NationStates Jolt Archive

Three years ago, the US invaded Iraq, and although Bush tried to put a positive spin on the whole affair, I see very mixed messages.

Bush says Iraq war laying a 'foundation of peace' (http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060319/iraq_protests_060319)

The positive spin:

In an address from the White House lawn, Bush praised the steps taken towards forming a unity government, and said the Iraqi people voted overwhelmingly for democracy in December when about 75 per cent of eligible voters went to the polls.

"Now the Iraqi leaders are working together to enact a government that reflects the will of the people," Bush said.

The rinse cycle:

Sectarian violence killed at least 35 people died Sunday night, while about 1,500 U.S. and Iraq troops searched for insurgents just north of Iraq's capital.

Former interim prime minister Ayad Allawi has equated the violence with a civil war.

"We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more," Allawi told the British Broadcasting Corp. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."

Meanwhile, Iraqi politicians are still struggling to form a government, three months after elections were held to form a new parliament.

The cost to date:

About 2,314 U.S. military personnel have died during the Iraq war, while Bush has said around 30,000 Iraqis have been killed. The Associated Press estimates the war has cost more than $200 billion US – possibly as high as $250 billion.

While Bush wants US troops to stay the course, it appears that a large majority of Iraqis want the US troops to leave.

Removal of coalition soldiers from Iraq?

According to an opinion poll carried out for the British Ministry of Defence in August 2005 by Iraqi university researchers and leaked to the British press, 82 per cent of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of US and other coalition troops and less than one per cent believe that the coalition troops are responsible for any improvement in security, so the new Assembly is expected to press for removal of foreign troops.

Your thoughts?

In the paper last week it said since the war started, in Bagdad alone 24000 ppl killed thru violence have been brought into the morgues there. This in a city of 5 mill. This is only the numbers going thru the city morgues.
What was worse was that the numbers were increasing:
2000 in 2003
6000 in 2004
16000 in 2005.

Things are improving?
For grave diggers only it would seem.

... less than one per cent believe that the coalition troops are responsible for any improvement in security...

I wonder what they'll believe when the troops pull out. The ratio of americans to iraqis killed i think is pretty good evidence that insurgents have to spend a lot more effort on killing the former than the later.

i'm often antiwar (not always), but once it has begun i think premature withdrawal is a disaster. of course then the question is what is 'premature'.

Regular Iraq is a mess, I guess the Sunnis and the shities will kill each other off and we'll turn over the nation to the survivors. No one will be able to stop their war against each other.

Kurdish Iraq is in good shape though!

In the paper last week it said since the war started, in Bagdad alone 24000 ppl killed thru violence have been brought into the morgues there. This in a city of 5 mill. This is only the numbers going thru the city morgues.
What was worse was that the numbers were increasing:
2000 in 2003
6000 in 2004
16000 in 2005.

Things are improving?
For grave diggers only it would seem.
I have always had a problem with the numbers because it is really difficult to believe the accuracy. I have heard numbers ranging from 30,000 to 100,000. That is a wide gap. If Bush is claiming 30,000, I suspect that the numbers are much higher?

I wonder what they'll believe when the troops pull out. The ratio of americans to iraqis killed i think is pretty good evidence that insurgents have to spend a lot more effort on killing the former than the later.

i'm often antiwar (not always), but once it has begun i think premature withdrawal is a disaster. of course then the question is what is 'premature'.
My thoughts are that the US troops galvanize the situation. Remove the root cause and the violence may well subside. The terrorists would certainly lose their primary target?

theres only One real message to the Iraq war before it started during it and after its over if its EVER over and that is "THIS WAR WAS DEAD WRONG AND GEORGE BUSH IS A LYING PIG FROM HELL"

Regular Iraq is a mess, I guess the Sunnis and the shities will kill each other off and we'll turn over the nation to the survivors. No one will be able to stop their war against each other.

Kurdish Iraq is in good shape though!
I don't see how the Kurds will go unscathed. The Sunnis in the north are not particularly fond that the Kurds stand to make the biggest gains, especially in oil resources.

I don't see how the Kurds will go unscathed. The Sunnis in the north are not particularly fond that the Kurds stand to make the biggest gains, especially in oil resources.

With the exceptions of air assaults, Kurds were able to defend themselves even when Saddam was in power. They are quite a doughty bunch.

I have always had a problem with the numbers because it is really difficult to believe the accuracy. I have heard numbers ranging from 30,000 to 100,000. That is a wide gap. If Bush is claiming 30,000, I suspect that the numbers are much higher?
According to Iraqbodycount (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/), it's between 33 and 38 k. That's civilian deaths only that were caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks). And it has to have been reported in reputable media source. So there's likely to have been a few hundred, if not thousand not reported (remote villages wiped out, families killed where the exact number wasn't quite known, unreported deaths, etc etc).
Still the best guess we've got. Let's say 50000 tops.

Add to that coalition forces, mercenaries (what's the euphemism now? private contractors is it?) and insurgency deaths (which must be close to 20k, surely) and we get 60000 - 70000 deaths. Minimum.

Three years ago, the US invaded Iraq, and although Bush tried to put a positive spin on the whole affair, I see very mixed messages.

Bush says Iraq war laying a 'foundation of peace' (http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060319/iraq_protests_060319)

The positive spin:

In an address from the White House lawn, Bush praised the steps taken towards forming a unity government, and said the Iraqi people voted overwhelmingly for democracy in December when about 75 per cent of eligible voters went to the polls.

"Now the Iraqi leaders are working together to enact a government that reflects the will of the people," Bush said.

The rinse cycle:

Sectarian violence killed at least 35 people died Sunday night, while about 1,500 U.S. and Iraq troops searched for insurgents just north of Iraq's capital.

Former interim prime minister Ayad Allawi has equated the violence with a civil war.

"We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more," Allawi told the British Broadcasting Corp. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."

Meanwhile, Iraqi politicians are still struggling to form a government, three months after elections were held to form a new parliament.

The cost to date:

About 2,314 U.S. military personnel have died during the Iraq war, while Bush has said around 30,000 Iraqis have been killed. The Associated Press estimates the war has cost more than $200 billion US – possibly as high as $250 billion.

While Bush wants US troops to stay the course, it appears that a large majority of Iraqis want the US troops to leave.

Removal of coalition soldiers from Iraq?

According to an opinion poll carried out for the British Ministry of Defence in August 2005 by Iraqi university researchers and leaked to the British press, 82 per cent of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of US and other coalition troops and less than one per cent believe that the coalition troops are responsible for any improvement in security, so the new Assembly is expected to press for removal of foreign troops.

Your thoughts?
You really need to stop focusing on the negatives. The bottomline is as far as wars go, this one has gone beautifully. And the US is a safer place today because Saddam Hussien is in prison! History will show the path of war in Iraq to be the right one.

And the US is a safer place today because Saddam Hussien is in prison!

Saddam was never a threat to the US. He was barely a threat to his neighbors.

You really need to stop focusing on the negatives. The bottomline is as far as wars go, this one has gone beautifully. And the US is a safer place today because Saddam Hussien is in prison! History will show the path of war in Iraq to be the right one.
This guy's here all week!
*FLORT*
hahahahaha!
*slaps knees*
My sides STILL hurt!

http://deneb.bu.edu/geocities/essays/antiprotest/counterprotest1.jpg

Although I supported the war at first, I can see now it was a mistake and it's now all turning into a bloody mess. I don't think it was morally questionable though. The WMDs were fake, but the coalition toppled an evil dictator, and at the end of the day that has to be worth something. If your country was in a state of civil war, I don't know why you'd want less troops. I reckon if troops leave, it's going to become another Rwanda or something like that and in a few years they'll be begging for international aid.

I reckon if troops leave, it's going to become another Rwanda or something like that and in a few years they'll be begging for international aid.
Aren't they doing that already?

I think that the most important point is that to the troops on the ground; their families; the innocent civilians in Iraq; the moderate Islamic forces losing control over their communities; and many others that it sucks to be you. You don’t even have to be in the Infantry to be beating a dusty road for IED’s in Iraq these days. A shortage of soldiers in Iraq has resulted in logistics, crate tossers and box counters, put into roles normally reserved for Infantry. They are even deploying naval personnel into army postings in Iraq these days. It won’t be long until with the right amount of limbs in the US military gets sent in there, no matter how little combat training they have. With the coalition continuing to come under pressure (the British want out and are going to be withdrawing 800 troops soon) to leave, it won’t be long before the US is completely on their own.

Considering the obscene amount of tax dollars the US has spent in Iraq, mostly to the corporate raiders going in to overbill the US gov, they have so very little to show for their efforts. The US is now upping the maximum of debt for the future into the trillions to ensure that future taxpayers will pay for this Middle East adventure. Going in under the false pretense of the War against Terrorism, all that they’ve succeeded in doing was to destablize the region and single handedly build the biggest hotbed of terrorism in the world today. Even if the US army pulled out tomorrow, it will take decades for them to recover from this fiasco.

A really good book to read, from the perspective of a soldier on the ground is:

“The Last True Story I’ll Ever Tell” by John Crawford. One of the quotes in his book that is very appropriate to the entire question of why the West is in Iraq is:

“Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”

Hermann Goering, speaking at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II

You really need to stop focusing on the negatives.
There are positives? Please spell them out.

The bottomline is as far as wars go, this one has gone beautifully.
Tell that to the families on both sides who have lost loved ones or those that will have to live the rest of their lives with the physical, emotional, and mental scars of this unnecessary war.

And the US is a safer place today because Saddam Hussien is in prison!
If you honestly believe that crap, then I feel sorry for you.

History will show the path of war in Iraq to be the right one.
I believe it to be one of the biggest mistakes in US history.

I think that the most important point is that to the troops on the ground; their families; the innocent civilians in Iraq; the moderate Islamic forces losing control over their communities; and many others that it sucks to be you. You don’t even have to be in the Infantry to be beating a dusty road for IED’s in Iraq these days. A shortage of soldiers in Iraq has resulted in logistics, crate tossers and box counters, put into roles normally reserved for Infantry. They are even deploying naval personnel into army postings in Iraq these days. It won’t be long until with the right amount of limbs in the US military gets sent in there, no matter how little combat training they have. With the coalition continuing to come under pressure (the British want out and are going to be withdrawing 800 troops soon) to leave, it won’t be long before the US is completely on their own.

Considering the obscene amount of tax dollars the US has spent in Iraq, mostly to the corporate raiders going in to overbill the US gov, they have so very little to show for their efforts. The US is now upping the maximum of debt for the future into the trillions to ensure that future taxpayers will pay for this Middle East adventure. Going in under the false pretense of the War against Terrorism, all that they’ve succeeded in doing was to destablize the region and single handedly build the biggest hotbed of terrorism in the world today. Even if the US army pulled out tomorrow, it will take decades for them to recover from this fiasco.

A really good book to read, from the perspective of a soldier on the ground is:

“The Last True Story I’ll Ever Tell” by John Crawford. One of the quotes in his book that is very appropriate to the entire question of why the West is in Iraq is:

“Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”

Hermann Goering, speaking at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II
Great post The Bruce, especially the quote at the end. So true!! :(

Only 2,300 Killed?
The marines lost that many in a three hour period on Iwo Jima.

Only 2,300 Killed?
The marines lost that many in a three hour period on Iwo Jima.

Well... either Iraq is the WWII Japan... :rolleyes:

But both wars resemble on the money the US have spent...

All I know is that thousands of people have died since our Mission was Accomplished. Bazillions of dollars have been shoveled into the pockets of a few very rich men since our Mission was Accomplished, while the average and the poor pay the price with their lives and their life savings. A once-proud nation has become the laughing stock of the world, while violent fundamentalist regimes have vastly increased in strength since our Mission was Accomplished. Terrorism has increased many times over and the world has become a far more dangerous place since our Mission was Accomplished.

More children starve today than did before our Mission was Accomplished. More human beings die of preventable illnesses now than before our Mission was Accomplished. More Americans live in poverty now than before our Mission was Accomplished. More needless suffering occurs in our country now than before our Mission was Accomplished.

Fuck the Mission. It was a bad Mission in the beginning, and it's gotten worse with every passing day. We could have helped tens of millions of people with the money and effort we've spent Accomplishing this Mission, and instead we used it to kill and impoverish our fellow humans. Fuck the Mission.

Three years ago, the US invaded Iraq, and although Bush tried to put a positive spin on the whole affair, I see very mixed messages.

< Massive snip >

Your thoughts?
I suspect almost all American forces will be out of Iraq by Christmas.

With the exceptions of air assaults, Kurds were able to defend themselves even when Saddam was in power. They are quite a doughty bunch.
the kurds arent threatened by the other iraqi factions, they are threatened by turkey

when we pull out, the country devolves into civil war. 3 way. (we are currently quite busy training the troops for this future civil war, most of whom will be shiites and who desire a government like irans). the sunnis and shiites fight it out, the kurds declare their own country, turkey invades "kurdistan".

turkey loses any chance it has to get into the EU. turkey, looking around for friends in the world, drifts toward radical islam

fun fun times ahead.

And the US is a safer place today because Saddam Hussien is in prison!

Saddam was a threat to no other country other than his own. He killed lots of his own people, but he was in no position to attack anyone else. His army was a piece of crap, a shadow of the 1990 force. In 2003, Kuwait could've held out against the Iraqis for a long period of time, they even spent more money on their defence budget.

You really need to stop focusing on the negatives. The bottomline is as far as wars go, this one has gone beautifully. And the US is a safer place today because Saddam Hussien is in prison! History will show the path of war in Iraq to be the right one.

Are you really that stupid and niave? or just in Denial?

Iraq is already a failure for the pure point of a guerrilla organization exsiting effectivley to begin with represents failure on the part of the US government and the US military. The fact is...you cant just come to a comprimise in a guerrila war...the guerrila's dont have to win, they just have to not lose, the governemnt fighting them HAS to win. Also, guerrillas adapt awesomely, the longer they fight us, the better they become at it and the closer they get to victory, as the war continues they simply get stronger and we get weaker, Just because US casualties have been low compared to wars like Vietnam doesnt mean shit, sure the US casualites are low, but Iraqi civilians? New Iraqi Army Troops?.....

There never were "WMD's" and Saddam was simply to damn imcompotent to threaten the US.

“Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”

Hermann Goering, speaking at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II

It gets disturbing when a nazi war criminal succinctly outlines current US policies.

I suspect almost all American forces will be out of Iraq by Christmas.

One can certainly hope. I'm not holding my breath on it, though.

I suspect almost all American forces will be out of Iraq by Christmas.
You probably think that would be bad? I think it would be great. However, I do not believe that you are correct. I think that the US would be reluctant to leave Iraq under any circumstance, up to and including being asked to leave.

One can certainly hope. I'm not holding my breath on it, though.
Film at eleven. :)

You probably think that would be bad?
Why do you say such things to me? Talk about selective reading! :(

Why do you say such things to me? Talk about selective reading! :(
Well, do you want the troops to come home from Iraq by Christmas or was I wrong in suggesting that you would prefer them to stay?

It gets disturbing when a nazi war criminal succinctly outlines current US policies.
Kinda scary huh?

The US intervention was a huge failure right from the beginning!
It didn't improve anything at all, it only made matters worse. They totally failed to implement a puppet government there as intended.
On top of that, they used thosands of US soldiers as cannon fodder and wasted hundres of millions of US$ for this nonsense :rolleyes:

Well, do you want the troops to come home from Iraq by Christmas or was I wrong in suggesting that you would prefer them to stay?
You were dead wrong. I would personally love to see them come home now, but that's just not in the cards. :(

You were dead wrong. I would personally love to see them come home now, but that's just not in the cards. :(
Yet you seem to support government policy that would keep the troops in Iraq? Cindy Sheehan would also like to see all the troops come home as well as Senator Murthra and yet you chide them with stinging rebukes. Why is that?

Yet you seem to support government policy that would keep the troops in Iraq? Cindy Sheehan would also like to see all the troops come home as well as Senator Murthra and yet you chide them with stinging rebukes. Why is that?
Uh ... I don't like idiots? ;)

Uh ... I don't like idiots? ;)
They want the same result that you want i.e. the troops coming home, yet they are somehow "idiots". Please explain.

I suspect almost all American forces will be out of Iraq by Christmas.
Okay, it appears that I need to approach this from a different angle. Why do you "suspect almost all American forces will be out of Iraq by Christmas"?

Waiting for Eut's reply.....

Waiting for Eut's reply.....
Admire your patience, but experince tells me that when someone's called out on making a snafu by saying they agree with someone they hate, the most common defence is to ignore the post/thread completely.
Still, be optimistic. It's a good way to live. Apparently. I've never tried. Always been scared I'd be found dead in a half-full bath.

It gets disturbing when a nazi war criminal succinctly outlines current US policies.
Painfully, wistfully so.

As for the "nazi" mindset ....

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/03/rumsfeld_steps_.html

Originally posted: March 20, 2006
Rumsfeld steps on Nazi landmine
Posted by William Neikirk at 4:42 pm CST

Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat from Illinois, created a major uproar last year when he compared the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay with the treatment of World War II prisoners by Nazi Germany and other infamous regimes. The criticism became so harsh that Durbin was forced to apologize. "Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line," Durbin said as he told the nation he was sorry.

In an op-ed article in Sunday's Washington Post, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wrote: "Turning out backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis. It would be as great as disgrace as if we had asked the liberated nations of Eastern Europe to return to Soviet dominaton because it was too hard or too tough or we didn't have the patience to work with them as they built free countries."

Durbin learned his lesson the hard way that it is politically risky to make the Nazi comparison to any kind of modern horror, especially when U.S. forces are involved. The defense chief's remarks were carefully thought out, as he penned an article on the third anniversary of the war in an effort to make a pitch for staying the course. Rumsfeld, known for carefully choosing his words, clearly took great rhetorical risks to make a point.

"Consider that if we retreat now, there is every reason to believe Saddamists and terrorists will fill the vaccum--and the free world might not have the will to face them again," he wrote. This is, of course, the nightmare scenario for Iraq, which in the administration's view could become safe haven for terrorists everywhere. But such language clashes with other administration statements--that the situation on the ground is improving, and that fears of a civil war in Iraq are overblown.

Rumsfeld's Nazi comparison produced criticism from former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as Jimmy Carter's national security adviser.

"You know, that is really absolutely crazy to anyone who knows history," Brzezinski said on CNN. "When we occupied Germany in '45, there was no alternative to our presence. There was no resistance. The Germans were totally crushed. There was no resistance.

"And a great many Germans realized that they had to go back to the democracy that they had before Hitler came to power. And many people don't know that Germany was a thriving democracy for decades before Hitler came to power.

"The situation in Iraq is totally different. And for Secretary Rumsfeld to be talking this way suggests either he doesn't know history or he's simply demagoguing."

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), who has urged withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, called Rumsfeld's remarks irresponsible. Rumsfeld's Nazi statement also was the topic of critics on blogs and talk shows.

Yet the defense chief is not one to yield so quickly to criticism. He obviously believes what he says, and he is not running for anything. He seems happy to be the lightning rod for the administration on the Iraq war, even if means using the Nazi connection to help make his point.

Try these:

www.klara.be/html/fs_audio.html :

under "De harde Schijf" : Tariq Ali - Clash of fundamentalisms - 18/03/06 - click loudspeaker
under "Rondas", near bottom page : idem (after 3 years of war) - 19/03/06 - click loudspeaker

Interviews in English; comments in Dutch are mainly translations/summaries.


And this one, preferably not after a meal:

www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/

You really need to stop focusing on the negatives. The bottomline is as far as wars go, this one has gone beautifully. And the US is a safer place today because Saddam Hussien is in prison! History will show the path of war in Iraq to be the right one.

ROFLMFAO

HA HA HA HA HA HA


I really shouldn't laugh in a war related topic, but damn... I wish I could get a pair of shades with the lenses tinted that dazzlingly rosy shade.

Or get some of whatever kind of drugs this guy is on.

Unless he's a comedic puppet of some veteran generalite. Then it would all make sense.

ROFLMFAO

HA HA HA HA HA HA


I really shouldn't laugh in a war related topic, but damn... I wish I could get a pair of shades with the lenses tinted that dazzlingly rosy shade.

Or get some of whatever kind of drugs this guy is on.

Unless he's a comedic puppet of some veteran generalite. Then it would all make sense.
I'm leaning towards the latter ...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10609840&postcount=62

I'm leaning towards the latter ...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10609840&postcount=62

Oh yes, how fun.

Anyway, about the Iraq War.

It is rare that being right the beginning sucks quite as much as this. We said that the administration was being rash and should let the UN inspectors (who found no evidence of WMD) continue their operations, and that it was doubtful Hussein still had any, but would anyone listen? Noooooo. They thought it would be like marching into Paris in WWII, and we knew it wouldn't. But they didn't listen. Of course.

Typical. We all knew that it was always just about the money anyway.

Admire your patience, but experince tells me that when someone's called out on making a snafu by saying they agree with someone they hate, the most common defence is to ignore the post/thread completely.
Still, be optimistic. It's a good way to live. Apparently. I've never tried. Always been scared I'd be found dead in a half-full bath.
Well, I am a patient kinda guy. :)

As far as Iraq is concerned, it would be difficult to be optimistic at this time. US intervention in Iraq politics over the past 50 years has proven to be an utter failure. The sooner the US troops leave, the better.

In the paper last week it said since the war started, in Bagdad alone 24000 ppl killed thru violence have been brought into the morgues there. This in a city of 5 mill. This is only the numbers going thru the city morgues.
What was worse was that the numbers were increasing:
2000 in 2003
6000 in 2004
16000 in 2005.

Things are improving?
For grave diggers only it would seem.

Which paper would this be?

My thoughts are that the US troops galvanize the situation. Remove the root cause and the violence may well subside. The terrorists would certainly lose their primary target?

Doubtful! Infact, it would increase terrorism because they don't want a democratic Iraq.

Saddam was never a threat to the US. He was barely a threat to his neighbors.

Tell that to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Doubtful! Infact, it would increase terrorism because they don't want a democratic Iraq.
That is just your opinion. IF the people of Iraq don't want a democracy, that is their democratic riight?

There are positives? Please spell them out.

Schools no longer have weapons inside them so that the kids can actually go to school. Students don't have to hail saddam every friggin day. Oppressed people liberated from a tyrant who couldn't even practice their religion. They can actually have an honest election.

I could go on but I already know you are brainwashed into thinking that the war was morally wrong dispite liberating millions and giving them the right to worship without prejudice.

Tell that to the families on both sides who have lost loved ones or those that will have to live the rest of their lives with the physical, emotional, and mental scars of this unnecessary war.

Many family members of those soldiers who lost their lives want us to stay till the job is done so that their love one's sacrifice is not invain. I'm sure you can understand this.

If you honestly believe that crap, then I feel sorry for you.

Just like I feel sorry for you.

I believe it to be one of the biggest mistakes in US history.

It was the smartist decision we could make.

Only 2,300 Killed?
The marines lost that many in a three hour period on Iwo Jima.

Forget it Fascist Emirates. Casualty numbers are lost on these people who do not understand history.

Saddam was a threat to no other country other than his own.

Tell that to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia

He killed lots of his own people, but he was in no position to attack anyone else. His army was a piece of crap, a shadow of the 1990 force. In 2003, Kuwait could've held out against the Iraqis for a long period of time, they even spent more money on their defence budget.

And they had a US Troop presence in both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. If he wasn't a threat to them then why were we in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia until recently?

The US intervention was a huge failure right from the beginning!

:yawns:

It didn't improve anything at all, it only made matters worse. They totally failed to implement a puppet government there as intended.

Stop listening to Air America

On top of that, they used thosands of US soldiers as cannon fodder and wasted hundres of millions of US$ for this nonsense :rolleyes:

Utter B.S.

You were dead wrong. I would personally love to see them come home now, but that's just not in the cards. :(

I second the motion.

That is just your opinion. IF the people of Iraq don't want a democracy, that is their democratic riight?

If they didn't want democracy then why did they have a 60% turnout?

Painfully, wistfully so.

As for the "nazi" mindset ....

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/03/rumsfeld_steps_.html

Originally posted: March 20, 2006
Rumsfeld steps on Nazi landmine
Posted by William Neikirk at 4:42 pm CST

Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat from Illinois, created a major uproar last year when he compared the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay with the treatment of World War II prisoners by Nazi Germany and other infamous regimes. The criticism became so harsh that Durbin was forced to apologize. "Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line," Durbin said as he told the nation he was sorry.
Actually a very fitting comparison, but they don't want to give up GB, so they complained about it.

<snip>
"The situation in Iraq is totally different. And for Secretary Rumsfeld to be talking this way suggests either he doesn't know history or he's simply demagoguing."

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), who has urged withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, called Rumsfeld's remarks irresponsible. Rumsfeld's Nazi statement also was the topic of critics on blogs and talk shows.

Yet the defense chief is not one to yield so quickly to criticism. He obviously believes what he says, and he is not running for anything. He seems happy to be the lightning rod for the administration on the Iraq war, even if means using the Nazi connection to help make his point.
That's the usual type of retard statement we're already used to get from Rumsfiled :rolleyes:
It would be really nice if he would step on an actual landmine :rolleyes:

Schools no longer have weapons inside them so that the kids can actually go to school.
There were no weapons in the schools before the US invaded Iraq?

Students don't have to hail saddam every friggin day. Oppressed people liberated from a tyrant who couldn't even practice their religion.
No matter how much these people were oppressed, they still do not want the US troops on their soil.

They can actually have an honest election.
Whether their elections were in fact "honest" is open to debate.

I could go on but I already know you are brainwashed into thinking that the war was morally wrong dispite liberating millions and giving them the right to worship without prejudice.
Up until this moment, this thread has been free from ad hominems. Please keep it that way or go start your own thread.

Many family members of those soldiers who lost their lives want us to stay till the job is done so that their love one's sacrifice is not invain. I'm sure you can understand this.
Many familiy members of Iraqi citizens who lost their lives want the US to leave. In fact the majority of Iraqis want the US to leave now!!

Just like I feel sorry for you.
No need to feel sorry for me. You should save your sympathies to all of those that have suffered through this travesty.

It was the smartist decision we could make.
Again, debatable and I believe the majority of people would disagree with you.

There were no weapons in the schools before the US invaded Iraq?

There were, infact, weapons in schools. Soldiers pulled those weapons out, painted the walls of the school with the kids, and re-opened the schools back up.

No matter how much these people were oppressed, they still do not want the US troops on their soil.

I didn't want them there either but I know Saddam had to go and am glad that he is gone. That was why I supported the war. It was to remove Saddam and to bring freedom to the people of Iraq.

Whether their elections were in fact "honest" is open to debate.

Not according to the United Nations :rolleyes:

Up until this moment, this thread has been free from ad hominems. Please keep it that way or go start your own thread.

A fact is not ad hominem.

Many familiy members of Iraqi citizens who lost their lives want the US to leave. In fact the majority of Iraqis want the US to leave now!!

And the Iraqi government knows that is not possible. I would love to have them home now. I really would. Its just not practical right now. I will say this, we'll begin to pull out soon. The Iraqis are doing a marvelous job of doing the jobs on their own now. The new attack going on is primarily made up of Iraqi units.

No need to feel sorry for me. You should save your sympathies to all of those that have suffered through this travesty.

I pray for them everyday.

Again, debatable and I believe the majority of people would disagree with you.

I don't care. Facts are on myside.

There were, infact, weapons in schools. Soldiers pulled those weapons out, painted the walls of the school with the kids, and re-opened the schools back up.

I would liike to see a cite for this claim.

I didn't want them there either but I know Saddam had to go and am glad that he is gone. That was why I supported the war. It was to remove Saddam and to bring freedom to the people of Iraq.

I thought it was about WMD. Well, Saddam has been removed from power, and there have been elections. Mission accomplished. I guess we can bring the troops home now, according to you.


Not according to the United Nations :rolleyes:

Then you should be able to pull up a cite for me right away.


A fact is not ad hominem.
So you're saying that it's a fact that people who disagree with you are brainwashed?


And the Iraqi government knows that is not possible. I would love to have them home now. I really would. Its just not practical right now. I will say this, we'll begin to pull out soon. The Iraqis are doing a marvelous job of doing the jobs on their own now. The new attack going on is primarily made up of Iraqi units.

Please provide a cite for the bolded part.


I pray for them everyday.

I think better equpiment would be more effective.

I don't care. Facts are on myside.

Then you should have no trouble backing up your arguments.

Then you should be able to pull up a cite for me right away.
You obviously don't know Corneliu... Not big on providing links to back him up. This time he is right (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/EC16C713-671E-4529-ABDE-2A202C924B37.htm) , though
Please provide a cite for the bolded part.
"...helicopters were used to carry mostly Iraqi troops into Salahuddin province." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4814094.stm)

Well, what do you know...

There were, infact, weapons in schools. Soldiers pulled those weapons out, painted the walls of the school with the kids, and re-opened the schools back up.

I didn't want them there either but I know Saddam had to go and am glad that he is gone. That was why I supported the war. It was to remove Saddam and to bring freedom to the people of Iraq.

Not according to the United Nations :rolleyes:

A fact is not ad hominem.

And the Iraqi government knows that is not possible. I would love to have them home now. I really would. Its just not practical right now. I will say this, we'll begin to pull out soon. The Iraqis are doing a marvelous job of doing the jobs on their own now. The new attack going on is primarily made up of Iraqi units.

I pray for them everyday.

I don't care. Facts are on myside.
Perhaps a little reading is in order to put some perspective on all of this?

To Mahdi Militiaman, Firing on Americans Is Act of 'Patriotism' (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1455-2004Aug14?language=printer)

Eisa said he welcomed the fall of Hussein, but not the U.S. occupation.

"I am old enough now to differentiate between occupation and freedom," he said. "It's not true that the Americans came to get rid of Saddam. It was only a trick to occupy the country."

"We all know that Bush announced twice that this is a crusade. So we know they are targeting a certain group," the Shiites, he said. "We know the strategic importance of Iraq in the region and the wealth of our country. They want to control it. They want to control our oil, our wealth and the world."

"There is something called patriotism," he added. "I like my country, and I saw the U.S. forces did not come to protect us. So I wanted to follow the leader who can demand my rights and defeat the occupation. The U.S. forces are occupiers, so we have to resist them."

Eisa fought in what he calls "the first uprising" against the Americans, fierce street fighting in Najaf between U.S. forces and insurgents in April that left hundreds of Iraqis dead. The Iraqi government that officially took power June 28 is nothing but a puppet of the Americans, he said, and Eisa willingly answered the call to arms nine days ago when fighting broke out again.

He kissed his daughter, 3-year-old Um Albanin, and his 6-month-old son, Mohammed Ali, and sent them with his wife to the safer outskirts of Najaf. He then joined his unit, the 315th Battalion.

The worst fighting was Thursday, he said.

"I smelled the weapons, and the blood of dead people," Eisa said, recounting the pitched battle in the graveyard that resulted in scores of casualties. "I don't know how many were killed. I heard the bullets and even felt the heat of the bullets, but God protects me.

"Sometimes we had wounded people, and we couldn't evacuate them because I didn't want to leave my post. I just wanted to die for my cause. So I stayed in my place, hoping to become a martyr.

"I saw one of my colleagues try to attack a tank with his RPG. The U.S. soldier shot him in the head, about 25 meters from me. His head was destroyed. It was a terrible scene."

As the fighting stopped Saturday while negotiators tried to work out a cease-fire, Eisa mixed in a throng of thousands of supporters who came from inside and outside Najaf to show their support for the Mahdi Army. They milled about outside the shrine. When he found a colleague he had not seen since the battle, the two hugged.

Eisa has an identity card -- "Sadr's Martyr Division," it says -- but like the others in the militia, he doesn't have a uniform. He wears loose fitting black pants, a casual shirt and a green cloth around his wrist to signify closeness to Allah.

As Sadr passed the crowd, Eisa joined in chants, thrusting his fist in the air and stamping his feet. "Long live Sadr! Allawi and the government are blasphemous," he shouted, referring to Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.

The temporary lull in fighting during the negotiations boosted the spirits of the men. "This is a great victory for the Iraqis and the Mahdi Army," Eisa said. "This is evidence that we defeated the occupation forces and we are a legitimate resistance demanding the Iraqi's rights. This is victory."

Please provide a cite for the bolded part.

Don't follow the news do you?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188092,00.html

The operation, which began Thursday morning, is expected to continue for several days ahead of the Shiite Muslim holiday. U.S. military commanders say the operation was largely carried out by Iraqi forces based on tips from other Iraqis.

*snip*

Fire on americans if you like. That's being an insurgent. Still not going to do your life expectency any good.

Don't follow the news do you?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188092,00.html

Thanks, now what about all the others?

EDIT: Actualy, someone else provided a link for the UN election endorsement, so I guess we're waiting for the guns in schools link.

Which paper would this be?
The South China Morning Post. It was an article pulled from Reuters I think it was. Or possibly Christian Science Monitor. Nearly all their international articles are just pulled from those two outlets.

Thanks, now what about all the others?

I've already responded to most of them throughout various threads. Facts are the facts. I have used them throughout this entire debate (if one can call it that) but unfortunately, people do not want to look at it because it doesn't fit their preconceived notions about the Iraq war.

The Iraq War wasn't totally about WMD. It was just one reason out of many. Something that the Press seems to have forgotten.

The Iraqi People do want democracy. If they didn't 75% of the people would not have turned out to vote.

Do they want us gone? Yes! Do i want our forces home? Yes I do. Unlike most people though, I know what would happen if we leave right now. Besides that, there are already plans on pulling out. The Iraqi military is stepping up as this latest attack proves. More and More Iraqis are taking over duties that were done by coalition forces. The religious sects (Sunnis, Kurds, and Shi'ites) are all talking together.

Things are looking up in Iraq. Yes there is violence but if you have noticed over the last several months, it has been aimed more at the civilians than coalition forces. It is sad to see that a few people have hijacked a noble religion and turned it into something to be dispised.

Fire on americans if you like. That's being an insurgent. Still not going to do your life expectency any good.
No, Corny, the word is "patriot", or didn't you read the article?

Despite this man losing 27 family members to the Saddam regime, despite the fact that he was glad to see Saddam gone, he was willing to die for his country to resist the US occupation.

No, Corny, the word is "patriot", or didn't you read the article?

And the French Resistence were patriots as well but they were still insurgents.

Despite this man losing 27 family members to the Saddam regime, despite the fact that he was glad to see Saddam gone, he was willing to die for his country to resist the US occupation.

His right.

I've already responded to most of them throughout various threads. Facts are the facts. I have used them throughout this entire debate (if one can call it that) but unfortunately, people do not want to look at it because it doesn't fit their preconceived notions about the Iraq war.

Then it should be easy for you to post the link showing that there were guns in the schools, and that soldiers killed the kids with them.

The Iraq War wasn't totally about WMD. It was just one reason out of many. Something that the Press seems to have forgotten.

Do you think the USian congress would have supported the war if the WMD threat hadn't been fabricated?

The religious sects (Sunnis, Kurds, and Shi'ites) are all talking together.

Things are looking up in Iraq.

Really, I thought Iraq was headed towards civil war.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/03/12/MNG9BHMUG81.DTL

Heavily armed private militias routinely clash; suicide bombers kill civilians every day; each side sets fire to the other's mosques, expels families from their homes, and slaughters each other; and the central government seems powerless to stop the violence.
The latest upsurge in Iraqi bloodshed, the conventional wisdom goes, has pushed the country to "the brink" of civil war. Testifying before Congress on Thursday, Gen. John Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command, said as much when he stated that "sectarian violence is a greater concern for us security-wise right now than the insurgency."

Then it should be easy for you to post the link showing that there were guns in the schools, and that soldiers killed the kids with them.

don't have to post any. It comes straight from the soldiers in the region.

Do you think the USian congress would have supported the war if the WMD threat hadn't been fabricated?

*yawns* I'm getting tired of this.

Really, I thought Iraq was headed towards civil war.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/03/12/MNG9BHMUG81.DTL

Never believe the press. I already said that there is violence however, a civil war wont be occuring no matter how much the press wants one.

don't have to post any. It comes straight from the soldiers in the region.



*yawns* I'm getting tired of this.



Never believe the press.

I don't believe you.

I don't believe you.

That's because you don't like the true facts that I have been using. This stuff cannot be argued.

I don't believe you.
You shouldnt believe the media, it just spits out left wing propaganda.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
All you do is state your opinon as fact and when people ask you to back it up, you're nowhere to be seen.

That's because you don't like the true facts that I have been using. This stuff cannot be argued.This stuff: "don't have to post any. It comes straight from the soldiers in the region."?

It's easy to argue that. One of the kids just called me yesterday and said there was no school to paint to begin with... so clearly your facts are lies!

That's because you don't like the true facts that I have been using. This stuff cannot be argued.

Yes, it can. This is howyou do it:

1. Make a claim:

"Corneliu does not back up his arguments with facts when asked to."

2. Add supporting arguments using links or logic.

"Look, he did it right here"

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10612735&postcount=71

It's that easy. Try it some time.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
All you do is state your opinon as fact and when people ask you to back it up, you're nowhere to be seen.

My facts comes from those that have been over there and have been all over the nation. My facts comes from family who have been on the ground and have actually done what I've just stated. My facts comes the United Nations as well as the United States Congress. My facts comes from the Rules of Armed Conflict. My facts comes from the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

You shouldnt believe the media, it just spits out left wing propaganda.

I'm sure that Fox News would love this comment :D

Yes, it can. This is howyou do it:

1. Make a claim:

"Corneliu does not back up his arguments with facts when asked to."

2. Add supporting arguments using links or logic.

"Look, he did it right here"

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10612735&postcount=71

It's that easy. Try it some time.

Actually no it cant since it comes from those that have actually been there. My facts comes from those that know more of what is going on than the press is reporting. The Press really only reports bad news. They follow the old addage, if it bleeds it leads.

There won't be a civil war in Iraq. I firmly believe that judging by the reports that are coming out of Iraq. Unlike most people around here, I actually look at ALL the evidence and not just what is being reported or looking at certain evidence that fits my ideology. Despite popular belief, I am not as conservative as people make me out to be.

My facts comes from those that have been over there and have been all over the nation. My facts comes from family who have been on the ground and have actually done what I've just stated. My facts comes the United Nations as well as the United States Congress. My facts comes from the Rules of Armed Conflict. My facts comes from the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Does the UCMJ condone what happened in Fallujah?

Human Rights Day 2004: US Guilty of War Crimes in Iraq (http://www.madre.org/articles/me/fallajah.html#note30)

You seem to only want to spout "facts" from US military sources while ignoring "fact" from sources on the opposing side. In other words, you hear only what you want to hear and disregard the rest. The world isn't blind you know. The more Americans read about the events of Iraq, the more they just want it to go away. Perhaps you fail to get the pulse of what is happening in your own country?

Found this link to my early post about how many have died in Baghdad alone:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060310/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraqi_deaths_iq1
Three years into the war, one grim measure of its impact on Iraqis can be seen at Baghdad's morgue: There, the staff has photographed and catalogued more than 24,000 bodies from the Baghdad area alone since 2003, almost all killed in violence.
Note, that's only the bodies coming into Bagdad's morgues.
At the Baghdad morgue, more than 10,000 corpses were delivered in 2005, up from more than 8,000 in 2004 and about 6,000 in 2003, said the morgue's director Dr. Faik Baker. All were corpses from either suspicious deaths or violent or war-related deaths — things like car bombs and gunshot wounds, tribal reprisals or crime — and not from natural causes.
By contrast, the morgue recorded fewer than 3,000 violent or suspicious deaths in 2002, before the war
Whoops. Got the numbers wrong in my earlier post, though the fact remains the numbers are increasing, not decreasing.



I find it just ever-so-slightly ironic that Corneliu of all people wanted me to verify a claim I made in my post.

Actually no it cant since it comes from those that have actually been there. My facts comes from those that know more of what is going on than the press is reporting. The Press really only reports bad news. They follow the old addage, if it bleeds it leads.

There won't be a civil war in Iraq. I firmly believe that judging by the reports that are coming out of Iraq. Unlike most people around here, I actually look at ALL the evidence and not just what is being reported or looking at certain evidence that fits my ideology. Despite popular belief, I am not as conservative as people make me out to be.

Show me a report that says that a civil war is unlikely. This should be easy, as you have looked at 'all the evidence'.

By the way, I'm still waiting for the link about the guns, schools and kids.

And by the way Allawi stated there was a civil war already.

Found this link to my early post about how many have died in Baghdad alone:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060310/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraqi_deaths_iq1

Note, that's only the bodies coming into Bagdad's morgues.

Whoops. Got the numbers wrong in my earlier post, though the fact remains the numbers are increasing, not decreasing.

I find it just ever-so-slightly ironic that Corneliu of all people wanted me to verify a claim I made in my post.
And of course, there are always statements like these that demonstrate complete indifference:

"We don't do body counts," Gen. Tommy Franks, who directed the Iraq invasion, has said.

And by the way Allawi stated there was a civil war already.
However, he is not an American soldier, so his opinion doesn't count? :rolleyes:

Civil war in Iraq:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/GEO031415.htm

"We expected positive things after 35 years of dictatorship, but things moved in the opposite direction. Killings and destruction have prevailed," said Basra merchant Jassim Hamoud, as he joined pilgrims in Kerbala.

In an incident illustrative of the chaos gripping Iraq, striking doctors shut down one of Baghdad's busiest hospitals, demanding protection from police violence.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1596586.htm

Meanwhile, in Baghdad, a security guard who inspects bodies at a hospital morgue says six corpses with gunshot wounds have been processed today.

They are apparently the latest victims of sectarian killings that have mounted since the bombing of a major Shiite shrine in the town of Samarra north of Baghdad last month.

The guard also says seven bodies of people who were tortured and strangled were dumped in pools of sewage on Sunday.

Police says a roadside bomb has killed three policemen and three prisoners they were escorting in Baghdad today.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=1689688&page=1

"We're in a civil war now; it's just that not everybody's joined in," said retired Army Maj. Gen. William L. Nash, a former military commander in Bosnia-Herzegovina. "The failure to understand that the civil war is already taking place, just not necessarily at the maximum level, means that our counter measures are inadequate and therefore dangerous to our long-term interest.

Does the UCMJ condone what happened in Fallujah?

Actually yes it does. Why? Because it was a lawful order that was given and all precautions were taken to safe guard civilians.

Human Rights Day 2004: US Guilty of War Crimes in Iraq (http://www.madre.org/articles/me/fallajah.html#note30)

They are basing all of this on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Why not actually base it on a treaty to give it more weight? Welcome to war people. Now, I'll ask this organization to actually present its evidence in a coherent manner that is easily understandable. I would also like to see their evidence of the charges they are leveling here. I'm not seeing the evidence.

You seem to only want to spout "facts" from US military sources while ignoring "fact" from sources on the opposing side.

Funny. I don't see anything from the insurgents nor from the terrorists so what opposing side are you talking about? Where are the facts from the insurgents and the terrorists?

In other words, you hear only what you want to hear and disregard the rest.

Sorry but this is inaccurate. I look at what all sides (when the other view is represented and I haven't seen the terrorist views) are saying.

The world isn't blind you know.

No those of us who actually know what is going on, are not blind.

The more Americans read about the events of Iraq, the more they just want it to go away.

That's because the press don't report the good that is going on over there. Just the bad news. If the press presented all the good news in its coverage, I bet you 2-1 odds that the polls will go in the other direction. Another reason why i don't trust the press with war coverage.

Perhaps you fail to get the pulse of what is happening in your own country?

We have a pulse? :D

And by the way Allawi stated there was a civil war already.

And you believe the lout?

Show me a report that says that a civil war is unlikely. This should be easy, as you have looked at 'all the evidence'.

You believe the press don't you? If you pay attention to all the press reports, you would know that the all three parties are coming together and actually talking about unifying to prevent a civil war from occuring. A civil war hasn't even started yet. I do not believe that it will. The government has done a marvelous job in trying to calm down the people. The government isn't as weak as the press thinks and the people are actually listening to them.

By the way, I'm still waiting for the link about the guns, schools and kids.

:rolleyes:

You believe the press don't you? If you pay attention to all the press reports, you would know that the all three parties are coming together and actually talking about unifying to prevent a civil war from occuring. A civil war hasn't even started yet. I do not believe that it will. The government has done a marvelous job in trying to calm down the people. The government isn't as weak as the press thinks and the people are actually listening to them.

Funny, I seem to have posted three articles that say the exact opposite.

I'll compare those to the ones you've posted...oh wait, you haven't posted any. What a surprise.

http://deneb.bu.edu/geocities/essays/antiprotest/counterprotest1.jpg

Although I supported the war at first, I can see now it was a mistake and it's now all turning into a bloody mess. I don't think it was morally questionable though. The WMDs were fake, but the coalition toppled an evil dictator, and at the end of the day that has to be worth something. If your country was in a state of civil war, I don't know why you'd want less troops. I reckon if troops leave, it's going to become another Rwanda or something like that and in a few years they'll be begging for international aid.


I'm sure that making the Iraqui peoples lives even worse is a part of that masterful plan... no, oh... tough luck then!!
Going away now and leaving anarchy behind is even a worse mistake than starting the whole damn thing, but army forces are by no means good policing personnel, i mean these soldiers are totally oblivious to the local culture and the geopolitical context of the situation they were paradropped on. Soldiers kill people, that's their job.
Focusing on training Iraqui secutiry forces, and guaranteeing that the country doesn't turn Iraniy is what matters now. Although the latter is almost impossible due to the majority of Shiite conservatives in the country.

theres only One real message to the Iraq war before it started during it and after its over if its EVER over and that is "THIS WAR WAS DEAD WRONG AND GEORGE BUSH IS A LYING PIG FROM HELL"

Romulus you can die and burn in hell, bush is actually trying, there have been many cases of genocide in Europe and people always say we should have gone in and saved people, now when we do everybody attacks the guy WHO IS TRYING TO HELP, i dont agree with all of his policies but i believe he has good intentions.
so here's what i think of you:upyours:

Romulus you can die and burn in hell, bush is actually trying, there have been many cases of genocide in Europe and people always say we should have gone in and saved people, now when we do everybody attacks the guy WHO IS TRYING TO HELP, i dont agree with all of his policies but i believe he has good intentions.
so here's what i think of you:upyours:



Do you know of a company named Halliburton?
Have you seen a quite demagogic but factually correct movie called Fahrenheit 911?
Do you know what a fundamentalist extremist is? Look up the definition in a dictionary and check it against both GW Bush and Osama Bin Laden. See who's closer to it and be surprised, you naive little girl.

I've already responded to most of them throughout various threads. Facts are the facts. I have used them throughout this entire debate (if one can call it that) but unfortunately, people do not want to look at it because it doesn't fit their preconceived notions about the Iraq war.
.

Heres a fact - I watched a premature child die last night on TV (one of many who go unheralded, for the large part) because a bunch of arrogant fat assed yank filth led by Paul "the poxy hairdo" Bremner dismantled the entire Iraqi healthcare system, and blew 20 Billion of Iraqi funds that were supposed to be spent on the Iraqi people. Ideologue shit heads who went to play God and fucked up an entire country in the process. And thats not even considering the ones with weapons at their disposal.


The Iraq War wasn't totally about WMD. It was just one reason out of many. Something that the Press seems to have forgotten..

O - Al Qaeda....Here - try this on for size -

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States."

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan , but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,"

from The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States report

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," (referring to Iraq & Al Qaeda)

Donald Rumsfeld

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3715396.stm

"I have not seen one.... I have never seen any evidence to suggest there was one." Colin Powell on the allegation of Iraq/Al Qaeda link - interview, Sept 9th 2005 to "20/20"

The Iraqi People do want democracy. If they didn't 75% of the people would not have turned out to vote.


Do they want us gone? Yes! Do i want our forces home? Yes I do. Unlike most people though, I know what would happen if we leave right now. .

Who gives a rats ass what another right wing American "thinks" about Iraq. The continued presence is fuel on the fire. You've fucked it up enough. Time to get out.

Romulus you can die and burn in hell, bush is actually trying, there have been many cases of genocide in Europe and people always say we should have gone in and saved people, now when we do everybody attacks the guy WHO IS TRYING TO HELP, i dont agree with all of his policies but i believe he has good intentions.
so here's what i think of you:upyours:
Hell of a first post. Congratulations.

Usually people are bit afraid of how to formulate their first contribution in the forum. Not you! You made a cogent and to the point post with your first try (cute smiley and all)!

You have a great future here. Welcome.

And of course, there are always statements like these that demonstrate complete indifference:

"We don't do body counts," Gen. Tommy Franks, who directed the Iraq invasion, has said.

I think he said that because we don't train and pay the military to go around counting dead bodies. Not when there are still people shooting at them, trying to turn US soldiers into dead bodies.

Counting the dead is something the media should, and does, spend it's time doing.

It's not indifference, it's job specialization. And if Franks had said, "We spend our time counting them dead Iraqis," you'd complain because he's treating war like a game where dead people are just scores to attain and marvel at. Damned if he does, damned if he don't.

Do you know of a company named Halliburton?

I do.

Have you seen a quite demagogic but factually correct movie called Fahrenheit 911?

I wouldn't call it factually correct. More like opinionated as the movie has been debunked countless times.

Do you know what a fundamentalist extremist is?

I do.

Look up the definition in a dictionary and check it against both GW Bush and Osama Bin Laden. See who's closer to it and be surprised, you naive little girl.

Osama is closer to it you naive little boy.

I do.

I wouldn't call it factually correct. More like opinionated as the movie has been debunked countless times.

I do.

Osama is closer to it you naive little boy.
Is Angels_Who_Fell one of your many puppets and you felt compelled to reply?

Or are you just taking the opportunity to ad hominem another poster?

In this thread you have called me a liar, stated that I am brainwashed, and called me a bullshitter. That is what you do. You don't bring facts. You bring rhetoric, opinion, and insults. I guess if you didn't use the aforementioned "tools" then you in fact wouldn't have anything to say?

I think he said that because we don't train and pay the military to go around counting dead bodies. Not when there are still people shooting at them, trying to turn US soldiers into dead bodies.

Counting the dead is something the media should, and does, spend it's time doing.

It's not indifference, it's job specialization. And if Franks had said, "We spend our time counting them dead Iraqis," you'd complain because he's treating war like a game where dead people are just scores to attain and marvel at. Damned if he does, damned if he don't.
I guess you have a good point there. It certainly wasn't a strong debating point on my behalf.

Is Angels_Who_Fell one of your many puppets and you felt compelled to reply?

Felt compelled to reply.

Felt compelled to reply.
So, Great Southern Threadkill, things going as smoothly as usual? ;)


JFYI, this appears to be clip & pasting. What's up with that?

Felt compelled to reply.

Another devastating post, showing clearly how the Absence of al-qaeda, Wmd, and any justification whatsoever doesnt matter, because you're either (a)trolling, and thus don't care or (b) a psychotic flag waver, who just doesnt care.

Another devastating post, showing clearly how the Absence of al-qaeda, Wmd, and any justification whatsoever doesnt matter, because you're either (a)trolling, and thus don't care or (b) a psychotic flag waver, who just doesnt care.

Actually, I'm waiting for all the papers to be translated into English before I make any comment on this.

Things are looking up in Iraq.
Considering the OP, please explain how "things are looking up"?

Has Rumsfeld ever actually done a single thing as Head of Defence that made anyone go, that guy is on the ball (I mean not counting offering his resignation). He vetoed the general’s plan for the invasion of Iraq, which stated very emphatically that going in without sufficient numbers to secure order after the victory would mean disaster. He’s brushed off every horrible shortcoming in planning, supply, and execution. He’s pushed the torture envelope so hard the FBI have washed their hands of cooperating with the Military anymore. The only thing that separates him from the former head of FEMA is more years of practicing lying and an ability standing up straight to level off topic accusations at his detractors with much greater convictions than Brown could.

The Bruce

Also when people quote the casualty figures, remember that US casualty figures are very selective, to minimilize the numbers much in the same way government figures for unemployment are calculated. The US Government is working harder to minimilize casualties getting counted than preventing casualties, because of political realities. For US losses in Iraq, they don’t count anyone who died in an accident, most commonly vehicle accidents. This includes people who die in vehicle accidents on the way to a firefight (as has actually happened). This doesn’t count soldiers who die of disease, who did not contract it from open wounds suffered in combat. There are some nasty microbes in the Middle East that troops from the West are having a hard time with. Guys are just getting grazing wounds and dying from nasty microbes that are more dangerous than any insurgent.

They also don’t tend to dwell on the number of wounded going home without limbs, because their extremities were the only part of them unarmoured when they took a blast from an IED. Coming home with no legs is as good as dead for most people, but they don’t get counted. It’s harder on these guys than a civilian getting hurt in an industrial accident, because they have no legal recourse and will be living out their lives with Veteran’s Affairs. It’s especially hard on soldiers, who tend to be young and athletic; to no longer have legs anymore. Personally, I’d rather get one between the eyes than come home missing legs.

I think if anyone is pro war and wants the troops to stay there as long as it takes, should be joining up tomorrow. It’s one thing for a veteran to say that because they’ve paid their dues, but it’s too easy to make a call like that when your ass isn’t on the line. That’s partly why we’re there, because America has a country club Viet Nam vet, instead of a guy like Kerry who wouldn’t have invaded in the first place but at least would do as little to screw up when he was stuck there.

The Bruce

Considering the OP, please explain how "things are looking up"?
Perhaps Corny meant "Citizens are looking up in Iraq", meaning, they have to look up to get a small margin of escape time before the cookie cutters rearrange their furniture.

You really need to stop focusing on the negatives. The bottomline is as far as wars go, this one has gone beautifully. And the US is a safer place today because Saddam Hussien is in prison! History will show the path of war in Iraq to be the right one.


Why it's the US safer than three years ago? You're probably right but not for the reasons you may think. It's safer 'cause now it's easier to kill americans in Irak than in the US, but Sadam Hussein was no more a menace to US safety. It's incredible to see that some people are still trusting on the White House lies.:headbang:

Considering the OP, please explain how "things are looking up"?

Because unlike the press, I actually read between the lines and can see the good that is going on over there. Unlike the Press, I actually listen to soldiers who have been there and reported on the good things they are doing (like removing weapons from schools and assisting the locals in repairing the schools).

Ever since the Mosque attack, all three groups of people have gotten more involved in settling their differences to form a unity government. The terrorists made a huge mistake in attacking that mosque as I believe it'll unite, rather than divide, the country. Yes there was massive violence after it. The government was quick though in appealing for calm and now the people seem to be listening.

Iraqi soldiers are bearing the brunt of Operation Swarmer. This is the first joint operation that I have heard of that is being done by mostly Iraqi solders.

More and more areas are also being turned over to the Iraqis as well.

Unfortunately, you have a problem in 3, count'em 3 provinces out of what? 16 or so?

Civil War? Its close to one, I'll admit that. However, unlike the press who is trying to purport that there is a Civil War going on, I know that one isn't happening yet.

That is why I do not trust the press all the time. They do not report just the facts anymore. They sensationalize everything. They cut the crap out that doesn't suit them and they misrepresent what is being said and take things out of context.

We have come so far in 3 years in this war than we have in any previous war. It took nearly a decade to put Japan back on its feet as well as West Germany. These things take time and people these days want things done overnight. I guess I'm a realist who knows that things like this are not done overnight but that it takes time to accomplish it.

I guess I'm a realist who knows that things like this are not done overnight but that it takes time to accomplish it.
Either that or you're an apologist with his dander up. I know whose take on it I'll tend to side with, and it ain't yours, golden-boy.

Either that or you're an apologist with his dander up. I know whose take on it I'll tend to side with, and it ain't yours, golden-boy.

Not my problem you do not care for the facts of the case.

Not my problem you do not care for the facts of the case.
Nor is it our problem that you have consistently demonstrated a complete inability to provide any links for your 'facts'.

Nor is it our problem that you have consistently demonstrated a complete inability to provide any links for your 'facts'.

I'm so sorry that I do not use links. I'm sorr that I have the knowledge of what the rules of war are and what the Law of Armed Conflict is. I'm sorry that I do not subscribe to the ideology that this war is wrong on all levels. I'm sorry that I actually believe in enforcing the rule of law. I'm sorry that I actually believe in backing up the threats of action if he didn't comply. I'm sorry for using facts in a forum that is predominately against Bush and against the Iraq war. I'm sorry for using facts in a forum that supports the so called freedom fighters who aren't fighting for freedom at all, just the opposite in fact.

As bad as Saddam was supposed to be (and remember, he's not been convicted of anything. It's highly unlikley he personaly ordered the death of each Iraqi that died under his rule, he just claims responsibility after some other guy ordered it. It would be better for him to appear guilty than powerless), I don't think that 33,710 civilians could have been killed by him, not to mention 2,575 US soldiers, 103 British soldiers and numerous aid workers and soldiers of other nations could have been killed by him. Perhaps by now, had we not invaded, we could have negotiatied a way out of this mess.

PS. I don't oppose the war for pacifistic beliefs, purely that invading a low-tech, religously motivated high-density population nation with high-tech, financialy motivated soldiers without the support of the citizens of their countries is just plain silly.

Source: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and http://www.bbc.co.uk/

The Bruce, you are extremely misinformed. The casualty count does include accidents and disease the latter of which is extremely rare due to top of the line medical care. And contrary to your beliefs, there is also a count of all of our wounded as well and losing a limb is not as good as dead. I have a couple friends who lost legs and they are doing fine. It's an adjustment but they can still live fruitful lives. You clearly have no idea of how it works over there. From the safety of your house, you can't see the progress we have made. For the first time, the peoples of iraq and afghanistan have a future. Wether the present is good or bad, the iraqi and afghani children now have something to look forward to.

Zorpbuggery, how are enlisted soldier making $20,000 a year, financially motivated?

Zorpbuggery, how are enlisted soldier making $20,000 a year, financially motivated?

What I mean is, if you took away the financial motivation, I doubt weather the soldiers would be as enthusiastic.

The Bruce, you are extremely misinformed. The casualty count does include accidents and disease the latter of which is extremely rare due to top of the line medical care. And contrary to your beliefs, there is also a count of all of our wounded as well and losing a limb is not as good as dead. I have a couple friends who lost legs and they are doing fine. It's an adjustment but they can still live fruitful lives. You clearly have no idea of how it works over there. From the safety of your house, you can't see the progress we have made. For the first time, the peoples of iraq and afghanistan have a future. Wether the present is good or bad, the iraqi and afghani children now have something to look forward to.

Zorpbuggery, how are enlisted soldier making $20,000 a year, financially motivated?

They have much to look forward to. Civil War, genocide, more bombings and killing. Torture by Coalition forces. The eventual withdrawal of Coalition forces and a descent into chaos, anarchy and even more genocide.

I'm sorr that I have the knowledge of what the rules of war are and what the Law of Armed Conflict is.

You don't need to apologise for something you have not shown yourself capable of.

I'm sorry that I actually believe in enforcing the rule of law.

What does this have to do with the debate?

I'm sorry that I actually believe in backing up the threats of action if he didn't comply.

Please explain how Hussein didn't comply, and why thay required sacrificing tens of thousands of lives.

I'm sorry for using facts in a forum that is predominately against Bush and against the Iraq war. I'm sorry for using facts in a forum that supports the so called freedom fighters who aren't fighting for freedom at all, just the opposite in fact.

That's okay, you haven't used many facts at all.

The Bruce, you are extremely misinformed. The casualty count does include accidents and disease the latter of which is extremely rare due to top of the line medical care. And contrary to your beliefs, there is also a count of all of our wounded as well and losing a limb is not as good as dead. I have a couple friends who lost legs and they are doing fine. It's an adjustment but they can still live fruitful lives. You clearly have no idea of how it works over there. From the safety of your house, you can't see the progress we have made. For the first time, the peoples of iraq and afghanistan have a future. Wether the present is good or bad, the iraqi and afghani children now have something to look forward to.

Zorpbuggery, how are enlisted soldier making $20,000 a year, financially motivated?

Here here. Well said USMC Leathernecks. Well said indeed.

Perhaps by now, had we not invaded, we could have negotiatied a way out of this mess.

What do you call 12 years of noncompliance with UN Resolutions? What about his abuse of the Oil for Food Program?

PS. I don't oppose the war for pacifistic beliefs, purely that invading a low-tech, religously motivated high-density population nation with high-tech, financialy motivated soldiers without the support of the citizens of their countries is just plain silly.

Financially motived soldiers? What nation are you talking about?

They have much to look forward to. Civil War, genocide, more bombings and killing. Torture by Coalition forces. The eventual withdrawal of Coalition forces and a descent into chaos, anarchy and even more genocide.

Yeah cause you're a real expert on the topic:rolleyes:. You don't know the situation on the ground, you dont know the iraqi people. They do look forward to the future because all of the right steps are being made right now. I realize mistakes have been made but at an extremely low rate compared to other conflicts. I don't consider the actions of 30 or 40 men and women in a 1.3 million strong force to be the overall actions of the force as a whole. Iraq will not decend into anarchy because the iraqi people will not allow that. You do not understand the resolve of the iraqi people. During the recent reprisals that where labled as a precursor to civil war, the iraqi people along with their government stood strong and ended the attacks. The iraqi police and army did not divide or take sides as many perdicted incorrectly.

You don't need to apologise for something you have not shown yourself capable of.

Dude. I have relatives who are in the service. I know full well what the rules of war are and what the law of armed conflict states. I also have had relatives who have served in both Iraq and in Afghanistan.

What does this have to do with the debate?

You think your so smart, figure it out.

Please explain how Hussein didn't comply, and why thay required sacrificing tens of thousands of lives.

I guess you really don't believe that Hussein violated 686 as well as 687 now do you?

That's okay, you haven't used many facts at all.

I have used nothing but facts. They are just facts that just destroy everything that is being said against it. I don't need any links to know that they are facts.

Yeah cause you're a real expert on the topic:rolleyes:. You don't know the situation on the ground, you dont know the iraqi people. They do look forward to the future because all of the right steps are being made right now. I realize mistakes have been made but at an extremely low rate compared to other conflicts. I don't consider the actions of 30 or 40 men and women in a 1.3 million strong force to be the overall actions of the force as a whole. Iraq will not decend into anarchy because the iraqi people will not allow that. You do not understand the resolve of the iraqi people. During the recent reprisals that where labled as a precursor to civil war, the iraqi people along with their government stood strong and ended the attacks. The iraqi police and army did not divide or take sides as many perdicted incorrectly.

And you dor, sir? I have no idea of your credentials. Why are you so more informed than I?

Yeah cause you're a real expert on the topic:rolleyes:. You don't know the situation on the ground, you dont know the iraqi people. They do look forward to the future because all of the right steps are being made right now. I realize mistakes have been made but at an extremely low rate compared to other conflicts. I don't consider the actions of 30 or 40 men and women in a 1.3 million strong force to be the overall actions of the force as a whole. Iraq will not decend into anarchy because the iraqi people will not allow that. You do not understand the resolve of the iraqi people. During the recent reprisals that where labled as a precursor to civil war, the iraqi people along with their government stood strong and ended the attacks. The iraqi police and army did not divide or take sides as many perdicted incorrectly.

Forget it USMC. These people have no clue as to the real situation on the ground. All they are getting is what they are spoon fed from the press.

Forget it USMC. These people have no clue as to the real situation on the ground. All they are getting is what they are spoon fed from the press.

Pardon me for not taking the word in an anonymous internet poster against various media reports. And no, I don't just read The Sun and Fox. I do read around. True, Iraq has some positive points turning up, but the country is still in a fragile state being torn apart by fundamentalists, terrorists and freedom fighters wishing to chuck the Coalition forces out of an illegal occupation.

And you dor, sir? I have no idea of your credentials. Why are you so more informed than I?

Because i've been there, i've seen it and i know what is going on. I have experience to go on, all you have is 3rd source information that is highly biased at best. I just recently got a promotion to captain in the US Marine Corps so I know the thought process of the military in the middle east. I know why we are there by the way we fight. We are not there to get oil, we could do that in many easier ways than they way we are fighting now. We are there to create a democracy.

You do not understand the resolve of the iraqi people. During the recent reprisals that where labled as a precursor to civil war, the iraqi people along with their government stood strong and ended the attacks. The iraqi police and army did not divide or take sides as many perdicted incorrectly.Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that same government refer to the situation as a civil war and not just precursor to one?

Because i've been there, i've seen it and i know what is going on. I have experience to go on, all you have is 3rd source information that is highly biased at best. I just recently got a promotion to captain in the US Marine Corps so I know the thought process of the military in the middle east. I know why we are there by the way we fight. We are not there to get oil, we could do that in many easier ways than they way we are fighting now. We are there to create a democracy.

Again, you have no proof of this. I mean no offense, but I have no idea if you truly are an officer in the USMC or a spotty 12 year old annoying people. Thus, I won't take your views with any more merit than I would the media.

If you went there for democracy - why not North Korea, a nation where millions starve to death every year and eating other people is actually acceptable in some places to live, and the nation possesses a large and substantiated nuclear arsenal? Or why not the Sudan, where much the same situation is occuring, without the WMDs? Why Iraq? It did not threaten the US in any way, and compared to NK and areas like the Sudan the people there were relatively better off.

Pardon me for not taking the word in an anonymous internet poster against various media reports. And no, I don't just read The Sun and Fox. I do read around. True, Iraq has some positive points turning up, but the country is still in a fragile state being torn apart by fundamentalists, terrorists and freedom fighters wishing to chuck the Coalition forces out of an illegal occupation.

Your right however, if you continue to follow it through to the end, the insurgents are also talking with the government. The only ones who are really doing anything at all are the terrorists by blowing up civilians in an effort to cause this kind of mehem. I guess someone forgot to tell them that the Iraqis are just as strong willed as Americans.

The terrorists made a major mistake in attacking that mosque just like they made the mistake in attacking that wedding party in Jordan and the World Trade Center in 2001. It hasn't divided anything. Yes the Mosque bombing cause tormoil and recrimination attacks but the government quickly moved to appeal for calm and that is precisely what is taking place among the civilians. Even the chief Shi'ite cleric in Iraq appealed for calm. Sunni leaders appealed for calm too. You have all three sides appealing for calm.

As for the occupation being illegal, how is an occupation illegal when THERE IS NO OCCUPATION?

Because i've been there, i've seen it and i know what is going on. I have experience to go on, all you have is 3rd source information that is highly biased at best. I just recently got a promotion to captain in the US Marine Corps so I know the thought process of the military in the middle east. I know why we are there by the way we fight. We are not there to get oil, we could do that in many easier ways than they way we are fighting now. We are there to create a democracy.

I agree.
If we wanted oil we would've invaded the UAE, Saudi Arabia, or Russia. Each of these countries has much more oil than Iraq. But invading Russia could prove troublesome.

Dude. I have relatives who are in the service. I know full well what the rules of war are and what the law of armed conflict states. I also have had relatives who have served in both Iraq and in Afghanistan.


I have relatives who are part of the White House Administration, and they tell me you and George Bush were drowning kittens last night. Prove to me I'm wrong.

I guess you really don't believe that Hussein violated 686 as well as 687 now do you?

Wow, something I can actually look up and verify independently! Good for you, Corny!


I don't need any links to know that they are facts.

Well, if you want anyone else to believe you, the links are mighty useful, dude.

If you went there for democracy - why not North Korea, a nation where millions starve to death every year and eating other people is actually acceptable in some places to live, and the nation possesses a large and substantiated nuclear arsenal?

You just said it yourself, because they do have nuclear weapons. It's already too late to prevent them from getting additional weapons. In addition, the amount of casualties in a second korean war would be immense. North Korea has huge amounts of artillery pieces aiming right at seoul in addition to the threat of nuclear weapons being used against us.

P.S. ask me anything you want to verify my military service.

You just said it yourself, because they do have nuclear weapons. It's already too late to prevent them from getting additional weapons. In addition, the amount of casualties in a second korean war would be immense. North Korea has huge amounts of artillery pieces aiming right at seoul in addition to the threat of nuclear weapons being used against us.

So you attacked Iraq because they're weak and easy to pick on? Why not Sudan or parts of Africa where there are atrocities being commited that make Saddam's regime look like a liberal democracy? Hell, most of them don't even have tanks or an airforce.

So you attacked Iraq because they're weak and easy to pick on? Why not Sudan or parts of Africa where there are atrocities being commited that make Saddam's regime look like a liberal democracy? Hell, most of them don't even have tanks or an airforce.

I say let Europe deal with Africa. Heck. They should deal with the Mid-East as well since they were the ones that drew the boundary lines.

So you attacked Iraq because they're weak and easy to pick on? Why not Sudan or parts of Africa where there are atrocities being commited that make Saddam's regime look like a liberal democracy? Hell, most of them don't even have tanks or an airforce.

We ARE in parts of Africa. In most places we are the only source of medical attention that the native peoples have ever had access to.

The genocide in Africa gets me to wondering about the efficency of the UN.

The genocide in Africa gets me to wondering about the efficency of the UN.

No arguement there. Not to mention some of the atrocities committed by the peacekeepers themselves makes Abu Grahab look like a church picnic.

About 2,314 U.S. military personnel have died during the Iraq war, while Bush has said around 30,000 Iraqis have been killed. The Associated Press estimates the war has cost more than $200 billion US – possibly as high as $250 billion.
He also know wants to cut fincial aid and tap advantages by 100 million dollars which would several cripple fincial aid stopping about 60% of low to middle income family students from attending colleges throught the country which would severally cripple the future educated work force.:headbang:

I say let Europe deal with Africa. Heck. They should deal with the Mid-East as well since they were the ones that drew the boundary lines.

Why are you in Iraq and making hostile moves at Iran then, if you say that? Hell, if you must start poking your noses everywhere, why not go somewhere useful, like other parts of Africa and intervene there, or North Korea.

Why are you in Iraq and making hostile moves at Iran then, if you say that?

I'm not in Iraq.

Hell, if you must start poking your noses everywhere, why not go somewhere useful, like other parts of Africa and intervene there, or North Korea.

I want Europe to deal with Africa. Well them or the UN but I doubt I get my wish. As for North Korea, I would love to wipe out their government and unite them but there is really no practicle way to do it if Kim Jong Il has nuclear Bombs. Of course, he uses one and We won't have to worry about North Korea ever again.

North Korea...... Send in the Marines.

Marines, if it absolutly, positively has to be destroyed in a week.
Navy SEALs, if you can't wait for the marines.
B2 Spirit, if you can't wait for the SEALs.
If you can't wait for the B2, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be shure.

A few predictions for the next 3 years.

1. Coalition will finally realise that the, erm, native forces in Iraq are not going to fight effectively as long as there are all kinds of yanks, brits and poles to do the fighting.
2. Coalition will withdraw, inch by inch.
3. As foreign influence in Iraq wanes, the majority decide that they can hold the reins of power and do so.
In case you missed it: majority = shia
4. The majority will see no need to share power. It isn't in their own interests.
5. All kinds of foreign defenders of, erm, orthodox islam will try to defend their opressed bruvvahs...
6. Shia majority will be no-nonsense in dealing with sedition.
7. Kurdistan secedes - with the blessing of the now 'purely' Shia state.
8. Rump Iraq is now another Ayatollah State - to the everlasting... pain... of the sunni arabs.
9. Mission Accomplished - despite White House tomfoolery.

A few predictions for the next 3 years.

1. Coalition will finally realise that the, erm, native forces in Iraq are not going to fight effectively as long as there are all kinds of yanks, brits and poles to do the fighting.
2. Coalition will withdraw, inch by inch.
3. As foreign influence in Iraq wanes, the majority decide that they can hold the reins of power and do so.
In case you missed it: majority = shia
4. The majority will see no need to share power. It isn't in their own interests.
5. All kinds of foreign defenders of, erm, orthodox islam will try to defend their opressed bruvvahs...
6. Shia majority will be no-nonsense in dealing with sedition.
7. Kurdistan secedes - with the blessing of the now 'purely' Shia state.
8. Rump Iraq is now another Ayatollah State - to the everlasting... pain... of the sunni arabs.
9. Mission Accomplished - despite White House tomfoolery.

Something akin to that eventuality.

If you went there for democracy - why not North Korea, a nation where millions starve to death every year and eating other people is actually acceptable in some places to live, and the nation possesses a large and substantiated nuclear arsenal? Or why not the Sudan, where much the same situation is occuring, without the WMDs? Why Iraq? It did not threaten the US in any way, and compared to NK and areas like the Sudan the people there were relatively better off.
Im jsut gonna guess that no one remembers it since no one is bringing it up. doesnt anyone remember at the time when we first invaded Iraq? what bush was saying endlessly? "This is not a war on Iraq, this is a war on terrorism" and he had plans that after Iraq he was going to go to Suran and Iran and the other places that supported "terrorist" groups, and once the war in Iraq didn't work out so well he just shut up about it? who wants to bet that if he had a chance that after Iraq he wouldnt go for Suran or whatever country you wanna think of? Im not saying im a pacisfist, no I agree with the war and all its just theres a limit to things, for instance 2 things i dont like are simply hes starteing to get obessive over iraq (i believe becasue he wants to either a)get brownie points from his dear ol' daddy or b) which is to show the world hes actually better then his father) He know wants to cut funds from social security, Fincial aid, and health care (which would furthur weaken an already teetering economy) so he can better finace his own little agenda, and as i said im not agianst the war im agianst how bush used 9/11 (which was origiinally afganistan and we still nrver found that "smoking gun" as he so gently put it) to catpult American support when there was a SIGNED PETITION from the families of victims of 9/11 not to go to war in thier name. now if i could find a link i will put it up when i can. if you have any questions of about the early statements check the early broadcastings of fox five news when we finished Afganistan and was about to invade Iraq. Also there was several news castings (even on that so very gay geraldo show) about the petition from the families of 9/11 victims if you really want to check what i say just check the news which i heard all said on fox five which IS a rebuplican broadcasting channel. *side note* (OMFG THAT GERALDO SHOW IS SO F*CKING GAY I HATE HIS GUTS LIKE NOTHING ELSE AND HOPES HE SUFFERS ENDLESSLY FOR BEING SUCH A MORON) *end note* *cough* the above opinion of mine and I stress OPINION for all those flmaers out there with the very fast fingers is what i got from watching exactly 4 episodes of his show which the only reason id id was for my english professor who gave me that project (i wanted CNN) thank you.

Im jsut gonna guess that no one remembers it since no one is bringing it up. doesnt anyone remember at the time when we first invaded Iraq? what bush was saying endlessly? "This is not a war on Iraq, this is a war on terrorism" and he had plans that after Iraq he was going to go to Suran ...<SNIP>...(OMFG THAT GERALDO SHOW IS SO F*CKING GAY I HATE HIS GUTS LIKE NOTHING ELSE AND HOPES HE SUFFERS ENDLESSLY FOR BEING SUCH A MORON) *end note* *cough* the above opinion of mine and I stress OPINION for all those flmaers out there with the very fast fingers is what i got from watching exactly 4 episodes of his show which the only reason id id was for my english professor who gave me that project (i wanted CNN) thank you.

Okay. Proper spelling, grammar, punctuation and sentence structure make reading and comprehension much easier. Providing links also helps to bolster your argument, if you are actually making one, that is.

heh i would today but i got to go to college so ill search for links when i get home.

A few predictions for the next 3 years.

1. Coalition will finally realise that the, erm, native forces in Iraq are not going to fight effectively as long as there are all kinds of yanks, brits and poles to do the fighting.

Already provin false. They are fighting effectively right now.

2. Coalition will withdraw, inch by inch.

When the Iraqis can do things on their own, we'll begin to withdraw. This has always been the plan.

3. As foreign influence in Iraq wanes, the majority decide that they can hold the reins of power and do so.

And they are already doing so. They already have control of their own government and provinces are being turned over to the Iraqis as well.

4. The majority will see no need to share power. It isn't in their own interests.

Another falsehood that is already proven. The Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'ites are talking about shared power and power is already shared by the Kurds and Shi'ites. They are in the process of getting the Sunnis involved even as we speak.

5. All kinds of foreign defenders of, erm, orthodox islam will try to defend their opressed bruvvahs...

And they aren't now?

6. Shia majority will be no-nonsense in dealing with sedition.

Hopefully but hopefully do it in accordance with the rule of law.

7. Kurdistan secedes - with the blessing of the now 'purely' Shia state.

The Kurds don't want their own country. If they did then why are the part of the new Iraqi government?

8. Rump Iraq is now another Ayatollah State - to the everlasting... pain... of the sunni arabs.

Doubtful

9. Mission Accomplished - despite White House tomfoolery.

The mission to oust Saddam was accomplished. Now we are dealing with a new mission. Something posters on here keep forgetting.

heh i would today but i got to go to college so ill search for links when i get home.

You don't live on campus do you?

Currently I attend to John Jay College of Criminal Justice. lol, nope no campus for me.

Kind of funny to read some of the people's opinions on the Iraq war when they probably never set foot in it.

Carry on, you useful-idiots are amusing.

BTW, for those that think that the US is keeping soldiers at Iraq because of civil war, how do you explain places like korea or other places around the world?

1. If the iraqi forces are effective - how come the yanks still need to fight?
Neocon selfdelusion.
2. The Plan changes every week or so. I can't put much faith in that.
3. In other words, the CPA can go home right now?
4. Buh-lo-ney. What you see is merely the occupation of battle-lines for when the conflict starts in earnest. Setting up the chess-pieces.
Old arab saying: me and my brother against my cousin, and me and my cousin against the outsider. Meanwhile, the civil war goes on.
5. Hardly in strength - more to follow. Actually, the drawing in of more and more foreign little jihadis into the free fire zone called the Sunni Triangle is just about the only concept in Operation Iraqi Freedom is the one bit of it that makes operational sense.
6. Whose law? And let me be honest; if Sadr or whoever ends up running the show decides to genocide the sunni arabs in Iraq out of existence, I wont do anything to stop him. Meanwhile - you are working with hope. *sneers of contempt* hope - like just causes - are for fools, and children out to make a name.
7. *howls of laughter* How many Kurds hav you ever chatted with over a cup of coffee?
8. 60% of the vote to work with. Just as in the partial lections in Egypt, the elections in the palestine territories, and the elections in Algeria, any really free election in the islamic part of the middle east bcomes a strong victory for Fundamentalists.
What odds does your local bookmaker give you for a freeyance peeyance secure Iraq?
9. See, this is where I get confused, cuz, like, The Mission seems to be changing with every White House Press-conference.

Further suggested reading: Joe Stillwell and the China Experience - by Barbara Tuchman.

1. If the iraqi forces are effetive - how come the yanks still need to fight?
Neocon selfdelusion.

Why are the Iraqis doing the brunt of the fighting in Operation Swarmer if they can not fight effectively?

2. The Plan changes every week or so. I can't ut much faith in that.

Welcome to war. No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy.

3. In other words, the CPA can go home right now?

There hasn't been A CPA for awhile now. I guess you didn't get the part where the Iraqis have sovereignty?

4. Buh-lo-ney. What you see is merely the occupation of battle-lines for when the conflict starts in earnest. Setting up the chess-pieces.
Old arab saying: me and my brother against my cousin, and me and my cousin against the outsider. Meanwhile, the civil war goes on.

Since there is no civil war in Iraq, this holds no weight.

5. Hardly in strength - more to follow. Actually, the drawing in of more and more foreign little jihadis into the free fire zone called the sunni Triangle is just about the only concept in Operation Iraqi Freedom is the one bit of it that makes operational sense.

thanks. That's the other point that people forget is that most of what is being done now is being done by the foriegners in Iraq. The attack on the Mosque? done by Al Qeada. At least the insurgency knows that you try to limit civilian casualties. That is why they do the roadside bomb things. Though I noticed that is on the decrease. I also notice that the Sunnis are talking with the government as well. Something that seems to be ignored on this board apparently.

6. Whose law? And let me be honest; if Sadr or whoever ends up running the show decides to genocide the sunni arabs in Iraq out of existence, I wont do anything to stop him. Meanwhile - you are working with hope. *sneers of contempt* hope - like just causes - are for fools, and children out to make a name.

I don't think that Sadr will be incharge at all. He's to radical even for the Iraqis. He doesn't have that much support. Its nice to see though that you know nothing of the local situation.

7. *howls of laughter* How many Kurds hav you ever chatted with over a cup of coffee?

The Turkish kurds do. The Iraqi Kurds want to be part of Iraq. If they didn't then they wouldn't be part of the new government.

8. 60% of the vote to work with. Just as in the partial lections in Egypt, the elections in the palestine territories, and the elections in Algeria, any really free election in the islamic part of the middle east bcomes a strong victory for Fundamentalists.

Try 70%. I also suggest you look at Fatah in the Palestinian Terrorities. They were very corrupt. It wasn't because the people liked Hamas but they voted against Fatah.

What odds does your local bookmaker give you for a freeyance peeyance secure Iraq?

I don't gamble so I wouldn't know what the oddsmakers have it at. I really don't care actually. I do know that the people do want democracy. If they didn't, they wouldn't have had a 70%+ turnout in their latest elections.

9. See, this is where I get confused, cuz, like, The Mission seems to be changing with every White House Press-conference.

See this is why I hate debating with unintelligent people who don't know the fact that 1) Hussein was the primary mission. that's done. He's out of power and is in a courtroom. Now that mission is over, you change the mission. 2) get the elections going. That's done. 3) reconstruct Iraq. That's in progress. 4) eliminate the terrorists. That's being done as well.

1. I don't care greatly how you name the operation - but I do care, and question, if the Iraqi forces are capable of doing their own missions without the presence of others. And...if they are indeed effective, then I guess it's time that THEY are in command... and the foreign forces are subject to Iraqi command. It sorta comes under the heading of sovereignty...

Meanwhile: returning to the facts:
# U.S. military fatalities from hostile acts have risen from an average of about 17 per month just after President Bush declared an end to major combat operations on May 1, 2003, to an average of 82 per month.
# The average number of U.S. soldiers wounded by hostile acts per month has spiraled from 142 to 808 during the same period. Iraqi civilians have suffered even more deaths and injuries, although reliable statistics aren't available.
# Attacks on the U.S.-led coalition since November 2003, when statistics were first available, have risen from 735 a month to 2,400 in October. Air Force Brig. Gen. Erv Lessel, the multinational forces' deputy operations director, told Knight Ridder on Friday that attacks were currently running at 75 a day, about 2,300 a month, well below a spike in November during the assault on Fallujah, but nearly as high as October's total.
# The average number of mass-casualty bombings has grown from zero in the first four months of the American occupation to an average of 13 per month.
# Electricity production has been below pre-war levels since October, largely because of sabotage by insurgents, with just 6.7 hours of power daily in Baghdad in early January, according to the State Department.
# Iraq is pumping about 500,000 barrels a day fewer than its pre-war peak of 2.5 million barrels per day as a result of attacks, according to the State Department.

2. Ah... so... the Plan is ever changing, and so are the objectives.
It also effectively rules out the possibility of accountability.
Minor note; no plan survives so shortly as a bad plan.

3. So, I'm guessing that each and every member of the Coalition Forces is subject to Iraqi laws, and Iraqi regulations, and nothing else?
I'm afraid that your definition of soveriegn is just a word between sober and sozzled, you see.

4. There is no civil war in Iraq. I guess I heard our beloved secretary of Defense say so on the BBC last night. Unfortunately... the Iraqi minister who was interviewed within the same news segment did not agree at all. He said it was a civil war, alright.

5. Welcome. I'm standing by it. It is the only part of the op that makes good sense, and seems to be well planned.

6. All the support you need is... the right people. He certainly seems to have the right people behind him. The only reasonable alterntive seems to be Ayatolah Al Sistani.

7. Evading the question. Many secessionist parties all over the world are withing government coalitions. We might ven recall scessionists within the Buchanan government, working for Seccession while in Office.
How man have you chatted with over coffee?

8. 70 is even better... but 50.1 is all it takes.
On Fatah: try:
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_02_27/index1.html
'They Vote, We Lose'

In essence, that is the reason why I have been and remain hostile to the idea of promoting freeyance peeyance secure countries in the ME. Freedom includes by necessity freedom to express your opinions. Middle Easterners have a tendency to do so by such acts as flying boeings into buildings.
Promoting Freedom in the ME is therefore NOT in the best interest of the West. It is, in fact, TREASON.


9. Evasions. First, it was WMD, then it was Hussain, then a war on terror.
Flipflop all over.

I can see that you do not believe in facts do you Bogmarsh?

What I just said is factual. The Iraqis are bearing the brunt of the current operations and they are doing patrols WITHOUT US back up.

That is a cold hard fact that cannot be denied.

Sunnis and the other groups are talking about power sharing. Another cold hard fact.

Al Qaeda is killing Iraqi civilians which is turning them against Al Qaeda. Another fact. If they were doing what the insurgency was doing at first, by attacking Coalition forces only, it might be different right now.

Fatah was tossed out because of corruption. Now Hamas has to deal with the cold realities of politics and that their rhetoric is not welcomed on the World Stage. That's another fact.

What do you call 12 years of noncompliance with UN Resolutions? What about his abuse of the Oil for Food Program?


What about four decades of Israeli abuse?

What about the billions stolen and mispent by Paul "the haircut" Bremner and his coterie of Bush appointees?

What about four decades of Israeli abuse?

What about those same decades of Arabs trying to destroy Israel?

What about the billions stolen and mispent by Paul "the haircut" Bremner and his coterie of Bush appointees?

Why odn't you ask paul Bremmer?

We are there to create a democracy.
I thought the US was there because of suspected WMD, and links to Al-Queda?

I thought the US was there because of suspected WMD, and links to Al-Queda?
Give 'em time. Eventually they'll be there for the beachfront property.

Because i've been there, i've seen it and i know what is going on. I have experience to go on, all you have is 3rd source information that is highly biased at best. I just recently got a promotion to captain in the US Marine Corps so I know the thought process of the military in the middle east. I know why we are there by the way we fight. We are not there to get oil, we could do that in many easier ways than they way we are fighting now. We are there to create a democracy.

I’d probably trust you more if you were a Sergeant. My personal experience with Officers (American and Commonwealth) has been that they are mouth pieces of political will and completely buy into the propaganda of the party line. Sergeants tend to be more pragmatic and less likely to collect frequent fragger points. Not all Officers are that bad, but a huge majority of the better Officers are the ones that came from the ranks first.

The Bruce

thanks. That's the other point that people forget is that most of what is being done now is being done by the foriegners in Iraq. The attack on the Mosque? done by Al Qeada. At least the insurgency knows that you try to limit civilian casualties. That is why they do the roadside bomb things. Though I noticed that is on the decrease.
Really? Is that why there was a 29% increase in attacks in 2005 over 2004?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-01-22-iraq-statistics_x.htm
Insurgents launched 34,131 attacks last year, up from 26,496 the year before, according to U.S. military figures.
•The number of car bombs more than doubled to 873 last year from 420 the year before. The number of suicide car bombs went to 411 from 133.
• Roadside bombs, or improvised explosive devices, as the military calls them, continue to be the most common weapon. Roadside bombs increased to 10,953 in 2005 from 5,607 the year before. Those numbers include roadside bombs that are discovered and defused. These bombs account for nearly one-third of all insurgent attacks.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2006/02/10/2003292366
The number of attacks in December, numbering nearly 2,500, was almost 250 percent higher than the number in March 2004.
The trend line began even before March 2004, when the number of attacks was already nearly double what it had been in July or August 2003.

Sad, really. The way some ppl just make shit up in order to keep themselves in denial.

Give 'em time. Eventually they'll be there for the beachfront property.
Either that or an environmental study of the effects of sand on humvees? :rolleyes:

Really? Is that why there was a 29% increase in attacks in 2005 over 2004?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-01-22-iraq-statistics_x.htm
Hmmmm, from "boots on the ground" no less. I guess Corny's info must be coming from "boots on the ground" in a remote part of Iraq?

Insurgents launched 34,131 attacks last year, up from 26,496 the year before, according to U.S. military figures released Sunday.

Insurgents are widening their attacks to include the expanding Iraqi forces engaged in the fighting, said Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, a coalition spokesman.


http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2006/02/10/2003292366

Sad, really. The way some ppl just make shit up in order to keep themselves in denial.
Especially when the facts come from the "boots on the ground"?

Sweeping statistics on insurgent violence in Iraq that were declassified for a Senate hearing on Wednesday appear to portray a rebellion whose ability to mount attacks has steadily grown in the nearly three years since the invasion.

The statistics were included in a report written by Joseph Christoff, director of international affairs and trade at the Government Accountability Office, who testified before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee during a hearing on Iraq stabilization and reconstruction.

The US military declassified the statistics so he could present them to the hearing in his report, Christoff said in an interview. The figures cover attacks on US and Iraqi forces and civilians.

I think Corny needs to get some new contacts?

More info from that web site that you referenced Demented Hampsters:

The new statistics show:

•The number of car bombs more than doubled to 873 last year from 420 the year before. The number of suicide car bombs went to 411 from 133.

• Sixty-seven attackers wore suicide vests last year, up from seven in 2004. Suicide and car bombs are often targeted at Iraqis, causing high casualties.

• Roadside bombs, or improvised explosive devices, as the military calls them, continue to be the most common weapon. Roadside bombs increased to 10,953 in 2005 from 5,607 the year before. Those numbers include roadside bombs that are discovered and defused. These bombs account for nearly one-third of all insurgent attacks.

I think Corny needs to get some new contacts?
As in talking to ppl in the know, or new glasses (the non-rose tinted kind) so he can read what the hell's actually going on over there?

You realise that 34000 attacks is nearly 100 p/day?
From the article I posted:
a senior US military officer saying that "attack levels ebb and flow as the various insurgent groups -- almost all of which are an intrinsic part of Iraq's population -- re-arm and attack again."
Notice that he's not saying the insurgents are foreigners? It's Iraqis killing Iraqis at a rate of 60 a day, in 100 attacks a day. But nope...No way is there a civil war going on over there.
(I refrain from using rolled-eyes smileys cause they so passé )

More info from that web site that you referenced Demented Hampsters:

The new statistics show:

•The number of car bombs more than doubled to 873 last year from 420 the year before. The number of suicide car bombs went to 411 from 133.

• Sixty-seven attackers wore suicide vests last year, up from seven in 2004. Suicide and car bombs are often targeted at Iraqis, causing high casualties.

• Roadside bombs, or improvised explosive devices, as the military calls them, continue to be the most common weapon. Roadside bombs increased to 10,953 in 2005 from 5,607 the year before. Those numbers include roadside bombs that are discovered and defused. These bombs account for nearly one-third of all insurgent attacks.

yep yep yep. But then consider, wouldn't this be enough reason to try to stablize the country since these people are literally killing thier own neighbors for a twisted view of thier religion. So what if we want to install a user friendly government as we do it, why the hell try stop a civil (or colse to civil) war if your not going to benefit. Truthfully, i couldn't give a rat's ass about what happens over there but the bleeding hearts who love the taste of oil do care very much considering our economy runs on middle eastern oil, so yea we have a preety good reason to be there right now. and with your information we should be sending MORE soldiers to Iraq to solve the "take care" of the insurgents there.

remember to every story there are two sides you might have brought that story up to show how little use American forces are there, but then if you look at it in a differnt way you could see a country which is tearing itself apart which has a couple of the keys to the American economy, so we should have a more active and forceful role in this if anything, hell we been damn nicer (excluding certain soldiers and thier extra ciricular activities with certain prisoners) then we could have been so really hush.

p.s. any flmaes on grammer and/or spelling can just go bite yourself because it doesnt make my argument any worse or better. this is not a term paper and this is not a buisness letter to someone important. this is jsut general opinion in an forum with people i do not know and do not care about. so if you want to flmae what i say flame it with opinions of your own included with your facts, becasue with facts like those your provided i could take it several ways.

Iraqi Kurds want a Kurdish state, but under huge pressure from the US are biding their time to allow the US puppet government to fall apart on its own. After all the best way to destroy something is to be an ineffective part of it. This way they can ensure their interests are looked after and at the same time position themselves for the future. At some point they are going to move either to turn their back on the whole mess and wash their hands of it, or negotiate some degree of semi-autonomy (eventually leading to full autonomy). You have to remember that the idea of a Kurdish homeland (by the people of Iraq, Turkey, and Iran) is a very strong motivator for these people.

Turkey has already stated that if a Kurdish state emerges out of this mess that they’ll invade. Turkey is afraid that after persecuting its own Kurds out of hand that they’ll suddenly find themselves fighting against guerillas backed by an oil rich and independent Kurdish state. Besides if Turkey invades they get the Kurdish oil fields as a prize. So far Turkey has only staged aggressive military operations on the border with Iraq, said to have crossed the border on numerous occasions, but nothing more.

The Bruce

What about those same decades of Arabs trying to destroy Israel??


A rather disengenous answer. The occupation is illegal and a cause of conflict, regardless of the deeds of certain Arab states in the Past. As they havent attacked Israel for years, and have peace treaties established, its also untrue on a literal level.

There were no WMD, supposed violations were not sufficient, and there was no terror link.

Why odn't you ask paul Bremmer?

Evasion. Theres a suprise.

The problem with the Iraqi army is that after the US invaded they completely disbanded the old army and had to start from scratch. You can train an army of privates fairly quickly, but it takes a lot more time for sergeants, instructors, logistics and planning officers, and specialists to get fully trained. Until the time is spent training to have more than just a bunch of stuffed shirts, they’re just a bunch of poorly equipped guys with guns, who barely know what they’re doing. You can’t create a functional army out of thin air, without taking a lot of time and resources to do it.

Despite the suicide bombers blowing them up at recruiting stations though, there are always going to be a lot of people trying to join. Except for the criminals, the Iraqi economy is a complete shambles and joining either the police or army is for a lot of them the only chance at eking out a living, provide they survive being recruited.

The Bruce

snip.
while all good points, you missed the main point of the posts with the stats:
They were there to show to certain posters who believe otherwise that the situation in Iraq isn't getting better and that if it isn't in civil war now, it most certainly is sliding down that path rapidly.

Saddam was never a threat to the US. He was barely a threat to his neighbors.


Seems a bit like wishfull thinking to me:rolleyes:

The cost to date:

The Associated Press estimates the war has cost more than $200 billion US – possibly as high as $250 billion.

Just to make it a bit more compelling:

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

Just to make it a bit more compelling:

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
$250 Billion is fairly compelling!!

What I just said is factual. The Iraqis are bearing the brunt of the current operations and they are doing patrols WITHOUT US back up.

Sure. Can I see a cite? If you are talking about Operation Swarmer, the Iraqis make up about half of the forces, according to this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1733050,00.html
They also have to rely on US helicopters. The truth is that the Iraqis could not have pulled this off without USian resources.

Sunnis and the other groups are talking about power sharing. Another cold hard fact.

Not according to this article:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/KAR354603.htm

I've seen a lot of left-wing Bush-bashing in this thread and others, and I just wonder, do any of you bashers do anything about it besides posting on NS? Or do you just sit in your dorm/apartment/mom's basement and mouth off?

Here's what I think of the war:

The world is a better place because the US invaded Iraq. The world is not a safer place. There's a difference. A big one.

I've seen a lot of left-wing Bush-bashing in this thread and others, and I just wonder, do any of you bashers do anything about it besides posting on NS? Or do you just sit in your dorm/apartment/mom's basement and mouth off?

Here's what I think of the war:

The world is a better place because the US invaded Iraq. The world is not a safer place. There's a difference. A big one.

Nice ad hominem attack there old chum. I for one criticise Bush, and I'm right-wing and a university student. But please, continue with your arrogant presumptions.

A better place? Perhaps, but why not invade North Korea to free the people there who suffer far more than the Iraqi people did? Or perhaps Somalia and help the UN out there? They would have been better choices.

A better place? Perhaps, but why not invade North Korea to free the people there who suffer far more than the Iraqi people did? Or perhaps Somalia and help the UN out there? They would have been better choices.

That's my biggest problem with the whole "Iraqi Freedom".

The world is a better place because the US invaded Iraq. The world is not a safer place. There's a difference. A big one.


Actually its not "better", either for the Iraqis, the middle east, or anybody else for that matter.

Truthfully, i couldn't give a rat's ass about what happens over there but the bleeding hearts who love the taste of oil do care very much considering our economy runs on middle eastern oil, so yea we have a preety good reason to be there right now.
BINGO!! While I disagree with you, I do respect your straightforward honesty.

remember to every story there are two sides you might have brought that story up to show how little use American forces are there, but then if you look at it in a differnt way you could see a country which is tearing itself apart which has a couple of the keys to the American economy, so we should have a more active and forceful role in this if anything, hell we been damn nicer (excluding certain soldiers and thier extra ciricular activities with certain prisoners) then we could have been so really hush.
The American economy is more important than the lives of Iraqis and American soldiers? Perhaps it should be your azz on the firing line?

this is jsut general opinion in an forum with people i do not know and do not care about.
Noted.

Why are the Iraqis doing the brunt of the fighting in Operation Swarmer if they can not fight effectively?
How do you figure that the Iraqis are doing the brunt of the fighting?

Also from what I understand, this Operation is really overblown and there is very minor resistance. One comment that I read stated that it should have been named "Operation Overblown".

There hasn't been A CPA for awhile now. I guess you didn't get the part where the Iraqis have sovereignty?
As long as US troops are in Iraq, the Iraqis do not have "sovereignity". You use the word loosely to say the least.

More than anything else, this low-level but fierce war is responsible for the constantly diminishing reservoir of sovereignty in Iraq. If the Americans sought to establish the legitimacy of the occupation by crushing early signs of Sunni resistance, that effort has, in the end, only helped convince Iraqis of the illegitimacy of the American presence.

For all its failures, however, the occupation has succeeded in one endeavor. It has managed to undermine all efforts by other parties to establish their own legitimacy and therefore to build a foundation for a new and sovereign Iraq. If one day Iraq ceases to be, splitting chaotically into several entities, the way the occupation destroyed sovereignty (along with parts of Sunni cities) will certainly come in for a major share of the blame.

Since there is no civil war in Iraq, this holds no weight.
I guess you didn't read the article (http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060319/iraq_protests_060319)at the beginning of this thread?

Sectarian violence killed at least 35 people died Sunday night, while about 1,500 U.S. and Iraq troops searched for insurgents just north of Iraq's capital.

Former interim prime minister Ayad Allawi has equated the violence with a civil war.

"We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more," Allawi told the British Broadcasting Corp. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."

Iraq is moving towards the "point of no return", he said, when the country would fragment.

"It will not only fall apart but sectarianism will spread throughout the region, and even Europe and the US will not be spared the violence that results...," he said.

Majority in U.S. Fears Iraq Civil War (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/06/AR2006030600369.html)

An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that fighting between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Iraq will lead to civil war, and half say the United States should begin withdrawing its forces from that violence-torn country, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey found that 80 percent believe that recent sectarian violence makes civil war in Iraq likely, and more than a third say such a conflict is "very likely" to occur.

That's the other point that people forget is that most of what is being done now is being done by the foriegners in Iraq. The attack on the Mosque? done by Al Qeada.
Proof please.

At least the insurgency knows that you try to limit civilian casualties. That is why they do the roadside bomb things. Though I noticed that is on the decrease.
You cannot seem to get anything right on this thread?

Attacks in Iraq jumped in 2005 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-01-22-iraq-statistics_x.htm)

The new statistics show:

•The number of car bombs more than doubled to 873 last year from 420 the year before. The number of suicide car bombs went to 411 from 133.

• Sixty-seven attackers wore suicide vests last year, up from seven in 2004. Suicide and car bombs are often targeted at Iraqis, causing high casualties.

• Roadside bombs, or improvised explosive devices, as the military calls them, continue to be the most common weapon. Roadside bombs increased to 10,953 in 2005 from 5,607 the year before. Those numbers include roadside bombs that are discovered and defused. These bombs account for nearly one-third of all insurgent attacks.

You really need to do more reading Corny and a lot less stating of your factless opinions.

And how well is the War on Terror progressing to date? Not well apparently:

Terrorist growth overtakes U.S. efforts (http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060301-113323-8165r.htm)

Thirty new terrorist organizations have emerged since the September 11, 2001, attacks, outpacing U.S. efforts to crush the threat, said Brig. Gen. Robert L. Caslen, the Pentagon's deputy director for the war on terrorism.

"We are not killing them faster than they are being created," Gen. Caslen told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson Center yesterday, warning that the war could take decades to resolve.

I also notice that the Sunnis are talking with the government as well. Something that seems to be ignored on this board apparently.
They may be talking, but they are resolving very little:

Meanwhile, Iraqi politicians are still struggling to form a government, three months after elections were held to form a new parliament.

I guess I titled this thread properly? Everyone is giving you the message but you keep mixing it up.

I don't think that Sadr will be incharge at all. He's to radical even for the Iraqis. He doesn't have that much support. Its nice to see though that you know nothing of the local situation.
Well, it is fairly obvious "that you know nothing of the local situation"? Your pipeline to the boots on the ground must be letting you down?

The Mahdi Army. Loyal to the young, anti-U.S. cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, this group of thousands of armed loyalists fought U.S. forces for much of last year before agreeing to an October 2004 ceasefire. Recent news reports suggest the militia, which controls much of Sadr City, a Baghdad slum of some 2.5 million Shiites, may be regrouping and rearming itself. Muqtada al-Sadr has refused to participate directly in the Iraqi government, though some of his followers were elected to seats on the Iraqi National Assembly.

A poll by the Iraq Center for Research and Studies found that 32% of Iraqis "strongly supported" Al-Sadr, and another 36% "somewhat supported" him, making him the second most popular man in Iraq, behind only Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. The Mahdi Army is believed by some sources to number between 3,000 and 10,000 guerrillas.

The Turkish kurds do. The Iraqi Kurds want to be part of Iraq. If they didn't then they wouldn't be part of the new government.
The Iraqi Kurds want to be part of Iraq? More disinformation by the Cornman:

Kurds see democracy as means to gain independent state: In Iraq, freedom to secede? (http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=10557)

See this is why I hate debating with unintelligent people who don't know the fact that 1) Hussein was the primary mission.
Intelligent people know that the "primary mission" was Iraq's fabled WMD, and their fabled links to Al-Queda.

Now that mission is over, you change the mission. 2) get the elections going. That's done.
Hurray!! Lets see now, the US has removed a sectarian leader in Saddam and now the country is leaning towards a theocracy more aligned with Iran. OOPS!!

Is this the result that Bushco wanted? I think not.

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.

Another insight:

The constitution drafted by the elected parliament enshrines Islam as the religion of state and stipulates that the civil parliament may pass no legislation that contravenes the established laws of Islam. It hints that clerics and ayatollahs will be appointed to court benches. The constitution has brought Iraq to the brink of being an Islamic Republic, with potentially harmful effects on the rights of women, gays, Christians and others. Since the Shiite religious parties had won the January 30, 2005 elections, this outcome was predictable.


3) reconstruct Iraq. That's in progress.
It is?

Iraq reconstruction 'has stalled' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4827932.stm)

Much of Iraq is affected by chronic violence and crime and reconstruction of the country has stalled, according to Christian Aid.

Iraq reconstruction shows 'limited progress' (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0826/dailyUpdate.html)

4) eliminate the terrorists. That's being done as well.
As noted above:

Terrorist growth overtakes U.S. efforts (http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060301-113323-8165r.htm)

Thirty new terrorist organizations have emerged since the September 11, 2001, attacks, outpacing U.S. efforts to crush the threat, said Brig. Gen. Robert L. Caslen, the Pentagon's deputy director for the war on terrorism.

"We are not killing them faster than they are being created," Gen. Caslen told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson Center yesterday, warning that the war could take decades to resolve.

Maybe if you read this twice, it might sink in?

Plays Religious Card:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10761157&postcount=370

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10768236&postcount=396

Carpet Bomb Iraq, Bar-B-Que Iranians, Shoot POWs:

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

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10754173&postcount=270

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10761157&postcount=370

Avoiding Military Service:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10640300&postcount=405

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10646353&postcount=82

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10754473&postcount=255

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10754526&postcount=259

Yet Loves Calling Others Cowards:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10755096&postcount=260

Some added links to previously unanswered or partially answered posts directed your way by other posters and myself.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10622553&postcount=162

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10618970&postcount=239

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10618551&postcount=235

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10622122&postcount=252

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10624916&postcount=270

Chemical Weapons in Iraq:

US Uses Chemical Weapons in Fallujah (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10598675&postcount=164)

Debate on International Law:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10636339&postcount=293

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9854829&postcount=142

UN Resolution 1441 (http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm)

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

Agree to Disagree Club:

Usually after a large post by a fellow debater, many times you will not refute the facts presented and often snip their material, while suggesting that perhaps it would be better to "agree to disagree". After having made that statement, you tend to continue pushing your talking points. Kinda like having the last word. That has happened 3 times in the other Iraq War thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473367)so far:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10619506&postcount=242

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10622807&postcount=260

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10624102&postcount=266

Honest Debate?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10633505&postcount=283

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10635797&postcount=288

Well Corny, I and others have rebutted all of your opinions with some facts that may very well be irrefutable. However, just in case you want to carry on these topics at a later date, I am going to link this extensive post to my signature for quick reference and auto replay!! :D

I'm not going to post the majority of the views I hold, as some might have already have, though I would like to point out one simple little detail:

The War has been over for a good chunk of that. It ended when Saddam's power structure fell to the Coalition.

We are currently in the proccess of rebuilding the nation, just like we did with Germany starting after VE day in 1945. It took atleast 3 years to sort out everything and even there a large number of our forces were stationed in Western Germany until the '50s. What has happened in Iraq with those who lost power now figting to regain it was alway a possiblity in Germany, one that thankfully never came up. However in the desert it has been a differant story... and it will take much longer now then it did in Germany because of it.

How do you figure that the Iraqis are doing the brunt of the fighting?

Also from what I understand, this Operation is really overblown and there is very minor resistance. One comment that I read stated that it should have been named "Operation Overblown".


As long as US troops are in Iraq, the Iraqis do not have "sovereignity". You use the word loosely to say the least.

More than anything else, this low-level but fierce war is responsible for the constantly diminishing reservoir of sovereignty in Iraq. If the Americans sought to establish the legitimacy of the occupation by crushing early signs of Sunni resistance, that effort has, in the end, only helped convince Iraqis of the illegitimacy of the American presence.

For all its failures, however, the occupation has succeeded in one endeavor. It has managed to undermine all efforts by other parties to establish their own legitimacy and therefore to build a foundation for a new and sovereign Iraq. If one day Iraq ceases to be, splitting chaotically into several entities, the way the occupation destroyed sovereignty (along with parts of Sunni cities) will certainly come in for a major share of the blame.


I guess you didn't read the article (http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060319/iraq_protests_060319)at the beginning of this thread?

Sectarian violence killed at least 35 people died Sunday night, while about 1,500 U.S. and Iraq troops searched for insurgents just north of Iraq's capital.

Former interim prime minister Ayad Allawi has equated the violence with a civil war.

"We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more," Allawi told the British Broadcasting Corp. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."

Iraq is moving towards the "point of no return", he said, when the country would fragment.

"It will not only fall apart but sectarianism will spread throughout the region, and even Europe and the US will not be spared the violence that results...," he said.

Majority in U.S. Fears Iraq Civil War (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/06/AR2006030600369.html)

An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that fighting between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Iraq will lead to civil war, and half say the United States should begin withdrawing its forces from that violence-torn country, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey found that 80 percent believe that recent sectarian violence makes civil war in Iraq likely, and more than a third say such a conflict is "very likely" to occur.


Proof please.


You cannot seem to get anything right on this thread?

Attacks in Iraq jumped in 2005 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-01-22-iraq-statistics_x.htm)

The new statistics show:

•The number of car bombs more than doubled to 873 last year from 420 the year before. The number of suicide car bombs went to 411 from 133.

• Sixty-seven attackers wore suicide vests last year, up from seven in 2004. Suicide and car bombs are often targeted at Iraqis, causing high casualties.

• Roadside bombs, or improvised explosive devices, as the military calls them, continue to be the most common weapon. Roadside bombs increased to 10,953 in 2005 from 5,607 the year before. Those numbers include roadside bombs that are discovered and defused. These bombs account for nearly one-third of all insurgent attacks.

You really need to do more reading Corny and a lot less stating of your factless opinions.

And how well is the War on Terror progressing to date? Not well apparently:

Terrorist growth overtakes U.S. efforts (http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060301-113323-8165r.htm)

Thirty new terrorist organizations have emerged since the September 11, 2001, attacks, outpacing U.S. efforts to crush the threat, said Brig. Gen. Robert L. Caslen, the Pentagon's deputy director for the war on terrorism.

"We are not killing them faster than they are being created," Gen. Caslen told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson Center yesterday, warning that the war could take decades to resolve.


They may be talking, but they are resolving very little:

Meanwhile, Iraqi politicians are still struggling to form a government, three months after elections were held to form a new parliament.

I guess I titled this thread properly? Everyone is giving you the message but you keep mixing it up.


Well, it is fairly obvious "that you know nothing of the local situation"? Your pipeline to the boots on the ground must be letting you down?

The Mahdi Army. Loyal to the young, anti-U.S. cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, this group of thousands of armed loyalists fought U.S. forces for much of last year before agreeing to an October 2004 ceasefire. Recent news reports suggest the militia, which controls much of Sadr City, a Baghdad slum of some 2.5 million Shiites, may be regrouping and rearming itself. Muqtada al-Sadr has refused to participate directly in the Iraqi government, though some of his followers were elected to seats on the Iraqi National Assembly.

A poll by the Iraq Center for Research and Studies found that 32% of Iraqis "strongly supported" Al-Sadr, and another 36% "somewhat supported" him, making him the second most popular man in Iraq, behind only Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. The Mahdi Army is believed by some sources to number between 3,000 and 10,000 guerrillas.


The Iraqi Kurds want to be part of Iraq? More disinformation by the Cornman:

Kurds see democracy as means to gain independent state: In Iraq, freedom to secede? (http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=10557)


Intelligent people know that the "primary mission" was Iraq's fabled WMD, and their fabled links to Al-Queda.


Hurray!! Lets see now, the US has removed a sectarian leader in Saddam and now the country is leaning towards a theocracy more aligned with Iran. OOPS!!

Is this the result that Bushco wanted? I think not.

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.

Another insight:

The constitution drafted by the elected parliament enshrines Islam as the religion of state and stipulates that the civil parliament may pass no legislation that contravenes the established laws of Islam. It hints that clerics and ayatollahs will be appointed to court benches. The constitution has brought Iraq to the brink of being an Islamic Republic, with potentially harmful effects on the rights of women, gays, Christians and others. Since the Shiite religious parties had won the January 30, 2005 elections, this outcome was predictable.



It is?

Iraq reconstruction 'has stalled' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4827932.stm)

Much of Iraq is affected by chronic violence and crime and reconstruction of the country has stalled, according to Christian Aid.

Iraq reconstruction shows 'limited progress' (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0826/dailyUpdate.html)


As noted above:

Terrorist growth overtakes U.S. efforts (http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060301-113323-8165r.htm)

Thirty new terrorist organizations have emerged since the September 11, 2001, attacks, outpacing U.S. efforts to crush the threat, said Brig. Gen. Robert L. Caslen, the Pentagon's deputy director for the war on terrorism.

"We are not killing them faster than they are being created," Gen. Caslen told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson Center yesterday, warning that the war could take decades to resolve.

Maybe if you read this twice, it might sink in?

Some added links to previously unanswered or partially answered posts directed your way by other posters and myself.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10622553&postcount=162

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10618970&postcount=239

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10618551&postcount=235

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10622122&postcount=252

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10624916&postcount=270

Well Corny, I and others have rebutted all of your opinions with some facts that may very well be irrefutable. However, just in case you want to carry on these topics at a later date, I am going to link this extensive post to my signature for quick reference and auto replay!! :D

&
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10622743&postcount=163
I *never* get tired of saying this to you:

You ROCK!!!
*Mega-bow*

Give 'em time. Eventually they'll be there for the beachfront property.
Hahahaha!
*FLORT*

I *never* get tired of saying this to you:

You ROCK!!!
*Mega-bow*
I am humbled sir!!

I came to the conclusion that enough is enough so I decided to make a One-Stop Corny Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10629435&postcount=181) and add it to my signature for quick reference and rapid replay. :D

I can always add other posts or reference materials quickly and easily. :)

What about four decades of Israeli abuse?

What about the billions stolen and mispent by Paul "the haircut" Bremner and his coterie of Bush appointees?


Greetings

Please dont answer quistions with other quistions, others mistakes dont justify ones own mistakes!:mad:

The Isreal theme needs another thread, so does the Paul Bremner issue

The Isreal theme needs another thread, so does the Paul Bremner issue
Actually, those "themes" could tie in with this thread. It is all part of mixed messages about Iraq.

I came to the conclusion that enough is enough so I decided to make a One-Stop Corny Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10629435&postcount=181) and add it to my signature for quick reference and rapid replay. :D

I can always add other posts or reference materials quickly and easily. :)
That is AWESOME! I hope you don't mind me doing a perusal here in the near future. He and i don't argue much anymore (i don't see the point) but it's good to have a bank. *nods*
I bank the good stuff when it comes up, m'self. There's a few posters here who i'm pretty sure don't really like that i do that. :D

Greetings

Please dont answer quistions with other quistions, others mistakes dont justify ones own mistakes!:mad:

The Isreal theme needs another thread, so does the Paul Bremner issue

Not really, as the "violation of UN resolutions" argument is made null and void by Israel. and the Paul "haircut" Bremner line is to illustrate the hypocrisy of the "corrupt UN" strawman. Besides, once somebody mentions a few documents, he inserts his head back where its usually situated and scuttles back under his rock.

Not really, as the "violation of UN resolutions" argument is made null and void by Israel.

And not just by Israel but by Iraq, Syria, and all the other violations of UN Resolutions that the UN doesn't have the balls to enforce (and don't bring up the vetos of the US. I don't agree with half of them)

That is AWESOME! I hope you don't mind me doing a perusal here in the near future. He and i don't argue much anymore (i don't see the point) but it's good to have a bank. *nods*
I bank the good stuff when it comes up, m'self. There's a few posters here who i'm pretty sure don't really like that i do that. :D
Preuse at your leisure. I will add more as the opportunities present themselves and I will tighten it up when I get a chance. Of course, the link only pertains to all things Iraqi.

That is AWESOME! I hope you don't mind me doing a perusal here in the near future. He and i don't argue much anymore (i don't see the point) but it's good to have a bank. *nods*
I bank the good stuff when it comes up, m'self. There's a few posters here who i'm pretty sure don't really like that i do that. :D
I hope that this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10635797#post10635797)is good for the bank? It is from the other Iraq thread. :)

I hope that this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10635797#post10635797)is good for the bank? It is from the other Iraq thread. :)
Hi CH.

Hi CH.
Howdy....Dobbs? :)

Howdy....Dobbs? :)
I was starting to wonder if my name was mud. Well, actually, who's kidding who? The usual suspects practically led a witch-hunt last few times I dared post under that name...

I was starting to wonder if my name was mud. Well, actually, who's kidding who? The usual suspects practically led a witch-hunt last few times I dared post under that name...
Well, you did have a good barn burner before you left!! :D

Well, you did have a good barn burner before you left!! :D
'Twas all for naught. I've just about burned out this persona, too (witness this morning's Kansas gun-nut thread) - and so, like the Doctor, a regeneration may be at hand...

'Twas all for naught. I've just about burned out this persona, too (witness this morning's Kansas gun-nut thread) - and so, like the Doctor, a regeneration may be at hand...
You were a little demonstrative with the fonts huh?

Whatever you decide, I do hope you hang in here. I like your "in your face" approach!! :cool:

.
Look for me, I will return - in a new form... with a new name... and I'll take them all on as often as it takes. Excelsior!

:cool:

Do come back!!

:)

And not just by Israel but by Iraq, Syria, and all the other violations of UN Resolutions that the UN doesn't have the balls to enforce (and don't bring up the vetos of the US. I don't agree with half of them)

But Iraq was under sanctions. The threat of sanctions removed Syria from Lebanon. And the reason Israel isnt under sanctions, and suffers not a jot of discomfort is due to 33 of the things you don't want mentioned.

You have yet to address either the cabinet memo or the statements contained in the minutes of the January 2003 meeting of Bush and Blair.

But Iraq was under sanctions. The threat of sanctions removed Syria from Lebanon. And the reason Israel isnt under sanctions, and suffers not a jot of discomfort is due to 33 of the things you don't want mentioned.

You have yet to address either the cabinet memo or the statements contained in the minutes of the January 2003 meeting of Bush and Blair.
The problem is that Corny wants to concentrate solely on UN Resolution violations by Iraq and their enforcement to the letter, but when it comes to violations by Israel, that is a totally different situation.

But Iraq was under sanctions. The threat of sanctions removed Syria from Lebanon. And the reason Israel isnt under sanctions, and suffers not a jot of discomfort is due to 33 of the things you don't want mentioned.

Actually, Israel is under sanctions actually Nodinia. And as I said before, the UN doesn't enforce their resolutions because of Veto power nations.

The problem is that Corny wants to concentrate solely on UN Resolution violations by Iraq and their enforcement to the letter, but when it comes to violations by Israel, that is a totally different situation.

Care to bet?

Care to bet?
Earlier you stated that you don't bet. :rolleyes:

You have always been a staunch defender of Israel, especially when it comes to Iraq and Iran. However, that would be an off topic discussion.

Earlier you stated that you don't bet. :rolleyes:

You have always been a staunch defender of Israel, especially when it comes to Iraq and Iran. However, that would be an off topic discussion.

Yea it would be an off topic discussion.

Yea it would be an off topic discussion.
But CH would be right.

But CH would be right.

Wanna bet?

Wanna bet?
Put up or shut up, then.

Put up or shut up, then.

Its off topic as CH and I already agreed on.

Its off topic as CH and I already agreed on.
Stop dodging bullets and start a thread, then.

*snip*
post#181
Whoa, pure ownage. Let's give Corneliu a chance to reply.

Whoa, pure ownage. Let's give Corneliu a chance to reply.
Well, it's been four months already.
How much time do you want to give him?