NationStates Jolt Archive


Hang on for the ride. Bush has completely screwed us all...

PsychoticDan
16-11-2006, 22:16
It's just a mess. Someone needs to think of a new crime so that Bush can be tried for it. It should carry a life sentence. He's destroyed all of our lives, we just don't know it yet. In a few years, as this strife spreads throughout the Middle east and eventually Europe, we will.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - While American commanders have suggested that civil war is possible in Iraq, many leaders, experts and ordinary people in Baghdad and around the Middle East say it is already underway, and that the real worry ahead is that the conflict will destroy the flimsy Iraqi state and draw in surrounding countries.

Whether the U.S. military departs Iraq sooner or later, the United States will be hard-pressed to leave behind a country that does not threaten U.S. interests and regional peace, according to U.S. and Arab analysts and political observers.

http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/061116/061116_iraq_hmed_330a.hmedium.jpg

"We're not talking about just a full-scale civil war. This would be a failed-state situation with fighting among various groups," growing into regional conflict, Joost Hiltermann, Middle East project director for the International Crisis Group, said by telephone from Amman, Jordan.

"The war will be over Iraq, over its dead body," Hiltermann said.

"All indications point to a current state of civil war and the disintegration of the Iraqi state," Nawaf Obaid, an adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and an adviser to the Saudi government, said last week at a conference in Washington on U.S.-Arab relations.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/ap/67a2ebe4-5cb2-41fc-8c81-1958334002a2.rp350x350.jpg

Anxiety over any division of Iraq
As Iraq's neighbors grapple with the various ideas put forward for solving the country's problems, they uniformly shudder at one proposal: dividing Iraq into separate regions for Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, and then speeding the withdrawal of U.S. forces.

"To envision that you can divide Iraq into three parts is to envision ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, sectarian killing on a massive scale," Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, said Oct. 30 at a conference in Washington. "Since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited."

"When the ethnic-religious break occurs in one country, it will not fail to occur elsewhere, too," Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told Germany's Der Spiegel newsweekly recently. "It would be as it was at the end of the Soviet Union, only much worse. Large wars, small wars -- no one will be able to get a grip on the consequences."

In an analysis published last month by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Obaid said sectarian conflicts could make Iraq a battleground for the region.

Obaid described widespread interference by Iranian security forces within Iraq. He urged Saudi Arabia, which is building a 560-mile wall on its border with Iraq, to warn Iran "that if these activities are not checked," Saudi Arabia "will be forced to consider a similar overt and covert program of its own."

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/afp/dv_to_getty_939160_0.rp350x350.jpg

Regional war is very much a possibility’
In Damascus, a Syrian analyst close to the Assad government warned that other countries would intervene if Iraq descended into full-scale civil war. "Iran will get involved, Turkey will get involved, Saudi Arabia, Syria," said the analyst, who spoke on condition he not be identified further.

"Regional war is very much a possibility," said Hiltermann, the analyst for the International Crisis Group. Iraq's neighbors "are hysterical about Iranian strategic advances in the region," he said.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/ap/81e2e8cf-c41f-4476-a277-c9fb8fe40e23.rp350x350.jpg

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad last month ranked Syria and Iran with al-Qaeda in Iraq, one of the country's principal Sunni Arab insurgent groups, in terms of destabilizing influences in Iraq. Despite that assessment, the United States has not held substantive talks with Syria regarding Iraq since 2004 or with Iran since the war began in 2003.

Diplomats and analysts increasingly are urging the Bush administration to reach out to both countries as part of a regional approach to quelling Iraq's troubles. Former secretary of state James A. Baker III, leader of a panel preparing a set of policy recommendations for the Bush administration, already has endorsed the idea of seeking the help of Iran and Syria.

"The thing is, because Iran and Syria both have spoiling power in Iraq, if you could neutralize them," it would ease some of the many pressures within Iraq, Hiltermann said. But he said the two countries may demand a mighty trade-off: for Syria, U.S. help with its biggest stated aim, winning back the Golan Heights from Israel; for Iran, U.S. compromise over its nuclear program.

Hiltermann acknowledged the difficulty. "I'm saying it's required," he said. "I'm not saying it's possible."

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/afp/dv_to_getty_939087_0.rp350x350.jpg

In Baghdad's Shiite stronghold of Sadr City late last month, aides to one of the country's leading Shiite clerics held a rally to urge followers to bide their time until the American forces leave the country. The rally was called by followers of Moqtada al-Sadr, a strongly anti-occupation figure whose bloc is a leading partner in the current Shiite-led government and who is one likely claimant to power should the Americans withdraw.

"Will America win?" a speaker in a brown turban demanded before the more than 1,000 protesters, as a brewing storm whirled dirt and trash and pelted ralliers with drops of cold rain. Loudspeakers shot his question back across the square.

The men thrust their fists in the air, shouting their answer out to a grim, gray sky: "No, no! America will not win!"

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/ap/97fc5134-654d-44f1-828d-8d95893d3f51.rp350x350.jpg

'This is civil war'
Between 2 percent and 5 percent of Iraq's 27 million people have been killed, wounded or uprooted since the Americans invaded in 2003, calculates Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for International and Strategic Studies.

"This is civil war," he said.

Since midsummer, Shiite militias, Sunni insurgent groups, ad-hoc Sunni self-defense groups and tribes have accelerated campaigns of sectarian cleansing that are forcing countless thousands of Shiites and Sunnis in Baghdad to seek safety among their own kind.

Whole towns north and south of Baghdad are locked in the same sectarian struggle, among them the central Shiite city of Balad, still under siege by gunmen from surrounding Sunni towns after a bloody spate of sectarian massacres last month.

Even outside the epicenter of sectarian strife in the central region of the country, Shiite factions battle each other in the south, Sunni tribes and factions clash in the west. Across Iraq, the criminal gangs that emerged with the collapse of law and order rule patches of turf as mini-warlords.

Since the war began, 1.6 million Iraqis have sought refuge in neighboring countries; at least 231,530 people have been displaced inside Iraq since February, when Shiite-Sunni violence exploded with the bombing of a Shiite shrine in the northern city of Samarra, according to figures from the United Nations and the U.N.-affiliated International Organization for Migration.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/afp/dv_to_getty_927241_0.rp350x350.jpg

There used to be a time when Sunnis and Shiites "were living like family. We were married to each other, we all had Sunni friends, we all had Shiite friends. It was all like a balloon that exploded," a gaunt, weeping Sunni woman said in her bare apartment.

Until this year, the 41-year-old widow and former teacher -- who would identify herself only as Um Mohammed, fearing retaliation -- lived in Husseiniyah, a Shiite district of Baghdad. But after Shiite militias forced all the Sunnis out, she fled to a too-costly, too-small place in the overwhelmingly Sunni neighborhood of Sadiyah, on the western side of the Tigris River.

The Mahdi Army and the Badr Organization, two militias loyal to the Shiite religious parties now governing Iraq, had taken over her old neighborhood by this spring, she said. Mahdi Army officials commandeered the two rental homes she relied on to support herself and her children. They forced the Sunni tenants out and installed Shiite families, who paid her rent through the Mahdi Army office, at a greatly reduced price set by the militia, the widow said.

Letters placed at the doors of Sunni families -- sometimes with bloody bullets tucked inside the envelopes -- warned Sunnis to leave. Shiite boys as young as 10 took to wearing the black clothes of the militias, and they promised her 10-year-old son, Ahmed, they would burn him alive in his house at night as he slept.

Um Mohammed reluctantly took her only other child still at home, a 15-year-old daughter, out of school and married her off to an older man in Sadiyah in a bid to provide her protection among fellow Sunnis. When Um Mohammed received a third letter threatening death, she and Ahmed finally moved to Sadiyah. Longtime Shiite neighbors sadly watched her leave but were too afraid of the militias to help her move, she said.

"I want to return to my home. But we are safer here," she said.

Across the Tigris River from Um Mohammed, another widow, Zayneb Khatan, a Shiite, sat in her equally plain new home. After gunmen shot and killed her husband in front of their home in the Sunni neighborhood of Cairo as he went to buy bread, Khatan fled with her 2-year-old daughter and the clothes on their backs.

"Some Sunnis are good," she said as she sat on a secondhand divan. "But I cannot say I will ever live among them again."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15721405/
Czardas
16-11-2006, 22:21
Lol, I've always been amused by the "Iraq is in danger of having a civil war!" thing. It's been having a civil war since about May 2003.

And the article was too long so I mostly skimmed it, and besides all the humanitarian appeal-to-emotions bullshit, it seems largely accurate. Which is surprising. We know that it's always worse than the media portrays it as, so this means it must be getting pretty bad.
Drunk commies deleted
16-11-2006, 22:21
Let's remember that it's not all Bush's fault. The "liberal" media deserve a lot of blame here too. They sounded the war drum and marched in lock step behind Bush rather than questioning his assertions that Iraq was a threat to the USA and a source of terrorism. I knew Bush was wrong, so did others, but the media doesn't pay attention to more informed and reasonable folks. It helped decieve most Americans into supporting a pointless and very expensive war.
MeansToAnEnd
16-11-2006, 22:22
Someone needs to think of a new medal so that it can be given to Bush. Spreading freedom and democracy is not a crime, but a noble deed.
Drunk commies deleted
16-11-2006, 22:24
Someone needs to think of a new medal so that it can be given to Bush. Spreading freedom and democracy is not a crime, but a noble deed.

They should pin it through his scrotum and tie one end to the bumper of a truck.
Greater Trostia
16-11-2006, 22:24
mindless trolling

Don't you ever get tired of that bullshit? The rest of us do.
Drunk commies deleted
16-11-2006, 22:25
Don't you ever get tired of that bullshit? The rest of us do.

Speak for yourself. I love mindless trolling.
Czardas
16-11-2006, 22:25
Someone needs to think of a new medal so that it can be given to Bush. Spreading freedom and democracy is not a crime, but a noble deed.

Says the person who apparently advocates slavery and rape as a form of punishment...

or perhaps you mean "freedom and democracy for those who deserve it"?
PsychoticDan
16-11-2006, 22:27
Someone needs to think of a new medal so that it can be given to Bush. Spreading freedom and democracy is not a crime, but a noble deed.

Yes. And we can put this picture on it.

http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/061116/061116_iraq_hmed_330a.hmedium.jpg

Maybe we can make it a trophy and someone can just make a bronze caste of this scene.

You are ridiculous. You're a joke. You're a cartoon. You're on ignore.
MeansToAnEnd
16-11-2006, 22:32
You're on ignore.

Yes, just put your hands to your ears and proclaim "la, la, la" at the top of your lungs. Don't actually pay attention to any conflicting viewpoints, as that you burst your idealistic, liberal vision of the world.
Yootopia
16-11-2006, 22:42
Someone needs to think of a new medal so that it can be given to Bush. Spreading freedom and democracy is not a crime, but a noble deed.
I know what - let's have someone slash "IRAQ'S REVENGE" into his forehead like those guys in prison did to that paedo bastard a couple of months ago.

That'd suit.
Laerod
16-11-2006, 22:44
Yes, just put your hands to your ears and proclaim "la, la, la" at the top of your lungs. Don't actually pay attention to any conflicting viewpoints, as that you burst your idealistic, liberal vision of the world.Don't be silly. A viewpoint doesn't automatically have merit simply because it is "conflicting."
Drunk commies deleted
16-11-2006, 22:45
Yes, just put your hands to your ears and proclaim "la, la, la" at the top of your lungs. Don't actually pay attention to any conflicting viewpoints, as that you burst your idealistic, liberal vision of the world.

1) While there may be a democratic government in Iraq now the people are not going to be more free. I can assure you that this government, led by Shi'ite fundamentalists will limit freedoms much like Iran has.

2) When someone's viewpoint is too skewed and out of touch with reality the temptation to flame him is too great. I'm close to being DOSed because of just such a temptation. The ignore feature is helpful in preventing this.
Kradlumania
16-11-2006, 22:47
Let's remember that it's not all Bush's fault. The "liberal" media deserve a lot of blame here too.

Darn that "liberal" media! :)
[NS]Trilby63
16-11-2006, 23:02
Blah, blah, blah...

You realise that when someone puts you on ignore they can't read your posts, right?
MeansToAnEnd
16-11-2006, 23:05
1) While there may be a democratic government in Iraq now the people are not going to be more free. I can assure you that this government, led by Shi'ite fundamentalists will limit freedoms much like Iran has.

That is irrelevant. It is up to the people to decide what they desire to be the laws of the land -- if they are uncivilized savages, their laws will reflect this. It is not up to us to tamper with the democratic will of the people, even if unchecked democracy would result in inequitable laws being passed which curtail "freedom" and deem what we would consider normal actions a crime. Indeed, that is the very basis of freedom -- the ability of the people to determine what the people can or cannot do.
Dinaverg
16-11-2006, 23:06
Trilby63;11957462']You realise that when someone puts you on ignore they can't read your posts, right?

But of course, he must keep the show going for us!
Dinaverg
16-11-2006, 23:06
Indeed, that is the very basis of freedom -- the ability of the people to determine what the people can or cannot do.

...Huh?
MeansToAnEnd
16-11-2006, 23:07
Trilby63;11957462']You realise that when someone puts you on ignore they can't read your posts, right?

True, but two people have already quoted that most of mine, negating your assertion.
MeansToAnEnd
16-11-2006, 23:08
...Huh?

The ability to establish a system of laws which represents the majority consensus of the people.
Drunk commies deleted
16-11-2006, 23:09
That is irrelevant. It is up to the people to decide what they desire to be the laws of the land -- if they are uncivilized savages, their laws will reflect this. It is not up to us to tamper with the democratic will of the people, even if unchecked democracy would result in inequitable laws being passed which curtail "freedom" and deem what we would consider normal actions a crime. Indeed, that is the very basis of freedom -- the ability of the people to determine what the people can or cannot do.

What's the matter with you? Haven't you ever heard of the white man's burden? We should be good stewards of the land and wealth and people of those barbaric and savage lands. Maybe someday they will have learned enough of civilization to have a democracy, but until then they need our help and guidance and in return they owe us oil.
Kradlumania
16-11-2006, 23:09
It is not up to us to tamper with the democratic will of the people, even if unchecked democracy would result in inequitable laws being passed which curtail "freedom" and deem what we would consider normal actions a crime.

*cough* Palestine *cough* Iraq *cough* I could go on, but by the time I'd got back to 1950 I'd have choked to death.
Drunk commies deleted
16-11-2006, 23:10
*cough* Palestine *cough* Iraq *cough* I could go on, but by the time I'd got back to 1950 I'd have choked to death.

Palestine? We didn't interfere with their democratic elections. We just chose not to fund an enemy government.
Swilatia
16-11-2006, 23:12
Someone needs to think of a new medal so that it can be given to Bush. Spreading freedom and democracy is not a crime, but a noble deed.

did you actually read the article. there is civil war and bush is to blame.
PsychoticDan
16-11-2006, 23:14
Palestine? We didn't interfere with their democratic elections. We just chose not to fund an enemy government.

We should have supported Lebanon more, though. They asked for help to expel Hamas and we truned them down. We all know how that ended up.
Entropic Creation
16-11-2006, 23:32
A significant portion of the population actively wants the US to leave so they can continue their civil war without further interference. The majority of the rest is fairly indifferent about it.

Why should we continue to spend billions of dollars and many lives on this futile effort?
Unless Iraqis wants peace, and are actively assisting the new government, there is nothing we can do. We cannot force them to become peaceful neighbor-loving people.

While there are plenty of people who would like the violence to stop, they only want it to stop on their terms (ie the other people need to be killed or run off). Until they want their own side to stop the violence as well, and not just turn a blind eye, it is wasted effort.

Insurgencies cannot continue without the active support of the populace. So long as they have that support, we can do nothing short of total occupation and marshal law (which is working out pretty well for the Russians in Chechnya). It sucks for that minority that wants everyone, their own side included, to stop the violence. Sorry, but the majority rules and there is nothing we can do about it.
Sericoyote
16-11-2006, 23:37
Insurgencies cannot continue without the active support of the populace. So long as they have that support, we can do nothing short of total occupation and marshal law (which is working out pretty well for the Russians in Chechnya). It sucks for that minority that wants everyone, their own side included, to stop the violence. Sorry, but the majority rules and there is nothing we can do about it.

You mean the total occupation, martial law, and genocide (my opinion) in Chechnya? I would hardly call that a good thing or say it's "working out pretty well".
King Bodacious
16-11-2006, 23:38
Just a little reminder to all, that no only did the USA take into account its own intelligence information regarding Iraq, but she also had taken into account intellegence of the UK, Israel, Russia, France, just to name a few.

I know that doesn't count nor does it matter. :rolleyes:
PsychoticDan
16-11-2006, 23:39
A significant portion of the population actively wants the US to leave so they can continue their civil war without further interference. The majority of the rest is fairly indifferent about it.

Why should we continue to spend billions of dollars and many lives on this futile effort?
Unless Iraqis wants peace, and are actively assisting the new government, there is nothing we can do. We cannot force them to become peaceful neighbor-loving people.

While there are plenty of people who would like the violence to stop, they only want it to stop on their terms (ie the other people need to be killed or run off). Until they want their own side to stop the violence as well, and not just turn a blind eye, it is wasted effort.

Insurgencies cannot continue without the active support of the populace. So long as they have that support, we can do nothing short of total occupation and marshal law (which is working out pretty well for the Russians in Chechnya). It sucks for that minority that wants everyone, their own side included, to stop the violence. Sorry, but the majority rules and there is nothing we can do about it.

And as was pointed out in my other thread, "Iraq mistakes: 20/02 hindsight or arrogance?" These results were not only predictable, but were actually predicted -by Bush's father's SOS. The report also had steps to take that could have helped to prevent much of this bloodshed - all of which were completely ignored by this administration. Lay this dead dog on Bush's doorstep. Let him wear it around his neck as a heavy weight for all to see as long as he lives.
Arinola
16-11-2006, 23:39
Someone needs to think of a new medal so that it can be given to Bush. Spreading freedom and democracy is not a crime, but a noble deed.

You poor deluded soul.I feel for you,I really do.
You cannot seriously think that what the American forces has done to Iraq is worthy of a medal for Bush?
Dude.You need your head checked out.
Red_Letter
16-11-2006, 23:40
Just like France and Germany learned that Russia is just better of left alone, So has Russia and the US learned that messing around in the middle east will rarely give you a decent return- It will but waste your armies and degrade even your own peoples faith in you.
PsychoticDan
16-11-2006, 23:40
You mean the total occupation, martial law, and genocide (my opinion) in Chechnya? I would hardly call that a good thing or say it's "working out pretty well".

Okay, I understand sarcasm is hard to read on a message board, but that one seemed pretty easy.
Sericoyote
16-11-2006, 23:41
Okay, I understand sarcasm is hard to read on a message board, but that one seemed pretty easy.

It totally didn't register on my sarcasm-o-meter. Maybe it's broken ::shakes it:: hrm..

edit: on the tertiary reading, I see it now; but I think it could have been made more obvious by the skillful use of the eyeroll smilie or some italicizing or somesuch.
PsychoticDan
16-11-2006, 23:45
Just a little reminder to all, that no only did the USA take into account its own intelligence information regarding Iraq, but she also had taken into account intellegence of the UK, Israel, Russia, France, just to name a few.

I know that doesn't count nor does it matter. :rolleyes:

They took into account those intelligence reports and then went to war with the most incompetent, stupid and arrogant administration ever. It did not have to be the failure it is. It failed because of arrogance and stupidity. The stupid, incompetent mistakes that have led to what is now a failed state in Iraq just waiting for us to leave to explode all over the Middle East with dire consequences for the entire world were not only predictable, they were predicted.
Drunk commies deleted
17-11-2006, 00:06
Just a little reminder to all, that no only did the USA take into account its own intelligence information regarding Iraq, but she also had taken into account intellegence of the UK, Israel, Russia, France, just to name a few.

I know that doesn't count nor does it matter. :rolleyes:

Funny how so many intelligence agencies could be so wrong and a guy like me who just pays attention to the news, current events and a little bit of history could be correct. Kind of makes you wonder if maybe he wasn't really listening to intelligence agencies but rather just hearing what he wanted to hear.
Laerod
17-11-2006, 00:31
Just a little reminder to all, that no only did the USA take into account its own intelligence information regarding Iraq, but she also had taken into account intellegence of the UK, Israel, Russia, France, just to name a few. None of which labelled Saddam as a direct threat to America. None of which claimed he was responsible in any way for September 11th.

I know that doesn't count nor does it matter. :rolleyes:Doesn't really. All of that intelligence material turned out to be erroneous and someone decided to throw away the perfectly good chance to verify or disprove it.
Congo--Kinshasa
17-11-2006, 00:47
They should pin it through his scrotum and tie one end to the bumper of a truck.

ROFLMAO
Congo--Kinshasa
17-11-2006, 00:55
What's the matter with you? Haven't you ever heard of the white man's burden? We should be good stewards of the land and wealth and people of those barbaric and savage lands. Maybe someday they will have learned enough of civilization to have a democracy, but until then they need our help and guidance and in return they owe us oil.

Pray tell you're being sarcastic.
MeansToAnEnd
17-11-2006, 00:58
Pray tell you're being sarcastic.

Well, we should either employ an "all or nothing" strategy. As I have pointed out before, it would be a wise idea to re-colonize the Middle East. However, failing that, we should at least institute a democracy. There is no middle ground here.
Sdaeriji
17-11-2006, 01:01
Pray tell you're being sarcastic.

You don't know DCD very well, do you?
King Bodacious
17-11-2006, 01:09
None of which labelled Saddam as a direct threat to America. None of which claimed he was responsible in any way for September 11th.

Doesn't really. All of that intelligence material turned out to be erroneous and someone decided to throw away the perfectly good chance to verify or disprove it.

No, it may not have labelled Saddam as a direct threat to America or him having any involvement in 9/11.

However, it did declare he was possessing WMD. Iraq's history also proves that he did possess WMD at one time, ask the Kurds. Anyhow, he was a very oppressive dictator who tortured and killed his own people, raped his own women, refused admittance of the females to attend schools or to work or to speak there mind for that matter. Should the Iraqi's not be allowed to enjoy the freedoms that you, me, and most everybody else on NSG takes for granted?

Even with us not finding the WMD's, I feel that the Iraqi's should be able to live as Free People and not Saddam's little play things. As for Iraq's history, it is filled with them killing each other, fighting each other etc...
Congo--Kinshasa
17-11-2006, 01:11
You don't know DCD very well, do you?

I do, but I just want to be 100% sure. :p
Zagat
17-11-2006, 02:46
Just a little reminder to all, that no only did the USA take into account its own intelligence information regarding Iraq, but she also had taken into account intellegence of the UK, Israel, Russia, France, just to name a few.

I know that doesn't count nor does it matter. :rolleyes:
Just a reminder that the US ignored the most informed opinions of all - those from the people on the ground in Iraq investigating the WMD issue. Just a reminder that the US completely ignored their own intelligence when it conflicted with Bush's desire to launch an unprovoked war of aggression. Just a reminder that a great deal of the pre-war 'intelligence' relied on came from people who provably (and as was knowable and known at the time) had their own agendas.

King Bodacious, I've read your comments about loving the US, but given your attitude towards the terrible toll Bush has taken on the US, economically, socially, reputation-wise, given the erosion of the civil liberties that made the US the nation it was, many avoidable deaths of decent and trusting US soldiers who with faith and the best intent in the world put their lives on the line on the say-so of Bush & Co. Ltd, given that many of these decent people have been killed, maimed, or transformed into murderers and torturers, I find it difficult to believe that your claims of love are sincere. It seems to me that having put your trust in Bush you prefer the ruination of the US to admitting you erred. You might be fond of the US, but I suspect you love your ego more. Soldiers are out there dying for their country, but you appear unwilling to even make so small a sacrifice as admitting you were wrong.

People like you are handing victory to the terrorists with your refusal to defend the US. As Bush himself said (in a rare moment of honesty) the aims of the terrorists were to destroy America by changing it. With the help of Bush and people with attitudes such as your own, they've well and truely won the battle up to this point. I only hope more US citizens come to their sense and restore their nation to its former state of glory, thus ultimately winning the war.

Frankly I think I care more about the US than you do, and I dont even live there.
Iztatepopotla
17-11-2006, 03:03
No, it may not have labelled Saddam as a direct threat to America or him having any involvement in 9/11.

However, it did declare he was possessing WMD.
False. The French, Russian and German intelligence said that Saddam MIGHT have weapons of mass destruction, probably in very small amounts and in either case with a very limited capability to deliver it. It was this MIGHT the reason why these countries weren't willing to go to war with Iraq: not worth the trouble.

Iraq's history also proves that he did possess WMD at one time, ask the Kurds.
Of course he did. That doesn't mean he had them at the time of the invasion. History proves that the US is engaged in genocide, just ask the Lakotas.

Anyhow, he was a very oppressive dictator who tortured and killed his own people, raped his own women, refused admittance of the females to attend schools or to work or to speak there mind for that matter.
False. Saddam was the most secular of the governments in the region. It was oppressive and murderous, but women were free to go to school and were not discriminated against. People died and were detained for speaking their minds, but at least they knew on which ground they stood. Now they just die for no reason.

Should the Iraqi's not be allowed to enjoy the freedoms that you, me, and most everybody else on NSG takes for granted?
Sure, does that mean that a foreign invasion in going to give it to them?
New Granada
17-11-2006, 07:29
Don't you ever get tired of that bullshit? The rest of us do.

Oh well, the mods have made this a troll-friendly forum, not a whole lot we can do.
Laerod
17-11-2006, 07:33
No, it may not have labelled Saddam as a direct threat to America or him having any involvement in 9/11.

However, it did declare he was possessing WMD. Iraq's history also proves that he did possess WMD at one time, ask the Kurds. Anyhow, he was a very oppressive dictator who tortured and killed his own people, raped his own women, refused admittance of the females to attend schools or to work or to speak there mind for that matter. Should the Iraqi's not be allowed to enjoy the freedoms that you, me, and most everybody else on NSG takes for granted?Yeah, only that's not going to happen anytime soon. I would like very much for them to be able to go about their daily lives without fearing to be kidnapped, blown to pieces by a suicide bomber, or shot dead for being to fast at a checkpoint.

Even with us not finding the WMD's, I feel that the Iraqi's should be able to live as Free People and not Saddam's little play things. As for Iraq's history, it is filled with them killing each other, fighting each other etc...Indeed, but as you can see, they are not free.
Soviet Haaregrad
17-11-2006, 07:43
I know what - let's have someone slash "IRAQ'S REVENGE" into his forehead like those guys in prison did to that paedo bastard a couple of months ago.

That'd suit.

This made me laugh quite profoundly, good job chap.
Boonytopia
17-11-2006, 08:38
Someone needs to think of a new medal so that it can be given to Bush. Spreading freedom and democracy is not a crime, but a noble deed.

We could give Bush the "I am a complete wanker" medal, that's about all he is spreading. He could wear it proudly wherever he goes.
Congo--Kinshasa
17-11-2006, 08:52
We could give Bush the "I am a complete wanker" medal, that's about all he is spreading. He could wear it proudly wherever he goes.

That would work. :p
Seangoli
17-11-2006, 08:55
That would work. :p

However, I doubt he would know what "wanker" would mean, and think it were a compliment, and wear it proudly.
Boonytopia
17-11-2006, 09:04
However, I doubt he would know what "wanker" would mean, and think it were a compliment, and wear it proudly.

All the better then. He would be the world's fool & not himself realise it.
Congo--Kinshasa
17-11-2006, 09:05
However, I doubt he would know what "wanker" would mean, and think it were a compliment, and wear it proudly.

True. :D
Congo--Kinshasa
17-11-2006, 09:08
All the better then. He would be the world's fool & not himself realise it.

Isn't that how it already is? :p
Kraetd
17-11-2006, 09:14
To be honest i think its disgusting, how can they condemn Saddam to death for ordering the death of 148 people in retribution for an assassinationa attempt when bush sent troops into iraq knowing that it would result in thousands of deaths. It was obvious from before it started that their army wouldnt stand up to the american army and i hope Bush didnt honestly think the iraqi people would welcome them like heroes.

When you consider that over a million people have been killed, wounded or displaced i think its a joke to say Bush shouldnt take Saddam's place

Iraq isnt in danger of civil war anymore, we're long past that, its in danger of real war, when the kurds declare sovereignty over the north part, iran/syria invade... you just cant go into a country, completely screw it up, and then just leave because its not working, but thats what we're gonna do, and no-one will do anything about it, human rights groups will be blue in the face but the government will dismiss them as "unpatriotic".

America is nothing like what it was 100 years ago, its everything it claimed to be getting rid of.
Boonytopia
17-11-2006, 09:18
Isn't that how it already is? :p

Yeah, but it's always nice to have written confirmation. :p
Congo--Kinshasa
17-11-2006, 09:28
Yeah, but it's always nice to have written confirmation. :p

Ha ha, true. :p