
At the same time you slaughtered more than 100 000 people. Are you blind? removing a dictator is a good thing. The problem is the price.

Everyone is just angry because the US waeches out for her own intrests, what's wrong with that? I wouldn;t be pissed if you watched out for your own country, but the thing is, you are afraid to. we aren't. so sorry the EU is being sodamized by OPEC.
European countries colonized more than half of the world. We were only looking for our own interests back then. And you, the US, have been pissed.
The problem is that different interests conflict. The world is not as simple as I take it and fuck them off.

At the same time you slaughtered more than 100 000 people. Are you blind? removing a dictator is a good thing. The problem is the price.

Hardly 100,000. See http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

European countries colonized more than half of the world. We were only looking for our own interests back then. And you, the US, have been pissed.
The problem is that different interests conflict. The world is not as simple as I take it and fuck them off.

Europeans are just upset because their ability to project power has withered.

Hardly 100,000. See http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
That's only the civilian deaths which have been counted.
100 000 people is the lowest estimate. It is probably more like 200 000 or 300 000.
Anyway, only the civilian deaths your link shows are already far beyond acceptable price to bring anyone to face the court.

Europeans are just upset because their ability to project power has withered.Like you knew something about Europe.

That's only the civilian deaths which have been counted.
100 000 people is the lowest estimate. It is probably more like 200 000 or 300 000.
Anyway, only the civilian deaths your link show are already an far beyond acceptable price to bring anyone to face the court.
Like you knew something about Europe.

Even the Lancet's estimates don't go beyond 100,000.

As it is, the vast majority of non-military, non-insurgent casualties have not been caused by US forces. They have been caused by insurgents blowing up their own people.

Care to blame the idiocy of insurgents and their lack of an ability to effectively attack US forces on the US?

Even the Lancet's estimates don't go beyond 100,000.
There were more than 350 000 soldiers in the iraqi army. Today there are very few left. Anyway, if there was only 5000 people dead, it would already be far beyond acceptable price.

As it is, the vast majority of non-military, non-insurgent casualties have not been caused by US forces. They have been caused by insurgents blowing up their own people.Under Saddam there was no insurgent

Care to blame the idiocy of insurgents and their lack of an ability to effectively attack US forces on the US?Yes I blame it on the US administration. They attacked Iraq and created chaos. They thought they can run better than Saddam but actually they can't. They talk about democracy and all this stuff about the free market but they are too stupid to understand how the world works.

That's only the civilian deaths which have been counted.
100 000 people is the lowest estimate. It is probably more like 200 000 or 300 000.
Anyway, only the civilian deaths your link shows are already far beyond acceptable price to bring anyone to face the court.
Like you knew something about Europe.

Are you bemoaning the state of zarquai and thos of his ilk? And even if you add us deaths, it is a little over 23k. saddam killed over 100k kurds in one operation alone.

Would you like to go to a candlelight vigil for the insurgents. i think there is one going on in hell right now.

Anyway, if there was only 5000 people dead, it would already be far beyond acceptable price.


ok....then look at this (http://www.warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/ddaycasualtyest.htm) is this beyond the acceptble price? If you could go back in time, would you stop the d-day invasion becasue it is beyond the acceptable price? It's no different. Not one bit.

Are you bemoaning the state of zarquai and thos of his ilk? And even if you add us deaths, it is a little over 23k. saddam killed over 100k kurds in one operation alone.
The kurds were insurgents and it was in times of war more than 13 years ago.

Would you like to go to a candlelight vigil for the insurgents. i think there is one going on in hell right now.
Try not to be that stupid please.

ok....then look at this (http://www.warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/ddaycasualtyest.htm) is this beyond the acceptble price? If you could go back in time, would you stop the d-day invasion becasue it is beyond the acceptable price? It's no different. Not one bit.
What is the point of this? Hitler started the war with all the world. What are you trying to say?

What is the point of this? Hitler started the war with all the world. What are you trying to say?
the point is the it is apparently beyond your acceptable risk.

the point is the it is apparently beyond your acceptable risk.
D day was not to bring Hitler to court, it was to stop him!
Hitler was actively slaughtering people and aggressively threatening to invade anything that stood in the way (or even anything that didn't stood in the way, like they invaded Russia after making a non-agression pact) and they declared war on the US. Japan, Pearl Harbor, do you remember now?
What does it have to do with the iraqi war?

another good article (http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050301-115805-5262r)
Oh please tell me you aren't one of those who actually believes even half of the "information" in that rag! There are very few media sources that are that MAJORLY scewed to a particulairly screwy view point and uses only the facts that can be twisted to support that view. No one believes that one electionis going to magically make all the hatred just suddenly idsappear and make all the terrorists who have spent decades training there just up and rejoin society or disapear into thin air.

Hitler started the war with all the world. What are you trying to say?


Hitler invaided two contries before the rest of europe declared War on Germany, Japan opened war with the US witht he Pearl Harbor attack. This attack, just like the attacks in Iraq, were in oreder to free a people from a Tyrant that was killing them in the thousands.

also, the Kurds were NOT insurgents the majority were peasents looking to be able to just LIVE Hussein took even that Natural Right from them. I truly believe John Locke was rolling in his grave over that one.

If given the choice between fighting terrorists who want to foment rebellion against the United States in Iraq rather than fighting them here, I vote for doing it in Iraq.

They hate us, and if Zarqawi wasn't fighting us there, he would be blowing up shopping malls here.

Better there than here any day.

That is a very shortsighted opinion.

'Fighting them there' rather than here is increasing the number and fervor of terrorists everywhere. Also, while we are 'fighting them there' we are forcing our allies to fight them at home, making them weaker (and no matter what your patriotism tells you, it is a bad thing to have weak allies even as the 'strongest nation in the world'), and we are stretching ourselves so thin (militarily, economically, and intelligence wise) that we are making it easier, yes easier, for the increasing number of terrorists in the world to slip one or two by the borders at home.

All you are doing is making it so we will have to deal with 100 attacks at home tomorrow, in addition to the 100 our soldiers are taking abroad today.

Ah, I see. So you're probably one of those people who believe that when we invaded Iraq, the next morning all should have been well - it should have instantly been a happy place. They should have instantly had flowering meadows and rainbow skies and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.

Otherwise, anyone who is not a Republican could stand up and say that the whole thing was a complete failure.

Taking that same logic, we can just read the book "Losing Bin Laden" and come to the conclusion that Clinton knew about Bin Laden for eight years, had several times when other countries offered to hand him over immediately, and Bill not only dropped the ball, but avoided kicking it at all costs.

Personally, I find that hindsight is 20-20, and I can't fault Clinton for that. But to anyone who things that Iraq is a failure because there are still human rights abuses, I suggest that you ask yourself how long it took certain nations to achieve the economic and political stability that many of us would agree represents "civilization".

War isn't designed to make civilization - but it can certainly turn a nation in that direction. There are anti-American Lebanese imams who are now referring to the election in Iraq as the Berlin Wall of the Arab World. They see the freedom on the horizon. Yes, they have to take the opportunity and run with it - we can't make them take it. But having given them that opportunity, and considering that all they have ever known is inhuman misery and the depravity of their leaders, I think they're going to do better as time goes on.

Just not overnight.

no actually I was making a joke about how the guy I quoted said .... nevermind :rolleyes:

I am not one of those people you think that I probably am because I am not a Republican. I never thought that the Iraqis would greet us with chocolates and flowers for invading their country, nor did I believe tha all would be well the next morning, week, month or year.

And are you trying to say that the reason for invasion was because we wanted to impose a democracy and not to rid Saddam of his WMD's and punish him for his operational ties to Al Queda? If imposing democracy was Bush's intent I would liek to see where he said that before said invasion. I sure don't remember hearing it said. Please point me to a quote if you can, as I would liek to see it so I can shut up about this point.

And are you trying to say that the reason for invasion was because we wanted to impose a democracy and not to rid Saddam of his WMD's and punish him for his operational ties to Al Queda? If imposing democracy was Bush's intent I would liek to see where he said that before said invasion. I sure don't remember hearing it said. Please point me to a quote if you can, as I would liek to see it so I can shut up about this point.

I could point you to a quote from Rumsfeld right after 9-11 where he said that the US government was not going to tell you the real reason for anything, and that military action would be taking place and action taken without our true knowledge.

Will we ever know the real reason for invading Iraq?

No.

Do you think you have some great insight, or access to classified documents that gives you the real reason for invading Iraq?

I don't think it was the WMD. We might have invaded (as only one of the many reasons) in order to get rid of someone who HAD THEM BEFORE and who WANTED THEM AS SOON AS THE UN GAVE HIM A CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH, and who had USED THEM BEFORE. But, he didn't have any when we got there - I suppose that's a good thing.

But...

If I figure that Condi was the architect of all this...

the US, after the invasion of Afghanistan, was looking for a reason to invade another country.

The fear instilled in Muammar Qaddafi as a result of Saddam's capture seems to have made him turn a new, US-friendly leaf.

The Palestinians and Israelis, after the death of Arafat, seem to finally be negotiating in good faith. Wonder why?

The Lebanese (including anti-American Lebanese) have been emboldened by the idea that the people in Iraq have voted - they view it as the Arab Berlin Wall coming down. With the further example of the Ukraine, they are getting results.

Shock one Arab nation and yes, it's an insurgency there. But it is a shock to them all.

A good shock, and long in coming. You couldn't just sit on the sidelines, wringing your hands, and hoping that the Arab world would come in out of the darkness.

Ah, I see. So you're probably one of those people who believe that when we invaded Iraq, the next morning all should have been well - it should have instantly been a happy place. They should have instantly had flowering meadows and rainbow skies and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.
Oh, right. You mean like Dick Cheney, then?
"They'll be throwing flowers at our feet in the streets"

fair enough - i guess

at least you aren't pretending that Bushs' actions are because of some great angelic vision of world peace. I doubted Iraq had WMD's and operational ties to AQ from the beginning, and figured there was some unspoken reason. But please dont try to give Bush the credit for anything going on in Palestine or Lebanon, if thats what you are trying to do. I am glad Bush told Syria to get out of Lebanon though. good for him.

It's pretty shitty though, IMO, that we were beign lied to as to why we were sending our brothers and sisters (who were also lied to) off to kill and die. For what? Who really knows? How pleasant for Bush and Co that they didn't have to sacrifice anyone close to them for the lies. What about the rest of us? Our family and friends died because they went off to fight in the name of this administrations lies.

Besides... why would I be waiting for the Arab world to come out of the darkness? Wouldn't that be a bit hypocritical to think that the US is somehow basking int eh light of goodness and righteousness? I am still waiting for the US to see it's own problems before tryign to tell everyone else how to run their lives.

Need I say more? (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/03/01/iraq.report/)

Things are not going well there, I think thats all I need to say.

The American government does it just as bad, just to foreigners. Lets go bomb the shit out of them!

Oh, right. You mean like Dick Cheney, then?
"They'll be throwing flowers at our feet in the streets"

Yes, exactly. Anyone who thinks that wars are won and everything cleans up like a freshly shaved face is not in possession of their mental faculties.

If you believe that somehow the US should have instantly won, and everything becomes good and great in Iraq, and everyone is instantly prosperous, and a country that hasn't had running water in Basra since the early 1980s when the Iran-Iraq War was going on suddenly should have working toilets in every home, then you (and Dick) are clueless.

If you really want Iraq to get on its feet and see the Americans off, perhaps you need to take a job rebuilding the infrastructure in Iraq.

Hitler invaided two contries before the rest of europe declared War on Germany, Japan opened war with the US witht he Pearl Harbor attack. This attack, just like the attacks in Iraq, were in oreder to free a people from a Tyrant that was killing them in the thousands.

also, the Kurds were NOT insurgents the majority were peasents looking to be able to just LIVE Hussein took even that Natural Right from them. I truly believe John Locke was rolling in his grave over that one.Saddam was NOT killing people in the thousands when the US invaded. He killed people in times of war with Iran (which the US supported at the time) and Koweit (which was a direct result of the war with Iran) more than 13 years ago.
The charges against Saddam are 13 years old.

The charges against Saddam are 13 years old.

and were done with the support and aid of the US

Saddam was NOT killing people in the thousands when the US invaded. He killed people in times of war with Iran (which the US supported at the time) and Koweit (which was a direct result of the war with Iran) more than 13 years ago.
The charges against Saddam are 13 years old.

As to whether it was he or the Iranians which were responsible for gassing the Kurds, that is still up for debate... anyhow surely the official pretext for the invasion was the possession of WMDs, no?

im sure thats why under bill clinton regime chage in IRaq became an offical objective of United States Foregin Policy... Havn't we tried to get rid of Arafat for years (what is it Palestine has we wanted?) havn't we supported regime change in Lebonon? (what is they have)

Exactly why did we move into Vietnam.. i can see how those rice patties are very lucrative for the United States... North Korea must as well be bursting with natural resources we are thristy for.... The US has always used War when it feels MOST threatened.. reguardless of resources.

As i also recall... We made several efforts to overthrow the power structure in Somoila... (lets not even talk about those resources :rolleyes: ) ... and Afganistan.. oh yes maybe Bosnia had oil >.>

Just how many examples are there of us invading countries for resources we want... and of those examples how many have direct evidence of us actually taking those resources.

Why did we move into Vietnam?

At least ostensibly to stop the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia... to keep one people from being overthrown/oppressed/ruled by an uninvited foe (North Vitenam pushing their shitty Commie system on the South).

Unfortunately, with the help of the friggin hippies, the war effort was sabotaged by a lack of resolve. We could have won that war easily if we'd shown resolve. Resolve is the single most important ingredient to victory in war.

Saddam was NOT killing people in the thousands when the US invaded. He killed people in times of war with Iran (which the US supported at the time) and Koweit (which was a direct result of the war with Iran) more than 13 years ago.
The charges against Saddam are 13 years old.

Oh, so those 300,000 Shiites in the mass graves south of Baghdad just appeared there for no reason. You're saying that Saddam didn't order them killed during the 1990s, even though there is evidence on paper and live witnesses to the executions?

Ok. Saddam was not a bad guy. You win.

No one is saying that Saddam was a righteous image of a Human being. The problem is, if you then decide to remove every dictator who abuses his own people the U.S. would be kicking the shit out of half the world.

Oh no, that's right, we "freed" the iraqi's by bombing them....

No one is saying that Saddam was a righteous image of a Human being. The problem is, if you then decide to remove every dictator who abuses his own people the U.S. would be kicking the shit out of half the world.

Oh no, that's right, we "freed" the iraqi's by bombing them....

We seem to have kicked this shit out of at least two countries.
It seems to have scared the shit out of Libya.

The only reason we haven't continued is that we're still consolidating Iraq.

Just wait.

Why did we move into Vietnam?

At least ostensibly to stop the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia... to keep one people from being overthrown/oppressed/ruled by an uninvited foe (North Vitenam pushing their shitty Commie system on the South).

Unfortunately, with the help of the friggin hippies, the war effort was sabotaged by a lack of resolve. We could have won that war easily if we'd shown resolve. Resolve is the single most important ingredient to victory in war.

Actually, we could have stopped the vietnam war before it began. but noone seems to listen to me on this one...i will tell you again...

Ho chi Minh went to eisenhower first to get support. He wanted to practice democracy, but he said no and the vietnamese went to the reds for aid. Eisenhower didn's support them becasue he wanted to make good with degaulle.

Oh, so those 300,000 Shiites in the mass graves south of Baghdad just appeared there for no reason. You're saying that Saddam didn't order them killed during the 1990s, even though there is evidence on paper and live witnesses to the executions?

Ok. Saddam was not a bad guy. You win.
That is not what I said but I don't expect you to understand what I say. You are too stuck in your logic of good and evil and religious bullshit like that.
What I said is that killing 100 000++ people is not acceptable just to bring one man to justice. And I didn't say that man didn't deserve to be brought to justice. I just said that now he is not alone to deserve to be brought to justice.

Actually, we could have stopped the vietnam war before it began. but noone seems to listen to me on this one...i will tell you again...

Ho chi Minh went to eisenhower first to get support. He wanted to practice democracy, but he said no and the vietnamese went to the reds for aid. Eisenhower didn's support them becasue he wanted to make good with degaulle.

really? I would love to see a link to this. Gah politics are fucked up.

What I said is that killing 100 000++ people is not acceptable just to bring one man to justice.

It's not just one man, if you'll notice. It was a whole regime.

Also, you'll notice it has a salutary effect on another regime, without killing anyone there. Libya seems to have made a 180 degree turn just to avoid getting their ass kicked.

So when Qaddafi handed over his gas centrifuges that he admits he bought from Germany in order to make nuclear weapons, you're saying that scaring the crap out of him wasn't worth it?

In the Western World America probably tops the list for human rights abuses

It's not just one man, if you'll notice. It was a whole regime.

Also, you'll notice it has a salutary effect on another regime, without killing anyone there. Libya seems to have made a 180 degree turn just to avoid getting their ass kicked.

So when Qaddafi handed over his gas centrifuges that he admits he bought from Germany in order to make nuclear weapons, you're saying that scaring the crap out of him wasn't worth it?
Iran is now seeking nuclear arsenal in order to protect their regime.
Iraq is a chaos. People are dying ans oil fields are burning.
Anti-US sentiment around the world is at the highest level of all time.
Al Qaeda is submerged with thousands of suicide bomber applications.
Really nice job. And we will see what the next iraqi government look like. At least Saddam was secular. He invaded Iran because they were islamist extremists.

Oh, right. You mean like Dick Cheney, then?
"They'll be throwing flowers at our feet in the streets"

My brother-in-law was IN Iraq when the invasion started as a member of the 10th special forces group. He was greeted as a liberator. He has set me Video that his unit shot showing as much.

The Saddam Loyalists, however, didn't take to well to this celebration. They went around and killed and intimidated those who supported the US (and still do.) You see, Saddam kept the peace by arresting, publicly torturing and killing ALL THOSE WHO OPPOSED HIM, thats how come there was no insurgency during his reign.

I get frustrated with those of you who compare the US Army to the insurgents based solely on body counts. There is no way you can argue that American forces PURPOSELY kill civilians. The rules of engagement are very strict for US Soldiers. Hell, some of them are on trial for MURDER for doing their job, so don't tell me that the US is not being careful not to "inflame" the sensitive arabs (or sensitive liberal pacifists, for that matter.)

The insurgents and terrorists know that the US doesn't want to hurt civilians. That's why they hide in schools, mosques and hospitals. You should direct your anger at civilian casualties at THEM.

Meanwhile, the insurgents send retarded boys strapped with explosive vests filled with nails and ball bearings into market disticts, with the intent of killing as many civilians as possible. The "sensitive" arabs kidnap journalists, nuns, and aid workers and CUT THEIR HEADS OFF ON VIDEO. How come this behavior doesn't rile up Amnesty International and other pacifists? They should be supporting US policy to STOP THE INSURGENCY.

Iran is now seeking nuclear arsenal in order to protect their regime.
Iraq is a chaos. People are dying ans oil fields are burning.
Anti-US sentiment around the world is at the highest level of all time.
Al Qaeda is submerged with thousands of suicide bomber applications.
Really nice job. And we will see what the next iraqi government look like. At least Saddam was secular. He invaded Iran because they were islamist extremists.

Mm Hmm.

Maybe the anti-American Lebanese imams are right.

The election in Iraq was the Arab equivalent of the Berlin Wall coming down, and now Arabs can rise up against their oppressive dictatorships and gain their freedom - because the Americans have shown that it's possible to stand up and fight against dictatorship and terrorism.

And it's why the Lebanese are gathering in the streets - and why the Syrians are running scared. If the US was not so aggressive, I'm sure the Syrians would just crush the Lebanese as they always have. But now, they know that if the US becomes involved, it's the end of their dictatorship.

That's why Syria and Iran have become allies - in the hopes that they can somehow prevent a US invasion from succeeding.

Unfortunately for them, once the US does go down that road, it will not be possible to stop the US, even if they do have a few nuclear weapons.

Oh, so those 300,000 Shiites in the mass graves south of Baghdad just appeared there for no reason. You're saying that Saddam didn't order them killed during the 1990s, even though there is evidence on paper and live witnesses to the executions?


Cite?

The only statistics I have seen on 'mass graves' puts the body counts for his whole 30+ year reign to at most 10-20,000, and not anywhere near 300,000. (And no I am not trying to say SH wasn't a bad guy, just want propaganda to stop being thrown around as truth).

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.graves/

Scroll to the bottom of the story for the 300,000 figure.

Here, they say 290,000

http://hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq0503/2.htm#_Toc41888352

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.graves/

Scroll to the bottom of the story for the 300,000 figure.
that is the total number of people killed during Saddam's 24-year rule. I think this number is the lowest estimate. 1 million or more is more probable (during the war with Iran).

He believes they were probably killed in early 1988, though it might have happened in late 1987.
that is more than 16 years old.

There was no need to kill 100 000++ more.

....
It is not about the soldiers, it is about the US administration. THEY made the very highly expected insurgency happen.

Mm Hmm.

Maybe the anti-American Lebanese imams are right.

The election in Iraq was the Arab equivalent of the Berlin Wall coming down, and now Arabs can rise up against their oppressive dictatorships and gain their freedom - because the Americans have shown that it's possible to stand up and fight against dictatorship and terrorism.

And it's why the Lebanese are gathering in the streets - and why the Syrians are running scared. If the US was not so aggressive, I'm sure the Syrians would just crush the Lebanese as they always have. But now, they know that if the US becomes involved, it's the end of their dictatorship.

That's why Syria and Iran have become allies - in the hopes that they can somehow prevent a US invasion from succeeding.

Unfortunately for them, once the US does go down that road, it will not be possible to stop the US, even if they do have a few nuclear weapons.
You think a few nuclear explosions is an acceptable cost to bring justice?
You are out of your mind.

Oh please tell me you aren't one of those who actually believes even half of the "information" in that rag! There are very few media sources that are that MAJORLY scewed to a particulairly screwy view point and uses only the facts that can be twisted to support that view. No one believes that one electionis going to magically make all the hatred just suddenly idsappear and make all the terrorists who have spent decades training there just up and rejoin society or disapear into thin air.

They spent decades training? Saddam didn't have any terrorists in his country, they all went there AFTER we went in.

"The World Peace Herald?" Uh huh. Now there's an unbiased source! :rolleyes:

Its a story that Fox News won't cover because it doesn't fit their spin.

Need I say more? (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/03/01/iraq.report/)

Things are not going well there, I think thats all I need to say.

Ho-hum..did you miss this? I think you did. Why dont people read entire articles anymore..did you skim over it and go "OMFG! An article that says something bad about Iraq! LEMME POST IT BECUZ I HATE BUSH!1!" Or something?

The report states that Iraq made several positive strides including holding national elections in January, establishing a Human Rights Ministry, fostering the ongoing employment of women and adding to the growth of nongovernmental organizations.

"The government's success in building an accommodating structure for the exercise of civil liberties, although burdened by the heritage of dictatorship and disregard for law, was shown clearly in the citizens' embrace of freedoms of speech and press, peaceful assembly, and association and religion. While major problems still remained, they were of a far different magnitude and nature than previously," the report states.