NationStates Jolt Archive

How much do you support YOUR nation's troops in the current operations of Afghanistan/Iraq

Afganistan...90%.
and we're not in Iraq, unless Harper's going to change that.

The Oltenian Red Scorpions or whomever Romania's got in there? Not much. Not much at all.

Well, the Bundeswehr is staying well away from Iraq, which is a smart thing to do. They're doing a pretty good job in Afghanistan, as I understand it, as well as in Kosovo and the Somali Coast.

So overall, I think they're doing pretty well at the moment. But to be honest, I have no idea what you actually mean by "support".

I'm waiting for the moment when an Al Quaida operative would answer this thread, and point out how much he suppots his troops.

Our troops (Indian) are not in Iraq or Afghanistan. I would like for our troops to be there (especially in Afghanistan, where we are engaged in large scale reconstruction efforts) for peacekeeping but only under UN banner and not under NATO/US command.

How much do you support YOUR nation's troops in the current operations of Afghanistan/Iraq
My nation's troops are not in Afghanistan, and not in Iraq thanks to the triple lock. But if they were, I would support them fully.

The honest, hard-working US Troops that joined up to protect their nation? I support them completely. The hate-driven US Troops ("Yep, I joined the Army to kill me some a-rabs!"), and the higher-ups(*coughbushcough*) I do not support. Most Republicans seem to forget that not supporting a war =/= not supporting those that risk their lives to fight it.

I´m kinda sorry about the way people seem to see the(ir) military as some kind of panacea whenever things go wrong.
I´ld rather the major powers concentrate on reducing the overall amount of heavy weaponry, while at the same time building a working, effective international police force. But that´s propably wishful thinking, given the heaps of money to be made with all that stuff.

I support Canadian troops in Afghanistan. That operation was the right thing to do. However, I think Canada should stay out of Iraq and let the Americans deal with their decision. They went it against the UN and I'm not saying it was bad or not but they chose their path and we'll see what kind of job they eventually end up doing in Iraq.

Yes, I support the Vatican troops.

I do not support the majority of the American troops. Most of the people that I know who joined the military are assholes who joined for the stated purpose of killing people (my favorite given reason, "I want to get revenge on the Iraqis for killing American troops.") those people are not likely the majority of those in the military but are still a large number and should be viewed no differently than serial kilers. For the other soldiers who joined out of a desire to help their country and "do the right thing," I have nothing but contempt for their naivety and inability to think for themselves. For the high ups who direct these conflicts, I do have some respect for some of them but I still find all of them reprehensible. All of our soliders in Iraq (and perhaps to a lesser extent Afghanastan) will die painfully. Those who do not die in battle or from injuries, will die slowly from radiation poisoning ("Gulf War syndrome") from the use of depleted uranium munitions. I have no pity or sympathy for any of them.

I don't support any national troops, ever.

I support the vast majority of the brave men and women who serve our country. That is why I fight for the truth behind the invasion of Iraq. I find it ironic how the "supporters" of the troops couldn't care less that the soldiers who gave their lives did so under false reasons.

I am fully behind our Canadian men and women in Afghanistan. I would only be in favour of Canadian troops in Iraq, if the US coalition was gradually replaced with a UN force. (which isn't going to happen.) Otherwise, the US can reap what it sewed.

I support the men and women of the armed forces 100% and pray for their safe return.

I support the vast majority of the brave men and women who serve our country. That is why I fight for the truth behind the invasion of Iraq. I find it ironic how the "supporters" of the troops couldn't care less that the soldiers who gave their lives did so under false reasons.
Agreed

I care for them so much I would rather see them not die if un nessisary ... funny thing thoes that suposedly "support" them seem to have less worries about spending their lives

I support troops who:
a) refuse to fight.
b) (with other unelaberated conditions) shoot there officers.

I have a lot of respect for soldiers serving abroad. I have friends mine in Iraq (British Royal Marines) and Afghanistan (Canadian infantry). I don’t respect the politicians that make the messes that soldiers are sent into. I don’t respect the arms dealers and corporations who profit from the instability in the world, or profit from providing troops on the ground with defective kit.

I don’t respect individual soldiers who go way over the top and start killing civilians out of hand or support cruel hazing for the sheer joy of it. I don’t respect officers who are more interested in politics than in completing their missions (when it comes right down to it I rarely trust officers at all. I’d rather hear the truth from a Sergeant any day than hearing the party line from an officer).

I support my nation's troops. Not the policies that control them.

I support troops who:
a) refuse to fight.
b) (with other unelaberated conditions) shoot there officers.

This is just so sad. I pity you.

I support troops who:
a) refuse to fight.
b) (with other unelaberated conditions) shoot there officers.

I support those; but for the rest I stated my views in my previous post.

How much do you support YOUR nation's troops in the current operations of Afghanistan/Iraq

I most definitely support the troops who are in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Keep it up boys and girls.

I support my nation's troops. Not the policies that control them.

Understandable. Where in Lancaster are you? I'm in Millersville.

This is just so sad. I pity you.

You pity someone who holds our soldiers to standard of having free will rather than being mindless killers in the service of the military machine?

I do not support the majority of the American troops. Most of the people that I know who joined the military are assholes who joined for the stated purpose of killing people (my favorite given reason, "I want to get revenge on the Iraqis for killing American troops.") those people are not likely the majority of those in the military but are still a large number and should be viewed no differently than serial kilers.

1) Most troops do not want to go about killing others. They join to defend their homeland for the most part or join for the benefits knowing they could very well march off to war.

2) I doubt very much they are a large number in the service who feel this. Especially after being under fire for the first time. They'll be scared shitless.

For the other soldiers who joined out of a desire to help their country and "do the right thing," I have nothing but contempt for their naivety and inability to think for themselves.

My father, Brother-in-law, Uncles, cousins, and my mother will disagree with you here. They joined to defend their country and they are not Niave and they can most assuredly think for themselves. All the troops I've met can think for themselves nor are they naive.

For the high ups who direct these conflicts, I do have some respect for some of them but I still find all of them reprehensible. All of our soliders in Iraq (and perhaps to a lesser extent Afghanastan) will die painfully. Those who do not die in battle or from injuries, will die slowly from radiation poisoning ("Gulf War syndrome") from the use of depleted uranium munitions. I have no pity or sympathy for any of them.

I think you truly need to experience what the military goes through before spouting off your mouth.

I´m kinda sorry about the way people seem to see the(ir) military as some kind of panacea whenever things go wrong.
I´ld rather the major powers concentrate on reducing the overall amount of heavy weaponry, while at the same time building a working, effective international police force. But that´s propably wishful thinking, given the heaps of money to be made with all that stuff.

If you read the UN Charter, you'll find the articles that call for a world enforcement force to stamp out the fires. It was just never implemented for various reasons.

The honest, hard-working US Troops that joined up to protect their nation? I support them completely. The hate-driven US Troops ("Yep, I joined the Army to kill me some a-rabs!"), and the higher-ups(*coughbushcough*) I do not support. Most Republicans seem to forget that not supporting a war =/= not supporting those that risk their lives to fight it.

Those people are actually a minority.

I have a lot of respect for soldiers serving abroad. I have friends mine in Iraq (British Royal Marines) and Afghanistan (Canadian infantry). I don’t respect the politicians that make the messes that soldiers are sent into. I don’t respect the arms dealers and corporations who profit from the instability in the world, or profit from providing troops on the ground with defective kit.

I don’t respect individual soldiers who go way over the top and start killing civilians out of hand or support cruel hazing for the sheer joy of it. I don’t respect officers who are more interested in politics than in completing their missions (when it comes right down to it I rarely trust officers at all. I’d rather hear the truth from a Sergeant any day than hearing the party line from an officer).

*applauds this post*

You pity someone who holds our soldiers to standard of having free will rather than being mindless killers in the service of the military machine?

I can tell you that are soldiers do think for themselves.

Those people are actually a minority.
Why are they the ones always on the TV ... Including conservitive comentators (such as bill) or any conservitive I personaly know


Normaly I find massive problems with steriotypes (and this one too) but I have not yet met a conservitive(personaly) that can seem to grasp this concept

Im sure they are there and there are quite a few of them ... I just wish I could meet some

This is just so sad. I pity you.

who am I too support?

the soilder kicking the door of some unlucky fuck in the middle of the night because he was "tipped off" by an annomous tipster who actualy just has a grudge to settle.

guy getting his door kicked in the middle of the night.



either, the troops don't think about there actions and just follow orders, inwhich case I must quote einstein:
"He who joyfully marches to music rank and file,has already earned my contempt.He has been given a large brain by mistake,since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.This disgrace to civilation should be done away with at once.Heroism at command,how violently I hate all this,how despicable and ignoble war is;I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action.It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is no different than murder."

or they understand there actions, inwhich case they are not petty-fascist, but simply fascist.

I can tell you that are soldiers do think for themselves.

which doesn't matter a damn if they detach there actions from those thoughts.

I support the british 100% in iraq and afghanistan.

Why are they the ones always on the TV ... Including conservitive comentators (such as bill) or any conservitive I personaly know

That's why you should never take commentary for the majority opinion. It is also called politics as well.

Normaly I find massive problems with steriotypes (and this one too) but I have not yet met a conservitive(personaly) that can seem to grasp this concept

You have now :)

Im sure they are there and there are quite a few of them ... I just wish I could meet some

Not on TV you won't.

which doesn't matter a damn if they detach there actions from those thoughts.

The soldiers know what a legal and an illegal order is. Their oath states to follow all legal orders.

That's why you should never take commentary for the majority opinion. It is also called politics as well.



You have now :)



Not on TV you won't.
Even in my personel life ... from my family which is heavily conservitive to you name it

Normaly I hear SOME decenting opinion locally ...

I do not support the majority of the American troops. Most of the people that I know who joined the military are assholes who joined for the stated purpose of killing people (my favorite given reason, "I want to get revenge on the Iraqis for killing American troops.") those people are not likely the majority of those in the military but are still a large number and should be viewed no differently than serial kilers. For the other soldiers who joined out of a desire to help their country and "do the right thing," I have nothing but contempt for their naivety and inability to think for themselves. For the high ups who direct these conflicts, I do have some respect for some of them but I still find all of them reprehensible. All of our soliders in Iraq (and perhaps to a lesser extent Afghanastan) will die painfully. Those who do not die in battle or from injuries, will die slowly from radiation poisoning ("Gulf War syndrome") from the use of depleted uranium munitions. I have no pity or sympathy for any of them.

No one uses depleted uranium anymore. UN said, "No." And everyone dies, I'd rather die for something I believe in.

1) Most troops do not want to go about killing others. They join to defend their homeland for the most part or join for the benefits knowing they could very well march off to war.
I would agree that the majority, but not necessarily most, do not do it out of joy of killing. I have stated my views on those who join the military to defend their homeland. Those who join for the benefits are not particularly different from mercenaries.

2) I doubt very much they are a large number in the service who feel this. Especially after being under fire for the first time. They'll be scared shitless.
Of course they'll be scared shitless, I don't see how that affects my point. In fact, their fear will give way to hatred as they begin to see every civilian as a potential threat. The "us vs. them" mindset inherent in war will increase their desire to kill.

My father, Brother-in-law, Uncles, cousins, and my mother will disagree with you here. They joined to defend their country and they are not Niave and they can most assuredly think for themselves. All the troops I've met can think for themselves nor are they naive.
Naivety is subjective and I have high standards in this regard. Everyone is able to think for themselves in a literal sense (unless you want to take it to the extreme and realize that no one can), but in terms of actual self-determination I have very high standards for saying that someone can "think for themselves" I have never met your relatives so I cannot say anything in relation to them; but as a whole I stand by what I said.

I think you truly need to experience what the military goes through before spouting off your mouth.
I realize the military goes through hell; but it is a hell that they volunteered for. If our troops were conscripts I would sympathize with them; but I can feel no more pity for people who voluntarily put themselves in this situation than I can for someone who destroys their life through drug use.

The soldiers know what a legal and an illegal order is. Their oath states to follow all legal orders.

what is higher. sound ethics or "the law"? a person should be held responsible for there actions, regardless of orders, oathes or the law; and someone who drops 2000 lbs bombs in dense residential neigborhoods, even if they are laser guided (seige of falluhja), should be held accountable for there actions as they are bound inflict casualty against non-combatants or those who are only combatants because they are being shot at either way. Same goes for those use use DU weapons, or tanks&machine guns in citys.

No one uses depleted uranium anymore. UN said, "No."

what the fuck are you talking about?... last I checked (last spring) the US was still using DU.

By nationality: Australian military? What, all 3 troops?

By ethnicity: Ehh. Bundeswehr. Germany's military funding, percentage wise, is less than what France's ancien regime spent on the royal court. I don't expect miracles.

No one uses depleted uranium anymore. UN said, "No." And everyone dies, I'd rather die for something I believe in.

America does continue to use depleted uranium muntions; we deny that they are radioactive. I too would like to die for something I believe in. If any of our soldiers truly believe in what they are doing I respect those soldiers; but the dilemma raised by this our that stated objectives are different from our actual objectives. If a soldier fights in Iraq because he truly believes the war is necesary to protect America, to free the Iraqi people, or to rid the world of Husseins WMD; he is decieved by himself for others and I have nothing but contempt for him. If a soldier fights in Iraq because he truly believes the war is necessary to protect Israel, enrich Halliburton, and/or further America's geopolitical interests and authority in the middle east; I respect him for his supreme devotion to the cause he has accepted but I can still not support him by virtue of the nature of his cause.

what is higher. sound ethics or "the law"? a person should be held responsible for there actions, regardless of orders, oathes or the law; and someone who drops 2000 lbs bombs in dense residential neigborhoods,

That is illegal.

even if they are laser guided (seige of falluhja), should be held accountable for there actions as they are bound inflict casualty against non-combatants or those who are only combatants because they are being shot at either way.

Accidents happen in war dude and no technology is perfect. It happens. We don't like it when it does happen and all of those incidences are investigated fully to see what caused it.

Same goes for those use use DU weapons, or tanks&machine guns in citys.

Can't fight a war without tanks or machine guns. We do go out of our way to limit civilian casualties. Often by exposing ourselves more to defend them.

... If any of our soldiers truly believe in what they are doing I respect those soldiers...

yes, respect; but not support or moarn there loss.

yes, respect; but not support or moarn there loss.

I hope then you don't have a kid who decides to join the service.

That is illegal.

they PR'ed it during the seige of Fallujha, saying that anyone left in the city had been given plenty of prior notice to leave and anyone left was a terrorist or some stupid shit like that. But this assumption that they should leave just because "they are told" is absurd. it's saying that the US government grants them the right to exsist as is. Anyone surely has a right to stand there ground, even in the face of assured death.


Can't fight a war without tanks or machine guns. We do go out of our way to limit civilian casualties. Often by exposing ourselves more to defend them.

but how nessicary are either in urban warfare?

what the fuck are you talking about?... last I checked (last spring) the US was still using DU.

I apologize. I was wrong. The U.S. does still use depleted uranium. No need to be rude.

P.S. it sure is nice to know that the U.S. isn't being all pansy-like in war.

I apologize. I was wrong. The U.S. does still use depleted uranium. No need to be rude.

P.S. it sure is nice to know that the U.S. isn't being all pansy-like in war.

didn't intent to be rude, I have very "sailor like" speech patterns....

I think everyone should serve in one form or the other in a branch of the armed services. There's something for everyone--it's impossible for everyone to be front-line soldiers, of course, but there is something you can do to help out.

they PR'ed it during the seige of Fallujha, saying that anyone left in the city had been given plenty of prior notice to leave and anyone left was a terrorist or some stupid shit like that. But this assumption that they should leave just because "they are told" is absurd. it's saying that the US government grants them the right to exsist as is. Anyone surely has a right to stand there ground, even in the face of assured death.

And ya know what? We didn't carpet bomb Fallujha dude.

but how nessicary are either in urban warfare?

Machine guns probably more important. As for tanks, depends on the tank.

I think everyone should serve in one form or the other in a branch of the armed services. There's something for everyone--it's impossible for everyone to be front-line soldiers, of course, but there is something you can do to help out.

I agree 100%

It's OK, man. Most people will stick to an inane point even if its wrong, just because they don't want to admit they were wrong. So, I can understand some of excessiveness of your language, since you probably had to correct more than one of those types of people.

Machine guns probably more important. As for tanks, depends on the tank.
Tanks aren't really helping us win the war in Iraq. We have how many? Somewhere in the hundreds? And the insurgents have: 0

I think everyone should serve in one form or the other in a branch of the armed services. There's something for everyone--it's impossible for everyone to be front-line soldiers, of course, but there is something you can do to help out.
Thank god we dont have laws like that

Im sorry if you voulenteer to serve more power to you but I am glad I did not have to waste my time on it

(By waste I mean deviating from what I have found to be my passion in life)

Tanks aren't really helping us win the war in Iraq. We have how many? Somewhere in the hundreds? And the insurgents have: 0

Tanks won't win you a war, but there's simply no way you can say they aren't important.

Narrow streets may limit their use in Urban warfare yes, but tanks have saved so many lives throughout their history it's simply ludircrous to say that they aren't important.

Oh, yes, I do know you weren't saying tanks aren't important at all, just in urban warfare. But, they are still very useful.

Tanks aren't really helping us win the war in Iraq. We have how many? Somewhere in the hundreds? And the insurgents have: 0

But the USA IS winning

Saddam is gone, does that not count as winning? The main battles are done with, what remains is cleaning up. Only 2100 americans have died, compared to Vietnam that is huge gap.

Vietnam had millions of mercenaries. Iraq only has in the thousands. The war can be won. But only with more support.

And the whole anti-american attitude going on here isn't helping. To be honest, I don't even support the war that much. Bush lied about the war. That's not good. But whether or not he lied, I do believe Saddam had to be out of power(no one should disagree here). And Saddam IS out of power.

I do not support the majority of the American troops. Most of the people that I know who joined the military are assholes who joined for the stated purpose of killing people (my favorite given reason, "I want to get revenge on the Iraqis for killing American troops.") those people are not likely the majority of those in the military but are still a large number and should be viewed no differently than serial kilers. For the other soldiers who joined out of a desire to help their country and "do the right thing," I have nothing but contempt for their naivety and inability to think for themselves. For the high ups who direct these conflicts, I do have some respect for some of them but I still find all of them reprehensible. All of our soliders in Iraq (and perhaps to a lesser extent Afghanastan) will die painfully. Those who do not die in battle or from injuries, will die slowly from radiation poisoning ("Gulf War syndrome") from the use of depleted uranium munitions. I have no pity or sympathy for any of them.

Get the hell out of the US you commie pinko bastard. I support the US troops in any conflict they find themselves in. That being said I think the war in Iraq was and still is stupid. I don't think we should be over there at all. But our soldiers don't have a choice. The populace of the US voted in a retarded idiot who sends our soldiers to die so Halliburton can make some long term financial gains. Soldiers don't choose where to fight. The take an oath to fight wherever the commander and chief of the US is allowed by congress to fight. Some do want to blow up stuff and kill people. Hey you have sociopaths everywhere even here on the NS boards I bet.

Thank god we dont have laws like that

Im sorry if you voulenteer to serve more power to you but I am glad I did not have to waste my time on it

(By waste I mean deviating from what I have found to be my passion in life)

It can pay for your college. And I didn't mean serve your whole life either.

And ya know what? We didn't carpet bomb Fallujha dude.

do you distinguish between an accident and what is an unintended but accepted consequence?

That is illegal.

Accidents happen in war dude and no technology is perfect. It happens. We don't like it when it does happen and all of those incidences are investigated fully to see what caused it.

Can't fight a war without tanks or machine guns. We do go out of our way to limit civilian casualties. Often by exposing ourselves more to defend them.

Laws are secondary to ethics and morality. The law was on the side of the soviets (sidesteps Godwin's law) when they killed millions of dissidents; but if you support that you drop your illusion of being different. The majority of the bombs we dropped in Iraq were "dumb" bombs and these accidents kill thousands of people and we don't investigate them. Over 100,000 civilians have died because of our war with Iraq; this may have been unintentional but the fact that it is, by your own admission, inevitable in warfare simply reinforces how wrong wars of this nature our. I agree that we can't fight wars without machine guns or tanks; but that does not justify the use of depleted uranium and nothing can justify its use. It is incredibly naive to think that the majority of soldiers put themselves at risk to limit civilian casualties especially in light of the number killed.

It can pay for your college. And I didn't mean serve your whole life either.
I payed for my collage
No loans no grants no help

It was worth more to me then that

Two BS and two masters later and I dont owe a single dime

and I did NOT have to delay doing it to serve either

But the USA IS winning

Saddam is gone, does that not count as winning? The main battles are done with, what remains is cleaning up. Only 2100 americans have died, compared to Vietnam that is huge gap.

Vietnam had millions of mercenaries. Iraq only has in the thousands. The war can be won. But only with more support.

And the whole anti-american attitude going on here isn't helping. To be honest, I don't even support the war that much. Bush lied about the war. That's not good. But whether or not he lied, I do believe Saddam had to be out of power(no one should disagree here). And Saddam IS out of power.

but he was in power in the first place as a consquence of US action. The US carpet bombed Iraqi troops that were marching on Bagdad in 91.

Get the hell out of the US you commie pinko bastard.

No. He (or she) should stay in the US because he (or she) is exercising the freedoms that make America great (and many other nations, too).

America is for everyone, even communists.

Soldiers have happily died giving he (or she) the right to not support them.

what is higher. sound ethics or "the law"? a person should be held responsible for there actions, regardless of orders, oathes or the law; and someone who drops 2000 lbs bombs in dense residential neigborhoods, even if they are laser guided (seige of falluhja), should be held accountable for there actions as they are bound inflict casualty against non-combatants or those who are only combatants because they are being shot at either way. Same goes for those use use DU weapons, or tanks&machine guns in citys.
Someone mentioned that we didn't shock and awe fallujah. Which is correct what we did was alot better. We figured out there defense network then took it down shotgun style one piece at a time. Still some managed to get away. Oh well no plan holds up to first contact with the enemy.

Get the hell out of the US you commie pinko bastard. I support the US troops in any conflict they find themselves in. That being said I think the war in Iraq was and still is stupid. I don't think we should be over there at all. But our soldiers don't have a choice. The populace of the US voted in a retarded idiot who sends our soldiers to die so Halliburton can make some long term financial gains. Soldiers don't choose where to fight. The take an oath to fight wherever the commander and chief of the US is allowed by congress to fight. Some do want to blow up stuff and kill people. Hey you have sociopaths everywhere even here on the NS boards I bet.

there's no reason to believe that the last two elections were ligit.

Someone mentioned that we didn't shock and awe fallujah. Which is correct what we did was alot better. We figured out there defense network then took it down shotgun style one piece at a time. Still some managed to get away. Oh well no plan holds up to first contact with the enemy.

I'm not talking about "terrorist" getting killed, I'm talking about non-combatants getting killed. did you even read what you responded to?

I payed for my collage
No loans no grants no help

It was worth more to me then that

Two BS and two masters later and I dont owe a single dime

and I did NOT have to delay doing it to serve either

You sure about all that?

Lol, I'm joking, I know it was just a simple typo. What are those degrees by the way?


there's no reason to believe that the last two elections were ligit.

Please people, Bush won them both fair and square. We've been over this argument a billion times.

But whether or not he lied, I do believe Saddam had to be out of power(no one should disagree here). And Saddam IS out of power.
He wouldn't have been in power in the first place if the CIA hadn't helped him and his Ba'th party rise to power.

No. He (or she) should stay in the US because he (or she) is exercising the freedoms that make America great (and many other nations, too).

America is for everyone, even communists.

Soldiers have happily died giving he (or she) the right to not support them.

While the whole commie pinko bastard was a joke the sentement wasn't. It is like going to a policeman's funeral and laughing at the widow cause the cop should have known better than to try and do what he thought was right just on the off chance that he was a bad cop. People who sit behind a nice little shield that others provide shouldn't fling feces at those people willing to serve. If you don't like the way foreign policy works then vote. But don't take it out on public servants. And if you can't be grateful to your fellow countrymen who work for your country...then maybe you should find a different country that better suits you.

You sure about all that?

Lol, I'm joking, I know it was just a simple typo. What are those degrees by the way?



Please people, Bush won them both fair and square. We've been over this argument a billion times.


(sorry was in a text based *nix machine no spell check)

A BS in Comp Network Modeling As well as a masters in the same

A BS in Comp information Security masters in the same

I'm not talking about "terrorist" getting killed, I'm talking about non-combatants getting killed. did you even read what you responded to?

crap happens even when you go door to door. I bust down a door if I think I might get shot because someone is making hostile motions I will probably light his ass up. It isn't that I hate him...but if I have to choose someone to die...I choose him

Please people, Bush won them both fair and square. We've been over this argument a billion times.

the government itself released a report saying that electronic voting systems are not accurate and do not meet the FEC's standerds for accountability. And not only that, all descrepency between electronic voting stations exit polling was in favor of Bush. I don't support Kerry, he's just another head of the same hydra; but election rigging is election rigging.

(sorry was in a text based *nix machine no spell check)

A BS in Comp Network Modeling As well as a masters in the same

A BS in Comp information Security masters in the same

We need you in the CIA. So many leaks . . .

Please people, Bush won them both fair and square. We've been over this argument a billion times.
"Fair" yes, if you're using the Republican definition. I.e. Jack Abromoff made fair deals with the Native American tribes he was representing.

do you distinguish between an accident and what is an unintended but accepted consequence?

What you just said means the samething.

But the USA IS winning

Saddam is gone, does that not count as winning? The main battles are done with, what remains is cleaning up. Only 2100 americans have died, compared to Vietnam that is huge gap.

Vietnam had millions of mercenaries. Iraq only has in the thousands. The war can be won. But only with more support.

And the whole anti-american attitude going on here isn't helping. To be honest, I don't even support the war that much. Bush lied about the war. That's not good. But whether or not he lied, I do believe Saddam had to be out of power(no one should disagree here). And Saddam IS out of power.

Winning? We keep shifting our stated objective. If the objective was getting Saddam out of power (and we can toss aside the motive of getting rid of the WMDs) we have already won and should leave immediately. We are fighting against the Iraqi people; that is alot more than clean up. At least 2500 American soldiers have died and all of them have been poisoned by the use of the depleted uranium muntions (just like our soliders in the Gulf War) so even those who come away uninjured have their lives already ruined. No one will deny that Saddam was a brutal dictator, but the Iraqis are not better off. Their infrastructure has been destroyed (though we are helping them rebuild it), over 100,000 civilians were killed, their nation is on the brink of civil war, and we have polluted their nation with radioactive uranium munitions.

there's no reason to believe that the last two elections were ligit.

:rolleyes:

I'm not talking about "terrorist" getting killed, I'm talking about non-combatants getting killed. did you even read what you responded to?

Civilians die in war no matter if the US is fighting in one or not.

We need you in the CIA. So many leaks . . .
I would defiantly like to act as a consulting agent.

You should have seen me blast them for their “database” issues a few months ago

For the love of god some of the stuff they try to play off as “technological malfunctions” when they get out to the press is pathetic. Too bad most people dont know enough about database design.

But we do already do some network consultation as an institution for the government. Usually design review.

Winning? We keep shifting our stated objective. If the objective was getting Saddam out of power (and we can toss aside the motive of getting rid of the WMDs) we have already won and should leave immediately. We are fighting against the Iraqi people; that is alot more than clean up. At least 2500 American soldiers have died and all of them have been poisoned by the use of the depleted uranium muntions (just like our soliders in the Gulf War) so even those who come away uninjured have their lives already ruined. No one will deny that Saddam was a brutal dictator, but the Iraqis are not better off. Their infrastructure has been destroyed (though we are helping them rebuild it), over 100,000 civilians were killed, their nation is on the brink of civil war, and we have polluted their nation with radioactive uranium munitions.

No nation is better off once a dictator has just been defeated

Germany was in an economic crisis after Hitler. The marks were worth nothing. The EU saved Germany.

This short chapter in the lives of Iraqi's will end in the next couple years, and almost everything will be back to normal. Iraq will be thanking the world when their nation has been completely cleaned up, and the engine started again

crap happens even when you go door to door. I bust down a door if I think I might get shot because someone is making hostile motions I will probably light his ass up. It isn't that I hate him...but if I have to choose someone to die...I choose him

what constitutes a "hostile motion"... you allowed to patrol neigborhood streets with assult rifels and armor mounted machine guns, but the people who live in said neigborhood can't do the same thing?

and once again, the do you differenate between an accident and a consquence that you acknowledge beforehand but is still undesired?... if you do, dropping large bombs in dense residential neigborhoods is not synonmous with your example.

What you just said means the samething.

no they don't. if you fire a machine gun into a crowd intending to kill only one person, it's an unintended but accepted consequence that more then just the person you want to kill dies. but it is by no means an accident.

A hostile motion is anything that leads me to believe that they may cause me harm immediately. My advice for all citizens in besieged terrorist/insurgent controlled cities is to lie on your stomach with your hands on your head until such time as you are cleared by military personnel. Or run the risk of getting shot.

But we do already do some network consultation as an institution for the government. Usually design review.

Not enough, apparently.

No nation is better off once a dictator has just been defeated

Germany was in an economic crisis after Hitler. The marks were worth nothing. The EU saved Germany.

This short chapter in the lives of Iraqi's will end in the next couple years, and almost everything will be back to normal. Iraq will be thanking the world when their nation has been completely cleaned up, and the engine started again

yes, just like Chile was so thankful for Pinchot.

and the German Mark was worth more then Euro at the time of transistion.

no they don't. if you fire a machine gun into a crowd intending to kill only one person, it's an unintended but accepted consequence that more then just the person you want to kill dies. but it is by no means an accident.

No one would be that stupid to do that.

A hostile motion is anything that leads me to believe that they may cause me harm immediately. My advice for all citizens in besieged terrorist/insurgent controlled cities is to lie on your stomach with your hands on your head until such time as you are cleared by military personnel. Or run the risk of getting shot.

which assumes that you girant them the right to live. which is fucking bullshit.

No one would be that stupid to do that.

but it makes the distinction.

but it makes the distinction.

Some would get court martialed for that I believe.

a non-combatant killed from dropping a 2000 lbs bomb in a dense residential area (suchas in the seige of falluja), is not an accident. an unintended consquence, sure; but not an accident.

a non-combatant killed from dropping a 2000 lbs bomb in a dense residential area (suchas in the seige of falluja), is not an accident. an unintended consquence, sure; but not an accident.

Accident yes depending on the target. If the civilian was inside the target then your right its not but then, it was a military target.

you can't use that kind of ordinace in a dense neigborhood and only hit your target. it's too powerful. I'd expect less then 500 lbs to take out a single house....

besides, I got to go to bed..... good night, it's been a delightfully civil discussion.

Some would get court martialed for that I believe.

Then you are incredibly naive.

Then you are incredibly naive.

Actually no I'm not. Firing into a crowd to get one person with so many people around would be a court martial offense.

Actually no I'm not. Firing into a crowd to get one person with so many people around would be a court martial offense.
That's something entirely different than they will get court martialled.

No nation is better off once a dictator has just been defeated

Germany was in an economic crisis after Hitler. The marks were worth nothing. The EU saved Germany.

This short chapter in the lives of Iraqi's will end in the next couple years, and almost everything will be back to normal. Iraq will be thanking the world when their nation has been completely cleaned up, and the engine started again

Absolute (and essentially impossible) best case scenario: after several years decade the risk of a civil war dies down, the infrastructure is rebuilt, American troops withdraw, the Iraqis get a real democracy (incredibly unlikely), and everyone (except the millions of Iraqis who lost family members, their homes, were horribly injured, or were tortured by Americans) is happy that their nation is better than ever and heading in a positive direction. But even in this fantastic scenario the fact remains that their nation is polluted by depleted uranium munitions and tens of millions of Iraqis will suffer from radiation poisoning and their children will be deformed for countless generations.

Absolute (and essentially impossible) best case scenario: after several years decade the risk of a civil war dies down, the infrastructure is rebuilt, American troops withdraw, the Iraqis get a real democracy (incredibly unlikely), and everyone (except the millions of Iraqis who lost family members, their homes, were horribly injured, or were tortured by Americans) is happy that their nation is better than ever and heading in a positive direction. But even in this fantastic scenario the fact remains that their nation is polluted by depleted uranium munitions and tens of millions of Iraqis will suffer from radiation poisoning and their children will be deformed for countless generations.
Interesting
Just curious what is the gradation output from the standard DU round?

What level of radiation does it require to cause mutation.

In fact what level of ambient radiation are we sitting at right now?

You make these claims but everything that I have ever seen shows that the radiation output of a DU round is at or below Iron standard and MUCH below ambient standard

You must have different sources ... I would love to seem them

This short chapter in the lives of Iraqi's will end in the next couple years, and almost everything will be back to normal. Iraq will be thanking the world when their nation has been completely cleaned up, and the engine started again
Yes, everything is just going to be wonderful!!! :rolleyes:

Funding Cutoff Imperils U.S. Goals (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012301260.html)

According to recent news reports, the Bush administration will not ask Congress for additional foreign aid for Iraq in its coming budget request. This would be a major strategic mistake. Iraq's infrastructure is still in mediocre shape, and most of its citizens are still seriously underemployed.

The Bush Administration's Campaign to Establish Islamic Theocracy in Iraq (http://www.brucegourley.com/iraqtheocracy/)

February 25, 2006: "American officials have been repeatedly stunned and frequently thwarted in the past three years by the extraordinary power of Muslim clerics over Iraqi society. But in the sectarian violence of the past few days, that power has taken a new and ominous turn, as rival hard-line Shiite clerical factions have pushed each other toward ever more militant and anti-American stances, Iraqi and Western officials say."

February 5, 2006: "Hamas taking control of the Palestinian legislature is bad enough, but does Bush have any qualms about Iraq? All those purple fingers waving after voting are a heartening visual but they may bring yet another theocracy, riven by violence and wedded to Iran, which is itself led by a democratically elected radical jihadist pledged to annihilate Israel and us with nuclear weapons."

Interesting
Just curious what is the gradation output from the standard DU round?

What level of radiation does it require to cause mutation.

In fact what level of ambient radiation are we sitting at right now?

You make these claims but everything that I have ever seen shows that the radiation output of a DU round is at or below Iron standard and MUCH below ambient standard

You must have different sources ... I would love to seem them

Here are a handful of sources of varying quality; the last link contains pictures of Iraqi infants deformed because of the exposure of their parents to DU in the first Gulf War and is very disturbing (this is coming from someone who is very difficult to disturb).

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=18948&colonna=&bh=0&l=e

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml

http://www.sfbayview.com/012605/headsroll012605.shtml

http://www.unknownnews.org/050930a-df.html

http://www.mercola.com/2004/mar/20/gulf_war_babies.htm

http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/1/05542/6088

Here are a handful of sources of varying quality; the last link contains pictures of Iraqi infants deformed because of the exposure of their parents to DU in the first Gulf War and is very disturbing (this is coming from someone who is very difficult to disturb).

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=18948&colonna=&bh=0&l=e

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml

http://www.sfbayview.com/012605/headsroll012605.shtml

http://www.unknownnews.org/050930a-df.html

http://www.mercola.com/2004/mar/20/gulf_war_babies.htm

http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/1/05542/6088


Thank you I will book mark this and go through it :) info is always most appreciated (bah must be the statistician in me ... )

Germany was in an economic crisis after Hitler. The marks were worth nothing. The EU saved Germany.
?!
Here's something you might wanna have a look at:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GermanEconomicMiracle.html
Particularly you need to look at the time. This is all waaaay before the EU, or even the EEC.

I support our [American] troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why?
All of the boys that I know are over there in the sand boxes joined up for college money.
They didn't go looking for a war.If your going to flame me, just don't bother.

As I don't have any troops over there, and neither does the country I live in at the moment, I see no reason why I should support them.
After all, their governemnt supports them, doesn't it? Paying their salary and all...

I agree with going into Afghanistan to chase Al Qaeda.

I don't agree with Iraq, it was unjustified, a total waste of human life.

I support our troops in Iraq. I want them home with their families. I consider that to be support way more than wanting them kept there dying in an unnecessary war.

After all, they didn't choose the war, the stupid politicians did.

I support the Coalition Forces in the Middle East.

Absolute (and essentially impossible) best case scenario: after several years decade the risk of a civil war dies down, the infrastructure is rebuilt, American troops withdraw, the Iraqis get a real democracy (incredibly unlikely), and everyone (except the millions of Iraqis who lost family members, their homes, were horribly injured, or were tortured by Americans) is happy that their nation is better than ever and heading in a positive direction. But even in this fantastic scenario the fact remains that their nation is polluted by depleted uranium munitions and tens of millions of Iraqis will suffer from radiation poisoning and their children will be deformed for countless generations.

DU is usefull against armor or as armor. unless the insurgents get tanks or get weapons capable against US tanks (though thermite is easy enough to make, it doesn't seem that the iraqies are using this... ), I don't see the amount of DU in Iraq as going up.

I f-ing hate this question.

Of course I support the actual soldiers; who wouldn't?

Do I agree with the decision to put (and subsequently keep) their lives in danger in Iraq, playing globo-cop and protecting the oil fields from individuals who might not do what we [read: America] want them to?

NO.

I support our [American] troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why?
All of the boys that I know are over there in the sand boxes joined up for college money.
They didn't go looking for a war.If your going to flame me, just don't bother.
I hardly feel sorry for them though

Dont get me wrong I support our troops but if they did not know that joining the military could lead to fighting ...

They could have gone through collage without the millitary ... I did and am

i don't support them they aren't mine. they 'belong' to the state that controls my country. i don't support the state so i don't support the troops. okay, it's sad when they get killed or injured or otherwise harmed but that is so for any human being. besides, i'm slightly suspicious of people who join the military or the police force and i think they get what they should expect from it. having said that, one of my best friends is joining the raf, i have tried to dissuade him (not too forcefully obviously cuz he can do what he likes at the end of the day) by pointing out that he'd be killing people who are no less human than him, and as like as not, don't even want to be there, especially when you consider that he'd be in a plane and they'd be on the ground - not much opportunity for fighting back when you're being bombed to pieces.

United States

I completely support our troops who are helping Afghanistan and Iraq in the fight for freedom over former dictatorial regimes... our troops who are chasing terrorists around the globe... our troops who work on defense here at home... and troops elsewhere who help defend us and our allies.

two years ago I took the ASVAB as the first step in going to the Army's Officer Candidate School, and got a 99. But I had asthma as a kid, so I couldn't join.

My country's troops aren't in either of the two aforementioned states- and I'm happy about that.

Afghanistan, I can percieve a justifiable factor as to hy her majesty's forces are present there, however Iraq is an abyss, its populace so evidently incapable of maintaining a semblance of gratitude (entire undeserved gratitude, I digress, since the war is inherently illegal and fallcious), or co-existing with other denominations of Islam, that the country is deserves British blood even less than I originally believed.

Afghanistan, I can percieve a justifiable factor as to hy her majesty's forces are present there, however Iraq is an abyss, its populace so evidently incapable of maintaining a semblance of gratitude (entire undeserved gratitude, I digress, since the war is inherently illegal and fallcious), or co-existing with other denominations of Islam, that the country is deserves British blood even less than I originally believed.

The bolded is 100% false.

United States

I completely support our troops who are helping Afghanistan and Iraq in the fight for freedom over former dictatorial regimes... our troops who are chasing terrorists around the globe... our troops who work on defense here at home... and troops elsewhere who help defend us and our allies.

two years ago I took the ASVAB as the first step in going to the Army's Officer Candidate School, and got a 99. But I had asthma as a kid, so I couldn't join.

Frankly, all I can summon the effort to do is to raise a supremely disdainful and cynical eyebrow.

The bolded is 100% false.
Which? The 'gratitude' bit? Or the 'illegal' bit?

Which? The 'gratitude' bit? Or the 'illegal' bit?

the illegal bit.

the illegal bit.

Really? So replacing Saddam, an essentially ambivalent dictator by his demise, with democracy, is not tantamount to regime change?

Really? So replacing Saddam, an essentially ambivalent dictator by his demise, with democracy, is not tantamount to regime change?

Oh it was regime change but it wasn't illegal.

Oh it was regime change but it wasn't illegal.

selon qui?

selon qui?

English please?

English please?

pourquoi, ce serait plus amusant de parler comme ca.

pourquoi, ce serait plus amusant de parler comme ca.

Please speak english.

Please speak english.

If you do insist.

According to whom, precisely, is the war in Iraq, legal?

If you do insist.

According to whom, precisely, is the war in Iraq, legal?

1) The UN Charter

and

2) Rules of War

If you do insist.

According to whom, precisely, is the war in Iraq, legal?

According to all the Iraqis who showed up to vote for the first time in 50 years.

According to anyone who values freedom.

What a stupid question.

According to all the Iraqis who showed up to vote for the first time in 50 years.

According to anyone who values freedom.

What a stupid question.

Very bad move ingrate.

Firstly, the elections were the first for 25 years, not 50. Moreover, neither your use of freedom nor "oh dont the Iraqi's enjoy democracy" as the central tenets of an argument justify your labelling me stupid, since they are inherently subjective, and are implicit of your support for communismsince the people would want it.

Furthermore, "anyone who values freedom" is ideological, idealistic, spurious bilge propogated by those bereft of other arguments. Is coalition control, with its according abuses, an exponential rise in militancy, and sectarian infighting, freedom? I would contend other wise. Were you to truly respect the freedom of Iraq, and its autonomy that is implicit in freedom, the invasion would not have been conducted, or is freedom that tenuous, idealistis american concept therein that is imposed upon the autonomy of others, akin to Germany in 1918, due to your conviction in its superiority?

1) The UN Charter

and

2) Rules of War

BBC news contends otherwise, and has done so since 2003, however I will accept what you assert in the face of a lack of personal resources.

BBC news contends otherwise, and has done so since 2003, however I will accept what you assert in the face of a lack of personal resources.

Well BBC ran a foul of the RN. It was pulled from the flagship of the British navy. I wouldn't exactly call them unbias.

Very bad move ingrate.

Firstly, the elections were the first for 25 years, not 50. Moreover, neither your use of freedom nor "oh dont the Iraqi's enjoy democracy" as the central tenets of an argument justify your labelling me stupid, since they are inherently subjective, and are implicit of your support for communismsince the people would want it.

Furthermore, "anyone who values freedom" is ideological, idealistic, spurious bilge propogated by those bereft of other arguments. Is coalition control, with its according abuses, an exponential rise in militancy, and sectarian infighting, freedom? I would contend other wise. Were you to truly respect the freedom of Iraq, and its autonomy that is implicit in freedom, the invasion would not have been conducted, or is freedom that tenuous, idealistis american concept therein that is imposed upon the autonomy of others, akin to Germany in 1918, due to your conviction in its superiority?

touchy touchy!

fact: THEY WEREN'T FREE UNDER SADDAM. We've given them freedom, in the form of a DEMOCRATIC ELECTION. The democratic election allows them to elect their own leaders, one of the central tenets of liberty.

fact: Sorry, but a dictatorial regime does not equate to freedom. Once again, it's obvious that Iraqis wanted to vote for their own leaders, that most of them didn't want to have to endure Saddam's murdering/torturous regime any longer. Turnout was high despite the threat of terrorist snipers sighting them at the polls.

fact: I didn't label you stupid. I labeled your question stupid. How could you possibly think that there was not justification for removing both the Taliban and Saddam? Cripes.

If your against the war, your against the troops. And your un-American and I shall spit at your feet. God bless America

touchy touchy!

fact: THEY WEREN'T FREE UNDER SADDAM. We've given them freedom, in the form of a DEMOCRATIC ELECTION. The democratic election allows them to elect their own leaders, one of the central tenets of liberty.

fact: Sorry, but a dictatorial regime does not equate to freedom. Once again, it's obvious that Iraqis wanted to vote for their own leaders, that most of them didn't want to have to endure Saddam's murdering/torturous regime any longer. Turnout was high despite the threat of terrorist snipers sighting them at the polls.

fact: I didn't label you stupid. I labeled your question stupid. How could you possibly think that there was not justification for removing both the Taliban and Saddam? Cripes.

excellent post

to add to that, has anyone seen the video of the American troops/Iraqi people pulling down the large statue of Saddam Hussein?

If you can comprehend people's emotions, it appeared to me that the Iraqi people were "happy" that Saddam was out of power. In the video, the Iraqi people all stamped on the statue, destroying it.

Not only does that proove the people were indeed happy Saddam was gone, but the huge election turn out prooves that the people of Iraq approve of the new democracy. Maybe if NO ONE voted, than you can bitch at us. But since the Iraqi elections had a bigger turnout than most western democracies, nations such as Canada should start looking at Iraq for lessons in democracy(Canada has a crappy voter turnout).

Personally, I don't support any troops, anywhere.
There are enough war mongers out there who do it for me.

If your against the war, your against the troops. And your un-American and I shall spit at your feet. God bless America

You may want to indecate the satire

I understood that it was but some others may not understand that you were playing to satire rather then just being that dim witted

DU is usefull against armor or as armor. unless the insurgents get tanks or get weapons capable against US tanks (though thermite is easy enough to make, it doesn't seem that the iraqies are using this... ), I don't see the amount of DU in Iraq as going up.

You are correct in that DU is designed for use against armor and is extremely useful in that regard; but we use it fairly indiscriminately so it is going up.

I'm supporting the troops being there, although they need to be back home on our cosy little island.

is Harper an Isolationist?

excellent post

to add to that, has anyone seen the video of the American troops/Iraqi people pulling down the large statue of Saddam Hussein?

If you can comprehend people's emotions, it appeared to me that the Iraqi people were "happy" that Saddam was out of power. In the video, the Iraqi people all stamped on the statue, destroying it.

Not only does that proove the people were indeed happy Saddam was gone, but the huge election turn out prooves that the people of Iraq approve of the new democracy. Maybe if NO ONE voted, than you can bitch at us. But since the Iraqi elections had a bigger turnout than most western democracies, nations such as Canada should start looking at Iraq for lessons in democracy(Canada has a crappy voter turnout).

The toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein wasn't a spontaneous reaction of the Iraqi people, but rather was staged by the US military to look like such:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0703-02.htm

Of course most people would rather be able to vote for their leaders than have a dictator if all else is equal; but all is not equal in this case. As previously stated, not only did we kill over 100,000 civilians we horribly injured far more and made millions homeless. I highly doubt the people who lost family members, were horribly injured, or who lost their homes are happier now. And because of our intervention Iraq is now on the brink of a civil war. I highly doubt, based on the precedent set by the numerous other cases of US military intervention and regeime change since the beginning of the Cold War that their new government will be anything other than a puppet. And we have polluted their nation with DU. Check my previous post (I think it is around #99) and click on the bottom link to see the pictures of the infants deformed because of their parent's exposure of DU we have used and realize that this will persist for countless millenia; after seeing this do you honestly believe we have done the right thing?

I dont support the cause (or at least not strongly). I support the soldiers who are of my country and fight because they ordered to.

The toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein wasn't a spontaneous reaction of the Iraqi people, but rather was staged by the US military to look like such:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0703-02.htm

Of course most people would rather be able to vote for their leaders than have a dictator if all else is equal; but all is not equal in this case. As previously stated, not only did we kill over 100,000 civilians we horribly injured far more and made millions homeless. I highly doubt the people who lost family members, were horribly injured, or who lost their homes are happier now. And because of our intervention Iraq is now on the brink of a civil war. I highly doubt, based on the precedent set by the numerous other cases of US military intervention and regeime change since the beginning of the Cold War that their new government will be anything other than a puppet. And we have polluted their nation with DU. Check my previous post (I think it is around #99) and click on the bottom link to see the pictures of the infants deformed because of their parent's exposure of DU we have used and realize that this will persist for countless millenia; after seeing this do you honestly believe we have done the right thing?

newsflash: freedom doesn't come without loss

How many of those "100,000" civilians were really insurgents/terrorists?

newsflash: freedom doesn't come without loss

How many of those "100,000" civilians were really insurgents/terrorists?
And we not them decided that loss was "acceptable"

How condecending of us

And we not them decided that loss was "acceptable"

How condecending of us

how are the insurgents/terrorists counted? If they're being counted as civilians, then subtract the number of those deaths from the actual "peaceful" civilian count.

like the other dude said, if Iraqis didn't like the opportunity to vote, they wouldn't have shown up en masse to do it under extremely difficult circumstances.

I suppose Americans who lost loved ones during the Revolutionary War felt sorrow at their loss, but considering all the freedom gained by our victory over Great Britain (or was it just England at that time?), most Americans today would proably say that the loss was worth it for all the freedom we enjoy today. Hopefully Iraqis will one day be able to look back on their civilian losses in the same vein.

I support the German troops in the Balkans and in Afghanistan. Glad we stayed out of Iraq.

According to all the Iraqis who showed up to vote for the first time in 50 years.

According to anyone who values freedom.

What a stupid question.

tell me please, why is the US trying establish a democracy this time, as opposed to the numerious times in the last centry that the US has claimed to be establishing democracys but in all fact was just installing puppet dictator's who where freindly with US corperations.

1) The UN Charter

and

2) Rules of War
Still coming up with the wrong answers huh?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9047205&postcount=219

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9034289&postcount=177

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9919777&postcount=116

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9451390&postcount=258

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10319622&postcount=80

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9853402&postcount=129

The above covers your claims of legality plus your poor attempt at the ceasefire excuse, but the one below really shows your true colours.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9859455&postcount=191

Carry on if you must......

touchy touchy!

fact: THEY WEREN'T FREE UNDER SADDAM. We've given them freedom, in the form of a DEMOCRATIC ELECTION. The democratic election allows them to elect their own leaders, one of the central tenets of liberty.

fact: Sorry, but a dictatorial regime does not equate to freedom. Once again, it's obvious that Iraqis wanted to vote for their own leaders, that most of them didn't want to have to endure Saddam's murdering/torturous regime any longer. Turnout was high despite the threat of terrorist snipers sighting them at the polls.

fact: I didn't label you stupid. I labeled your question stupid. How could you possibly think that there was not justification for removing both the Taliban and Saddam? Cripes.

first off, you're only as free as you are willing to assert yourself. a fair statement would be "all free people under Sadam were either dead or getting there in quick haste", but to say no one was free is stupid. Furthermore, look at the time frame inwhich Sadam received US/CIA support, aid and explict endorsement and compare that to the timeframe inwhich Sadam committed all of his most heinious actions. As far as I can tell, the gassing of kurds is just like the mercinary slaves in Africa, they capture some 12-14 yr old boy and make him kill his family so that if they ever try getting out of line they then always have something they can hold against them. though there are numerious flaws with this comparison (US threatens direct military reprisal for getting out of line, slave-master threatens having no one else to go too because killing your family generally makes you social reject), it's fairly anaologous.

and most Iraqies, according to exit polls, thought that "get the fuck out my country" was going to be on the ballot and were intending to vote for such option; besides that (for the first election atleast) people where told that welfare would be withheld from those who did not vote, which essentially qualifys there voting as PR/phyce op

excellent post

to add to that, has anyone seen the video of the American troops/Iraqi people pulling down the large statue of Saddam Hussein?

If you can comprehend people's emotions, it appeared to me that the Iraqi people were "happy" that Saddam was out of power. In the video, the Iraqi people all stamped on the statue, destroying it.

Not only does that proove the people were indeed happy Saddam was gone, but the huge election turn out prooves that the people of Iraq approve of the new democracy. Maybe if NO ONE voted, than you can bitch at us. But since the Iraqi elections had a bigger turnout than most western democracies, nations such as Canada should start looking at Iraq for lessons in democracy(Canada has a crappy voter turnout).

besides my last post, the Ukraines once welcomed Hitler as a liberator too. But then, they relized that Hitler was no better then Stalin and started shooting nazi's.

newsflash: freedom doesn't come without loss

How many of those "100,000" civilians were really insurgents/terrorists?

define "insurgent"

define "terrorist"


if a person kicks in your door at 2 in the morning, you've got every fucking right to shoot them in the fucking face, I don't care "why" they're there. even if the assulting party is justifyed, a person is also justifyed in defending themselfs, with lethal force, against an unidentifed armed assailent. but as in many cases that armed assailent is not justifed in there midnight raids, even more so the person defending him/her-self, family and home is fully rightious to shoot there bitch ass in the face. Are they are "terrorist/insurgent" for shooting a person invading there home?

I suppose Americans who lost loved ones during the Revolutionary War felt sorrow at their loss, but considering all the freedom gained by our victory over Great Britain (or was it just England at that time?), most Americans today would proably say that the loss was worth it for all the freedom we enjoy today. Hopefully Iraqis will one day be able to look back on their civilian losses in the same vein.
At least it was US making the decision we wanted freedom ...

touchy touchy!

fact: THEY WEREN'T FREE UNDER SADDAM. We've given them freedom, in the form of a DEMOCRATIC ELECTION. The democratic election allows them to elect their own leaders, one of the central tenets of liberty.

fact: Sorry, but a dictatorial regime does not equate to freedom. Once again, it's obvious that Iraqis wanted to vote for their own leaders, that most of them didn't want to have to endure Saddam's murdering/torturous regime any longer. Turnout was high despite the threat of terrorist snipers sighting them at the polls.

fact: I didn't label you stupid. I labeled your question stupid. How could you possibly think that there was not justification for removing both the Taliban and Saddam? Cripes.

Firstly, Cripes is not a literary term. Learn to write.

Secondly, one can contend that, irrespective of a democracy that was, undeniably, imposed upon Iraq, their liberties are less than under Saddam for the most part. Militia violence, sectarian violence and crime has increased considerably, one can hardly contend that the coalition is in control of Iraq, and it is a proven fact that less Iraqis would have died since 2003, and less western aid workers, had Saddam remained in power. However, since Iraq is no democratic, the slaughter of thousands in what is tantamount to an underclared civil war is uperflouos no?

At least it was US making the decision we wanted freedom ...

But isn't that irrelevant, try informing such jingoistic ingrates that autonomy is generally complicit to freedom.

first off, you're only as free as you are willing to assert yourself. a fair statement would be "all free people under Sadam were either dead or getting there in quick haste", but to say no one was free is stupid. Furthermore, look at the time frame inwhich Sadam received US/CIA support, aid and explict endorsement and compare that to the timeframe inwhich Sadam committed all of his most heinious actions. As far as I can tell, the gassing of kurds is just like the mercinary slaves in Africa, they capture some 12-14 yr old boy and make him kill his family so that if they ever try getting out of line they then always have something they can hold against them. though there are numerious flaws with this comparison (US threatens direct military reprisal for getting out of line, slave-master threatens having no one else to go too because killing your family generally makes you social reject), it's fairly anaologous.

and most Iraqies, according to exit polls, thought that "get the fuck out my country" was going to be on the ballot and were intending to vote for such option; besides that (for the first election atleast) people where told that welfare would be withheld from those who did not vote, which essentially qualifys there voting as PR/phyce op

which people were free under saddam? Ba'athists?

How many Ba'athists are there? If the total Sunni population comprises about 25% of the total population of Iraq, and the Ba'athists are a sub-set of all Sunnis, then we're talking about a very small favored population.


as for going back to when we supported Saddam:

a) We helped him so that he could defeat Iran

and

b)We did not say, "Here, Saddam, use these weapons to murder innocent women and children among the Shi'a and Kurd populations of your own state." Cripes.

*snip*

:rolleyes:

CanuckHeaven! We already established you know nothing about the rules of war. So why don't you leave that debate to those who actually know it?

which people were free under saddam? Ba'athists?

How many Ba'athists are there? If the total Sunni population comprises about 25% of the total population of Iraq, and the Ba'athists are a sub-set of all Sunnis, then we're talking about a very small favored population.


as for going back to when we supported Saddam:

a) We helped him so that he could defeat Iran

and

b)We did not say, "Here, Saddam, use these weapons to murder innocent women and children among the Shi'a and Kurd populations of your own state." Cripes.

Stop using "Cripes", it is thoroughly objectionable and juvenile.

besides my last post, the Ukraines once welcomed Hitler as a liberator too. But then, they relized that Hitler was no better then Stalin and started shooting nazi's.

Well if the Nazis didn't do what they were doing to the Ukrainians, they wouldn't have fought against the Nazis. Besides, there were another group of Ukrainians who were fighting both the Nazis and the Russians.

:rolleyes:

CanuckHeaven! We already established you know nothing about the rules of war. So why don't you leave that debate to those who actually know it?

but Corneliu, don't you know that there must be 100% world backing in order to bring down a brutal dictator and help establish a democratic form of government? Otherwise, it's illegal! It's illegal to take down people like Saddam.

But isn't that irrelevant, try informing such jingoistic ingrates that autonomy is generally complicit to freedom.
They deffinatly would like to believe it is

Stop using "Cripes", it is thoroughly objectionable and juvenile.

Cripes, quit bitching about my manner if including emotion. hehe

define "insurgent"

One who fights the government by going after government and military facilities.

define "terrorist"

One who targets civilians indiscriminately.

if a person kicks in your door at 2 in the morning, you've got every fucking right to shoot them in the fucking face, I don't care "why" they're there.

Unless they are cops then I wouldn't recommend this

even if the assulting party is justifyed, a person is also justifyed in defending themselfs, with lethal force, against an unidentifed armed assailent. but as in many cases that armed assailent is not justifed in there midnight raids, even more so the person defending him/her-self, family and home is fully rightious to shoot there bitch ass in the face. Are they are "terrorist/insurgent" for shooting a person invading there home?

Its called defending your home unless of course the person in there was guilty of bombing civilians on purpose then he's still a terrorist.

:rolleyes:

CanuckHeaven! We already established you know nothing about the rules of war. So why don't you leave that debate to those who actually know it?
I guess it is easier to just dismiss arguments rather then actually deal with them.

but Corneliu, don't you know that there must be 100% world backing in order to bring down a brutal dictator and help establish a democratic form of government? Otherwise, it's illegal! It's illegal to take down people like Saddam.

Despite the violations of the Cease-fire I know.

I guess it is easier to just dismiss arguments rather then actually deal with them.

I've dealt with his arguements before. I just don't feel like going in circles so I just cut him off before then.

I guess it is easier to just dismiss arguments rather then actually deal with them.
Standard stuff for the Cornman. :D

I've dealt with his arguements before. I just don't feel like going in circles so I just cut him off before then.
So then the answer would be yes :p

Standard stuff for the Cornman. :D

As opposed to your standard stuff. We beat this to death.

:rolleyes:

CanuckHeaven! We already established you know nothing about the rules of war. So why don't you leave that debate to those who actually know it?
And your rules of war includes carpet bombing the Iraqis and shooting prisoners in the back of the head. Those are acceptable. :rolleyes:

Cripes, quit bitching about my manner if including emotion. hehe

Me no speako Dago. Please write in English, it does make matters easier.

And your rules of war includes carpet bombing the Iraqis and shooting prisoners in the back of the head. Those are acceptable. :rolleyes:

Carpet bombing? Where did that come from? As for the prisoners, nice job of twisting what I said. Shoot the illegal combatents in the head. Summary execution is legal.

One who fights the government by going after government and military facilities.

One who targets civilians indiscriminately.

Unless they are cops then I wouldn't recommend this

Its called defending your home unless of course the person in there was guilty of bombing civilians on purpose then he's still a terrorist.

We are not the government in Iraq, but rather occupiers so using that definition the Iraqis who fight are troops are not insurgents. Using your definition of terrorists, the Iraqis are not terrorists since they do discriminate in what civilians they targets; unlike us when we bomb cities. For the fourth point; it has already been admitted that over 75% of the prisoners held in Abu Grahib were innocent so it is safe to say that an even higher percentage of the people who have their houses broken into by our military our innocent.

:rolleyes:

CanuckHeaven! We already established you know nothing about the rules of war. So why don't you leave that debate to those who actually know it?

Canuckheaven made it quite clear that you have no idea about what you are talking about.

which people were free under saddam? Ba'athists?

How many Ba'athists are there? If the total Sunni population comprises about 25% of the total population of Iraq, and the Ba'athists are a sub-set of all Sunnis, then we're talking about a very small favored population.


as for going back to when we supported Saddam:

a) We helped him so that he could defeat Iran

and

b)We did not say, "Here, Saddam, use these weapons to murder innocent women and children among the Shi'a and Kurd populations of your own state." Cripes.

uhm... the CIA supplyed the intell saying that the Kurdish city housed many military deserters & Irani infultrators and was planning insurrection, the US supplyed the chemical weapons, and the CIA encouraged the solution.

and your response in regards to "who was free" doesn't address anything I said. But, some anarchist were free cause they had the balls to assert as much, they got killed quickly, but they were free for awhile.

furthermore, there's been numerious instances that Sadam could of fallen; in the 70's and 80's it was (state-)communist and anarchist, who the US supplyed Sadam with weapons and intelligence so that he could kill them, then in 91 the US carpet bombed an Iraqi battalion marching on Bagdad; and furthermore the only Iraqi aircraft allowed were helicopters, which provided Baddad with the means of counter-insurrection.

Canuckheaven made it quite clear that you have no idea about what you are talking about.
He just goes by the premises America is always right and don't you dare disagree with me.

Well if the Nazis didn't do what they were doing to the Ukrainians, they wouldn't have fought against the Nazis. Besides, there were another group of Ukrainians who were fighting both the Nazis and the Russians.

huh? Abu grhaib? DU? anti-labor policys? giving jobs to forign contractors? white people who don't know more then a few phrases of Arabic patrolling residential streets with assult rifels and humvees? extrodinary rendition? access to US media that plainly turns everything into a PR stunt and consistently protrays arab's as savages?

let me que you in on something..... Sadam:Stalin::Iraq:Ukrain::US:Germany.

sure, there are people who fought both Stalin and Hitler, as there as MANY people in Iraq who didn't like Sadam and don't want the US.

Carpet bombing? Where did that come from? As for the prisoners, nice job of twisting what I said. Shoot the illegal combatents in the head. Summary execution is legal.
Short memory huh?

Frankly, I would've carpet bombed the nation and then send in the military forces.

Once you have captured a prisoner and disarm them, it does not give you the right to execute them, unless you use Corneliu's "rules of war"?

If I capture someone, who has a gun and was using it to shoot at me, then he is no longer protected. He is considered an illegal and I'll put a bullet through the back of skull.
Bolding is mine but the words are yours. :(

but Corneliu, don't you know that there must be 100% world backing in order to bring down a brutal dictator and help establish a democratic form of government? Otherwise, it's illegal! It's illegal to take down people like Saddam.

... once again, Sadam exhibited the greatest brutality while a US puppet, and the US repeatively hampered attempts to oust Sadam up untill the US had positioned itself properly to be the one to take controll upon his dethrowning. Furtheremore, look at US history. the US invaded Cuba several times inbetween 1900 and 1950, each time under the guise of "democracy" and each time leaving either: a dictator, or alternatively a democracy that is scared by US troop pressense into "falling in line" with US policys.

One who fights the government by going after government and military facilities.

alright, agreeable


One who targets civilians indiscriminately.

alright, agreeable... but you weren't presenting the argument I was debasing, and that is the "terrorist/insurgent" which presents them as synonomus, when they are not.


Unless they are cops then I wouldn't recommend this

but it's justified if it's a soilder?


Its called defending your home unless of course the person in there was guilty of bombing civilians on purpose then he's still a terrorist.

alright, he's still a terrorist. but that's seperate from defending there home.

According to all the Iraqis who showed up to vote for the first time in 50 years.

According to anyone who values freedom.

What a stupid question.
You're mixing up the word "legal" with "right".

Well BBC ran a foul of the RN. It was pulled from the flagship of the British navy. I wouldn't exactly call them unbias.
I don't think that's enough proof to write them off. The BBC is famed for accuracy and lack of bias. It's more likely that the Naval commander who made that decision felt that the BBC was insufficiently biased in favour of the war.

Personally, I don't support any troops, anywhere.
There are enough war mongers out there who do it for me.
What about the peacekeeping kind?

newsflash: freedom doesn't come without loss

How many of those "100,000" civilians were really insurgents/terrorists?
Good question, why not research and answer it yourself?

(BTW, only 30,000 civilians have been killed. The 100,000 figure is not true.)

how are the insurgents/terrorists counted? If they're being counted as civilians, then subtract the number of those deaths from the actual "peaceful" civilian count.
You don't even know how many insurgents are in that figure. For all you know it could be less than 5%.

I really think you should leave the pro-war arguments to the likes of me and Corneliu. Your posts are devoid of logic, reason and depend on emotional rants about abstract notions of "freedom".

We are not the government in Iraq, but rather occupiers so using that definition the Iraqis who fight are troops are not insurgents. Using your definition of terrorists, the Iraqis are not terrorists since they do discriminate in what civilians they targets; unlike us when we bomb cities.

Your right. We are not the government. The Iraqis are the government. I don't see them going after the government much. I see them hitting civilians alot though. Guess what? because they are, they are losing their case. They are turning the Iraqis against them.

Canuckheaven made it quite clear that you have no idea about what you are talking about.

I do know what I'm talking about. Unlike CH who uses opinions of politicians, I actually base my arguements on facts.

(BTW, only 30,000 civilians have been killed. The 100,000 figure is not true.)



Is that so?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html

http://iraqmortality.org/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6596

I could find more sources; and considering that these are from autumn of 2004 they are certainly much higher by now.

He just goes by the premises America is always right and don't you dare disagree with me.

Actually, I am not. When America screws up, I make sure my voice is heard against it.

huh? Abu grhaib? DU? anti-labor policys? giving jobs to forign contractors? white people who don't know more then a few phrases of Arabic patrolling residential streets with assult rifels and humvees? extrodinary rendition? access to US media that plainly turns everything into a PR stunt and consistently protrays arab's as savages?

This has nothing to do with Nazi Germany.

Actually, I am not. When America screws up, I make sure my voice is heard against it.
The problem is that most screw-ups aren't even recognised by yourself. You put the threshold so low that it is almost impossible for an American to actually do bad enough to get you to make yourself heard.

Short memory huh?

I didn't see conventional bombs falling. I saw alot of precision guided munitions falling on Fallujha so care to point out the carpet bombing?

Once you have captured a prisoner and disarm them, it does not give you the right to execute them, unless you use Corneliu's "rules of war"?

If they are an illegal combatent it does. If they were a soldier fighting for an actual nation and wearing the uniform of that nation or wearing an insignia then that is different. But if they are not wearing any of those things....

alright, agreeable

Good

alright, agreeable...

Good.

but you weren't presenting the argument I was debasing, and that is the "terrorist/insurgent" which presents them as synonomus, when they are not.

You said to define an insurgent and to define a terrorist. That is precisely what I did.

but it's justified if it's a soilder?

If the dude has a gun, do as instructed and odds are you'll live to see another day.

alright, he's still a terrorist. but that's seperate from defending there home.

Is it?

This has nothing to do with Nazi Germany.

Yes it does in that just as the acts commited by the Nazis against the Ukranians caused the Ukranians to fight the Nazis; the acts (some of which he named)commited by America against Iraq cause some Iraqis to fight Americans.

The problem is that most screw-ups aren't even recognised by yourself. You put the threshold so low that it is almost impossible for an American to actually do bad enough to get you to make yourself heard.

When Abu Grahb went down, I was calling for the heads of those who were doing it.

I do speak up when America does wrong.. Just because I don't do it here on the forums doesn't make it any less true.

Yes it does in that just as the acts commited by the Nazis against the Ukranians caused the Ukranians to fight the Nazis; the acts (some of which he named)commited by America against Iraq cause some Iraqis to fight Americans.

And unlike Nazi germany, We punish those that break the law.

What about the peacekeeping kind?

the what kind?


(BTW, only 30,000 civilians have been killed. The 100,000 figure is not true.)

30,000 is a body count, the 100,000 figure is extrapolated. As history tells us that bombing campaigns often kill shit loads of people, and not many of the sites bombed in the early phase of war were tooken taken control of immediately to conduct a proper body count, such extrapolated data is nessicary. Though the figure does have a 5% chance of being more then 25% off (hence, there's a 95% chance that the actual number is somewhere between 75,000 and 125,000 and 5 percent chance of number being between 15,000 and 75,000 or greater then 125,000... though all these numbers are old, and the current tolls are something like 30,000 confirmed dead and 125,000-200,000 estimated dead.

If they are an illegal combatent it does. If they were a soldier fighting for an actual nation and wearing the uniform of that nation or wearing an insignia then that is different. But if they are not wearing any of those things....

According to the fourth geneva convention unlawful combatants do have all of the rights of lawful combatants.

According to the fourth geneva convention unlawful combatants do have all of the rights of lawful combatants.

Actually they don't. Only if we decide to accept their surrender do they have that. We don't have to accept their surrender.

When Abu Grahb went down, I was calling for the heads of those who were doing it.
But when suggestions are made that this could also have to do with organisational culture in the military, with ambiguous orders and failure in the training process, you disagree. And it's not like Abu Ghraib was the only incident of servicemen and -women misbehaving, whether it be triggerhappiness, cultural insensitivity, stealing life savings from ordinary Iraqis, people dying in custody in Afghanistan and so on and so forth.

I mean, every single organisation influences the behaviour of the people in it. Especially the military. Organisational culture is a huge area of management literature. Every manager spends ages working on that sort of thing. Everything that happens in an organisation is analysed from a culture-point of view.

And now all of a sudden all these things had nothing to do with it? Sorry, but I don't follow.

There is something wrong with the culture of the US military, and the sooner people drop the "support the troops", the sooner it can be recognised and fixed.

And unlike Nazi germany, We punish those that break the law.

The act that we commited that was in violation of the law (other than the war itself) was Abu Grahib and the similar prisons. As far as punishing goes, we selected a handful of scapegoats and pretended it wasn't sanctioned by the officers.

Actually they don't. Only if we decide to accept their surrender do they have that. We don't have to accept their surrender.

Where the hell do you get that?

This has nothing to do with Nazi Germany.

Stalin surpress and abuses Ukraines.
Nazi Germany invades the Ukrain
Nazi Germany is welcomed with open arms by Ukraines.
Nazi Germany pissed off Ukraines.
Ukraines start attacking Nazi Germans.

Sadam surpress and abuses Iraqi's.
US troops Invades Iraq.
US troops are welcomed with open arms by Iraqies.
US troops start pissing of Iraqies
Iraqies start attacking US troops.

I didn't see conventional bombs falling. I saw alot of precision guided munitions falling on Fallujha so care to point out the carpet bombing?

dropping 2000 lbs bombs in densely populated residential neigborhoods. not carpet bombing, but doesn't matter when non-combatants and combatants are packed so close.


If they are an illegal combatent it does. If they were a soldier fighting for an actual nation and wearing the uniform of that nation or wearing an insignia then that is different. But if they are not wearing any of those things....

a nation is a cultrual entity, by such a deffintion no US troops are legal combatants, as the US is a politcal entity.

If the dude has a gun, do as instructed and odds are you'll live to see another day.

so it's a tactical issue, not a moral/ethical issue? if you have the firepower to get away with it, cap his ass. otherwise, wait untill he's not looking?

Where the hell do you get that?

You don't have to accept the surrender.

so it's a tactical issue, not a moral/ethical issue? if you have the firepower to get away with it, cap his ass. otherwise, wait untill he's not looking?

At the dead of night, with armed guns, pointing at me, the last thing I'm going to do is make a move.

Where the hell do you get that?
You see, when people throw away their weapons and walk up to you with their hands in the air, you just shoot them. It's just easier that way.

Yes it does in that just as the acts commited by the Nazis against the Ukranians caused the Ukranians to fight the Nazis; the acts (some of which he named)commited by America against Iraq cause some Iraqis to fight Americans.

and only one of the things I mentioned is illegal.

Stalin surpress and abuses Ukraines.
Nazi Germany invades the Ukrain
Nazi Germany is welcomed with open arms by Ukraines.
Nazi Germany pissed off Ukraines.
Ukraines start attacking Nazi Germans.

Yep and Some ukrainians were fighting both the Russians and the Nazis as well. Don't forget that tidbit.

Sadam surpress and abuses Iraqi's.
US troops Invades Iraq.
US troops are welcomed with open arms by Iraqies.
US troops start pissing of Iraqies
Iraqies start attacking US troops.

When did we start to piss off the Iraqis? Also, last I checked, terrorists were detonating car bombs in market places, killing iraqi CIVILIANS!!! More of these types of attacks while IED explosions have gone down. Why is that?

At the dead of night, with armed guns, pointing at me, the last thing I'm going to do is make a move.

so.... just snipe his ass a couple days later?

dropping 2000 lbs bombs in densely populated residential neigborhoods. not carpet bombing, but doesn't matter when non-combatants and combatants are packed so close.

Then you used the wrong phrase. No wonder I was getting confused.

a nation is a cultrual entity, by such a deffintion no US troops are legal combatants, as the US is a politcal entity.

Oh brother.

so.... just snipe his ass a couple days later?

What scenerio are you talking about now?

Stalin surpress and abuses Ukraines.
Nazi Germany invades the Ukrain
Nazi Germany is welcomed with open arms by Ukraines.
Nazi Germany pissed off Ukraines.
Ukraines start attacking Nazi Germans.

Sadam surpress and abuses Iraqi's.
US troops Invades Iraq.
US troops are welcomed with open arms by Iraqies.
US troops start pissing of Iraqies
Iraqies start attacking US troops.

But the Nazi's were sending Ukraines to death camps, killing them in masses, and using undemocratic means to destroy the people. Not to mention the Nazi's killed over 12 million people in these camps in perhaps 5 or less years.

USA has killed thousands of people, mostly due to mistakes and stupidity, and not because they think the Iraqi's are not racially pure. The USA has enforced a democracy in Iraq, and they don't have death camps.

Yep and Some ukrainians were fighting both the Russians and the Nazis as well. Don't forget that tidbit.



When did we start to piss off the Iraqis? Also, last I checked, terrorists were detonating car bombs in market places, killing iraqi CIVILIANS!!! More of these types of attacks while IED explosions have gone down. Why is that?
For your information: These 'terrorists' are Iraqi civilians.

Much support/full support

For your information: These 'terrorists' are Iraqi civilians.

They are still terrorists and why are they going after their fellow countrymen?

The USA has enforced a democracy in Iraq, and they don't have death camps.
Not that it actually matters. In the eyes of many Iraqis, the Americans have done wrong. Some of them are convinced enough to go and fight them.

And again some are fundamentalists who are willing to join extremist groups like Zarqawi's, and blow up anyone if it fits a political purpose. Because, to be honest, they aren't losing. Zarqawi doesn't want the Iraqis on his side. He doesn't want an Iraq full stop. If civil war breaks out (and for a few days tensions have been pretty severe after those mosque attacks), Iraq will be an excellent replacement for Afghanistan, even moreso than it already is. And it will really embarrass the Americans as well.

I find the concern Conservatives have (or pretend to have) for the troops a little whimpish. Can't the troops just buck up and do their job? Is it really necessary for me to be all concerned about what I say about the war for fear of hurting the troops feelings? They volunteered to do what they're doing, with the full knowledge (unless they slept through history class and turned a deaf ear to our little wars during the 90's) that they might get involved in a controversial war. What exactly is the problem (not their problem, because I don't think they have a problem)? I find it absolutely vital to say exactly what I think about whether the war is best for America or not, without particular reference to the troops. Their job is to do what they're told, and the same would go for me if I volunteered.

You don't have to accept the surrender.

You already said that, that's why I asked how you came to that conclusion. Is it just that you believe in general that we never have to accept anyones surrendar (which technically is true but is not legal and thus you can't pretend to have some sort of moral high ground) or do you falsely believe that there is some convention or something similar that states that we do not need to accept the surrender of unlawful combatents?

Not that it actually matters. In the eyes of many Iraqis, the Americans have done wrong. Some of them are convinced enough to go and fight them.

Then why are they blowing up their fellow countrymen?

And again some are fundamentalists who are willing to join extremist groups like Zarqawi's, and blow up anyone if it fits a political purpose. Because, to be honest, they aren't losing. Zarqawi doesn't want the Iraqis on his side. He doesn't want an Iraq full stop. If civil war breaks out (and for a few days tensions have been pretty severe after those mosque attacks), Iraq will be an excellent replacement for Afghanistan, even moreso than it already is. And it will really embarrass the Americans as well.

I doubt this will happen.

Yep and Some ukrainians were fighting both the Russians and the Nazis as well. Don't forget that tidbit.

just as there are plenty who opposed Sadam and the continued US presense.


When did we start to piss off the Iraqis? Also, last I checked, terrorists were detonating car bombs in market places, killing iraqi CIVILIANS!!! More of these types of attacks while IED explosions have gone down. Why is that?

UK False-Flag Op (http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=55&p=15926&s2=20)

http://static.flickr.com/30/62613725_7b4e0d9d46_o.jpg

that's a picture of the scene left by a suicide bomber in Jordan. honestly, how many more false-flag op's could there be?... and it's seemed to me, that Iraqi police and military are increasingly being targeted by suicide bombers.

and before this get's circular, re-read the last 2-3 pages....

What scenerio are you talking about now?

guy kicks in your door in the middle of the night. he's got you out gunned so you comply. then when he leaves, you covertly stalk him, get a gun and snipe his ass.

:sniper:

that's a picture of the scene left by a suicide bomber in Jordan. honestly, how many more false-flag op's could there be?... and it's seemed to me, that Iraqi police and military are increasingly being targeted by suicide bombers.

and before this get's circular, re-read the last 2-3 pages....

I remember the jordan bombing done by Zarqawis group. That actually pissed off the arab world.

guy kicks in your door in the middle of the night. he's got you out gunned so you comply. then when he leaves, you covertly stalk him, get a gun and snipe his ass.

:sniper:

Kinda hard to know who it is don't you think?

When did we start to piss off the Iraqis? Also, last I checked, terrorists were detonating car bombs in market places, killing iraqi CIVILIANS!!! More of these types of attacks while IED explosions have gone down. Why is that?

Are you an idiot? We bombed their cities! Of course they are pissed at us. And then after we knocked Saddam out of power we occupied their nation and due more to ignorance, fear, and trigger-happiness than anything else we killed tens of thousands of civilians. Of course alot of them hate us. Yes there are some Iraqi "insurgents" who kill some other Iraqis while attempting to kill our troops or killing Iraqis seen as collaborators. And for some of the killings of Iraqi civillians, I remind you that during the Vietnam war there were occasions in which our soliders killed South Vietnamese civillians and framed the Viet Cong in order to turn public opinion against them; it seems quite likely that the same could be going on today.

Then why are they blowing up their fellow countrymen?
You're smart enough to know that there are all types - those that fight the Americans only, those that just want to protect their communities from both American incursions as well as terror attacks, and those who want to destroy Iraq completely.
All of them have different reasons. None of them are being addressed by US policy.

I doubt this will happen.
You can doubt all you want, but as I see it, Iraq is not calming down. Shi'ites and Sunnis don't like each other all that much, opinion polls seem to suggest that most Iraqis trust religious figures (ie, the things that divide them) more than the government (ie the thing that unites them) and a lot more than the occupying forces.

Unless Sunnis and Shi'ites actually get together and oppose those that want to hurt their country as one, I dismiss claims that "the terrorists are losing" as, well, propaganda.

Kinda hard to know who it is don't you think?

well, soilders are supposed to have name tags on there uniforms, are they not? and, a comanding officer will make an nice subsitute if not tacticly feasible.

Are you an idiot? We bombed their cities! Of course they are pissed at us. And then after we knocked Saddam out of power we occupied their nation and due more to ignorance, fear, and trigger-happiness than anything else we killed tens of thousands of civilians. Of course alot of them hate us. Yes there are some Iraqi "insurgents" who kill some other Iraqis while attempting to kill our troops or killing Iraqis seen as collaborators. And for some of the killings of Iraqi civillians, I remind you that during the Vietnam war there were occasions in which our soliders killed South Vietnamese civillians and framed the Viet Cong in order to turn public opinion against them; it seems quite likely that the same could be going on today.

1) no I am not an idiot.

2) Those that are blowing up their own people are a minority.

3) Majority of Iraqis are glad Saddam is gone.

I remember the jordan bombing done by Zarqawis group. That actually pissed off the arab world.

the hole is in the ceiling.

2) Those that are blowing up their own people are a minority.

but, there are still plenty explictly targeting cops/soilders of both the US and Iraq. and they have popular support.


3) Majority of Iraqis are glad Saddam is gone.

which is an issue entirely seperate of rather or not the US troops are welcome.

You're smart enough to know that there are all types - those that fight the Americans only, those that just want to protect their communities from both American incursions as well as terror attacks, and those who want to destroy Iraq completely.
All of them have different reasons. None of them are being addressed by US policy.

Yes there are different groups of people but those that make the news more are those that kill iraqi civilians and trying to cause a Civil War. I don't think a Civil War is likely though it was a close call and might've been just the trigger to get the Sunnis onboard. They are talking again so this should be interesting to watch.

You can doubt all you want, but as I see it, Iraq is not calming down. Shi'ites and Sunnis don't like each other all that much, opinion polls seem to suggest that most Iraqis trust religious figures (ie, the things that divide them) more than the government (ie the thing that unites them) and a lot more than the occupying forces.

And your surprised by this how? I also have to ask who conducted the poll and who they polled.

Unless Sunnis and Shi'ites actually get together and oppose those that want to hurt their country as one, I dismiss claims that "the terrorists are losing" as, well, propaganda.

Well you can start to believe it because it looks like that mosque attack has gotten the Sunnis and shi'ites to talk about government.

but, there are still plenty explictly targeting cops/soilders of both the US and Iraq. and they have popular support.

Actually, no they don't.


which is an issue entirely seperate of rather or not the US troops are welcome.

It isn't seperate issue. They are glad that he is gone and if they didn't welcome democracy then why was there a 60% voter turnout in their elections?

But the Nazi's were sending Ukraines to death camps, killing them in masses, and using undemocratic means to destroy the people. Not to mention the Nazi's killed over 12 million people in these camps in perhaps 5 or less years.

USA has killed thousands of people, mostly due to mistakes and stupidity, and not because they think the Iraqi's are not racially pure. The USA has enforced a democracy in Iraq, and they don't have death camps.

uhm... the methods used to piss off the populace is entirely irrelevent. the point is, just because Iraqies welcomed US troops initially, doesn't mean they are still welcome. And, the US doesn't use relevently democractic means to destroy Iraq either.

the hole is in the ceiling.

Yes I can see its the ceiling.

well, soilders are supposed to have name tags on there uniforms, are they not? and, a comanding officer will make an nice subsitute if not tacticly feasible.

The US will not turn lights on in the house. They have what we call flashlights.

And your surprised by this how? I also have to ask who conducted the poll and who they polled.
http://212.58.226.50/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/middle_east_iraqi_opinion_poll/html/1.stm

Well you can start to believe it because it looks like that mosque attack has gotten the Sunnis and shi'ites to talk about government.
It's gotten their politicians to do so. The poll above seems to suggest though that the politicians are not exactly good representatives of the people on the ground.

Actually, no they don't.

a poll conducted by the British Government and leaked to the press reported that 45% of the Iraqi general populace supported the most indiscrimatenate tactics against US troops (suicide bombings), and something like 64% wanted the US out now... somewhere inbetween those two numbers is the percent of Iraqies who support more disciminate targeted attacks against soilders. Furthermore, Basra had only 25% of the population wanting the immediate withdrawl of troops, but that poll was tooken before the false flag op was exposed in august.


It isn't seperate issue. They are glad that he is gone and if they didn't welcome democracy then why was there a 60% voter turnout in their elections?

in the first election.... the occupation threatened to with hold wel-fare from anyone who did not vote, and exit polls reported that the majority of voters believed that "get the fuck out of my country" was going to be on the ballot and intened to vote for such a proposal.

Yes I can see its the ceiling.

and I never knew it was popular for suicide bombers to hide in air ducts.

The US will not turn lights on in the house. They have what we call flashlights.

alright, so comanding officer it is


:officer: :sniper:

a poll conducted by the British Government and leaked to the press reported that 45% of the Iraqi general populace supported the most indiscrimatenate tactics against US troops (suicide bombings), and something like 64% wanted the US out now... somewhere inbetween those two numbers is the percent of Iraqies who support more disciminate targeted attacks against soilders. Furthermore, Basra had only 25% of the population wanting the immediate withdrawl of troops, but that poll was tooken before the false flag op was exposed in august.

Last time I went to school, 45% doesn't not consitute a majority. As for us leaving, I want us out of there too but not until the job is done. And again 25% is not the majority.

in the first election.... the occupation threatened to with hold wel-fare from anyone who did not vote, and exit polls reported that the majority of voters believed that "get the fuck out of my country" was going to be on the ballot and intened to vote for such a proposal.

prove it please.

and I never knew it was popular for suicide bombers to hide in air ducts.

:rolleyes:

Where did this come from?

alright, so comanding officer it is


:officer: :sniper:

Could be a sargent too. However, that doesn't mean that the person will be looking at the name tag. You really have no idea what happens do you?

1) no I am not an idiot.

2) Those that are blowing up their own people are a minority.

3) Majority of Iraqis are glad Saddam is gone.

I realize that those blowing up their own people are an extreme minority and never said otherwise. Likewise I never said that the majority of Iraqis aren't happy that Saddam is gone; but most of them are certainly not happy that we have occupied their nation and bombed their cities.

Yes there are different groups of people but those that make the news more are those that kill iraqi civilians and trying to cause a Civil War. I don't think a Civil War is likely though it was a close call and might've been just the trigger to get the Sunnis onboard. They are talking again so this should be interesting to watch.


Ever think that the reason the extreme minority of "insurgents" who kill other Iraqis are the ones the news focus on because they want to portray the "insurgents" as crazed indiscriminate killers rather than people who are fighting to free their country from foreign occupation?

Ever think that the reason the extreme minority of "insurgents" who kill other Iraqis are the ones the news focus on because they want to portray the "insurgents" as crazed indiscriminate killers rather than people who are fighting to free their country from foreign occupation?

So you are on their side? How the hell is blowing yourself up at a wedding killing children and women of the same national identity going to free your country? It's more like a sad attempt to break up the nation.

Last time I went to school, 45% doesn't not consitute a majority. As for us leaving, I want us out of there too but not until the job is done. And again 25% is not the majority.

uhm.... 45% support the most violent indiscrimante attacks. attacks that only target US troops, are bound to have more support.

and it really depends, are we talking absolute majority or simply majority? and how many options are there?

an actualy article, not just my memory! (http://static.flickr.com/30/62613725_7b4e0d9d46_o.jpg)


prove it please.

proof that Iraq policy is more US PR oriented, then Iraqi liberation oriented. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/)
election blackmail and intimidate -- iraq, afganistand el-savalidor (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Afghan_ESal_Iraq_Elections.html)

:rolleyes:

Where did this come from?

picture (http://static.flickr.com/30/62613725_7b4e0d9d46_o.jpg)

supposedly suicide bomb is in overhead airduct/false ceiling.

Could be a sargent too. However, that doesn't mean that the person will be looking at the name tag. You really have no idea what happens do you?

eh... this forum needs to promote nested quote tags.

uhm.... 45% support the most violent indiscrimante attacks. attacks that only target US troops, are bound to have more support.

I see you are having trouble with numbers. Its ok. We all do.

and it really depends, are we talking absolute majority or simply majority? and how many options are there?

Its not even a simple majority either.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later.

eh... this forum needs to promote nested quote tags.

That's very easy to do.

So you are on their side? How the hell is blowing yourself up at a wedding killing children and women of the same national identity going to free your country? It's more like a sad attempt to break up the nation.

Like I said, the media focuses on those people rather than the majority of the insurgents.

Financially? Morally? What? Define 'support' and I'll give an answer.

I see you are having trouble with numbers. Its ok. We all do.

alright.... can we say "all people who support suicide bombings against soilders want the troops out now and support: IED attacks, attacks with assult rifels/combat shotguns, motar attacks, rocket attacks, etc"

and can we say, that the ratio of people who support indiscriminate attacks that cause alot of unintended (civilian) casualtys to people who support attacks against soilders, but only as long as they are discriminate enough to not kill civialians is probably less then 9:1.

if the ratio were exactly 9:1 it'd be 50% of Iraqies support attacks against soilders, but lets say the ratio is instead 5:1, then 54% of Iraqies support attacks against soilders. if you took the ratio to 2:1, then you'd have 67.5% of Iraqies supporting attacks against soilders.

For your information: These 'terrorists' are Iraqi civilians.
I would say a good number are syrian or jordanian. Also once you attack someones military with weapons you stop being a civilian and become an insurgent. Which means allied forces can shoot you. Thanks for playing

That's very easy to do.

eh.... anyway.

Adam, a member of the Crazy Ass Phycos, kicks in Bens door in the middle of the night, cause Adam got's him out gunned Ben submits. Ben wants revenge and to teach those Crazy Ass Phycos that they can't go kicking in peoples doors and threating them in the middle of the night, but in the night he couldn't identify Adam as anything but just another Crazy Ass Phyco. Ben assumes that Adam, though he doesn't know it was Adam, was an Grunt cause they are usally the one's doing the dirty work. Seeing as Grunts work under the orders of Assholes, or atleast Suboridinate Ass Holes, usally (though Adam could also be a Subordinate Ass Hole, as Subordinate Ass Holes are just better Grunts); he decides that it'd be appropriate to take out his vengence on an Ass Hole in the Crazy Ass Phycos, so Ben finds himself an asshole and stalks him for a week before getting his gun and sniping his ass.

:random Ass Hole: :sniper:

well... right?

I would say a good number are syrian or jordanian. Also once you attack someones military with weapons you stop being a civilian and become an insurgent. Which means allied forces can shoot you. Thanks for playing

uhm.... no, if you come into my house; if you don't leave when told to, I get to shoot you... esp. if you come armed and already shot my brother "on accident"

But when suggestions are made that this could also have to do with organisational culture in the military, with ambiguous orders and failure in the training process, you disagree. And it's not like Abu Ghraib was the only incident of servicemen and -women misbehaving, whether it be triggerhappiness, cultural insensitivity, stealing life savings from ordinary Iraqis, people dying in custody in Afghanistan and so on and so forth.

I mean, every single organisation influences the behaviour of the people in it. Especially the military. Organisational culture is a huge area of management literature. Every manager spends ages working on that sort of thing. Everything that happens in an organisation is analysed from a culture-point of view.

And now all of a sudden all these things had nothing to do with it? Sorry, but I don't follow.

There is something wrong with the culture of the US military, and the sooner people drop the "support the troops", the sooner it can be recognised and fixed.

Sad reality check. The only culture that matters is the one that has the gun sights on you. What a nice idea that we can all respect others cultures with happy rainbows and smiles...well sometimes cultures don't mesh. Which means one has to give way to another. American culture is pretty overpowering. We also have a lot of guns.

uhm.... no, if you come into my house; if you don't leave when told to, I get to shoot you... esp. if you come armed and already shot my brother "on accident"

Are you saying soldiers are shooting people for the fun of it? If the military says its an accident, theres a big chance it was an accident. I doubt they would simply waste a bomb to kill people because they think it's fun.

And for f*ck's sakes, this is a war, of course they are going to break down doors to find suspected terrorists. They can't take the chances of letting any of them hide.

This is war, we're suppose to be killing the enemy, not inviting them to tea parties