NationStates Jolt Archive

I am not a pacifist, I am not a liberal, both of which I am regularly accused. What I am is a believer of the truth and that Western society should apply the same standards to itself that it requires from others.
Which is why I support(ed) the attack on Afghanistan but not against Iraq. The Taliban flagrantly disregarded the reasonable demands of the US and UN to hand Bin Laden over for trial and punishment. Why they did so will be a cause for debate for ages to come, and how they believed they could resist an American attack beggers belief. It was right that the US and its many allies invaded to root out Al Quaeda and its fellow travellers.
Iraq is a different kettle of fish, and fish stinks.
Using extracts from an article read elsewhere, I will at least attempt to make my case. A case for which I am roundly condemned here.

On Sunday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gave new reasons for the war in a tough interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

Blitzer noted Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction nor secret deals with Osama bin Laden to slip them to his terrorists as claimed. That was wrong, right Mr. Secretary?

"It's clear the intelligence was wrong," Rumsfeld replied.

But then he maintained that those were not the reasons we went to war in Iraq.

"The reason the United States went to war, the president has announced and said it repeatedly," the secretary started, wearily. "There were 17 resolutions in the UN that were ignored by Saddam Hussein. Our planes were being shot at on a regular basis in the Operation Southern Watch and Operation Northern Watch. Saddam Hussein was giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. Iraq was on the terrorist list. Iraq had used chemical weapons against its own people and its neighbors."

Note that the shopworn "liberating the Iraqi people" is missing from these latest excuses for attacking Iraq in the middle of a war on al-Qaeda.

So Rumsfeld is saying, America sacrificed a full division of its soldiers and spilled the blood of countless Iraqi civilians – while diverting precious resources from the hunt for bin Laden – to protect Israel from Saddam's checkbook, which is dwarfed by that of the Islamic Development Bank, which has distributed more than $250 million to the families of Palestinian "martyrs" from two large intifada funds it manages.

Yes, Saddam's anti-aircraft defenses were taking potshots at our planes patrolling the no-fly zones. When hadn't they? Their potshots had always been a sign of frustration and proof that we had Saddam effectively boxed in, just as Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell told us before the war, before they joined in the administration's campaign to sell it.

"We have made progress on the UN sanctions," Rice told CNN on July 29, 2001. "In terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

In other words, he was effectively disarmed in the first Gulf war.

But recall how after 9/11 we were told Saddam had somehow regained control of "the northern part of his country," where he was allegedly harboring an al-Qaeda chemical-weapons training camp – another charge that proved to be false.

Then there was Powell, who told reporters at a Feb. 24, 2001, press conference in Egypt that UN sanctions had kept "in check" Saddam's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction.

"Frankly, they have worked," he said. "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction." In fact, Powell added, Saddam was so effectively defanged that he was unable to even "project conventional power against his neighbors."

Powell should have gone back and read the intelligence he was reading at the time he made that statement before going to the UN on the eve of war to try to convince it sanctions were not working – and so much so, he claimed, that Saddam was brewing anthrax on the beds of 18-wheelers and loading the deadly germs onto toy airplanes to attack the continental United States. Powell was right the first time, of course, and he's still living down his presentation at the United Nations.

In short, the UN sanctions and no-fly zones were working. And were they cheap compared with the hundreds of billions in tax dollars we're forking over now to rebuild Iraq, after destroying what little infrastructure remained.

But with false intelligence, crude forgeries and rumors from Iraqi defectors named "Curveball," President Bush decided that "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country and our people," and must be stopped at once.

He emptied the treasury and, again, spilled the blood of a full division of American soldiers and countless innocent Iraqi civilians only to find out Saddam Hussein was a threat to nobody.

In the end, the monster Bush captured didn't have any weapons of mass destruction or secret deals to slip them to bin Laden. In fact, he didn't even have programs under way to make any banned weapons.

Saddam is now in our custody, but bin Laden, the real monster, is still at large, sharpening his fangs for another attack, while administration officials continue finding new reasons for the invasion.

If a fraction of the resources poured into the Iraq war had been spent on hunting down Bin Laden and Al Queda, if American and coalition troops had concentrated their often heroic efforts into the effort, if the Brush had kept his eye on the ball that the American people and his erstwhile allies wanted to deflate, the terrorism that is rightly feared and condemned by all would by now be probably a bad memory.

The Middle East would have been a more stable place, Iraq would have continue to be contained at no loss of life, the oil would still be flowing, and if Iran is the threat we are told it is, it would have been far easier to deal with.

That's why I don't support the Iraqi fiasco. I don't want to see more British dead, more Americans, more Iraqis. Our soldiers have died, and continue to die not only for nothing, but needlessly.

__________________

Saddam Hussein was a threat to nobody.

Tell that to the bodies in the mass graves.

What Shinano said. Hussein was a monster, the US Government did the world and the Iraqi people a huge favor by removing him from power before he decided to do anything again.

Saddam Hussein was a threat to nobody.

The fact that Saddam had and used chemical weapons on his own people has not changed.

i think you made your case very well. and in response to your critics i'd just like to point out that it is a concievable notion that the damage that saddam did (there's no point in denying that) may be out-weighed by the damage done by the war. the currently prominent 'ends justifies the means' mentality really irritates me, and if the end does justify the means, i don't think we've reached that point yet.

The fact that Saddam had and used chemical weapons on his own people has not changed.

The fact that the US gave Saddam said chemical weapons also did not change. The fact that clear cut cases of blatant mass killings in places such as, I believe it was Rwanda, did not even recieve a look did not change. The fact that the number of people dying in war related causes, be it via insurgency or coalition forces, is rising to match the numbers in those mass graves.

The fact that Saddam rose to power thanks in no small part to US intervention also does not change. If we want to look at culpubability, the very people who removed Saddam were the ones who made it possible for him to do what he did. How come they aren't in jail?

Oh. That is right. Such thinking is sometimes too complex to follow. People like simplicity. Them or us. With us or against us. Ne'er shall the shades of grey be seen by eyes such as mine.

The fact that the US gave Saddam said chemical weapons also did not change. The fact that clear cut cases of blatant mass killings in places such as, I believe it was Rwanda, did not even recieve a look did not change. The fact that the number of people dying in war related causes, be it via insurgency or coalition forces, is rising to match the numbers in those mass graves.

The fact that Saddam rose to power thanks in no small part to US intervention also does not change. If we want to look at culpubability, the very people who removed Saddam were the ones who made it possible for him to do what he did. How come they aren't in jail?

Oh. That is right. Such thinking is sometimes too complex to follow. People like simplicity. Them or us. With us or against us. Ne'er shall the shades of grey be seen by eyes such as mine.
i forgot about that. fair play.

The fact that the US gave Saddam said chemical weapons also did not change. The fact that clear cut cases of blatant mass killings in places such as, I believe it was Rwanda, did not even recieve a look did not change.

The fact that Saddam rose to power thanks in no small part to US intervention also does not change. If we want to look at culpubability, the very people who removed Saddam were the ones who made it possible for him to do what he did. How come they aren't in jail?

Oh. That is right. Such thinking is sometimes too complex to follow. People like simplicity. Them or us. With us or against us. Ne'er shall the shades of grey be seen by eyes such as mine.

Look at the MOTIVES, imbecile. THINK.

The reason the US propped up Hussein and gave him those weapons was so that the US could give the Mullahs an ass-kicking by proxy for the Iranian hostage crisis. He was a two-bit thug who was dropped like a hot potato when his usefulness ran out.

The reason Hussein gassed the kurds was because they don't like being summarily raped and executed whenever Uday's in the mood.

And why bring up Rwanda? I thought America WASNT supposed to be the world police?

That last sentence is a doozy. Did you make that up or is it a quote? For someone who claims to see the shades of grey you sure aren't trying very hard to see the US's side.

This is from 1995 Pentagon intelligence document.

IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. [...]

IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES' OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ.

Saddam tortured, we torture. Saddam used WP chemical weapons against insurgents and civilians, we use WP chemical weapons against insurgents and civilians.

Like torture, the apologists try to justify our use of such abhorrent techniques, oblivious to the fact that our moral standing is in tatters and our crediblity beyond repair. We aren't just losing the war in Iraq, we are losing our credibility in the world.

What Shinano said. Hussein was a monster, the US Government did the world and the Iraqi people a huge favor by removing him from power before he decided to do anything again.

Hussein killed many of his own people. However, the "liberators" of Iraq attacked them also. I think you've seen Abu-Grahib prison. I think you know that civilians died by the hands of American soldiers. I think you remember white phosphore on Fallujah (which was not a military base, there were civilians in there man!)

Hussein had to be out of his place, right. Was war a good thing for the country? Some guys there received not a cent for 3 months. When you can't get money in Saddam's government, and you don't get paid for 3 months after that, I think you don't oughta live a king's life.

In fact, I agree with the fact that "the end never justify bad means". The point of Bush was, at first, to "free" the people of Iraq by overruning the country.

"We're going to occupy you. Only then will you be free"

Truth is, for the moment, Iraq is an occupied country. Hussein had to be out of there, for what he did, but his population didn't have to suffer the cost. We're talking about thousands of civilian casualties, guys, from people who rarely supported Saddam. What would you do if your country was attacked for your freedom and that your wife, your sons and your brother died in the blast of your house? Would you really be happy of the good people who came to free you?

And then there is the word "freedom". What does that mean? Is it the freedom to choose my own wars or is it the freedom US stands behind? Is it the western way of living that is freedom or is there some other sort of freedom, one that is the same as the one Hobbes argued for: the right to protect myself by choosing to obey a dictator? Freedom must be choosen by the ones that want it, we can't make the decision for them 'cause then we take away what freedom they had: the choice to fight or to obey.

The reason the US propped up Hussein and gave him those weapons was so that the US could give the Mullahs an ass-kicking by proxy for the Iranian hostage crisis. He was a two-bit thug who was dropped like a hot potato when his usefulness ran out.

And why did the Iranian hostage crisis come about hmmm? Did you ever wonder why? And rather than patch a hole, they made another one. A fine philosophy for a sinking ship.


The reason Hussein gassed the kurds was because they don't like being summarily raped and executed whenever Uday's in the mood.

Did you forget that the Kurds were promised weapons and support if they rose up in rebellion? The response was harsh, overly so, but not entirely "for the fun of it"


And why bring up Rwanda? I thought America WASNT supposed to be the world police?

It was brought up because America seems to use that stance when it is convenient to. If you wish the mantle, then you must accept ALL responsibility. Not when you like it.


That last sentence is a doozy. Did you make that up or is it a quote? For someone who claims to see the shades of grey you sure aren't trying very hard to see the US's side.

I do see the shades of grey. No ones hands are really clean in the matters of world policy. Politics. Power plays, thousands, if not millions of lives have their fate decided by the hands of a few, sometimes with tragic results. And ultimately, for what? Posturing, profiteering. But not once is it for truly altruistic purposes. Such is the reality of the world, and I do not dispute that, but the tendencies of those who wish to cloak their actions behind the mantle of goodwill leave me with no small amount of distrust.

What I find interesting is the administration is using the same "Rove" technique now as they used to get elected---"Attack the opposition strength." In the 2000 primary "war hero" Bush attacked McCain's war record. In the 2000 election "governor" Bush attacked Gore's experience. In the 2004 election "war hero" Bush attacked Kerry's war record. Now we have the administration attacking the opposition for "changing history" by changing the reasons for war.

This would be funny if the American people weren't so stupid as to let it work every time.

i think you made your case very well. and in response to your critics i'd just like to point out that it is a concievable notion that the damage that saddam did (there's no point in denying that) may be out-weighed by the damage done by the war. the currently prominent 'ends justifies the means' mentality really irritates me, and if the end does justify the means, i don't think we've reached that point yet.

We would have to be killing people in Iraq for quite a few years to catch up to Saddam.

We would have to be killing people in Iraq for quite a few years to catch up to Saddam.

Between the Coalition forces and the insurgents, the death toll isn't slowing down is it?

Between the Coalition forces and the insurgents, the death toll isn't slowing down is it?

The deaths caused directly by the Coalition (if you don't count the insurgents they kill) have slowed (there was a rather large slowdown after the initial occupation).

The number killed by the insurgents can't be blamed on the Coalition. I don't have hard figures, but it's the general flavor of the news that most roadside bombs kill far more innocent civilians than US troops.

If the US kills someone, there's a big to-do in the news. "Innocent civilians killed in crossfire". But the insurgents can kill 100 innocent civilians at once, and the only people upset are the local Iraqis - the world media isn't going to place any blame or sense of moral outrage on the insurgents.

The deaths caused directly by the Coalition (if you don't count the insurgents they kill) have slowed (there was a rather large slowdown after the initial occupation).

The number killed by the insurgents can't be blamed on the Coalition. I don't have hard figures, but it's the general flavor of the news that most roadside bombs kill far more innocent civilians than US troops.

If the US kills someone, there's a big to-do in the news. "Innocent civilians killed in crossfire". But the insurgents can kill 100 innocent civilians at once, and the only people upset are the local Iraqis - the world media isn't going to place any blame or sense of moral outrage on the insurgents.
Let's see---How many insurgents were there before the invasion? How do you define cause-effect? What caused the rise of the insurgents? You break it, you own it.

Your logic would say that any deaths after the allies began fighting Hiler don't belong to Hitler because he would have had instant peace if no one would have fought back.

Any deaths in a war of invasion belong to the invader.

Let's see---How many insurgents were there before the invasion? How do you define cause-effect? What caused the rise of the insurgents? You break it, you own it.

Your logic would say that any deaths after the allies began fighting Hiler don't belong to Hitler because he would have had instant peace if no one would have fought back.

Any deaths in a war of invasion belong to the invader.

If the insurgents surrendered, there wouldn't be any additional deaths. Sorry, you build the bombs and blow people up, those count for you.

The deaths caused directly by the Coalition (if you don't count the insurgents they kill) have slowed (there was a rather large slowdown after the initial occupation).

The number killed by the insurgents can't be blamed on the Coalition. I don't have hard figures, but it's the general flavor of the news that most roadside bombs kill far more innocent civilians than US troops.

If the US kills someone, there's a big to-do in the news. "Innocent civilians killed in crossfire". But the insurgents can kill 100 innocent civilians at once, and the only people upset are the local Iraqis - the world media isn't going to place any blame or sense of moral outrage on the insurgents.

Guys... I'm gonna quote somebody you all know: Comrade Stalin (Okay, I hate totalitarian dictators, but his quote's important):

One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.

The US army killed civilians. Even if this was only Fallujah (and it's more than just Fallujah), they killed innocents IN THE NAME OF THESE INNOCENTS' FREEDOM. "Great, now that you're dead, you're free!" Sounds stupid, huh?

Thing is, when somebody dies, it's really really important. It's a crime that should be punished, as much as the crime of murder, because that's what it is. A person's life is NOT a stat. It's not cuz you didn't kill as many people as Hussein that it justifies that you KILL people. Got it?

The US army killed civilians. Even if this was only Fallujah (and it's more than just Fallujah), they killed innocents IN THE NAME OF THESE INNOCENTS' FREEDOM. "Great, now that you're dead, you're free!" Sounds stupid, huh?

So you're saying that an armed insurgent who is firing RPG rounds at US forces is a "civilian"?

If the insurgents surrendered, there wouldn't be any additional deaths. Sorry, you build the bombs and blow people up, those count for you.
So the majority of deaths in WW1 and WW2 belong to the allies because they had the audacity to fight back? They built the guns, the bombs, the airplanes. If they wouldn't have fought back there would have been so much more peace in the world.

Isn't it amazing that the allies only kill "insurgants". I remember in Nam we only killed VC. It didn't matter if the body was only a few months old. If it was dead it went on the body count. I can't remember (Except for My Lie [spelling?]) where we ever killed a civilian.

Isn't it amazing that the allies only kill "insurgants". I remember in Nam we only killed VC. It didn't matter if the body was only a few months old. If it was dead it went on the body count. I can't remember (Except for My Lie [spelling?]) where we ever killed a civilian.

Deep Kimchi appears to have the same kind of mental block apparently. "We ain't hardly done wrong. Its all these VC them done us wrong"

And yes, the Coalition IS responsible for the insurgency. There wouldn't have been one had either Saddam been still where he was or if they had a better plan then "Oh, everything will come up roses"

If I blew up a hole in the bank, I'm partly responsible when people start carting off money that doesn't belong to them. If I sell drugs, I'm responsible/to blame when people use them. If all this is the case, it damn well is the case that the Coalition is also responsible for making the insurgency a reality.

If I was allowed, and took it upon myself to kill a husband and father who is sexually and physically abusing his wife and children, and then the mother and kids began terrorising each other, I couldn't expect to walk away, saying 'nothing to do with me'. I should have minded my own business.

Deep Kimchi appears to have the same kind of mental block apparently. "We ain't hardly done wrong. Its all these VC them done us wrong"

And yes, the Coalition IS responsible for the insurgency. There wouldn't have been one had either Saddam been still where he was or if they had a better plan then "Oh, everything will come up roses"

If I blew up a hole in the bank, I'm partly responsible when people start carting off money that doesn't belong to them. If I sell drugs, I'm responsible/to blame when people use them. If all this is the case, it damn well is the case that the Coalition is also responsible for making the insurgency a reality.

yes, it is the coalition's fault for some sort of insurgency springing up in iraq caused by some radical al Qaeda terrorist cell... we all know where it started, people, we all know what happened in the earlier 90s. let us not be braindead, please.

as the random connections of responisibility have been linked to the coalition, they can be so linked to the insurgents, as well. since we now know there is an al qaeda cell in operation in that region (who said that there was before... hmmm... i wonder?!), who was to blame for starting the aptly-named "war on terrorism" to begin with?

im sorry, but if you kill 3000 and upwards of our innocent civilians, all the while trying to destroy our freedom as well, then you have "awoken a sleeping giant," as so stated by the Japanese translator in the first minutes of U.S.A.'s world war 2.

yes, it is the coalition's fault for some sort of insurgency springing up in iraq caused by some radical al Qaeda terrorist cell... we all know where it started, people, we all know what happened in the earlier 90s. let us not be braindead, please.

as the random connections of responisibility have been linked to the coalition, they can be so linked to the insurgents, as well. since we now know there is an al qaeda cell in operation in that region (who said that there was before... hmmm... i wonder?!), who was to blame for starting the aptly-named "war on terrorism" to begin with?



Any chance of re-posting those two points in English?

Any chance of re-posting those two points in English?

im sorry if my speaking style is too complex... ill tone it down for you:

1) al qaeda tried twice (succeeded once) at trying to destroy the world trade center, killing thousand of innocents.

2) the above point furthers the proof that we did not start sort of insurgency against wester politics; it shows that it was islamic fundamentalists that started their "holy war" against the westerners that started this insurgency.

3) if there is an al qaeda cell operating in iraq, why wasnt it there before? because it was there... theres such a thing as a dormant cell, yknow. the gaggle of evidences for the training of al qaeda troops there proved it.

im sorry if my speaking style is too complex... ill tone it down for you:



2) the above point furthers the proof that we did not start sort of insurgency against wester politics; it shows that it was islamic fundamentalists that started their "holy war" against the westerners that started this insurgency.

3) if there is an al qaeda cell operating in iraq, why wasnt it there before? because it was there... theres such a thing as a dormant cell, yknow. the gaggle of evidences for the training of al qaeda troops there proved it.

Your point does not constitute 'proof'. The insurgency in Iraq (or resistance) is a direct result of the invasion. If you want to go back to find the cause of the anti Western strikes, where do we stop?

There was no Al Quaeda in Iraq before the invasion. Saddam was one of its biggest enemies, Quaeda wanted to oust him too. Dormant cell eh? Got any proof? I'd very much appreciate any link you can provide to the 'gaggle of evidence' you seem to know about.

'11/22/05 "National Journal" -- - Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.'

yes, it is the coalition's fault for some sort of insurgency springing up in iraq caused by some radical al Qaeda terrorist cell... we all know where it started, people, we all know what happened in the earlier 90s. let us not be braindead, please.

Why yes. We all know what happened. You failed to read up on reliable information. That's what.

Prior to the invasion, Iraq didn't have an insurgency nor did it have an Al Qaeda presence worthy of the label "cell". If anything, Al Qaeda wanted in, but Saddam kept the door firmly closed on them. Dictators hate people dictating to them, and thats what Al Qaeda wanted until they figured he was too stubborn to create a theocracy. So they wanted him dead instead.

Braindead? No, what you have is a terminal case of ignorance.


as the random connections of responisibility have been linked to the coalition, they can be so linked to the insurgents, as well. since we now know there is an al qaeda cell in operation in that region (who said that there was before... hmmm... i wonder?!), who was to blame for starting the aptly-named "war on terrorism" to begin with?

Its "War on Terror" not "terrorrism". Get your terminology right and you might look a wee bit more intelligent. Rather than a person with a poor grasp of English and possibly reality as well. Who was to blame for starting this so called war? Well, if we look at the one who first started calling it a war, that would be Bush jr.


im sorry, but if you kill 3000 and upwards of our innocent civilians, all the while trying to destroy our freedom as well, then you have "awoken a sleeping giant," as so stated by the Japanese translator in the first minutes of U.S.A.'s world war 2.

Oh, here we go again. Destroy our freedom? How? Where's the hordes of soldiers pouring through the borders to subjugate the masses? Those 3000 dead people were tragic, yes, but they certainly didn't die because somebody thought it was a fun thing to do at the time. They died cause some people were pissed at the US for propping up Israel, having troops in Saudi Arabia and so on.

It doesn't justify what happened in New York, but it also doesn't justify what the US is doing in Iraq.

Oh, and kakaru, some free advice. Go back to school and learn proper sentence construction. If you can't write coherently for your next response, I'm not going to bother translating it.

What Shinano said. Hussein was a monster, the US Government did the world and the Iraqi people a huge favor by removing him from power before he decided to do anything again.


Bullshit. How many have the US killed? Thousands. Of course Saddam was a monster, but so in the US. Wanna talk about mass graves, try Chile. Pinochet ring a bell?

Besides, the Turks leveled Kurdish villages with helecopters and missles, why not invade them? O right, 'cause we need them.

The US props up or deposes dictators far worse then Saddam every week. Don't give me this liberateing bullshit.

The fact that Saddam had and used chemical weapons on his own people has not changed.

The same chemical weapons we used on the Iraqi people now?

The deaths caused directly by the Coalition (if you don't count the insurgents they kill) have slowed (there was a rather large slowdown after the initial occupation).

The number killed by the insurgents can't be blamed on the Coalition. I don't have hard figures, but it's the general flavor of the news that most roadside bombs kill far more innocent civilians than US troops.

If the US kills someone, there's a big to-do in the news. "Innocent civilians killed in crossfire". But the insurgents can kill 100 innocent civilians at once, and the only people upset are the local Iraqis - the world media isn't going to place any blame or sense of moral outrage on the insurgents.

Those killed by the Iraqi resistance are both the fault of the guy who built and blew up the bomb (directly), and and the invaders who caused him to do so (indirectly).

So you're saying that an armed insurgent who is firing RPG rounds at US forces is a "civilian"?

When did he say that? Quote it? No? He didn't? OK then. Stop refering to events that never happened.


yes, it is the coalition's fault for some sort of insurgency springing up in iraq caused by some radical al Qaeda terrorist cell... we all know where it started, people, we all know what happened in the earlier 90s. let us not be braindead, please.

as the random connections of responisibility have been linked to the coalition, they can be so linked to the insurgents, as well. since we now know there is an al qaeda cell in operation in that region (who said that there was before... hmmm... i wonder?!), who was to blame for starting the aptly-named "war on terrorism" to begin with?

im sorry, but if you kill 3000 and upwards of our innocent civilians, all the while trying to destroy our freedom as well, then you have "awoken a sleeping giant," as so stated by the Japanese translator in the first minutes of U.S.A.'s world war 2.

Fuck that. Saddam didn't cause 9/11. Saddam and Osama were enemies. Osama tryed to have Saddam killed, he called him an "infidel pig." Don't come with this crap again.

*snip*

The memo has been debunked in a different thread. Come to find out it wasn't done by someone who actually handles WP.

Those that do handle WP knows that it isn't a Chemical Weapon.