NationStates Jolt Archive

Yep. Damn Iraqi's having the nerve to have some difficulty adapting to "Freedom" it seems (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060325/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq)

So naturally the answer is to threaten them.

As a gunbattle raged south of Baghdad, Sens. John McCain and Russell Feingold told Iraqi leaders Saturday that American patience was growing thin and they needed to urgently overcome their stalemate and form a national unity government.

It was the second high-level U.S. delegation in less than a week delivering the same stark message to Iraqi politicians as the Bush administration steps up pressure to overcome the political impasse that threatens to scuttle hopes to start an American troop pullout this summer.

"We need very badly to form this unity government as soon as possible," McCain, R-Ariz., said at a news conference after meetings with President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari. "We all know the polls show declining support among the American people."


Sure. First America had "lost patience" with Saddam and so blows the country to shit. Now they're losing patience with them being free.

What are they gonna do? Threaten to invade them again if they don't hurry up and be agreeably free?

Or is this the precursor to "cutting and running" under the guise of disappointment with the blatant dificulties IRaq has had when their freedom and the legal framework around it was shoved down their throats at the point of a gun?


There is a reason why successfull transition to Democracy only ever comes from within. You'd think that one of the pioneers in this area would have known that.....

But hey, if Iraq ever falls into a civil war, the Americans can always nuke the shit out of them, and send a message to Iran at the same time. :rolleyes:

Do you people remeber being three or four years old and waking up from dreaming of a very nice toy or something like that, and crying your heart out for not finding it next to the pillow?
Or is just me back then and Bush now?

Still happens to me now - only that my raccoon is there.

As for GWB and Iraq... :headbang:

Bush and his posse are idiots.

Bush and his posse are idiots.

Amen.

Give the Iraqis time, I don't think the majority of people understand how much work must go into rebuilding a nation and giving it a style of government that is not used to. Give them time to discover their style of democracy, we don't want to have to repeat this in 20-40 years time.

Give the Iraqis time, I don't think the majority of people understand how much work must go into rebuilding a nation and giving it a style of government that is not used to. Give them time to discover their style of democracy, we don't want to have to repeat this in 20-40 years time.

Except the Iraqis are not establishing a democracy at all.

A sectarian tyranny with electoral forms is being established upon them.

Except the Iraqis are not establishing a democracy at all.

A sectarian tyranny with electoral forms is being established upon them.

It has been only 3 years, want do you expect?

Bush and his posse are idiots.
But what does that have to do with the idiots McCain and Feingold?

But what does that have to do with the idiots McCain and Feingold?
Fine then.
The republicrat establishment are idiots.

Bush and his posse are idiots.

Clinton and his "posse" were idiots.

See, anyone can do that.

Fine then.
The republicrat establishment are idiots.

The Democrat establishment are idiots.

See, anyone can do it.

As a gunbattle raged south of Baghdad, Sens. John McCain and Russell Feingold told Iraqi leaders Saturday that American patience was growing thin and they needed to urgently overcome their stalemate and form a national unity government.

These are the same two assholes who came up with a largely unconstitutional campaign finance law and have their heads stuck so far up their asses they'd need a prybar to get them out. Using them as a gauge for the american people is just fucking stupid.

Also, the Kurds are coming along quite well. It's the other two sects who can't see farther than their traditional enemies as to consequence that are the problem.

These are the same two assholes who came up with a largely unconstitutional campaign finance law and have their heads stuck so far up their asses they'd need a prybar to get them out. Using them as a gauge for the american people is just fucking stupid.

Also, the Kurds are coming along quite well. It's the other two sects who can't see farther than their traditional enemies as to consequence that are the problem.
The other two sects. You mean the other two thirds of the country? Yeah, who gives a shit if they just want to be big babies.

Oh, and btw, the Kurds are an ethnic group, not an Islamic sect. But I guess I wouldn't expect a fellow American to know that about a country we had invaded. :rolleyes:

These are the same two assholes who came up with a largely unconstitutional campaign finance law and have their heads stuck so far up their asses they'd need a prybar to get them out. Using them as a gauge for the american people is just fucking stupid.

Also, the Kurds are coming along quite well. It's the other two sects who can't see farther than their traditional enemies as to consequence that are the problem.

Sunnis especially. I've had family go through that area, and it seems the Sunnis that they're the ones being the biggest, most violent, most disagreeable pain in the ass, while everyone else is at least trying to make some kind of peace.

Sunnis especially. I've had family go through that area, and it seems the Sunnis that they're the ones being the biggest, most violent, most disagreeable pain in the ass, while everyone else is at least trying to make some kind of peace.
Duh. Weren't they the ones who used to be in charge? Big surprise they don't want to play nice with the others. And considering the way they ran the place, gee, I guess only an idiot would have failed to predict how they'd be acting now.

The other two sects. You mean the other two thirds of the country? Yeah, who gives a shit if they just want to be big babies.

Oh, and btw, the Kurds are an ethnic group, not an Islamic sect. But I guess I wouldn't expect a fellow American to know that about a country we had invaded. :rolleyes:
Sect (n.)
1)A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.
2)A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination.
3)A faction united by common interests or beliefs.


Arguably, the first and third definitions apply. ;)

Except the Iraqis are not establishing a democracy at all.

A sectarian tyranny with electoral forms is being established upon them.

:rolleyes:

Oh brother. This can't be any further from the truth!

It has been only 3 years, want do you expect?

Exactly that, actually. The US does not want democracy, nor does Iran, nor do the Shi'ite parties, nor do the Sunni parties, nor does any other significant player.

Expecting it to actually happen is absurd.

Sunnis especially. I've had family go through that area, and it seems the Sunnis that they're the ones being the biggest, most violent, most disagreeable pain in the ass, while everyone else is at least trying to make some kind of peace.

This is accurate from what my dad was telling me when he was in the Iraq.

Exactly that, actually. The US does not want democracy, nor does Iran, nor do the Shi'ite parties, nor do the Sunni parties, nor does any other significant player.

Expecting it to actually happen is absurd.

Actually the US does want a Democracy as do the Shi'ites and the Kurds. The Sunnis are slowly coming around.

Actually the US does want a Democracy as do the Shi'ites and the Kurds. The Sunnis are slowly coming around.

Remember, kids, it's the liberated Shi'ites in Afghanistan who are ready and willing to put a man to death for converting to Christianity.

Mmmmmm ... liberation the American way.

Allah bless America.

Remember, kids, it's the liberated Shi'ites in Afghanistan who are ready and willing to put a man to death for converting to Christianity.

Sunnis, last time I checked.

Actually the US does want a Democracy as do the Shi'ites and the Kurds. The Sunnis are slowly coming around.

The Kurds? Maybe. I think they are mostly content to be left alone, with the revenue from their oil reserves of course.

The Shi'ite leadership? Most definitely not. The religious leadership wants to maintain its monopoly, and is using murderous and repressive tactics to achieve exactly that. The idea is to make politics a demographic issue rather than an ideological one, solidifying the Shi'ite majority behind them. That also happens to be a recipe for civil war.

The Sunnis "coming around"? Support for armed resistance among the Sunnis is massive, well over a majority; for good reason, they hate the occupiers and do not trust the government. I suppose a few of the Sunni nationalist leadership may lean towards democracy, but considering the presence of a Shi'ite majority, I doubt it.

The United States? Oh, please. The US does not want to leave the world's second largest oil reserves in the hands of a population that has no reason to be friendly towards it, and every reason to be friendly towards a number of its enemies. They appointed Iyad Allawi as dictator of Iraq back in June 2004 (a man who now, incidentally, is condemning the current government as analogous to that of Saddam Hussein) and he was crushed overwhelmingly in the election.

The Iraqi people as a whole do seem to desire democracy, as most other peoples likely do, but there is no effective vehicle for popular expression. That is the major reason for the current violence, which as a whole is a clear indication that the current system is failing to respond effectively to the population.

It is a shame that Hussein crushed the Iraqi left the way he did; they may have had the capability to unite Iraqis along non-sectarian lines both against US imperialism and reactionary Islamic fundamentalist terror. Right now they are a non-entity.

Sect (n.)
1)A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.
2)A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination.
3)A faction united by common interests or beliefs.


Arguably, the first and third definitions apply. ;)
I notice the definition doesn't include ethnicity. Kurds are an ethnic group. Distinct from the other two thirds of the country who are Arabs, a different ethnic group.

Ethnic groups are distinguished and defined by genetics. Not by belief or practice or denomination or common interests. Unless you also think Episcopalian is an ethnic group and Japanese is a sect.

Now here's where it might get a little subtle: The Kurds are Muslims, but they are neither Sunnis nor Shias. Those are Arab sects. The Kurds never joined them, because they're not Arabs. They are Kurds.

See? Iraq has two ethnic groups -- Kurds and Arabs. It has three religious groups -- Sunnis, Shias, and Muslims who are Kurds. But Kurds are not a sect of Islam. It's an ethnic group. Sunnis and Shias can come from anywhere. But there are no non-Kurdish Kurdish Muslims.

Further proof that Kurd is an ethnicity and not a religious sect: You can be a Kurdish Christian. You can't be a Sunni or Shia Christian.

Now do you get it?

Now here's where it might get a little subtle: The Kurds are Muslims, but they are neither Sunnis nor Shias. Those are Arab sects. The Kurds never joined them, because they're not Arabs. They are Kurds.

Kurdish Muslims are most definitely divided in Sunnis and Shias. Sunni and Shia are distinctions dating back to very early in Islam, with some very important implications for Islamic law and practice. Almost all Muslims fit into one of the two categories, regardless of whether or not they are Arabs.

Sunnis, last time I checked.


Meh ... you may be right. I'm too tired to look it up ... but I will say this, as a Muslim:

Like there's a fuckin' difference.

Kurdish Muslims are most definitely divided in Sunnis and Shias. Sunni and Shia are distinctions dating back to very early in Islam, with some very important implications for Islamic law and practice. Almost all Muslims fit into one of the two categories, regardless of whether or not they are Arabs.
Fine. I'll grant you that correction. Does that mean Kurds are a sect of Islam then? Or are they an ethnic group?

Meh ... you may be right. I'm too tired to look it up ... but I will say this, as a Muslim:

Like there's a fuckin' difference.

I'm just quibbling. The point you made is an important one, but not one that can be resolved absent a popular secularist force - which will probably have to be left-nationalist, hopefully along the lines of Hugo Chávez but perhaps more like another Nasser.

Fine. I'll grant you that correction. Does that mean Kurds are a sect of Islam then? Or are they an ethnic group?

No, everything else you said was more or less true, to the extent of my knowledge. Kurdish Muslims are just Muslims, like Indonesian Muslims or Malaysian Muslims or Arab Muslims. The differences are ethnic, not religious.

I'm just quibbling. The point you made is an important one.


I do love a good quibble. :D

Though you're right. It is an important point. What strikes me is that the only thing that matters is who is in power. If the Sunnis are in power, then they're the ones hanging women who get raped and if it's the Shi'ites in power, then they're the ones putting a man to death for apostacy.

I suppose it's really all about power.

They say Sunnis make up the majority of the Muslim world, but I've never met a single man or woman in Mosque who would classify themselves as either. I suppose that means the division is political based on what El Presidente calls himself.

Since it is political, then I call for all politics to be taken out of Islam. No, won't happen in my lifetime - or my kids' or grandkids' for that matter - but a man can dream, can't he?

No, everything else you said was more or less true, to the extent of my knowledge. Kurdish Muslims are just Muslims, like Indonesian Muslims or Malaysian Muslims or Arab Muslims. The differences are ethnic, not religious.
Thank you. I may not be as good a representative as I could wish for my country, but at least I make some effort to know who my government is shooting at.

I do love a good quibble. :D

Though you're right. It is an important point. What strikes me is that the only thing that matters is who is in power. If the Sunnis are in power, then they're the ones hanging women who get raped and if it's the Shi'ites in power, then they're the ones putting a man to death for apostacy.

I suppose it's really all about power.

That's exactly what it's about. When crazed atheists gain power they do the same thing, just with different justifications.

They say Sunnis make up the majority of the Muslim world, but I've never met a single man or woman in Mosque who would classify themselves as either. I suppose that means the division is political based on what El Presidente calls himself.

That's interesting. Most of my information on the subject is from US sources, which tend to emphasize the sectarian differences. Are you mostly among US converts? What about things like the honoring of Hussein ibn Ali's martyrdom?

Since it is political, then I call for all politics to be taken out of Islam. No, won't happen in my lifetime - or my kids' or grandkids' for that matter - but a man can dream, can't he?

I don't know about that. Usually it has a negative effect, as with Christianity, but what about things like Liberation Theology? Such trends are present in Islam as well, I have been informed; there were significant factions along those lines in the 1979 Revolution in Iran, though they ended up being repressed by the reactionaries who hijacked it, naturally.

That's interesting. Most of my information on the subject is from US sources, which tend to emphasize the sectarian differences. Are you mostly among US converts? What about things like the honoring of Hussein ibn Ali's martyrdom?

If you're asking me, personally, all I can tell you is that "martyr" is a glorified way of saying "suicide". Even Isa(Jesus) went willingly to the cross. I don't see that as martyrdom, I see it as deliberate suicide. Even if your suicide conveys a message or is for a noble cause, suicide is still a damnable thing.

Yes, I am a convert, but most of the people I go to Mosque with are Pakistani nationals who immigrated to the US.

1979 Revolution in Iran, though they ended up being repressed by the reactionaries who hijacked it, naturally.

That's the unfortunate thing. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The revolution in Iran against the Shah started as a beautiful and wonderful thing and then became corrupt by the greed and hunger of men.

All of these things prove to me that Islam is no longer about Allah, as it was in the days of Saladin and Bakr, but now it is about the Almighty Dollar and oil and who gets to control whom.

I find it sad.

If you're asking me, personally, all I can tell you is that "martyr" is a glorified way of saying "suicide". Even Isa(Jesus) went willingly to the cross. I don't see that as martyrdom, I see it as deliberate suicide. Even if your suicide conveys a message or is for a noble cause, suicide is still a damnable thing.

We disagree on this subject, but that wasn't what I was asking about. I asked the question because Sunnis and Shi'ites view and honor Hussain very differently.

Yes, I am a convert, but most of the people I go to Mosque with are Pakistani nationals who immigrated to the US.

The area now called Pakistan was converted several centuries after the founding of Islam, as I recall; I think it's possible that the differences are less significant there than they are in Middle Eastern areas.

I don't know all that much about the subject, I just read a lot, and remember what I read.

That's the unfortunate thing. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The revolution in Iran against the Shah started as a beautiful and wonderful thing and then became corrupt by the greed and hunger of men.

Like so many others. How many opportunities have been wasted? But if we do not at least make the attempt to change things, who will?

All of these things prove to me that Islam is no longer about Allah, as it was in the days of Saladin and Bakr, but now it is about the Almighty Dollar and oil and who gets to control whom.

I find it sad.

It is still about Allah for millions and millions of adherents across the globe, as it always has been, and it is still about power for plenty of corrupt leaders, too, as it also always has been.

If there is a God my hope is that He is the God of those millions.

If there is a God my hope is that He is the God of those millions.

Inshallah and Amen, brother (sister?).

Remember, kids, it's the liberated Shi'ites in Afghanistan who are ready and willing to put a man to death for converting to Christianity.

And remember kids that that the Afghanis is also going to release this same man.

And remember kids that that the Afghanis is also going to release this same man.
By calling him insane.

The area now called Pakistan was converted several centuries after the founding of Islam, as I recall; I think it's possible that the differences are less significant there than they are in Middle Eastern areas.


No. Pakistan is as sectarian fragmented as any other muslim country. There may not be an open civil war a la Lebanon / Iraq but armed militias and targetted killings are pretty much common fare. The sunnis have Sipah-e-Sahaba and Lashkar-e-Janghvi to kill Shias and Shias have Sipah-e-Muhammed to retaliate.

No. Pakistan is as sectarian fragmented as any other muslim country. There may not be an open civil war a la Lebanon / Iraq but armed militias and targetted killings are pretty much common fare. The sunnis have Sipah-e-Sahaba and Lashkar-e-Janghvi to kill Shias and Shias have Sipah-e-Muhammed to retaliate.

New potential strategy:

Kill everyone who lives there.

Bush is just a lunatic who wants to declare war on nations so he can force their people to be free.

the reason why that makes him an idiot is because you can't force people to be free. you can only give them the choice. and if they say no, thats their problem, just let them have a massive civil war when they change their minds X decades later.

Yep. Damn Iraqi's having the nerve to have some difficulty adapting to "Freedom" it seems (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060325/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq)

So naturally the answer is to threaten them.



Sure. First America had "lost patience" with Saddam and so blows the country to shit. Now they're losing patience with them being free.

What are they gonna do? Threaten to invade them again if they don't hurry up and be agreeably free?

Or is this the precursor to "cutting and running" under the guise of disappointment with the blatant dificulties IRaq has had when their freedom and the legal framework around it was shoved down their throats at the point of a gun?


There is a reason why successfull transition to Democracy only ever comes from within. You'd think that one of the pioneers in this area would have known that.....

Well, look here, this war is going to cost almost 1 trillion dollars and thousands of lives (both American and Iraqi). In 2003, most Americans who supported the war (some 67% supported it, I believe. And I was one of them :headbang: ) thought that it was going to be a short and glorious one, as Bush had us believe we were going to be greeted as liberators. With the way things have turned out, it's not surprising that most Americans want this thing to end. We just didn't know what we were getting ourselves into.

If you really want to end the war, make a draft. Then all the filthy rich college kids would start protesting because they wouldn't be able to send the poor to war anymore.

And no, I'm not a communist. ;)

Yep. Damn Iraqi's having the nerve to have some difficulty adapting to "Freedom" it seems (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060325/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq)

So naturally the answer is to threaten them.

Sure. First America had "lost patience" with Saddam and so blows the country to shit. Now they're losing patience with them being free.

What are they gonna do? Threaten to invade them again if they don't hurry up and be agreeably free?

Or is this the precursor to "cutting and running" under the guise of disappointment with the blatant dificulties IRaq has had when their freedom and the legal framework around it was shoved down their throats at the point of a gun?


There is a reason why successfull transition to Democracy only ever comes from within. You'd think that one of the pioneers in this area would have known that.....
So you're not in favor of bringing American forces home? :confused:

Well, look here, this war is going to cost almost 1 trillion dollars and thousands of lives (both American and Iraqi). In 2003, most Americans who supported the war (some 67% supported it, I believe. And I was one of them :headbang: ) thought that it was going to be a short and glorious one, as Bush had us believe we were going to be greeted as liberators. With the way things have turned out, it's not surprising that most Americans want this thing to end. We just didn't know what we were getting ourselves into.

If you really want to end the war, make a draft. Then all the filthy rich college kids would start protesting because they wouldn't be able to send the poor to war anymore.

And no, I'm not a communist. ;)

that seems to me to be an accurate analysis of how the average american feels about the war. we (and by we i dont mean me) were sold a naive bill of goods. we were fine with the idea of a quick war with limited american casualties.

now that we are faced with the ugly reality of just the kind of war we didnt want, it shouldnt surprise anyone that no one supports it. the lies of the administration are all too clear to us now.

thats why we wont have a draft. it surely would end this kind of foreign adventure. its painful enough to waste the lives of volunteers, the public wouldnt stand for the useless deaths of those forced to join.

that seems to me to be an accurate analysis of how the average american feels about the war. we (and by we i dont mean me) were sold a naive bill of goods. we were fine with the idea of a quick war with limited american casualties.

now that we are faced with the ugly reality of just the kind of war we didnt want, it shouldnt surprise anyone that no one supports it. the lies of the administration are all too clear to us now.

thats why we wont have a draft. it surely would end this kind of foreign adventure. its painful enough to waste the lives of volunteers, the public wouldnt stand for the useless deaths of those forced to join.

right, and those forced to join would be the ones who are more wealthier, so they would *matter* more to the government. what makes me really sick is that the neocons who started this war were busy dodging the draft during Vietnam, or used their parents political connections to get out of the military.

they're all armchair hawks.

right, and those forced to join would be the ones who are more wealthier, so they would *matter* more to the government. what makes me really sick is that the neocons who started this war were busy dodging the draft during Vietnam, or used their parents political connections to get out of the military.

they're all armchair hawks.
You hit on the flaw in your reasoning right here in your own post but missed it: On the one hand, a draft would force the rich to send their kids to die. On the other hand, the rich dodged the last draft we had during Vietnam. Thus, a draft will not force the rich to do anything.

There has not been a single instance of a military draft that the rich did not successfully dodge in all of history in any country. Military drafts are just a way to force the poor to comply when they realize it's not in their interest to continue volunteering. The rich can always and will always buy or influence their way out of it. Let's suppose the neocon movement keeps control, expands its power, achieves the economy of war profits they love so much -- to keep that going, we will see a draft, but we will not see rich kids being sent to the front lines.

You hit on the flaw in your reasoning right here in your own post but missed it: On the one hand, a draft would force the rich to send their kids to die. On the other hand, the rich dodged the last draft we had during Vietnam. Thus, a draft will not force the rich to do anything.

There has not been a single instance of a military draft that the rich did not successfully dodge in all of history in any country. Military drafts are just a way to force the poor to comply when they realize it's not in their interest to continue volunteering. The rich can always and will always buy or influence their way out of it. Let's suppose the neocon movement keeps control, expands its power, achieves the economy of war profits they love so much -- to keep that going, we will see a draft, but we will not see rich kids being sent to the front lines.
thats true. the children of the rich only serve if they want to.

the presidents approval rating is already below 40% how much lower would it go if our sons and daughters were drafted into a war no one supports? the middle class would revolt. everyone who voted for a draft would be voted out of office and replaced with whoever promises to get rid of it.

the most subversive thing on TV are those tributes that cbs news puts on about soldiers who have died in iraq. you see a brave man or woman who was proud to serve their country, who had familes of their own, who had plans for the future and you wonder just why they had to die for george bush's mistake.

You hit on the flaw in your reasoning right here in your own post but missed it: On the one hand, a draft would force the rich to send their kids to die. On the other hand, the rich dodged the last draft we had during Vietnam. Thus, a draft will not force the rich to do anything.

There has not been a single instance of a military draft that the rich did not successfully dodge in all of history in any country. Military drafts are just a way to force the poor to comply when they realize it's not in their interest to continue volunteering. The rich can always and will always buy or influence their way out of it. Let's suppose the neocon movement keeps control, expands its power, achieves the economy of war profits they love so much -- to keep that going, we will see a draft, but we will not see rich kids being sent to the front lines.

The rules of the draft have changed, if it starts up again everyone will be going. If you want to beat the draft, join up.

The rules of the draft have changed, if it starts up again everyone will be going. If you want to beat the draft, join up.
Keep thinking that if it makes you feel safer. But ask yourself this, who is making the draft rules? It's not all those poor and minority families whose children make up the bulk of enlisted infantrymen (aka, cannon fodder). The Vietnam-era draft was supposed to be for everyone, too. Every military draft since the Draft Riots of the Civil War were supposed to be for everyone -- only they weren't. Paint me cynical, but I don't just assume that the same bastards who broke the rules last time will not break them next time -- especially if they're the ones telling me that next time they really, really will play fair, cross their hearts.

thats true. the children of the rich only serve if they want to.

the presidents approval rating is already below 40% how much lower would it go if our sons and daughters were drafted into a war no one supports? the middle class would revolt. everyone who voted for a draft would be voted out of office and replaced with whoever promises to get rid of it.

the most subversive thing on TV are those tributes that cbs news puts on about soldiers who have died in iraq. you see a brave man or woman who was proud to serve their country, who had familes of their own, who had plans for the future and you wonder just why they had to die for george bush's mistake.
Now you know why, to this day, the Bush admin refuses to allow the networks to show the ceremonies of the dead being brought home. Privacy, my ass. Try propaganda control.

Keep thinking that if it makes you feel safer. But ask yourself this, who is making the draft rules? It's not all those poor and minority families whose children make up the bulk of enlisted infantrymen (aka, cannon fodder). The Vietnam-era draft was supposed to be for everyone, too. Every military draft since the Draft Riots of the Civil War were supposed to be for everyone -- only they weren't. Paint me cynical, but I don't just assume that the same bastards who broke the rules last time will not break them next time -- especially if they're the ones telling me that next time they really, really will play fair, cross their hearts.

I'm Canadian so I could careless if you Yanks start up the draft, just as long as no coward draft dodgers come up here.

Now you know why, to this day, the Bush admin refuses to allow the networks to show the ceremonies of the dead being brought home. Privacy, my ass. Try propaganda control.

Why does one need to see that? I have seen them on CBC for Canadian soldiers and it has not changed my opinion about the Afganistan mission one bit.

I'm Canadian so I could careless if you Yanks start up the draft, just as long as no coward draft dodgers come up here.

Draft Dodgers are not cowards. If they have the courage of their convictions to stand up to a naked war of aggression and imperialism, such as Vietnam and Iraq, and disobey the government, then they are not cowards. They would be cowards by submitting without protest and doing something they loathe.

Draft Dodgers are not cowards. If they have the courage of their convictions to stand up to a naked war of aggression and imperialism, such as Vietnam and Iraq, and disobey the government, then they are not cowards. They would be cowards by submitting without protest and doing something they loathe.

Yes they are cowards. A courageous person opposed to the war would go to jail instead.

I'm Canadian so I could careless if you Yanks start up the draft, just as long as no coward draft dodgers come up here.
Coward draft dodgers, eh?

Hypothetical: What if the next neocon US government decides to attack Canada over some trumped up bullshit about lumber tariffs? They don't like your country -- and they are crazy -- so it could happen. What if they couldn't get Americans to enlist for their new bullshit war because we all knew it was bullshit, so they instituted the draft to force people into the army? Would you condemn as cowards any Americans who dodged that draft and refused to attack your country on the say so of some nut in the White House? Or would you call them friends of Canada?

Yes they are cowards. A courageous person opposed to the war would go to jail instead.

One could say that going to another country woulld allow them to criticise the government; in jail one cannot criticise the government, and might not live to get out.

Why does one need to see that? I have seen them on CBC for Canadian soldiers and it has not changed my opinion about the Afganistan mission one bit.
Why does one need to be prevented from seeing it?

Seeing this didn't change American attitudes about WW2, either, because most Americans thought that was a just, or at least necessary, war.

Gosh, do you think maybe the Bush admin might think that showing the dead coming home would destroy American support for his Iraq war because we are not convinced that it's just or necessary?

Why does one need to be prevented from seeing it?

Seeing this didn't change American attitudes about WW2, either, because most Americans thought that was a just, or at least necessary, war.

Gosh, do you think maybe the Bush admin might think that showing the dead coming home would destroy American support for his Iraq war because we are not convinced that it's just or necessary?

Maybe the dead deserve some privacy?

Coward draft dodgers, eh?

Hypothetical: What if the next neocon US government decides to attack Canada over some trumped up bullshit about lumber tariffs? They don't like your country -- and they are crazy -- so it could happen. What if they couldn't get Americans to enlist for their new bullshit war because we all knew it was bullshit, so they instituted the draft to force people into the army? Would you condemn as cowards any Americans who dodged that draft and refused to attack your country on the say so of some nut in the White House? Or would you call them friends of Canada?

Well since that would never happen I see no reason to state my opinion.

Yes they are cowards. A courageous person opposed to the war would go to jail instead.
Well, many conscientious objecters did choose jail until rules were created to allow for conscientious objection.

But I take a more Macchiavellian view. It's not enough to save my own hide, I would want to be in a position to take action against those I consider to be the true enemies of my society, which, in this hypothetical, would be the draft-enforcing government. As a pacifist, I would take that action via free speech in the media, which I could probably only be able to do from outside the country.

Well since that would never happen I see no reason to state my opinion.
Then why respond at all? :rolleyes:

Well since that would never happen I see no reason to state my opinion.

How do you know it would never happen? Anyway, that's a daft thing to say. Everyone has an opinion, even on a subject that may make little sense now. What if they decided to invade Mexico, a very much more realistic scenario?

Maybe the dead deserve some privacy?
How about those who make the ultimate sacrifice for their country deserve some recognition and credit for it, in memory of them? How about the families of those dead deserve to know that the nation appreciates their loss?

The dead don't need privacy or anything else. And the grieving families don't need to be shown receiving the coffins. I see no reason why the government would not want to honor its dead soldiers and remind the rest of us of how much some people are willing to give for their nation, by showing us the solemn ceremonies of handling those coffins as they are delivered back to the US, before they are taken by the individual families. No one's privacy is violated that way, and a national event is acknowledged, honored and remembered. If the government really believes the American people support this war, you'd think they'd trust us to mourn the dead properly and give us the chance to. But apparently, they think we only support it because we don't know what it's costing the nation.

One could say that going to another country woulld allow them to criticise the government; in jail one cannot criticise the government, and might not live to get out.

In jail, you can criticize the government, at least in the US. You might not live to get out, but that comes with the whole courage thing. A lot of the soldiers in Iraq haven't lived to get out.

People will always disagree when it comes to poilitics. I am in the same frame of mind that 3years and so many people tortured or dead then maybe the troops should leave. None of this patriotic rubbish. too much scare-mongering by the press. I watched CNN the other day for the 2nd time in my life and deary me no wonder people have no clue what is going on. And i thought my country was sheltered by the media.

An issue that keeps me awake at night is Guantanomo Bay. Over 500 people are still there under no chrges and under no new evidence. Basically human rights are being broken by the most powerful country. If you also feel outraged at this then please visit amnesty internationals site for more info.



Bring on the revolution

People will always disagree when it comes to poilitics. I am in the same frame of mind that 3years and so many people tortured or dead then maybe the troops should leave. None of this patriotic rubbish. too much scare-mongering by the press. I watched CNN the other day for the 2nd time in my life and deary me no wonder people have no clue what is going on. And i thought my country was sheltered by the media.

An issue that keeps me awake at night is Guantanomo Bay. Over 500 people are still there under no chrges and under no new evidence. Basically human rights are being broken by the most powerful country. If you also feel outraged at this then please visit amnesty internationals site for more info.



Bring on the revolution
I agree with you, but I just want to warn you -- put on your hardhat when you mention Amnesty International around here. Some people seem to think they're in league with the space aliens who shot Kennedy for the liberal commies. ;)

I agree with you, but I just want to warn you -- put on your hardhat when you mention Amnesty International around here. Some people seem to think they're in league with the space aliens who shot Kennedy for the liberal commies. ;)

They really did. Seriously.

In jail, you can criticize the government, at least in the US. You might not live to get out, but that comes with the whole courage thing. A lot of the soldiers in Iraq haven't lived to get out.

A lot? In most wars 2,322 dead is considered small.

A lot? In most wars 2,322 dead is considered small.

I agree. 2,322 dead is a small number. More soldiers died in one year (about 5,000 I believe) in Cuba in 1899, and most of those were from yellow fever. And don't even get me started on Vietnam. But every death matters and every death is a tragedy. We shouldn't overlook it simply because it's a "small number."

A lot? In most wars 2,322 dead is considered small.
2322 is a small number in a just conflict. its 2322 too many when you invade a country for no good reason.

how many free deaths does the president get? how many dead is so many that you say enough is enough?

and why dont the needless dead of iraq count?

A lot? In most wars 2,322 dead is considered small.

One is one too many to die for oil and power.

When you think about this, who should really be losing patience with whom. If you were invaded and told by the invaders that they did this for you and then they told you a bunch of great things they would do for you, wouldn’t you be the one losing patience at the invaders? I’m thinking that the Iraqis have more to lose patience over than the US government does. It's a poor conqueror who blames his victims.

When you think about this, who should really be losing patience with whom. If you were invaded and told by the invaders that they did this for you and then they told you a bunch of great things they would do for you, wouldn’t you be the one losing patience at the invaders? I’m thinking that the Iraqis have more to lose patience over than the US government does. It's a poor conqueror who blames his victims.
very good point

especially since the president had promised them to be out quite quickly and just this last week he indicated that some other president would be in office when the last american troops are pulled out of iraq.

By calling him insane.

Lack of evidence actually.

that seems to me to be an accurate analysis of how the average american feels about the war. we (and by we i dont mean me) were sold a naive bill of goods. we were fine with the idea of a quick war with limited american casualties.

We have grown to accustomed to this. America has forgotten what a Real War costs.

now that we are faced with the ugly reality of just the kind of war we didnt want, it shouldnt surprise anyone that no one supports it. the lies of the administration are all too clear to us now.

Prove that they are lies.

thats why we wont have a draft. it surely would end this kind of foreign adventure. its painful enough to waste the lives of volunteers, the public wouldnt stand for the useless deaths of those forced to join.

For once, I wish americans weren't squimish.

Draft Dodgers are not cowards.

Actually they are.

If they have the courage of their convictions to stand up to a naked war of aggression and imperialism, such as Vietnam and Iraq, and disobey the government, then they are not cowards.

According to the government and the military, they are cowards. Why do you think the mIlitary didn't like Clinton?

They would be cowards by submitting without protest and doing something they loathe.

Bull.

2322 is a small number in a just conflict. its 2322 too many when you invade a country for no good reason.

how many free deaths does the president get? how many dead is so many that you say enough is enough?

and why dont the needless dead of iraq count?They do to some people. (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/)

My [pessimistic] prediction is that the US will pull out of Iraq (and further draw down forces in Afghanistan) to knock down Iran. After all, if Iraq misbehaves again, the US can just go in and flatten everything again later.

A lot? In most wars 2,322 dead is considered small.

In most wars, this would be a death toll in one battle.

A lot? In most wars 2,322 dead is considered small.In most wars, this would be a death toll in one battle.In most wars we count the dead on both sides of the conflict.:rolleyes:

For once, I wish americans weren't squimish.

yeah damn us for loving our children and not wanting them to die in a war that we never should have started

so mr. not squeamish, are you in the military or are you planning to join as soon as possible?

In most wars we count the dead on both sides of the conflict.:rolleyes:
in a conflict like this one where we made a needless pre-emptive strike on a mostly defenseless country i feel very strongly that we should count every dead iraqi soldier, every dead government official, every dead civilian and all the dead from the insurgency as part of the death toll.

In most wars we count the dead on both sides of the conflict.:rolleyes:

yes we would and putting this war into perspective, the death toll is still rather low.

yeah damn us for loving our children and not wanting them to die in a war that we never should have started

so mr. not squeamish, are you in the military or are you planning to join as soon as possible?

We Americans have gotten way to soft. Its high time we realize that war really is hell and that military personel do die in warfare. Tragic yes but it is what they signed up to do.

As Americans it is our duty to support them on the homefront.

"United We Stand, Divided We Fall"

As for me, I'm medically ineligable to join because of my learning disability.

We Americans have gotten way to soft. Its high time we realize that war really is hell and that military personel do die in warfare. Tragic yes but it is what they signed up to do.

As Americans it is our duty to support them on the homefront.

"United We Stand, Divided We Fall"

Support the military even in unnecessary wars that actually make our country less safe?

As Americans it is our duty to support them on the homefront.
Sure...


Lets put them on the homefront...

Support the military even in unnecessary wars that actually make our country less safe?

How are we less safe?

Sure...


Lets put them on the homefront...

I would love to have them home but not until the job is done.

How are we less safe?

Thousands of young Muslims are becoming terrorists and getting expertise in fighting America. These people wouldn't have gotten into the conflict if it wasn't for the war. Also, because our military is bogged down in Iraq, we can't deal with the more serious threats, like Iran, and North Korea.

I would love to have them home but not until the job is done.At the current rate and direction, the job will be done when all Iraqi's are dead and the country resembles a parking lot.

Some things are better left undone.

Thousands of young Muslims are becoming terrorists and getting expertise in fighting America. These people wouldn't have gotten into the conflict if it wasn't for the war. Also, because our military is bogged down in Iraq, we can't deal with the more serious threats, like Iran, and North Korea.

How are we bogged down in Iraq?

We Americans have gotten way to soft. Its high time we realize that war really is hell and that military personel do die in warfare. Tragic yes but it is what they signed up to do.

As Americans it is our duty to support them on the homefront.

"United We Stand, Divided We Fall"

As for me, I'm medically ineligable to join because of my learning disability.
no

if we were in a war that was being fought on honest grounds for reasons of national security, the american people would be behind it.

as the war wears on people are waking up to the understanding that it was an unnecessary war fought at the wrong time without proper planning and proper equipment that has no made us safer.

its not the loss of american lives, its the loss of american lives for no good reason.

no im not going to support the continued loss of american (or iraqi for that matter) lives just because we are already there. the president and his buddies are not doing a better job, they are doing the same "if i think it it must be true" stupid job that got us into the war to begin with.

yes we would and putting this war into perspective, the death toll is still rather low.On the order of 10,000-15,000 deaths per year by the IBC estimates (i.e., confirmed civilian deaths via reports by people on the US's side on the ground, who "aren't counting bodies"), while a John Hopkins University survey estimated on the order of 70,000 per annum and rising a year and a half ago... civilian casualties.

If the ratio of civilian to military/insurgent casualties holds similar to the Vietnam War (1-1.75 civilian casualties per combatant casualty), we may estimate a rate of 100-150,000 are dying per year in Iraq. This is perhaps half the average rate of war-related death in Vietnam 1960-1975, corresponding perhaps to the earlier phases of the war... but pretty significant in a country with less than a third the population of modern-day Vietnam.

How are we bogged down in Iraq?Oh man... that was good.


Oh wait... you're serious aren't you...

How are we bogged down in Iraq?

simple: we can't get out because if we do, the Iraqi government will collapse.

How are we bogged down in Iraq?

the secretary of the united states has said we will be in iraq for another decade

the president of the united states said this last week that it will be a future president who will bring the last of the american troops from iraq

that is bogged down.

no

if we were in a war that was being fought on honest grounds for reasons of national security, the american people would be behind it.

It don't matter wether a war is justifed or not. We have had a string of conflicts which we had very low casualties and we have gotten used to it. That has made us soft and now we do not want to see what we are seeing now. I do not care if the war was justified or not. We have a real war here and the casualties for a war of this type are still low. If we had tens of thousands of Deaths, then maybe I could agree with you but since we have lost around 600 troops a year, that is nothing compared to the 5000 a year we saw in Nam or the close to 100,000 a year we saw in World War II.

Face it, we have grown soft when it comes to war. No one understands just what happens in war and that goes back to a lack of accurate teaching of History in school.

as the war wears on people are waking up to the understanding that it was an unnecessary war fought at the wrong time without proper planning and proper equipment that has no made us safer.

Wrong. People do not like the casualties they are seeing in Iraq.

its not the loss of american lives, its the loss of american lives for no good reason.

Its still the loss of American Lives no matter how you want to describe it.

no im not going to support the continued loss of american (or iraqi for that matter) lives just because we are already there.

How nice. Another cut and run coward who would rather see Iraq fall into Civil War which would kill even more Iraqis than have died to date. Heck, it'll probably rival whatever Saddam did too for good measure.

On the order of 10,000-15,000 deaths per year by the IBC estimates (i.e., confirmed civilian deaths via reports by people on the US's side on the ground, who "aren't counting bodies"), while a John Hopkins University survey estimated on the order of 70,000 per annum and rising a year and a half ago... civilian casualties.

Compared to past wars, that is really low. Shall we look at the number of civilians that died per year in say.... World War II? Korea? Nam?

simple: we can't get out because if we do, the Iraqi government will collapse.

Right now yea. In the future? No.

the secretary of the united states has said we will be in iraq for another decade

We do not have a secretary of the United States. The president said 2009 which is THIS DECADE.

the president of the united states said this last week that it will be a future president who will bring the last of the american troops from iraq

that is bogged down.

No its not being bogged down. Its called security. The Iraqi gov't can ask us to leave at anytime. Something I see that is forgotten on this board.

Right now yea. In the future? No.

How far into the future? One year, two years, a decade? How long is it until we can leave without collapse?

How far into the future? One year, two years, a decade? How long is it until we can leave without collapse?

We can leave anytime the Iraqi government tells us to.

i think the "problem" is that we know all too well what the price of war is.

we are no longer willing to let the president waste the lives of our military men and women. its a new fact of life and THEY have to get used to it.

i think the "problem" is that we know all too well what the price of war is.

we are no longer willing to let the president waste the lives of our military men and women. its a new fact of life and THEY have to get used to it.

Actually no they don't. It is the American People who have to get used to the fact that war is very bloody and that they are not cheap. They also have to get used to the facts that the days of low casualty numbers are over in this new age of war far.

Compared to past wars, that is really low. Shall we look at the number of civilians that died per year in say.... World War II? Korea? Nam?

So if a million people died from a war, by your reasoning, that would be a small number compared to the number of people of people who died in all the wars. One death is one too many, and that's the bottom line.

Right now yea. In the future? No.
If we abandon Iraq right now, it will descend into chaos. That's bogged down.

Actually no they don't. It is the American People who have to get used to the fact that war is very bloody and that they are not cheap. They also have to get used to the facts that the days of low casualty numbers are over in this new age of war far.

No one said war is easy, or cheap, or bloodless. What most people on this forum are saying is that it should be a last resort.

So if a million people died from a war, by your reasoning, that would be a small number compared to the number of people of people who died in all the wars. One death is one too many, and that's the bottom line.

Actually that would be a big number and something that history has shown to be more likely to happen in war. Of course that was before the advent of Precision guided munitions.

Question for you! Who has killed more civilians, the military or the Terrorists.

If we abandon Iraq [B]right now[B], it will descend into chaos. That's bogged down.

no its called security. Being bogged down is slugging your way through a battlefield while not gaining any ground. World War I is a prime example of being bogged down.

No one said war is easy, or cheap, or bloodless. What most people on this forum are saying is that it should be a last resort.

And it was.

Actually that would be a big number and something that history has shown to be more likely to happen in war. Of course that was before the advent of Precision guided munitions.

Question for you! Who has killed more civilians, the military or the Terrorists.



no its called security. Being bogged down is slugging your way through a battlefield while not gaining any ground. World War I is a prime example of being bogged down.

Yes, it would be a big number. Although the number who have died in Iraq thus far is small in comparison, that's not the point. The point is that they have died for a very dubious cause. As for your question, I simply don't know, although I would like to think it's the terrorists, but once again, I don't know.

Question for you! Where are the weapons of mass destruction and what's Saddam's link to Al Qaida?

Call it what you like, but when your military needs to stay in a country to keep it from breaking down, you're screwed.

And it was.

No, no it wasn't. We Americans love to bash the UN, but one of the reasons it's ineffective so much is because we don't take it seriously. If we took a more active role in the sanctions and diplomatically pressured Saddam, things would have turned out very differently.

Actually no they don't. It is the American People who have to get used to the fact that war is very bloody and that they are not cheap. They also have to get used to the facts that the days of low casualty numbers are over in this new age of war far.Uh, we're very well aware that war is costly both in lives and dollars.

Now we also are aware that an amount of our tax dollars that would say, fully fund worldwide hunger programs for ten years or worldwide AIDS efforts for 24 years, spent to leave Iraq in an argueably worse situation than we found it in is a bad deal.

Even more so when you throw in a few thousand dead Americans, even more maimed and scarred.

I bet the Iraqi's aren't to thrilled with the deal either.

We do not have a secretary of the United States. The president said 2009 which is THIS DECADE.



No its not being bogged down. Its called security. The Iraqi gov't can ask us to leave at anytime. Something I see that is forgotten on this board.
gee if you had been paying attention to the news, even the lack of "of state" should not have flummoxed you in trying to understand that i was talking about condaleza rice.

Actually no they don't. It is the American People who have to get used to the fact that war is very bloody and that they are not cheap. They also have to get used to the facts that the days of low casualty numbers are over in this new age of war far.
this is still the united states of america. the president does not have carte blanche to do as he pleases with the military. the congress is not his puppet to authorize anything he wants.

as he will soon find out.

gee if you had been paying attention to the news, even the lack of "of state" should not have flummoxed you in trying to understand that i was talking about condaleza rice.

I'm sorry but I have been shying away from the news lately because no one is reporting the news.

this is still the united states of america. the president does not have carte blanche to do as he pleases with the military. the congress is not his puppet to authorize anything he wants.

Then why do they do so then?

as he will soon find out.

Oh?

Question for you! Who has killed more civilians, the military or the Terrorists.

lately it has been terrorists. since the beginning of the war, its been our military.

not that it matters. ALL of those terrorist deaths are our fault. if we were not there that number would have been ZERO.

lately it has been terrorists. since the beginning of the war, its been our military.

not that it matters. ALL of those terrorist deaths are our fault. if we were not there that number would have been ZERO.

No, the civilians would just have to put up with the arbitrary arrest and execution at the hands of Saddam but I guess we all do not care about his atrocities do we?

Yeah, I like how that's a threat. "I'm losing patience with you...I swear, we'll turn this car right around and go home if you don't quiet down back there."

If we had tens of thousands of Deaths, then maybe I could agree with you but since we have lost around 600 troops a year, that is nothing compared to the 5000 a year we saw in Nam or the close to 100,000 a year we saw in World War II.

Then obviously 3,000 civilian deaths is a drop in the bucket. Hardly worth mentioning.


Face it, we have grown soft when it comes to war. No one understands just what happens in war and that goes back to a lack of accurate teaching of History in school.


If you're so tough and pro-war, how come you aren't in it? And don't give us any of the usual CornsterTM bullshit. There isn't a single valid reason you can give us to prove that you can't. Inability to take orders can be beaten out of you. Single children of military personel are NOT exempt from military service. So why don't you serve? Will you suddenly sprout a medical condition?


Wrong. People do not like the casualties they are seeing in Iraq.


Who the hell likes to see casualties unless they're sick in the head or count victories by the bodycount?


How nice. Another cut and run coward who would rather see Iraq fall into Civil War which would kill even more Iraqis than have died to date. Heck, it'll probably rival whatever Saddam did too for good measure.

Nice straw man. Tell me how things are better for the Iraqi people with Saddam gone as opposed to when he was here. And don't you dare try that "freedom to worship" rubbish you tried some time ago. Saddam didn't care whether you prayed to Allah, God, Jesus or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. He only cared if you looked like a threat to his power. Psychotic, but not the same as what you said.

As for not caring for the reasons of the war, I suppose the next time someone dies because of self-defense actions, you'll all be for jailing the person. After all, who cares about his reasons? He just killed another guy. Who cared if the other guy had a gun with his name on it?

No, the civilians would just have to put up with the arbitrary arrest and execution at the hands of Saddam but I guess we all do not care about his atrocities do we?
not as much as we should care about our own.

Actually no they don't. It is the American People who have to get used to the fact that war is very bloody and that they are not cheap. They also have to get used to the facts that the days of low casualty numbers are over in this new age of war far.

The American People (at least some of them), are also coming to grips to the idea that war is a tool by leaders used often to enhance their goals and agendas which generally do not coincide with the interests of the people they lead, and sometimes, not even their nation as a whole. Can you honestly say that in any number of wars that the US, or any nation for that matter, started in the past was purely for altruistic reasons or for the interests of the common man in their nations?

If you can say that, you're a liar. Altruism is only chucked into the mix to be sold to the people to make war more palatable. Either that or the idea of divine right "Our system is better, so we should spread it".

We Americans have gotten way to soft. Its high time we realize that war really is hell and that military personel do die in warfare. Tragic yes but it is what they signed up to do.

As Americans it is our duty to support them on the homefront.

"United We Stand, Divided We Fall"

As for me, I'm medically ineligable to join because of my learning disability.
Yes, yes, "war is hell" indeed. That's why the US shouldn't be in the business of starting wars.

Our duty to support them on the homefront -- give me a frigging break. What "homefront"? Oh, you mean here, where the government likes to pretend dead soldiers don't exist and likes to slash medical benefits to the wounded and maimed? Or do you mean here, where civil liberty is being flushed down the toilet even as our soldiers are getting their legs blown off by IEDs in their efforts to deliver those same freedoms to people who never asked for them in the first place? Or maybe you mean here where corporations like Halliburton are making a mint off the blood and maimed bodies of our children?

You want to know how I intend to support our troops? By giving them a new and better commander in chief.

And as for your excuse -- "learning disability"? Oh, Corneliu, such an easy target. I almost feel it would unsporting to take a shot at it. Hmm....

Compared to past wars, that is really low. Shall we look at the number of civilians that died per year in say.... World War II? Korea? Nam?
I'm just picking this post at random because it's one of several in which you seem to be complaining that not enough people have been killed in Iraq yet, and it's making me crazy. Seriously, Corneliu, this harping on how low the numbers are -- do you have any idea what a scumbag this makes you sound like? Think about it. It's not a cool complaint to make.

Human death is what makes war hell -- I don't care if only one person died in Iraq. It's one too many. Especially since we were the ones who fired the first shot. Every death since the start -- ours, theirs, civilians -- all are our fault because none of them would have happened if we hadn't started this. One unjust, unnecessary death is too much for America to be guilty of.

So you know what? If you think that my wanting to limit the number of people my country kills makes me "soft" and if you think that my wanting to mourn the dead we have made makes me "soft," then all I can say is I'm fine with being "soft" -- as long as "soft" is different from what you are.

Yes, yes, "war is hell" indeed. That's why the US shouldn't be in the business of starting wars.

Minor problem. How can one start a war when one never ended?

You want to know how I intend to support our troops? By giving them a new and better commander in chief.

Good luck in finding a good one in 2008.

And as for your excuse -- "learning disability"? Oh, Corneliu, such an easy target. I almost feel it would unsporting to take a shot at it. Hmm....

I actually do have a learning disability.

Compared to past wars, that is really low. Shall we look at the number of civilians that died per year in say.... World War II? Korea? Nam?Actually, I just did compare it to Nam. Considering the Vietnam war to have lasted 15 years, that's an average of 130,000-230,000 civilian casualties per year, while the John Hopkins study suggests a rate of 70,000 per year in civilian casualties as of a year and a half ago. Which, per the IBC figures, would mean that outside observers can confirm only a quarter of casualties that surveys suggest are happening.

Call it a half to a third. So far as we can tell, the less intense earlier stages of Nam are being matched in terms of civilian casualty rates. The deliberate failure to account for Iraqi dead is helping keep this "under the table" and keeps the IBC's figures relatively low. If we're going to be in Iraq for another decade in this position of being a hostile occupying power trying to keep civil order in the face of internal unrest, and it escalates - as it seems to be doing now - then matching the Vietnam War's figures aren't unlikely.

Of course, since the US isn't keeping track of figures officially, it'll be up to demographers 20-30 years down the road to analyze the pre- and post- war Iraqi population dynamics, interim birth rates, etc to figure out how many Iraqis died.

Korea was worse, of course, and the USSR had about 28 million civilian casualties in three years in WWII, IIRC - more than Iraq's current population.

I'm just picking this post at random because it's one of several in which you seem to be complaining that not enough people have been killed in Iraq yet, and it's making me crazy. Seriously, Corneliu, this harping on how low the numbers are -- do you have any idea what a scumbag this makes you sound like? Think about it. It's not a cool complaint to make.

I'm complaining that not enough people have been killed? Where did this come from. I'm a historian as well as an amature military historian. One of the things I deal with is numbers when it comes to wars.

Human death is what makes war hell -- I don't care if only one person died in Iraq. It's one too many.

Agreed 100%. Just like civilians being tortured by an autocratic dictatorship is also unacceptable.

Especially since we were the ones who fired the first shot. Every death since the start -- ours, theirs, civilians -- all are our fault because none of them would have happened if we hadn't started this. One unjust, unnecessary death is too much for America to be guilty of.

Actually, you can blame the United Nations as they decided not to follow through on their own resolutions but instead deal with appeasement that Prime Minister Chamberlin can be proud of. Your right about the unnecessary deaths though. The unnecessary deaths done by Saddam had to be stopped.

So you know what? If you think that my wanting to limit the number of people my country kills makes me "soft" and if you think that my wanting to mourn the dead we have made makes me "soft," then all I can say is I'm fine with being "soft" -- as long as "soft" is different from what you are.

I'm just one of those that once a fight starts, you fight it and you don't stop fighting till you have won. I wish we didn't have to go into Iraq. I really wish the UN Could've stood up to Sadam but I guess that was to much to hope for. I wish Sadam had taken the amnesty offer but I guess that too was to much to hope for. I wanted peace to preveal but I do know that there comes a time when diplomacy has to be set aside when one side does not negotiate in good faith.

I actually do have a learning disability.No problem. I hear you don't have to score very high on the ASVAB to be cannon fodder.

*snip*

Thank you for the analysis.

Of course, since the US isn't keeping track of figures officially, it'll be up to demographers 20-30 years down the road to analyze the pre- and post- war Iraqi population dynamics, interim birth rates, etc to figure out how many Iraqis died.

And even then the number would be a rough estimate.

Korea was worse, of course, and the USSR had about 28 million civilian casualties in three years in WWII, IIRC - more than Iraq's current population.

Yea pretty much accurate here.

No problem. I hear you don't have to score very high on the ASVAB to be cannon fodder.

:rolleyes:

No its not being bogged down. Its called security. The Iraqi gov't can ask us to leave at anytime. Something I see that is forgotten on this board.

Problem... the Iraqis HAVE asked us to leave, the insurgents have done it(violently), the populace have done it(both violently and non-violently), and the Iraqi 'Goverment' hve done it(non-violently). Have we left? No.

Minor problem. How can one start a war when one never ended?
What are you talking about? Are you saying we've been fighting Iraq since the dawn of time only we didn't know it until George Bush became our wonderful president? Oh, I suppose you're trying to paint this as a continuation of the Gulf War. That, of course, is nonsense. In the Gulf War, the US was specifically asked by our ally Kuwait to help them rebuff an invasion, as per our treaty with them. We were only asked to help them get Saddam Hussein out of their country, and that's what we did. Mission accomplished. War over, paid for, done. This time around, nobody was being invaded or even threatened when George II decided to attack Iraq. Nobody was asking us to come in and remove Saddam's regime. And so far, nobody but Halliburton has benefitted from it, and nobody including Halliburton has thanked us for taking the initiative.

Frankly, the only piece of unfinished business from the Gulf War that's being addressed now is Dick Cheney's frustration at not having been allowed to get his hands on those oil fields. Well, now he has them, and it seems he doesn't know what to do with them, after all.

Good luck in finding a good one in 2008.
Meow, catty-kitty. (And also tough shit for you, because Bush isn't allowed to be president again, thank god.)

I actually do have a learning disability.
I believe you.

Agreed 100%. Just like civilians being tortured by an autocratic dictatorship is also unacceptable.

I find this statement hilarous considering the fact that your home nation happens to call itself a 'democratic' and 'free' country while it continues to ship so-called 'terrorists' off to third world country for outsourced torture. Why aren't you protesting that eh Cornster?


Actually, you can blame the United Nations as they decided not to follow through on their own resolutions but instead deal with appeasement that Prime Minister Chamberlin can be proud of.

Ah yes, appeasement. The hated word. Sounds so much like excuses doesn't it? Poland invaded? Appeasement. Maybe they'll stop. Iraq invaded? Excuses, Iran is next. Hypocrite.


The unnecessary deaths done by Saddam had to be stopped.


I call bullshit. The US government wouldn't care if every single Iraqi dropped dead the next day. All they care about as a whole is whether or not they can:

A: Project power to influence events in the Middle East

B: Control natural resources


I'm just one of those that once a fight starts, you fight it and you don't stop fighting till you have won.

More CornsterTM decoys. You don't even bother to counter facts that have been given to you, instead, relying on nebulous things like "personal contacts" and "ground level troops". Claims that have as much substantiation as UFOs and Zombie Elvis's. And then when you accuse someone of thread jacking, and that person makes a thread just for you to respond to, you go to moderation crying about how unfair it is.

Hypocrite.

I'm complaining that not enough people have been killed? Where did this come from. I'm a historian as well as an amature military historian. One of the things I deal with is numbers when it comes to wars.
It comes from you complaining how "soft" Americans have become because we're unhappy about only a few thousand of our soldiers being killed and only a few tens of thousands of our soldiers being wounded and/or maimed. If you were just reminding us that the body count has been low so far, you could claim your history hobby as a defense, but the specific complaints you're making against us who oppose the war makes you sound like a honest-to-god chickenhawk.

Agreed 100%. Just like civilians being tortured by an autocratic dictatorship is also unacceptable.
So you're going to agree with me that (a) we caused all these deaths since starting this war and (b) all those deaths are unjust and unnecessary, and then you're going to try to justify them with one of Bush's oldest talking points? That might sound less lame if Iraqi civilians weren't being killed and maimed by up to 70+ terrorist attacks daily; if Iraqi civilians weren't being caught up in random dragnets by barely coordinated security forces -- sometimes US army, sometimes some other army, sometimes Iraqi forces (which are sometimes controlled by us and sometimes fomenting sectarian violence of their own), and sometimes private security companies controlled by no one; *and* if we hadn't bombed the living shit out of the Iraqi civilians' country to begin with.

Actually, you can blame the United Nations as they decided not to follow through on their own resolutions but instead deal with appeasement that Prime Minister Chamberlin can be proud of. Your right about the unnecessary deaths though.
Mmm, you know what? I'm going to keep blaming Bush for starting the war, as he was the one who ordered the bombing to start. No one else. Just him. He chose to start a war against a country that had not attacked us. He is to blame. Period.

The unnecessary deaths done by Saddam had to be stopped.
Someone refresh my memory -- was that the second or third lame-ass excuse for this adventure that Bush came up with after it became obvious we were never going to find WMDs?

I'm just one of those that once a fight starts, you fight it and you don't stop fighting till you have won. I wish we didn't have to go into Iraq. I really wish the UN Could've stood up to Sadam but I guess that was to much to hope for. I wish Sadam had taken the amnesty offer but I guess that too was to much to hope for. I wanted peace to preveal but I do know that there comes a time when diplomacy has to be set aside when one side does not negotiate in good faith.
Or until you lose.

Bottom line: It was not up to us to decide UN policy. It was not up to us to decide what kind of government should be in Iraq. Diplomatic and political options were not exhausted. We were under no threat from Iraq. The attack was completely without justification. As far as I'm concerned that makes every death in that war a murder -- including every death of an American soldier -- and Bush is responsible for it all.

As much as I loath it I feel I kinda have to agree with Corneliu in part. I mean we can't really cut an run leaving Iraq to collapse, not after we destroyed their old goverment creating this situation. However, I disagree with his seeming atitude that we should continue doing what we are doing and that parts of this haven't been majorly fucked up. As for what we should do to fix this I don't know, but admitting that mistakes have been made and trying to fix them would probably be a good start. Personally I think that if we were going to do this a greater effort should have been made before we launched this all to ferment resistance to Suddam among the Iraqi population and to build more support/understanding of the political liberalism we were trying to implement.

As much as I loath it I feel I kinda have to agree with Corneliu in part. I mean we can't really cut an run leaving Iraq to collapse, not after we destroyed their old goverment creating this situation. However, I disagree with his seeming atitude that we should continue doing what we are doing and that parts of this haven't been majorly fucked up. As for what we should do to fix this I don't know, but admitting that mistakes have been made and trying to fix them would probably be a good start. Personally I think that if we were going to do this a greater effort should have been made before we launched this all to ferment resistance to Suddam among the Iraqi population and to build more support/understanding of the political liberalism we were trying to implement.
Well, now that we've broken it, yes, we are responsible for fixing it. To pull our troops out now would only compound the original crime of starting the war in the first place because it would leave the Iraqis without any defense at all in the middle of a sectarian civil war. At least, if our next president is even halfway decent and not a complete idiot, we might actually be able to do something with the might and power of the US military -- something other than blow up American teenagers, I mean. But the fact that we are stuck with this mess now in no way lessens my outrage over that bastard having started it in the first place. Frankly, I wish we had a mechanism for removing the entire Bush administration right now in a special election, just to get that new commander in place as fast as humanly possible. Unfortunately, we don't have that option, so all I can do is hope our forces can keep a lid on things between now and 2008.

Actually, you can blame the United Nations as they decided not to follow through on their own resolutions but instead deal with appeasement that Prime Minister Chamberlin can be proud of.Get your definition of appeasement straight. Iraq in no way got better treatment than the average country due to its threatening position. It got treated worse.
A(n amateur military) historian should know better.

I mean we can't really cut an run leaving Iraq to collapse, not after we destroyed their old goverment creating this situation.

So you trust the people who created this disaster to fix it?

So you trust the people who created this disaster to fix it?
No, thats why I said kinda and didn't vote for Bush. However, someone has to and it looks like we're stuck with shouldering the responsibility, us leaving is only going to hurt the Iraqi people more.

Problem... the Iraqis HAVE asked us to leave, the insurgents have done it(violently), the populace have done it(both violently and non-violently), and the Iraqi 'Goverment' hve done it(non-violently). Have we left? No.

Are they incharge? No! The civilians do not have that authority (and you know it) The Iraqi GOVERNMENT has NOT asked us to leave. They can ask us at any time.

What are you talking about?

We never had a Peace Treaty that is needed to actually end a war. What we had was a cease fire so how can you start a war when one never ended?

Are you saying we've been fighting Iraq since the dawn of time only we didn't know it until George Bush became our wonderful president?

You do know we only had a cease-fire with Iraq I hope.

Oh, I suppose you're trying to paint this as a continuation of the Gulf War. That, of course, is nonsense.

That's because it actually is since the GULF WAR NEVER ENDED!!!

In the Gulf War, the US was specifically asked by our ally Kuwait to help them rebuff an invasion, as per our treaty with them. We were only asked to help them get Saddam Hussein out of their country, and that's what we did. Mission accomplished. War over, paid for, done.

If the war ended then show me the Peace Treaty that ended the war. Under International Law, a Peace treaty ends a war. If we use your logic then the Korean War is over since we kept the South free from the North.

This time around, nobody was being invaded or even threatened when George II decided to attack Iraq.

Well you violate a cease-fire, it doesn't exactly make you many friends. Saddam did violate the cease-fire (more than once) so what did you expect? Us to just set on our butts and let him? Chamberlin would be proud of you.

Nobody was asking us to come in and remove Saddam's regime. And so far, nobody but Halliburton has benefitted from it, and nobody including Halliburton has thanked us for taking the initiative.

LOL! The Iraqis are benefitting from it. 70% of their voting population came out to vote the last time despite the bombs and guns. That's saying something right there. The Iraqi soldiers are currently doing more of the fighting (see operation swarmer)

Frankly, the only piece of unfinished business from the Gulf War that's being addressed now is Dick Cheney's frustration at not having been allowed to get his hands on those oil fields. Well, now he has them, and it seems he doesn't know what to do with them, after all.

You still believe that crap? Where is it?

(And also tough shit for you, because Bush isn't allowed to be president again, thank god.)

Agreed.

As much as I loath it I feel I kinda have to agree with Corneliu in part. I mean we can't really cut an run leaving Iraq to collapse, not after we destroyed their old goverment creating this situation. However, I disagree with his seeming atitude that we should continue doing what we are doing and that parts of this haven't been majorly fucked up. As for what we should do to fix this I don't know, but admitting that mistakes have been made and trying to fix them would probably be a good start. Personally I think that if we were going to do this a greater effort should have been made before we launched this all to ferment resistance to Suddam among the Iraqi population and to build more support/understanding of the political liberalism we were trying to implement.

According to press reports, ever since that mosque bombing, all three groups have begun to cooperate and the Sunnis are starting to get serious about this new government. Also, there are some resistance groups (there are many) that are looking at a cease-fire so that they can talk. This stuff takes time. I guess I can point to World War II and Germany if you want to see insurgency similiar to this though I do not know if they had car bombs back then.

Get your definition of appeasement straight. Iraq in no way got better treatment than the average country due to its threatening position. It got treated worse.
A(n amateur military) historian should know better.

Yea? did you see what he did with Oil For Food? the UN Caved. They didn't have the balls to take the next step. The UN Did nothing and by doing nothing did a form of appeasement. Because of this Saddam continued to push the envelope just like Adolf Hitler did.

So you trust the people who created this disaster to fix it?

No I do not trust the UN to fix it.

People need to stop the disassociation game of blaming the UN for everything. The UN is not some floating island on its own. You are the UN. The UN is made up of the representatives of the participating nations of Earth. That would be us. If you have a problem with the UN then take a long look at the mirror and ask yourself how your nation has failed to live up to the ideals of the UN. You need to address the failings of the foreign policies of the nations in the Security Council for blocking the UN from doing anything constructive.

The Bruce

People need to stop the disassociation game of blaming the UN for everything. The UN is not some floating island on its own. You are the UN. The UN is made up of the representatives of the participating nations of Earth. That would be us. If you have a problem with the UN then take a long look at the mirror and ask yourself how your nation has failed to live up to the ideals of the UN. You need to address the failings of the foreign policies of the nations in the Security Council for blocking the UN from doing anything constructive.

The Bruce

I have no choice but to agree with this statement.

We never had a Peace Treaty that is needed to actually end a war. What we had was a cease fire so how can you start a war when one never ended?

That's because it actually is since the GULF WAR NEVER ENDED!!!

Well, if you want to get technical, we never actually went to war. According to the Consitution, we need a request from the President and a grant from Congress for a formal declaration of war, and that never happened with the Gulf War. America simply acted pursuant to UN resolutions to remove Saddam from Kuwait, and the war did end when the UN drew up the cease-fire agreement on April 3, 1991.

If the war ended then show me the Peace Treaty that ended the war. Under International Law, a Peace treaty ends a war. If we use your logic then the Korean War is over since we kept the South free from the North.
We never delcared war in Korea either, simply took authority from UN resolutions and fought until a cease-fire was arranged and signed on July 27, 1953.

Yea? did you see what he did with Oil For Food? the UN Caved. They didn't have the balls to take the next step. The UN Did nothing and by doing nothing did a form of appeasement. Because of this Saddam continued to push the envelope just like Adolf Hitler did.

Thats because there was no need for a next step, as he had no stocks of WMD, posed no local threat, and was unable to exert the same hold as pre Gulf one due to the exclusion zone. As has been pointed out to you before.

Because of this Saddam continued to push the envelope just like Adolf Hitler did.
Hmmm...

Hitler - annexed Austria, destroyed Czechoslovakia and eventually attacked Poland.

Hussein - didn't hand over documents to the liking of US analysts.

Somehow I think you're working with hyperboles here.

Hmmm...

Hitler - annexed Austria, destroyed Czechoslovakia and eventually attacked Poland.

Hussein - didn't hand over documents to the liking of US analysts.

Somehow I think you're working with hyperboles here.

No not working with hyperbole. Obviously there are differences Neu Leonstein. I'm not saying that History is repeating itself.

Thats because there was no need for a next step, as he had no stocks of WMD, posed no local threat, and was unable to exert the same hold as pre Gulf one due to the exclusion zone. As has been pointed out to you before.

Operation Desert Fox was launched because we believed he had WMD. If he didn't have them, then when did he get rid of them and why was he playing games with the United Nations?

Well, if you want to get technical, we never actually went to war. According to the Consitution, we need a request from the President and a grant from Congress for a formal declaration of war, and that never happened with the Gulf War. America simply acted pursuant to UN resolutions to remove Saddam from Kuwait, and the war did end when the UN drew up the cease-fire agreement on April 3, 1991.

Since when did a cease-fire end a war? Again, if cease-fire ends wars then I guess the Korean War is over too uh?

We never delcared war in Korea either, simply took authority from UN resolutions and fought until a cease-fire was arranged and signed on July 27, 1953.

And 50 years later, the war is still going on.

I'm not saying that History is repeating itself.
But you'd be perfectly aware that one only uses the a-word for that very purpose.

But you'd be perfectly aware that one only uses the a-word for that very purpose.

There are many ways to appease nations Leo. Not doing anything is one way.

The Democrat establishment are idiots.

See, anyone can do it.


democrtaes and republicans are the same party. their both idiots and both evil.

Operation Desert Fox was launched because we believed he had WMD. If he didn't have them, then when did he get rid of them and why was he playing games with the United Nations?
Didn't we go through this often enough?

He tried to get them after Desert Storm, but his command structure was screwed, resources were in short supply and he couldn't trust anyone.

So the programs probably stopped a few years after Desert Storm when the international isolation hit home - he couldn't even get his planes in the air when the Americans attacked in 2003.

He played games with the UN because he believed it necessary for the security of his regime, both domestically and internationally, that everyone thought that he was powerful and had WMD. The plan backfired, his bluff was ultimately called.

Yea? did you see what he did with Oil For Food? the UN Caved. They didn't have the balls to take the next step. The UN Did nothing and by doing nothing did a form of appeasement. Because of this Saddam continued to push the envelope just like Adolf Hitler did.:rolleyes:
Saddam rolled into how many countries and got away with it?
If your only good example is the oil for food program, there is something seriously lacking in your definition of "appeasement".

Saddam was kept in his little corner of the world with American and other forces enforcing NO FLY ZONES on Iraqi sovereign territory and ready to move in on him should he try anything. Perhaps if Saddam had reclaimed those no fly zones for himself and the Coalition had backed down, if he had taken Kuwait without reaction from anyone, then we'd have a case of appeasement.

Since we don't, you can cut the crap with pushing anyone that disliked the idea of war with Saddam into the "You're as bad as the people that helped the Nazis come to power!" box, because it isn't much different than yelling "Nazi".

Didn't we go through this often enough?

Yes we have. It really should be a none issue these days but alas, it keeps coming up.

He tried to get them after Desert Storm, but his command structure was screwed, resources were in short supply and he couldn't trust anyone.[/quotere]

There were people he did trust and he did try to acquire it but the deal fell through.

[quote]So the programs probably stopped a few years after Desert Storm when the international isolation hit home - he couldn't even get his planes in the air when the Americans attacked in 2003.

So where's the paperwork to prove it?

He played games with the UN because he believed it necessary for the security of his regime, both domestically and internationally, that everyone thought that he was powerful and had WMD. The plan backfired, his bluff was ultimately called.

If he had just fully cooperated, we wouldn't be in Iraq today.

I guess I can point to World War II and Germany if you want to see insurgency similiar to this though I do not know if they had car bombs back then.:rolleyes:
You truly think that "insurgency" in Germany was any way similar to that in Iraq? There wasn't really any. The "Werwölfe" were a myth and people had more important things to worry about.

:rolleyes:
You truly think that "insurgency" in Germany was any way similar to that in Iraq? There wasn't really any. The "Werwölfe" were a myth and people had more important things to worry about.

I refuse to believe that there weren't hold outs of Hitler's old regime in Germany who didnt fight the allied soldiers. Actually, I don't believe what you are saying.

There were people he did trust and he did try to acquire it but the deal fell through.
Those who would have been responsible were captured, interrogated and eventually released without charge.

So where's the paperwork to prove it?
In paperwork-heaven, just like all government paperwork which talks about things a government would rather not become public.

If he had just fully cooperated, we wouldn't be in Iraq today.
Probably.

You'll notice that I never claim the war to be illegal. Wrong, yes. Unnecessary, yes. Handled with a level of incompetence that is absolutely dumbfounding, yes.
But not illegal.

Ultimately, Saddam did dig his own grave. But that doesn't absolve the other party from making good decisions and acting in an acceptable fashion.

People need to stop the disassociation game of blaming the UN for everything. The UN is not some floating island on its own. You are the UN. The UN is made up of the representatives of the participating nations of Earth. That would be us. If you have a problem with the UN then take a long look at the mirror and ask yourself how your nation has failed to live up to the ideals of the UN. You need to address the failings of the foreign policies of the nations in the Security Council for blocking the UN from doing anything constructive.

The Bruce

The UN is a joke and NATO is the punch line. They are both run by the United States who are now the world police an d can do as "we" see fit and noone can stop us. The UN is like the democratic party, its sole purpose is to create mass apathy amoung the world, give the illusion thats it actually dose something. The UN is completely useless and like the American government, out of date.

sorry bruce but I am not the UN, and neither are you. I have no say who represants my country there, it is completely out of my or anyones control.

Since when did a cease-fire end a war? Again, if cease-fire ends wars then I guess the Korean War is over too uh?



And 50 years later, the war is still going on.

No, because in both instances, war was never declared. They were both UN military operations.

I refuse to believe that there weren't hold outs of Hitler's old regime in Germany who didnt fight the allied soldiers. Actually, I don't believe what you are saying.Really? Name some instances.

Mayhap there were still occasional murders of people considered "traitors", but there was nothing in the least bit comparable to what is going on in Iraq. The people had to worry about things like food and coal at the time.

I refuse to believe that there weren't hold outs of Hitler's old regime in Germany who didnt fight the allied soldiers. Actually, I don't believe what you are saying.
Try to find them.

The last German troops AFAIK gave up two weeks or so after the war ended. They were stuck on Channel Islands.
Before that, there were some units (mainly volunteers from other countries) who kept resisting in Czechoslovakia, but not for long.

Ultimately the insurgency in Iraq operates out of the general population, some of it is recognised as okay by many Iraqis and it has lasted for three years.

Nothing like that happened in either Germany or Japan.

I refuse to believe that there weren't hold outs of Hitler's old regime in Germany who didnt fight the allied soldiers. Actually, I don't believe what you are saying.


perfact example of another stupid American. You give us all a bad name. put down the bible and go educate yourself. try to find sources outside of your safe haven of corporate media who will tell only what the GOP wants you to hear. freedom of press, ha!

In paperwork-heaven, just like all government paperwork which talks about things a government would rather not become public.

This I can believe :D

Probably.

You'll notice that I never claim the war to be illegal. Wrong, yes. Unnecessary, yes. Handled with a level of incompetence that is absolutely dumbfounding, yes.
But not illegal.

Actually yes I have noticed. And for that, I give you kudos. *hands you a cookie*

Ultimately, Saddam did dig his own grave. But that doesn't absolve the other party from making good decisions and acting in an acceptable fashion.

I'll agree to this as well.

perfact example of another stupid American. You give us all a bad name. put down the bible and go educate yourself. try to find sources outside of your safe haven of corporate media who will tell only what the GOP wants you to hear. freedom of press, ha!This is a discussion. If you want to take part, you can argue with things that relate to the topic, not just random insults. You give us a bad name too.

perfact example of another stupid American. You give us all a bad name. put down the bible and go educate yourself. try to find sources outside of your safe haven of corporate media who will tell only what the GOP wants you to hear. freedom of press, ha!

Funny thing is, I do not even take Fox News at 100% face value. I do not trust the press to tell me the news all the time.

Try to find them.

The last German troops AFAIK gave up two weeks or so after the war ended. They were stuck on Channel Islands.
Before that, there were some units (mainly volunteers from other countries) who kept resisting in Czechoslovakia, but not for long.

Ultimately the insurgency in Iraq operates out of the general population, some of it is recognised as okay by many Iraqis and it has lasted for three years.

Nothing like that happened in either Germany or Japan.


The US is fighting another guerilla war and this time is supported by most of the Iraqi people. There is no way to beat it.

The US is fighting another guerilla war and this time is supported by most of the Iraqi people. There is no way to beat it.

Grow up some.

The UN is a joke and NATO is the punch line. They are both run by the United States who are now the world police an d can do as "we" see fit and noone can stop us. The UN is like the democratic party, its sole purpose is to create mass apathy amoung the world, give the illusion thats it actually dose something. The UN is completely useless and like the American government, out of date.

sorry bruce but I am not the UN, and neither are you. I have no say who represants my country there, it is completely out of my or anyones control.

The government you voted for appoints their representative to the UN, to represent their foreign policy. Saying you don’t have a voice in the UN is saying you don’t have a voice in your own country. If that's the case the UN definately isn't your main problem.

I refuse to believe that there weren't hold outs of Hitler's old regime in Germany who didnt fight the allied soldiers. Actually, I don't believe what you are saying.

Then try reading some history books to not make yourself look like an idiot again. The Werewolf assassinated one mayor that the Americans had appointed, and got arrested and hanged. That's about it. If you, unlike all those who have studied WW2 and it's aftermath, have some secrect knowledge about it then please announce yourself to the world - it will be a shock to those who now think they actually know something about history... :rolleyes:

The government you voted for appoints their representative to the UN, to represent their foreign policy. Saying you don’t have a voice in the UN is saying you don’t have a voice in your own country. If that's the case the UN definately isn't your main problem.

taking into account that most people didn't vote for the current adminisration would suggest that the people don't have a voice in their country or the UN. And your right, my main problem isn't the UN, it America (the fascist gov., corporations....), followed by Israel (not anti-semetic in anyway, shape or form. don't believe me just ask and be propared for a very angry and violent responce).

Then try reading some history books to not make yourself look like an idiot again. The Werewolf assassinated one mayor that the Americans had appointed, and got arrested and hanged. That's about it. If you, unlike all those who have studied WW2 and it's aftermath, have some secrect knowledge about it then please announce yourself to the world - it will be a shock to those who now think they actually know something about history... :rolleyes:

Truer words have never been said. The Werewolf movement was a non-starter; it killed a single US-installed Mayor and blew up an ammo dump I think. The majority of the German forces surrendered after peace was declared. There was the odd fanatical SS resistance, but they were crushed or forced to flee within a day or two.

In short, there was no organised, long-lasting or even effective Nazi Resistance, Corneliu.

taking into account that most people didn't vote for the current adminisration would suggest that the people don't have a voice in their country or the UN. And your right, my main problem isn't the UN, it America (the fascist gov., corporations....), followed by Israel (not anti-semetic in anyway, shape or form. don't believe me just ask and be propared for a very angry and violent responce).

I believe over 50% of the population voted for Bush; that would seem to entail that people wanted him, even if voting numbers of extremely low in the US. But then that's down to your voters being apathetic or just plain dumb most of the time.

I believe over 50% of the population voted for Bush; that would seem to entail that people wanted him, even if voting numbers of extremely low in the US. But then that's down to your voters being apathetic or just plain dumb most of the time.

Here we'll agree.

Yes we have. It really should be a none issue these days but alas, it keeps coming up.

[quote]He tried to get them after Desert Storm, but his command structure was screwed, resources were in short supply and he couldn't trust anyone.[/quotere]

[1] There were people he did trust and he did try to acquire it but the deal fell through.



[2] So where's the paperwork to prove it?



[3] If he had just fully cooperated, we wouldn't be in Iraq today.
[1] So then he didn't get any WMDs then, did he? And thus, he didn't have any.

[2] Where's the paperwork to prove any of your claims? If you're going to demand documentation, you'd better be prepared to provide some, too. Why should we have any greater burden of proof than you do?

[3] Agreed. And if Bush had cooperated with the international community and the UN inspectors who were already working in Iraq instead of "going it alone against the evil-doers", we wouldn't be stuck footing the bill for the reconstruction by ourselves and standing out as the sole target for terrorist revenge propaganda now. No matter what Saddam Hussein did or should have done, that doesn't change the staggering incompetence of Bush and his cabinet in this matter.

I refuse to believe that there weren't hold outs of Hitler's old regime in Germany who didnt fight the allied soldiers. Actually, I don't believe what you are saying.
You can stick your fingers in your ears and say "lalalala" all day long if you like. What you refuse to believe is not the measure of truth. If he's wrong, prove it with documentation.

[1] So then he didn't get any WMDs then, did he? And thus, he didn't have any.

Then what happened to the WMD he had left over from the Iran-Iraq War. We know he didn't use it all. Where did it go? If he didn't have any WMD then why didn't he come clean to begin with?

[2] Where's the paperwork to prove any of your claims? If you're going to demand documentation, you'd better be prepared to provide some, too. Why should we have any greater burden of proof than you do?

Because it was the Burdan of Saddam Hussein to prove that he didn't have any WMD.

[3] Agreed.

I'm glad.

Because it was the Burdan of Saddam Hussein to prove that he didn't have any WMD.


Under English law (which shares the principle with most Western legal systems) the burden of proof is upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt. The defence must prove nothing, only ensure that reasonable doubt remains.

The US has singularly failed to meet the burden of proof before and after the war.

Oh, and stop spouting about Neville Chaimberlain until you actually learn some history. Mind you, it does provide proof of your unfitness for military service...

Then what happened to the WMD he had left over from the Iran-Iraq War. We know he didn't use it all. Where did it go? If he didn't have any WMD then why didn't he come clean to begin with?

It was either destroyed, or went beyond its "shelf-life". All of this was covered in the ISG report. I suggest that you at least consult the conclusions, which are available here, as it was your "tax dollar" that paid for it.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

Under English law (which shares the principle with most Western legal systems) the burden of proof is upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt. The defence must prove nothing, only ensure that reasonable doubt remains.

However in this case, we shifted the burden to him with the United Nations Resolutions telling Saddam to come clean. Instead he played games so the Burden was on him.

The US has singularly failed to meet the burden of proof before and after the war.

And the Brits as well. Don't just single out the US. We weren't the only nation in there.

Oh, and stop spouting about Neville Chaimberlain until you actually learn some history. Mind you, it does provide proof of your unfitness for military service...

I can't serve anyway and I am a history major Anarchic Christians.

Then what happened to the WMD he had left over from the Iran-Iraq War. We know he didn't use it all. Where did it go? If he didn't have any WMD then why didn't he come clean to begin with?

It was either destroyed, or went beyond its "shelf-life". All of this was covered in the ISG report. I suggest that you at least consult the conclusions, which are available here, as it was your "tax dollar" that paid for it.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

If it was destroyed then where's the proof that they were destroyed as proscribed by the United Nations?

Bush Was Set on Path to War, Memo by British Adviser Says By DON VAN NATTA Jr.
LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."'

"The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein."(my bold)

Full article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?ei=5094&en=1a8220fd45b2aca0&hp=&ex=1143522000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print)

This is the second time this memo has surfaced, the first being via the english CH4 news, which I previously linked and certain parties refused to comment on. The NY times (presumably due to less worry about the British official secrets act) has revealed more extracts from it. "Damning indictment" would be one phrase that comes to mind.

And if any of this was remotely true, then why didn't it come out during the election? seems like the dems would've made political hay out it. heck, they would be making hay out of this even now and no one is.

Because its only been recently leaked by the British side. As far as I can tell the American opposition are terrified of being labelled as "being against the troops" etc. Either way, its out now, and adds to the previous documents which have slowly but surely floating up from the wreck of Bliars credibility.

And yes, its been verified as genuine.

How now, brown cow?

Because its only been recently leaked by the British side. As far as I can tell the American opposition are terrified of being labelled as "being against the troops" etc. Either way, its out now, and adds to the previous documents which have slowly but surely floating up from the wreck of Bliars credibility.

And yes, its been verified as genuine.

How now, brown cow?

If they believe the memo then they have a duty to speak out about it. By not speaking out about it, they have effectively give Bush the authority he wants.

I wouldn't see them as against the troops. I would see them against the Administration and would probably look at it a tad more closely. However, nothing is coming out of Dean's Mouth or any other high mucky muck in the Democratic Party. The Press sure isn't howling either.

The Democrat establishment are idiots.

See, anyone can do it.
Sure, except that they're not in power so the idiots that matter now are not the Dems. This Iraq debacle falls squarely on Republican shoulders as do the debt, the impending housing collapse, the proliferattion of nuclear weapons to North Korea and Iran, etc...

Can't blame the Dems for any of that.

Front page of the New York times, I thought. Either way, its already been through the mainstream in Brit land. I don't bother with the tinfoil hat nonsense that surfaces on "leftiesagainstAmerica.com".

And the thing is...they'll still get away with it.

Front page of the New York times, I thought. Either way, its already been through the mainstream in Brit land. I don't bother with the tinfoil hat nonsense that surfaces on "leftiesagainstAmerica.com".

And the thing is...they'll still get away with it.

Is that an actual website? If it is then the people who run it are nuts.

Sweet divine jaysus spare me......

Sweet divine jaysus spare me......

*in Jesus's Voice* You are spared my Son :D

Then what happened to the WMD he had left over from the Iran-Iraq War. We know he didn't use it all. Where did it go? If he didn't have any WMD then why didn't he come clean to begin with?



Because it was the Burdan of Saddam Hussein to prove that he didn't have any WMD.



I'm glad.
he did have some left over wmd and scud missiles at the end of the first gulf war.

these were either destroyed by iraq and verified by the UN inspectors. destroyed by the UN inspectors themselves or had a shelf life that expired well before 2003.

it is, as is often pointed out in religious threads, imposssible to prove a negative. when the UN inspectors did their freaking job, the CIA made up additional wmd for them to find. guess what? you cant find what doesnt exist so iraq was "non compliant".

he did have some left over wmd and scud missiles at the end of the first gulf war.

these were either destroyed by iraq and verified by the UN inspectors. destroyed by the UN inspectors themselves or had a shelf life that expired well before 2003.

Except for those other illegal missles we've found prior to Operaton Iraqi Freedom.

it is, as is often pointed out in religious threads, imposssible to prove a negative. when the UN inspectors did their freaking job, the CIA made up additional wmd for them to find. guess what? you cant find what doesnt exist so iraq was "non compliant".

I will agree to a point with this. But only to a point.

And if any of this was remotely true, then why didn't it come out during the election? seems like the dems would've made political hay out it. heck, they would be making hay out of this even now and no one is.
because the democrats are implicated in it

they knew almost the same stuff that the president did. they knew the un weapons inspectors had done their job

but then 9/11 happened and the first thing everyone said was "thank god al gore wasnt elected he doesnt have the balls to have gone into afghanistan" (which is bullshit but lets please not debate it, we'll just call it common public perception)

the democrats had to play testicular catchup. they had to show themselves as big bad tough guys willing to do whatever it takes to keep america safe. they went right along with bush because he whipped up a panic in the public and this was a good way to show they arent ineffectual peaceniks. (the more kind would give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they were just authorizing tough talk by bush, the more cynical would say that they played politics with the lives of our soldiers and the lives of the people of iraq)

there are no innocents here; they all knew and they are all guilty of not standing up and crying bullshit when bush called for war.

because the democrats are implicated in it

they knew almost the same stuff that the president did. they knew the un weapons inspectors had done their job

And they gave the President the go ahead to do it anyway.

but then 9/11 happened and the first thing everyone said was "thank god al gore wasnt elected he doesnt have the balls to have gone into afghanistan" (which is bullshit but lets please not debate it, we'll just call it common public perception)

I won't debate it because that'll be completely off topic. We'll save it for another thread :D

the democrats had to play testicular catchup. they had to show themselves as big bad tough guys willing to do whatever it takes to keep america safe. they went right along with bush because he whipped up a panic in the public and this was a good way to show they arent ineffectual peaceniks. (the more kind would give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they were just authorizing tough talk by bush, the more cynical would say that they played politics with the lives of our soldiers and the lives of the people of iraq)

I'll agree to this statement.

there are no innocents here; they all knew and they are all guilty of not standing up and crying bullshit when bush called for war.

Yep. So very true.

Except for those other illegal missles we've found prior to Operaton Iraqi Freedom.

how many were those and what condition were they in?

i wouldnt normally ask for proof but my net connection is agonizingly slow today (its normally slower than the connection you had 8 years ago) and i would appreciate it if you found a report saying what was really found. it would take me all day.

how many were those and what condition were they in?

I believe that they were mostly new and I believe a couple dozen capable of carrying Chem or bio warheads. They had the range that exceeded the limits set by the UN Resolutions and were capable of hitting Israel. This was about a few weeks, iirc, before Operation Iraqi Freedom bagan.

i wouldnt normally ask for proof but my net connection is agonizingly slow today (its normally slower than the connection you had 8 years ago) and i would appreciate it if you found a report saying what was really found. it would take me all day.

I'll see what I can dig up. Should be in most of the news archives since it was plastered all over them.

[QUOTE=Corneliu]Except for those other illegal missles we've found prior to Operaton Iraqi Freedom.
[QUOTE]

Which of themselves did not constitute WMD, WLD, or anything of note. No WMD. Thats what is says in the IAEA report and the ISG report. The missiles you refer to had ranges only marginally outside the limits set. There were no weaponised biological agents to place inside them, nor chemical or nuclear materials for that matter. No danger to his neighbours.

Except for those other illegal missles we've found prior to Operaton Iraqi Freedom.


Which of themselves did not constitute WMD, WLD, or anything of note. No WMD. Thats what is says in the IAEA report and the ISG report. The missiles you refer to had ranges only marginally outside the limits set. There were no weaponised biological agents to place inside them, nor chemical or nuclear materials for that matter. No danger to his neighbours.

I never said they did constitute WMD did I? No I didn't. I said the constituted a violation of the United nations restrictions on the range a rocket can go as proscribed. These rockets exceeded their range.

Are you going to try to justify a war thats killed tens of thousands on a extra 10km or so?

Actually you probably are....

Are you going to try to justify a war thats killed tens of thousands on a extra 10km or so?

Actually you probably are....

Actually no I am not. Why? Because i already stated the reasons for the War in Iraq and no one cares for the reasons I stated. They are to fixated on the stupid WMD.

Actually no I am not. Why? Because i already stated the reasons for the War in Iraq and no one cares for the reasons I stated. They are to fixated on the stupid WMD.

Only "fixated" because that was the primary reason Il Bushe pushed for the invasion and smeared Colin Powell's personal integrity to do so. But hey, you're a full fledged Bushevik member of Operation Yellow Elephant and it shows.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."'



Since this didn't happen, who gives a shit?

Then what happened to the WMD he had left over from the Iran-Iraq War. We know he didn't use it all. Where did it go? If he didn't have any WMD then why didn't he come clean to begin with?
Well, since they weren't there, I guess he must have off-loaded them somewhere before we attacked, eh? How about the Russians? How about the Chinese? Maybe he sold them back to us for a partial refund.

Because it was the Burdan of Saddam Hussein to prove that he didn't have any WMD.
Uh, wrong. The burden of proof is always on the accuser, not the defense. And besides which, I'm not asking Saddam to prove his innocence. I'm asking *you* to show the factual basis of your claims. You so consistently fail to do so, that I must agree with those who say there is no factual basis for them.

I'm glad.
Don't be.

I believe that they were mostly new and I believe a couple dozen capable of carrying Chem or bio warheads. They had the range that exceeded the limits set by the UN Resolutions and were capable of hitting Israel. This was about a few weeks, iirc, before Operation Iraqi Freedom bagan.



I'll see what I can dig up. Should be in most of the news archives since it was plastered all over them.
If you have access to them, post the links.

And they gave the President the go ahead to do it anyway.



I won't debate it because that'll be completely off topic. We'll save it for another thread :D



I'll agree to this statement.



Yep. So very true.
Ah, so you agree then that Bush is guilty of using trumped up excuses to launch an unjust and unnecessary war of aggression against a country that was not threatening us, just like the Congress is guilty of not stopping him from doing that. Excellent. Now we are in agreement.

Only "fixated" because that was the primary reason Il Bushe pushed for the invasion and smeared Colin Powell's personal integrity to do so. But hey, you're a full fledged Bushevik member of Operation Yellow Elephant and it shows.

Then why was I shopping around for a new President in 2004?

Ah, so you agree then that Bush is guilty of using trumped up excuses to launch an unjust and unnecessary war of aggression against a country that was not threatening us, just like the Congress is guilty of not stopping him from doing that. Excellent. Now we are in agreement.

I said to a point. I didn't say I agreed with it all the way.

Actually no I am not. Why? Because i already stated the reasons for the War in Iraq and no one cares for the reasons I stated. They are to fixated on the stupid WMD.

The ones that the main parties themselves don't go on about and that they say the opposit of in their pre-war cabinet briefings. Those are your reasons. Please feel free to keep them to yourself.



Since this didn't happen, who gives a shit?.

Thank you for your considered opinion.

Actually no I am not. Why? Because i already stated the reasons for the War in Iraq and no one cares for the reasons I stated. They are to fixated on the stupid WMD.
Because the "stupid WMD" were what your bully boy Bush used to sell this war of his to the American people, the British, his so-called Coalition of the Barely Participatory, and the American Congress. And because it was a lie, just like every other excuse he's come up with since that one was debunked. And because starting a war of aggression against a sovereign state is, technically, a violation of international law, which makes the US look real, real bad -- except to the extent it makes us look good as a target for terrorist propaganda. Plus it saddles the US with a serious financial, political and military burden which we will be carrying and paying for -- in more than just money -- for the foreseeable future. You just repeating Bush's discredited talking points only reminds us of what a cock-up his entire policy has been and continues to be.

I believe that they were mostly new and I believe a couple dozen capable of carrying Chem or bio warheads. They had the range that exceeded the limits set by the UN Resolutions and were capable of hitting Israel. This was about a few weeks, iirc, before Operation Iraqi Freedom bagan.



I'll see what I can dig up. Should be in most of the news archives since it was plastered all over them.
oh yes i remember the missiles you are talking about. i dont remember exactly when it was, who found them (since there were no weapons inspectors just before the war) and what was ultimately done about them, if anything.

he never used them so something had to have been done with them.

I said to a point. I didn't say I agreed with it all the way.
Tightrope walking is difficult, isn't it?

oh yes i remember the missiles you are talking about. i dont remember exactly when it was, who found them (since there were no weapons inspectors just before the war) and what was ultimately done about them, if anything.

Actually, it was the weapons inspectors that found them. And I'll give Saddam Hussein a little credit here when he ordered their destruction.

he never used them so something had to have been done with them.

They were in the process of being destroyed I believe.

There is one very simple reason "we" invaded Iraq, and it's not WMDs or ties to terrorism (because we know now as we did then that there weren't any) as the government would like you to believ. The reason we went into Iraq is because of the oil. Theres a crisis coming up, maybe some of you have heard about it, called Peak Oil. Now when the oil peaks it means that humanity has used up most of the worlds oil, there is no more to be had and from then on cororations are going to be pumping less and less oil until it gets to the point were it's too exprencive to keep mining the stuff. Now this crisis will cause a world wide great depression. every first world economy (i'm including china and russia) is based arounhd oil and when the it peaks their economies will crash. The countries will fall apart, the government wont be able to sustain itself and it will be chaos. Now the oil fields in Saudi Arabia and most every where else in the middle east have already peaked, Iraq's havn't (well I don't know how much is left after they tourched 'em:p). That is why the United States invaded Iraq, "we" need the oil to sustain our country, society, our way of life. every thing we do, eat, creat, etc. is derived from oil, it is the basis of our lives. There is only one other place on Earth that I am aware of that still has oil wells which havn't peaked and which the US doesn't in some way control, that is Venezuela. The cool thing about Venez is that there socialist, they've allied themselves with Cuba and are fighting the US on every non-violent front emanigble.

Here's some reading for you guys on Peak Oil: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Quetzl,

If we are in Iraq for the oil then why the hell am I paying 250 at the gas pump?

That kinda debunks your arguement right there. So if we are there for the Oil then WHERE IS IT?

Quetzl,

If we are in Iraq for the oil then why the hell am I paying 250 at the gas pump?

That kinda debunks your arguement right there. So if we are there for the Oil then WHERE IS IT?


your paying $250 for gas????:eek: Holy shit man where do you live?!?

Well there are some small problems for the US over there right now incase you didn't know. America controls a couple blocks in Bagdad with an entire country fighting them. I would say that haveing the oil fields "safe" is all they are willing to do right now. It would be too risky to reconstruct the mining equiptment, hire workers and run a business right in the middle of a civil war. Not to mention the suicide bomber would flock to it like flys to poop. so no the fact that you pay more money than I make in a pay check for gas doesn't debunk my arguement.

your paying $250 for gas????:eek: Holy shit man where do you live?!?

Oh sorry. Thought you were smart! $2.50 per gallon.

Well there are some small problems for the US over there right now incase you didn't know. America controls a couple blocks in Bagdad with an entire country fighting them. I would say that haveing the oil fields "safe" is all they are willing to do right now. It would be too risky to reconstruct the mining equiptment, hire workers and run a business right in the middle of a civil war. Not to mention the suicide bomber would flock to it like flys to poop. so no the fact that you pay more money than I make in a pay check for gas doesn't debunk my arguement.

I'm still waiting on where the oil is.

Oh sorry. Thought you were smart! $2.50 per gallon.

:confused:


I'm still waiting on where the oil is.

I thought that was clear when I said that it wouldn't be smart to start minig oil when the country is on the brink of civil war and The US control a few streets in the capital. If you can't figure out where the oil is by now, I'm very sorry, but I am wondering if you have parental permission to be on here.

:confused:

It isn't that hard to figure out. I pay 2 dollars and 50 cents for gasoline and the prices are still going up. They wouldn't be doing that if we controled the oil in Iraq. Of course, there are other factors that go into the price for oil but those are just schemantics anyway.

I thought that was clear when I said that it wouldn't be smart to start minig oil when the country is on the brink of civil war and The US control a few streets in the capital.

But yet the Oil is already flowing out of Iraq so where is it?

If you can't figure out where the oil is by now, I'm very sorry, but I am wondering if you have parental permission to be on here.

:rolleyes:

It isn't that hard to figure out. I pay 2 dollars and 50 cents for gasoline and the prices are still going up. They wouldn't be doing that if we controled the oil in Iraq. Of course, there are other factors that go into the price for oil but those are just schemantics anyway.

[uote]I thought that was clear when I said that it wouldn't be smart to start minig oil when the country is on the brink of civil war and The US control a few streets in the capital.

But yet the Oil is already flowing out of Iraq so where is it?



:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]


can you give me a source that says the oil is flowing out of Iraq?

But yet the Oil is already flowing out of Iraq so where is it?



:rolleyes:


can you give me a source that says the oil is flowing out of Iraq?[/QUOTE]

Can you provide me a source that says it isnt?

Can you provide me a source that says it isnt?

He asked first. You make all kinds of claims but provide not one shred of evidence to back them up. Why should anyone else go to an effort you're not willing to?

He asked first. You make all kinds of claims but provide not one shred of evidence to back them up. Why should anyone else go to an effort you're not willing to?

He was the one that said that mining oil isn't going on. All you have to do is look at news footage to know that's not accurate.

It isn't that hard to figure out. I pay 2 dollars and 50 cents for gasoline and the prices are still going up. They wouldn't be doing that if we controled the oil in Iraq. Of course, there are other factors that go into the price for oil but those are just schemantics anyway.


I'll keep it simple for you:

The oil companies control the oil. They can say that the war made oil more expensive. Demand is still the same, but price goes up, because supply is supposedly lower.

The USian oil companies control the oil. Not you. You are simply the target market. Your job is to pay.

Oh sorry. Thought you were smart! $2.50 per gallon.


You do realise that's incredibly cheap compared to most of Europe, right?

I'll keep it simple for you:

The oil companies control the oil. They can say that the war made oil more expensive. Demand is still the same, but price goes up, because supply is supposedly lower.

The USian oil companies control the oil. Not you. You are simply the target market. Your job is to pay.

Yes it is however what goes on in oil producing nations actually makes the prices go up or down. Not to mention OPEC also controls the *ahem* Oil market.

You do realise that's incredibly cheap compared to most of Europe, right?

Yes I know it is. Its because we don't have all of those taxes nor those so caled additives that drive up the cost of gasoline.

:confused:




I thought that was clear when I said that it wouldn't be smart to start minig oil when the country is on the brink of civil war and The US control a few streets in the capital. If you can't figure out where the oil is by now, I'm very sorry, but I am wondering if you have parental permission to be on here.

Please link me to this source that thinks the US only controls a couple of blocks? Your posts are already in question since you said you support Venezuela and Cuba. And those countries support Iran, so one would assume that you also support Iran.

Please link me to this source that thinks the US only controls a couple of blocks? Your posts are already in question since you said you support Venezuela and Cuba. And those countries support Iran, so one would assume that you also support Iran.

Sorry, linkage?

I assume you have something deeper linking them with Iran then 'they don't like us' :( ...because you're in for a big shock otherwise.

It don't matter wether a war is justifed or not. We have had a string of conflicts which we had very low casualties and we have gotten used to it. That has made us soft and now we do not want to see what we are seeing now. I do not care if the war was justified or not. We have a real war here and the casualties for a war of this type are still low. If we had tens of thousands of Deaths, then maybe I could agree with you but since we have lost around 600 troops a year, that is nothing compared to the 5000 a year we saw in Nam or the close to 100,000 a year we saw in World War II.
The casualties are acceptable to you because it is not your ass on the line?

Face it, we have grown soft when it comes to war. No one understands just what happens in war and that goes back to a lack of accurate teaching of History in school.
It is easy to make statements like that knowing full well that you personally won't ever have to find out how hard war is. Are you suggesting that your country is soft about war because your teachers can't teach history "accurately"? :p

How nice. Another cut and run coward who would rather see Iraq fall into Civil War which would kill even more Iraqis than have died to date. Heck, it'll probably rival whatever Saddam did too for good measure.
You really love that word "coward" don't you?

The casualties are acceptable to you because it is not your ass on the line?

They are acceptable because they are low and for a good cause.

The casualties are acceptable to you because it is not your ass on the line?

No actually they aren't acceptable at all to me. You may find that hard to believe but they aren't acceptable to me at all.

It is easy to make statements like that knowing full well that you personally won't ever have to find out how hard war is.

I just have to live with the fact that my father, cousin, or brother-in-law could die in one and that scares me.

Are you suggesting that your country is soft about war because your teachers can't teach history "accurately"? :p

I already know they can't teach history correctly. Some do though. I'm getting a better history education here in college than I ever could dream of.

You really love that word "coward" don't you?

Actually no I don't. But when people suggest to cut and run because our casualties are to high, then yea, the word comes in handy.

The casualties are acceptable to you because it is not your ass on the line?
It is my ass on the line and casualties are acceptable as long as the reward is greater and i believe it is.

It is easy to make statements like that knowing full well that you personally won't ever have to find out how hard war is. Are you suggesting that your country is soft about war because your teachers can't teach history "accurately"? :p

I believe that the western world does not really grasp the concept of war any longer. It is not a game where you always win and the opponent is the only one who suffers defeat. People die in war, that's a fact that many seem to not understand. They support the war because they expect a quick, painless victory but once the realities start coming in they get scared. Just look at the whole body armor issue in the U.S.. Citizens believe they are helping us by forcing the government to equip all U.S. forces with an extra 10-20lbs of gear. They expect that this will allow us to prevent all death and still win but they do not realize that this really impairs our ability to fight and will cause furthur casualties. At least my take.

Please link me to this source that thinks the US only controls a couple of blocks? Your posts are already in question since you said you support Venezuela and Cuba. And those countries support Iran, so one would assume that you also support Iran.

Well i apologies for hating neo-con fascism, being a socialist and struck with awe at Cuda's 100% literacy rate.

The controled area in Iraq is called the green zone. its it the center of Bagdad and houses the American controled Iraqi government. I will do my best to find a map of it, but I can't make any promisses.

and yeah I support Iran in the simple reason that they're are fighting an America with which I am disgusted. Other than that, Irans just as bad.

As for me, I'm medically ineligable to join because of my learning disability.
Wow!! You are in college, yet you have a "learning disability" that prevents you from getting your ass shot of in Iraq?

Before that, you stated you couldn't join because you were an only son of a military member, and thus were ineligible but that was proven false (http://www.snopes.com/military/onlyson.htm).

Before that, you stated you wouldn't join the army because you wouldn't get along with the Generals, further stating that you "don't follow orders too well".

Very interesting to say the least.

They are acceptable because they are low and for a good cause.


they are anything but low (fascist:upyours: ) over 19,000 civilians killed in Afghanistan and Iraq and over 2,000 soldiers killed in Iraq.

Yes it is however what goes on in oil producing nations actually makes the prices go up or down. Not to mention OPEC also controls the *ahem* Oil market.

You are partly correct.

I assumed that the oil companies were gouging the consumers to makerecord profits. I was wrong. The war in Iraq, as well as other factors has decreased production, reducing supply, but demand continues to increase.
http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

On March 19, 2003, just as some Venezuelan production was beginning to return, military action commenced in Iraq. Meanwhile, inventories remained low in the U.S. and other OECD countries. With an improving economy U.S. demand was increasing and Asian demand for crude oil was growing at a rapid pace. The loss of production capacity in Iraq and Venezuela combined with increased production to meet growing international demand led to the erosion of excess oil production capacity. In mid 2002, there was over 6 million barrels per day of excess production capacity, but by mid 2003 the excess was below 2 million. During much of 2004 and 2005 the spare capacity to produce oil has been under one million barrels per day. A million barrels per day is not enough spare capacity to cover an interruption of supply from almost any OPEC producer. In a world that consumes over 80 million barrels per day of petroleum products that adds a significant risk premium to crude oil price and is largely responsible for prices in excess of $40 per barrel.

Mind you, OPEC doesn't control the price either.

OPEC has seldom been effective at controlling prices. While often referred to as one OPEC does not satisfy the definition of a cartel. One of the primary requirements is a mechanism to enforce member quotas. During the 1979-1980 period of rapidly increasing prices, Saudi Arabia's oil minister Ahmed Yamani repeatedly warned other members of OPEC that high prices would lead to a reduction in demand. His warnings fell on deaf ears.

Well i apologies for hating neo-con fascism, being a socialist and struck with awe at Cuda's 100% literacy rate.

The controled area in Iraq is called the green zone. its it the center of Bagdad and houses the American controled Iraqi government. I will do my best to find a map of it, but I can't make any promisses.

and yeah I support Iran in the simple reason that they're are fighting an America with which I am disgusted. Other than that, Irans just as bad.

Yes, I'm sure Cuba is being honest.

Most of Iraq is secure, only the area around Baghdad is in rough shape.

So if Nazi Germany were around and fighting America you would support Nazi Germany? This is why these forums piss me off.

Wow!! You are in college, yet you have a "learning disability" that prevents you from getting your ass shot of in Iraq?

What? Because I have a learning disorder I cannot be in college?

As for the learning disorder, I already talked to a recruiter about it and the recruiter told me personally that I was ineligible for military service because I have been officially diagnosed with a learning disorder and was medicated for a time for it.

they are anything but low (fascist:upyours: ) over 19,000 civilians killed in Afghanistan and Iraq and over 2,000 soldiers killed in Iraq.

And for a war, that is low.

They are acceptable because they are low and for a good cause.
I disagree with the "cause" and have from the outset. Ask the Iraqi people if they think that the number of deaths (30,000 to 100,000) is acceptable, never mind what the bombing has done to their country.

they are anything but low (fascist:upyours: ) over 19,000 civilians killed in Afghanistan and Iraq and over 2,000 soldiers killed in Iraq.

You know nothing about me, I demand you take that back or I will demand satisfaction. If you think they are high numbers, then you know nothing about history.

I disagree with the "cause" and have from the outset. Ask the Iraqi people if they think that the number of deaths (30,000 to 100,000) is acceptable, never mind what the bombing has done to their country.

I recently read an article and Iraqis said life was better under Saddam but that they don't want to go back to his rule or a similar kind.

I disagree with the "cause" and have from the outset. Ask the Iraqi people if they think that the number of deaths (30,000 to 100,000) is acceptable, never mind what the bombing has done to their country.

I'll hate myself for asking this but do you think that the casualties were acceptable during World War II?

Most of Iraq is secure, only the area around Baghdad is in rough shape.
That's putting it mildly.


So if Nazi Germany were around and fighting America you would support Nazi Germany? This is why these forums piss me off.

And a Godwin to boot.

You lose.

Yes, I'm sure Cuba is being honest.

Most of Iraq is secure, only the area around Baghdad is in rough shape.

So if Nazi Germany were around and fighting America you would support Nazi Germany? This is why these forums piss me off.

If Nazi Germany were around, they would be quite chumy with the US. which they were in WWII, Kodak did buisness with Hitler, Harley-Davidson sold them motorcylces, the US gov. sent them munitions and supplies (as we did with britian), Henry Ford (creator of Ford automotives) was a strong Nazi supporter and even went so far as to set up an American Nazi party.

If Nazi Germany were around, they would be quite chumy with the US. which they were in WWII, Kodak did buisness with Hitler, Harley-Davidson sold them motorcylces, the US gov. sent them munitions and supplies (as we did with britian), Henry Ford (creator of Ford automotives) was a strong Nazi supporter and even went so far as to set up an American Nazi party.

Answer the question.

Quetzl,

If we are in Iraq for the oil then why the hell am I paying 250 at the gas pump?

That kinda debunks your arguement right there. So if we are there for the Oil then WHERE IS IT?

Apparently it didnt pan out quite the way certain parties planned.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
Freedom of info act - yer only man.....

Apparently they were considering a coup before Osama changed the playing field

Yes, I'm sure Cuba is being honest.
It's true though, all socialist governments have focussed a lot on educating the masses (at least up to a very basic level). The DPRK also has a pretty close to 100% literacy rate.
Plus, there is the thing with the infant mortality rate - Cuba does some things quite well right now, and others not so well.

Most of Iraq is secure, only the area around Baghdad is in rough shape.
That could probably be contested.

So if Nazi Germany were around and fighting America you would support Nazi Germany? This is why these forums piss me off.
That's a bit of a Godwin, isn't it?
He looks at what he believes and chooses the lesser of two evils. Despite the fact that I hate Ahmadinejad with his Holocaust denying, I don't think Iran is so bad, compared to some of its neighbours. The people did have a choice between a reformer and a conservative (regardless of any rigging that might have gone on before that), and they chose the latter. I don't think Iran is evil, I just don't think they're being particularly reasonable in their foreign policy.
As for Cuba and Venezuela...I don't really understand why Americans bother with them so much. The people there on the whole live in similar conditions to their 'free' neighbours. Ultimately all the rhetoric of the leaders there is meaningless. These countries are no threat to anyone but big business interests.

Actually no I don't. But when people suggest to cut and run because our casualties are to high, then yea, the word comes in handy.
Suggesting that it is cowardly to "cut and run", does your troops in Iraq a huge dis-service. It is this kind of attitude that may keep your troops longer in Iraq then they need to be. The use of the term "coward" removes from their mind that there is no dignified exit, if they end up in a no win situation. Personally speaking, I already see the US in a no win situation in Iraq.

It's true though, all socialist governments have focussed a lot on educating the masses (at least up to a very basic level). The DPRK also has a pretty close to 100% literacy rate.
Plus, there is the thing with the infant mortality rate - Cuba does some things quite well right now, and others not so well.


That could probably be contested.

Maybe you should read up on the DPRK more before you say they are a great nation.

And most of Iraq is secure.

Answer the question.


I did and no. I will gladly execut anyone who would say that Nazi Germany was right in what they did. I you can't see past the "race" and witness the human in people than you don't deserve to live.