ALL IRAQ topics here.

[ZIM]

Um. Which bet to take? (http://www.tradesports.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/xml/ContractSearch.jsp) :confused:

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Sorry, for being snappy.

No worries man. It's all good.


Originally posted by Laughing Cow
I think that the US is after a major power shift in the middle-east and to add long-term benefits to their economy.
How will they achieve that, there are multiple possible scenarios.

Agree 100%.

[Kristoffer]

...

[@PLUGO]

That was kinda funny.

I mean, you're still voicing it as a black/white situation when you and I both know its not. What a hoot. Or at least it better be- if you're expecting me to defend weaponry use, you got another think coming.

Hey, did you know that the sand in Iraq is too powdery for sandbags? The US had to import sand to the desert! HAHAHA

Well Yeah, there was some tongue in cheek in that post!!!

c'mon, using comics to illustrait how war functions?
who do you think I am G. W. Bush? :D
BadaBING

Still, there obviously some concern with regards to the use of certain weapons... Did you catch my post on the Army whistle blower ordered to research the effects of DU?
Listen to the Radio interview...dreadful stuff...
Then there's cluster bombs...

considering the drawbacks of these weapons do you think their use is justified in urban warfair?
Especially in the light of "liberating" the population?

Sandbags:
Ever heard of Burningman? (http://www.burningman.com)
One learns alot about dust & sand (& sleep depravation) after a week out on the playa . . . ;)

Civilian Body Count:
MIN:
909

MAX:
1087
Including a handful of unembeded reporters of various affilations:(

[ZIM]

c'mon, using comics to illustrait how war functions? who do you think I am G. W. Bush? I thought you were taking it from USA Today [rimshot]

No, I didn't listen to the interview- didn't see it really- and I'm downloading a mess of mp3s [me 1st & gimmees, b.bragg, jack off jill, etc]...so...:o


considering the drawbacks of these weapons do you think their use is justified in urban warfair? Considering the drawbacks of not blowing up a tank thats shooting at you, I guess [if thats the only way to blow up a tank], DU is the most effecient way to go... tho I'd prefer to have a canary suit on, myself. Considering the drawbacks of having alot of things exploding all around you, I think throwing a war in a city is a generally bad choice, as well- and staying in a city about to be invaded if you don't have to be there is also a rather bad choice, IMO.

The question might be pre-supposing that its a better thing to go in, if you must, and use hand-to-hand tactics only, & small arms if necessary. Is that your standpoint?
----------------------
I've never been to burning man. Something about nudism is pretty annoying to me..... but do whatever you want, dude!
:)

[Laughing Cow]

Just watched footage shot by japanese Reporters at the hotel in Baghdad.
:(

They were in the room next to the reuters team and got there immediately atfer it happened.

Footage looked unedited.

Looks bad.

[ZIM]

Chirac to visit St. Petersburg on April 11-12
09.04.2003 [01:53]

French President Jacques Chirac will pay a working visit to St. Petersburg on Friday and Saturday at the invitation of his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, the Kremlin said on Tuesday.

The Kremlin press service told Interfax that Chirac's program includes talks on Russian-French relations and key international issues.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is due to visit St. Petersburg on the same days.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Are we beginning to see the seeds of an alliance of Old Europe vs. New World Order? :eek:

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by ZIM
Are we beginning to see the seeds of an alliance of Old Europe vs. New World Order? :eek:

To be honest.

It wouldn't surprise me, and personally I think there is a need for a power to counter-balance the only remaining super-power.

Question of course is, on which side will England be in the future?

Cheers.

[ZIM]

It wouldn't surprise me, and personally I think there is a need for a power to counter-balance the only remaining super-power. I agree in some ways [obviously, I'm likely to be more ambivalent]. For one, I dislike our collective movement toward 'empire' [as I percieve it] in place of our esteemed Republic. Thats a critical issue, for me- and it prevents abuses. What I'm wondering is whether this is the beginning of a military alliance.

OTOH, I don't know if you are familiar with the NSSUSA documents released on September 17, 2002? It states, among other things, that the nat'l security depends on our NOT having any significant rivals & expresses a willingness to go wherever need be to keep it that way. After the PNAC site this one has a clear enough explanation. (http://www.rupe-india.org/34/agenda.html)

I don't agree with all of it, but its very well-done.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by ZIM
What I'm wondering is whether this is the beginning of a military alliance.


Quiet possible.
The EU wants to form their own militia, the US sez said militia needs to work under NATO.
Addition of Russia would be welcome.

But I think it will be more of a political front.

IMO, NATO is an outdated Cold War relic and should fall away.




It states, among other things, that the nat'l security depends on our NOT having any significant rivals & expresses a willingness to go wherever need be to keep it that way.


This naturaqlly would be the optimum situation, but i doubt that I can be achieved via military means, so far any other "Empire" failed in doing so.

Best would be to make peace and not give anybody a reason to attack you, just as unlikely I think.

Words from a Book come to mind:
" We will rule you wholesale."

"What you want me to attack with that weapon, put it down you haven't paid me fully for it yet."
:D :D

[Edit]
Thanks, for the link it was an interesting read.

Seeya.

[@PLUGO]

MIN:
996

MAX:
1174



PS: buddies at the RED CROSS say they've lost count what with the "large" numbers flooding the undersupplied & overworked hospitals...

[Black Jack]

Baghdad Liberated!

Historic Day.

Celebration and Jubilation in the streets by the free Iraqi people.

I bet all you leftist hate-filled hypocrite frauds are just crying into your cabage now. Poor little nazi babies fall down and go boom.

So sad. To bad. :p

[Laughing Cow]

Black Jack.

I hope that you realise that liberation of Badhdad is only the first objective achieved in the War.

FWIW, the news reports that there is still fighting in Baghdad going on, so it is not fully liberated yet.

There will still be fighting and more conflicts across Iraq in the next few weeks, and many more will die.

Once the Military is defeated they will have to keep all the small skirmishes between Iraqi in check.

Cheers.

[Rockwood]

"Celebration and Jubilation in the streets by the free Iraqi people."

Yeah, all 1000 of them. Where's the rest out of a city of 5 mil? Free cigarettes would get a lot more than 1000 out in the streets of any American city.

I'm sure Iraqis can't wait for a new happy democracy like in Afganistan.

"I bet all you leftist hate-filled hypocrite frauds" etc

Everyone is happy to see Soddom gone. What concerns the thinking individuals among us is the thousands of civilian casualties. The women and children torn to shreds by our vicious, unprovoked attack. The use of the worlds most powerful army to make more $$$ for a corrupt administration, beholden to weapons makers and oil kingpens.

Hatfilled are the millions world wide who watched this insanity. And wonder what its going to take to stop this rouge state.

Thanks to nice people like BlackJack and President Pinhead we will be enjoying numerous 9/11s in the years to come.

I'm sure you'll be celebrating them just like this one, right BJ? :):)

-JessO

[tsunami surfer]

Hey Rock

There are more 9/11's in our future even if we did'nt go into Iraq. Sure the fanatics are going to keep fighting and yes those with everything to lose are going to try to keep it going. It happened at the end of ww2 there were hundreds of skirmishes in the end. Terrorism will never be stamped out,but it must be met with force whenever or wherever it is uncovered. And as for all these civilian casualties just how many were killed by the republican gaurd when they were using them as human shields.

[Laughing Cow]

Everybody knew that Saddam had to go, we just don't agree on how it was supposed to be done.

Problem being till someone either shows him captured or killed it will be tough to bring this war to a definite finish.

Like someone said on another Board:


Give me the body and I will cheer,
give me rubble and I will cast doubt on his death.

Until this happens the whole middle eastern region will be a big powder keg.

OTOH, there are also still a lot of unsolved grievances between civilians in that area and I think the real success of the war will depend on the following factors:
1.) Establishing infrastructure (police, water-supply, food supply, etc)
2.) Keeping the WHOLE country at peace. Turkey is getting antsy to go into Iraq too.
3.) Getting a new Goverment in that the Iraq's agree too, at the moment a LOT of them are opposed to an outsider Goverment interim or not.
4.) Maintaining good relations with all countries in the middle east.
5.) How the US and UK behave in case NO WMD are found.

I thinks these will determine the success of the war a lot better than guns and battles won.

[tsunami surfer]

For once I agree with LC I have never believed a person is dead until I see the body in the bag. I also agree with your other points as well. The Iraqi people need food water and municipal services and for once a govt for the people. Hussein was never going to leave peaceably. Have you ever seen a school yard bully act right just because he was asked to. Every bully I ever knew had to have his butt kicked and then he would just move on to easier victims. As for WMD if we fid em we find em if we don't we don't. If he would have complied with UN resolutions we would not have had to do what we did.

[Rockwood]

Dear tsunami,

"Have you ever seen a school yard bully act right
just because he was asked to"

No, this i haven't seen, but in this case the US Army is being USED by the bully to inflict harm on people who never did a dam thing to us. So who's going to kick our ass, and stop this mad rush to war?

You don't seem to realize that this invasion is totally unjust. Every Iraqi youth whose mother and father were charred by our bombs will have justification for attacking us, anywhere, anytime. For years to come.

Instead of trying to prevent the future 9/11s you just give up and say it's inevitable. It wasn't inevitable until we became bullies, who use war as a first resort.

Now you don't even care about WMD's. You seem like Bu$h, always changing the justification for murder when it suits.

The bottom line is this: When whoever attacked us on 9/11 we didn't deserve it.

When whoever attacks us on the next 9/11 we will.

Thanks to Bu$h and the munitions manufacturers, and oil corps. like Halliburton and Lockheed who are looting billions out of our treasury as we type. They are traitors to us and the soldiers they control.

-JessO

[Vapour]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/08/wsyria08.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/04/08/ixportal.html

[LEGEND]

BS on u're prediction and u're source.

[tsunami surfer]

Rock

I agree with you that no war is just but there comes a time when ya gotta fight. As for the WMD I honestly think that even if we do find them people who are against this war will say we fabricated them. As for the big companies that are going to make profits off this war thats what ALL govt do. Who goes into business not to make money. As a veteran it might surprise you to know that one of my favorite songs is John Lennons "Imagine". I truly wish the world could be that way Rock, but it just isnt so. But if you understand anything in this world you will find that there are people that hate the U.S. no matter what we do. There are going to be terrorists no matter what.

[Vapour]

Telegraph is a British conservative newspaper.

Here is another one from Guardian, a British liberal newspaper.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,777100,00.html

[joedoe]

It is a possibility but I personally think it is improbable. Unless they pull out some evidence of Syria harbouring terrorists then they don't really have any justification. Even then it would be pretty thin justification.

[Marky]

"As for WMD if we fid em we find em if we don't we don't. "

If we don't find them, we'll FedEx some in! =)


Hey Rockwood, your posts read like a transcript from the Iraqi Information Minister! Keep watching Al Jazeera, they tell it like it is!

I agree with Laughing Cow, as do any coherent thinkers. There's still a lot of work to be done, undeniably.

[Laughing Cow]

From CNN Web-site:


NASIRIYA, Iraq (CNN) -- A key Iraqi opposition leader says he has information that Saddam Hussein survived an airstrike in Baghdad and escaped from the capital with at least one of his sons.

However, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he did not know whether Saddam was dead or alive.

"He's either dead, or he's incapacitated, or he's healthy and cowering in some tunnel someplace trying to avoid being caught. What else can one say?" Rumsfeld said.

Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi told CNN Wednesday the unconfirmed reports indicated that the Iraqi president had taken refuge in the city of Baqubah, northeast of the Iraqi capital.

"We have no evidence they have been killed in that attack. We know at least that Qusay, his son, has survived and he is occupying some houses in the Diyala area," Chalabi said.

The same reports indicated that Gen. Ali Hassan al-Majeed -- nicknamed "Chemical Ali" -- was wounded but alive and in the same area.

While Chalabi offered gratitude to the coalition for Iraq's liberation, he also expressed irritation that the coalition has not provided more assistance in cities such as Nasiriya and Basra.

As long as humanitarian and infrastructure problems in the country persist, Chalabi said, the country will remain unstable, despite the coalition's military progress. Referring to Iraqi's ruling Baath Party, he called for "de-Baathification" of the country.

"There will be no absolute security with the current situation. The U.S. troops have defeated Saddam militarily. That was never a problem. The issue is the Baath party and the remnants of the Baath party who will continue to pose a threat."

He asked why coalition officials are in Kuwait when the southern region is in "great need of assistance."

"This is true all over the south," he said.

"It's very important to be in the southern part of Iraq," he said, because people have become "dispossessed" and the citizenry needs to be "empowered."

"They must feel they are part of the political process," he said.

"Where is General Garner now?" Chalabi said, referring to retired Army Gen. Jay Garner, who is to head up U.S. reconstruction effort in Iraq.

"The people need assistance here in Nasiriya. Why are they not here? Why don't they work to rehabilitate the electricity and water? Why don't they start working on the curriculum? Why are they in Kuwait? This area is in great need of assistance now. People are hungry. Their supplies are going to run out. Basic services have to be restored," he said.

"Where are they?"

He said he met with a Marine commander in Nasiriya to "get a police force going."

"I think the way to move forward is to create a police force from scratch. Many of the police officers have gone home," he said.

[shaolin kungfu]

Has nobody been watching cnn?

At 5:00 in the morning, they reported that the latest bombing attack on saddam has failed,to some degree. He is beleived to be seriously injured along with one of his sons. They are thought to be heading towards syria to seek medical attention.

Now, I haven't seen the news after that, so I don't know if any of this is up to date. But if it's true, Bush may have found his reason for attacking Syria.

[Laughing Cow]

I think Syria or Iran might be future targets.

But I don't think that they can be attacked very soon in a method that would be benefitial.
I rather think that political pressure will be used.

Iraq has not been fully liberated, this will still take some time.
Even if that is done they will need to ship in a LOT of fresh equipment, troops to fight another war in the region.

If they were to go soon after Syria they will certainly loose Iraq.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
I think Syria or Iran might be future targets.

But I don't think that they can be attacked very soon in a method that would be benefitial.
I rather think that political pressure will be used.

Iraq has not been fully liberated, this will still take some time.
Even if that is done they will need to ship in a LOT of fresh equipment, troops to fight another war in the region.

If they were to go soon after Syria they will certainly loose Iraq.

They would also risk projecting the image of waging war against the Arab world, or even Islam. That is something they do not want to do because it would be very easy for things to escalate out of hand if that were to happen.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by joedoe

They would also risk projecting the image of waging war against the Arab world, or even Islam. That is something they do not want to do because it would be very easy for things to escalate out of hand if that were to happen.

Adding to that.

I don't know what exactly their justification would be for attacking a sovereign nation (Syria).

It will be tough getting approval for attacking Syria and I think many countries will leave the current coalition if such a step is taken.

Going after Iraq for violation of UN resolutions and getting rid of a dictator is one thing, attacking a country for giving shelter to a known dictator is another one altogether.
Unless they declare Saddam a "Terrorist".

Just my thoughts.

[rogue]

I think the target has always been Iran. Afghanistan and Iraq make great staging areas for insugency operations. Predictions, Assad of Syria will make overtures to the US within the year. Iran won't but watch for growing unrest with the current theocracy.

Personally I hope Sadaam is alive, well and has a big screen TV hooked up to CNN.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow


Adding to that.

I don't know what exactly their justification would be for attacking a sovereign nation (Syria).

It will be tough getting approval for attacking Syria and I think many countries will leave the current coalition if such a step is taken.

Going after Iraq for violation of UN resolutions and getting rid of a dictator is one thing, attacking a country for giving shelter to a known dictator is another one altogether.
Unless they declare Saddam a "Terrorist".

Just my thoughts.

But it has been claimed that Saddam may have sent some of his WMD to Syria & Jordan to be hidden. If they can bring some evidence to prove this they might use this as their excuse. Again, a very thin excuse.

They would be silly to do it. I think world opinion may turn in their favour if things turn out well in Iraq (the people show that it is what they want, the resulting govt turns out OK etc.) If they continue the march, they risk that by letting it be seen as a conquest of the Middle East. Too dangerous.

[Laughing Cow]

rogue.

I am not so sure about afghanistan.

IMO, the US pulled out of there way too fast.
The place is barely managed and governed by the current administration.

Promised aid and rebuilding efforts are way behind schedule.
Many promises given turned out to have been "Vapours" only.
In many areas the war-lords are still feuding, Opium production is at an high, Terrorist camps have been re-opened, etc.

There is also a growing dissent against their "Liberators" in afghanistan, especially in the rural areas.

Seeya.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by joedoe
But it has been claimed that Saddam may have sent some of his WMD to Syria & Jordan to be hidden. If they can bring some evidence to prove this they might use this as their excuse. Again, a very thin excuse.

The claim was made by Israel who is hostile to Syria, not a very good source for such a claim and no verification was ever given, AFAIK.

[rogue]

We pulled out of Afghanistan? Nah, it's still hunting season there.


Promised aid and rebuilding efforts are way behind schedule. Take that up with the UN and EU. ;)

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by rogue
Take that up with the UN and EU. ;)

Remind again as to who is the largest contributor within the UN.

[rogue]

The top eight contributors to the UN are the USA (25%); Japan (15.4%); Germany (9%); France (6.4%); the United Kingdom (5.3%); Italy (5.2%); Russia (4.5%); and Canada (3.1%). Collectively, they account for more than 73% of the regular UN budget.

Check it out here. (http://www.unac.org/en/link_learn/fact_sheets/set_record.asp)

In the words of MerryPrankster, "Thanks for playing".:p

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by rogue

In the words of MerryPrankster, "Thanks for playing".:p

Who was playing, besides you?
;)

My question was pure sarcasm and rethorical.

[rogue]

My question was pure sarcasm and rethorical. You cheesy b@stard, I fell into your trap again!

[MightyB]

The US isn't going to start a policy of knocking off countries just because we don't like them. If that was the case, it wouldn't be Syria or Iran anyway. Think of who's been pi$$ing us off the most lately. Hint: It's a non-arab country who likes to backstab allies and then wants a piece of the pie after they scream and whine and try to stop their "ally" from baking it. They even organize whole groups into trying to stop the baking.

Umm, Ummm.... pie.

Seriously, Jordan is a "behind the scenes" American ally. Iran has actually been cooperative with the US lately. Syria is a bunch of pi$$ ants, but they are what they are.

We won't have to wage war anyway. The rebuilt Iraq is going to give those countries some problems. It'll be hard for oppressive regimes to keep being A__holes when there's a very successful democratic nation in their midst with a truly happy, wealthy, and free general population. Imagine how hard it will be for the ruling class to keep blaming everyone else for how they keep their people poor, oppressed, malnurished, and undereducated when there's an Arab ran country right next door where that doesn't happen. The people will stop blaming the Americans and Jews for once because they'll see with their own eyes who the real enemies are. There are alot of Princes, Kings, and even Clergy Men whose heads are going to roll when it's all over and done with and it won't be the Americans doing it. The Western world went through it's revolutions and periods of enlightenment. It's about time the Arab world catches up.

[joedoe]

Firstly you are assuming that the 'new' Iraq will be a successful democracy.

Secondly, isn't Turkey a fairly successful Middle Eastern democracy?

[MightyB]

Turkey doesn't have Iraq's potential for generating revenue. Turkey also associates itself more with Europe hence it's bid to get into the EU. Turkey isn't really embraced by the Arab world, they're considered their own thing.

Turkey also hasn't got the exposure that Iraq has. And yes, Iraq will be a successfull democracy. We did it with Japan, we can do it with Iraq. America is actually pretty good at nation building. We do carry some selfish motives, but, unlike the countries pushing for UN control, we don't steal. We're not going to put things in place that only allow us to benefit at the expense of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people will be the biggest winners in the end.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by MightyB
And yes, Iraq will be a successfull democracy. We did it with Japan, we can do it with Iraq.

There are many Experts that disagree with your view.

Japan, Germany and Iraq are very different situations and you can't compare them.

Their societies & outlooks are completely different and also the world has changed in the last 50+yrs since WW II.

I wish the Iraqi's all the best, and hope that they will get the goverment that THEY want may it be democratic or not.

Cheers.

[joedoe]

LC beat me to it. You cannot say that because you did it in Japan you can do it in Iraq - two very different cultures.

Anyway, only time will tell.

[ZIM]

Good to see that the fight predicted was not as fierce as foreseen.


what concerns the thinking individuals among us is the thousands of civilian casualities This was never my focus- instead, I'm concerned about the political dimensions in the US itself and the consequences that may attend that. Not that humanitarian, I guess...:o

I saw an Iraqi exile, fmr. head of the Nuclear program, talking on Charlie Rose. He was speculating that SH got out and that was why there was little resistance. His theory: if you examine the timing, the Russian convoy left at the same time as the resistance in Basra was reaching a peak, the defense of Baghdad was a cover for that retreat. So: the Russians MAY have him.

[dnc101]

It's been a while since I was here, and I said then "time will tell' in the war with Saddam. Well, so far we've seen:

Saddams' goons commit atrocity after atrocity, while coalition forces have went out of their way, even endangering themselves, to limmit casualties and dammage. So much for our 'evil' military.

We've found the torture chambers and prisons for children. We've heard the horror stories from Iraqui citizens. We've been cheered and hailed as liberators.

Oh yes, and we found weapons of mass destruction, some aboard long range missiles. We also found the terrorist training camps.

We did not get into a 'quagmire' or a 'blood bath', despite the hopes of the Democrats and other extreme liberals. Dang- three weeks and we all but own Iraq!

The 'Arab World' has not risen up against us. We havn't seen another 9-11. Terrorism has actually droped, as it allways does when confronted. Terrorism thrives on weakness, but pales to strength and resolve.

I havn't gone back and read the posts since I was last here. But I'd say a lot of you should be changing your tune about now- either to a less extremist stance or to making excuses and finding other ways to point out that the US is the source of all evil.

Well, the economy isn't ruined yet either, so I still have a lot to do here. Just took a moment to drop you all a little "I told you so". See you when I get the time and inclination.

[Chang Style Novice]

Just dropping in to say that I'm pleased as punch that my major fear about this war has been proved unfounded. As a military action, I can't see any way that it could reasonably have gone any smoother. We've won the war, which we always knew would happen at a much MUCH lower cost than I'd feared. I still wish that we hadn't gone in so alone, and I figure that the blame for that lies equally with the Bush administration's gung-ho attitude and the UN security councils shilly-shallying.

Now that the war is won, the more difficult task lies ahead - winning the peace. From what I know, we haven't done a fantastic job in Afghanistan of really working to establish a long-term, viable republican system of government; tribal leaders are stirring up trouble in different regions, including a rebanding Taliban. We've underfunded our foreign aid efforts to them (the Bushies didn't even propose any money in the budget for it! Congress had to do it for them.) It's not too late to correct our mistake there and prevent similar trouble in Iraq (where a lot of the same problems are liable to occur.) The last thing we want is another fundamental Islamofascist theocracy to appear right next door to Iran, or to set up an unpopular puppet gov't that will eventually provoke an Islamofascist revolution, like happened in Iran. By going in alone, we've made it appear that this is an imperialist invasion rather than an international peacekeeping effort. We have to make sure that doesn't appear true, and also that it isn't true.

My best wishes to the troops. I hope that the humanitarian crisis that threatens Iraq is not too severe, and is solved quickly. I wish everyone in Iraq to return home soon, whether home is the USA, Britain, or a newly free Iraq!

[Liokault]

Yet I sit here watching TV and see a young girl crying after she was shot in the head by a US marine and a man killed after he came out onto his balcony to see what was happening....killed by the same marines.

Reading the papers yesterday.

Saw pics of a young boy with both his arms blown off.
Pic of a young girl in bandages sitting in a pool of her mothers blood.
Pic of the looting that no one seems to want to do anything about


I imagine it depends how u define Blood bath guy:(

[Liokault]

LOL and in a lighter note I hope the muslim world is not going to rise up against westerners as i'm off to istanbull next week.

[ewallace]

There is no Iraqi Information Minister you infidel. The media has been lying to you. The media was never in Iraq. There is no Media. There is no Iraq. I invented the internet.

[Black Jack]

Laughing Cow- Of course, it was more of a remark on a very historic day, a day of reckoning for Saddam and his party, there is still a LONG way to go, but the troops and our adminstration, are doing a fantastic job and they should recieve due apologies from the now silent war critics, doomsayers, left-wing stoogies, pc clowns and hollywood sages.

But you KNOW that would be a cold day in hell even though all of them are eating their words.

The fact is that most of these people did not have a agenda against the war but against President Bush and his adminstration. Where were these loudmouths protesting Saddams torture rooms, childern prison camps, murder of muslims and kurds, the 12 years of dodging resolution 1441, and the internal support of terrorism, which Saddam (now believed dead) has been committing.

The answer. No where. They divide the world not between good and evil, but between rich and poor, black and white, chop it up into segments. They have a moral blindspot and IMHO their actions aid and comfort Saddam and his terrorist regime.

They supported a thug and picked the wrong side of history.

I say when it is all over the history books will show George Bush as the great president he is.

[Badger]

Along way to go but a darn good start.




Badger

[@PLUGO]

I say when it is all over the history books will show George Bush as the great president he is.
LMAO...that's funny...



The fact is that most of these people did not have a agenda against the war but against President Bush and his adminstration.

no clue where you got that "fact" barely interested in a source. :rolleyes:

Civilian body counts:
MIN:
1140

MAX:
1376


US troops:
104 +/-

UK troops:
30 +/-

Iraqi Troops:
5300 +/-

[Felipe Bido]

Oh, yeah..I was waiting for this

[Black Jack]

It's based on actions.

Keep running all the numbers you want. Have fun. You guys could not of worked harder to be more wrong.:cool:

[@PLUGO]

you seem to have confused some of my posts for "actions" . . . okay.
but what you're proposing as "fact" reads much more like simple "observation" there's a difference.

You also seem to claim a monopoly on what's "right" . . . whatever...

you also seem to believe I find knowing the numbr of lives lots in this whole affair "fun"

dead wrong
:rolleyes:

talking in terms of "you guys" is ludicrus... but go right ahead, whatever's your pleasure.

[Black Jack]

Seems like you get a kick out of it. I see a bit o' glee their.

Let's get it right though. You DONT know the exact number of lives lost. You use a slanted/anti-war website for your info.

Gimme a break.

[Black Jack]

Since you like numbers so much......

Do you know the difference between a Iraqi citizen killed accidently in a war to free all Iraqi people and a Iraqi citizen murdered by a Iraqi solider?

Again since you like numbers......

How many Iraqi citizens do you think died over the last 10 years under Saddams reign?

I wonder if the crowds of now free Iraqi's waving American Flags, cheering, and screaming thank you President Bush would be able to tell you.

[Xebsball]

Originally posted by Black Jack
I say when it is all over the history books will show George Bush as the great president he is.

LOL i should send you the bill from the laundry, i just ****ed on my pants!! :D
Thats a winner, straight to my sig!!

[halfling]

to me "blood bath" is thousands dead, and it would only be really bad if it were thousands of inocent people who were dead. That has not happened, so to me and many others -- no blood bath. Very successful so far and it will continue to be. And dont worry about the muslims striking out on any westerner on your trip..... man, give them more credit than that. Do you think they are all capable of killing you, an innocent person?........ no, you just think that the US is capable of killing innocent people. How very wrong you are if you do think that.

[Rockwood]

BJ-

You don't seem to get the fact that noone likes soddom. Except of course rusfield bu$h and the others who supported him all those years, giving him money, chemicals and weapons so he could slaughter the Iranians who got rid of our shah.

The civilians in Iraq were killed knowingly, Im not saying our military targets them, but we knew they would die. And we didn't give a god dam.

Anything to get Rummy's friends their big fat contracts.

I do care about Good and Evil. When people sacrifice innocents for ca$h payouts, that is EVIL. Whether its done by Soddom or Cheny, evil is evil.

That's why Rummy and the boys have been pushing for this war for the last ten years, not an bs UN resolutions.

Many Iraqis have died under soddoms rule, many during the years we were flowing him mad dough. Many die in Israel, Columbia, Turkey, Egypt, all paid for by our taxes. The question is why don't hypocrites give a dam about them?

If you think things are fun in Afganistan and Palestine, then you are gonna love the military occuption of Iraq.

Open your eyes to the reality, this "war" is about ca$h.

-JessO

[Shaolin-Do]

If little girls with teddy bears and flowers and fat man with cigarrettes on their balconies arent innocent, who is? And out of the publicized "murders" how many of them went unpublicized?
(maybe the fat guy with a cig isnt innocent, but the girl with the teddy bear sure was...;) ) In the end, well see the same american propoganda dropped here as there was in the 60's and vietnam, just in a little different light. Keep an eye out in G.B Jr.'s political campaign commercials for subliminal messages... However, Its war. without destruction there cannot be reconstruction and without reconstruction the american government cannot build their own "Iraqiland" from the ground up. There are going to be needless deaths, as it is war. There are going to be innocents killed needlessly, because yes, some of the americans may as well be terrorists. Should we be at war? Only the end of it will tell.

[@PLUGO]

Seems like you get a kick out of it. I see a bit o' glee their.
been eating those funny mushrooms have you?

From the tone of your posts there seems to be ALOT of emotional satisfaction coming form the image of "free Iraqi's waving American Flags." I'm happy for you, enjoy it.

now as for:
"You DONT know the exact number of lives lost." sure, the sky's also blue... thanks for stating the obvious. My interest is in finding out such details... the "cost" of this "accomplishment." I've asked you a few time to feel free to point me in the direction of any such numbers... so far nada...

no worries though.
you're not going to get me "riled" with that sort of talk

Much of this stuff is sad to see/read/hear, flat out... no matter what one's politics are.
The only event worthy of celebrating WRT this "historic event" is the safe return of anyone I know.
As for "free Iraqi's" so far they're free to have local warlords raid hospitals of water & supplies. I'll wait a little while longer before I'll deside if I consider them "free."

[Third Degree]

Originally posted by tsunami surfer
Rock

As for the WMD I honestly think that even if we do find them people who are against this war will say we fabricated them.


It is hardly surprising people will think this when in the build up to this war, Colin Powell presented false documents detailing nuclear materials bought by Iraq from Niger - http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html

and the fact that the up-to-date dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction presented to the UN Security Council by Colin Powell was nothing more than a PhD thesis which was 12 years old!!

[Chang Style Novice]

So fifteen of Saddam Hussein's lookalike decoys are gathered at an undisclosed location for a briefing.

"There good news and there's bad news." The liason from the President tells them.

"What's the good news?" asks one of the decoys.

"Saddam Hussein is still alive, so you've still got your jobs!"

"And what's the bad news?"

"He lost an arm and a leg."

[old jong]

I hate to say that but,the Iraki people are far from being "free"...They just went from an unwanted ruler to another.

[Shaolin-Do]

all Ive heard about people ther I know is how so and so is dead and this guy just turned up missing... :(
As for the iraqi's being "free" ... lol... I personally honestly think GB and Saddam are in cahoots....
George bush always did want a disney land in the middle east....

[dezhen2001]

lets just hope this time u do a better job helping the iraqis than you have in afghanistan. Its still a rotting cesspool over there according to what my Afghani friends tell me.

dawood

[Chang Style Novice]

I wish people espousing wacky conspiracy theories and throwing around comparisons of Bush to Nazis wouldn't associate themself with my side of various arguments. That kind of nonsense does nothing but rob the left of credibility.

[@PLUGO]

to me "blood bath" is thousands dead, and it would only be really bad if it were thousands of inocent people who were dead. That has not happened, so to me and many others -- no blood bath.

to date there seem to be over 1000 "innocent people" dead...

but ask the kid who spent hours under his dead mother's body waiting to get pulled out from under a bombed building weither or not it was a blood bath. :(

The best I can think of, is that it all could've been worse...


ahem . . . Time will tell

[halfling]

i dunno, i guess i just went into this whole war thing knowing there would be many, many innocent people killed. I accepted it then and it doesn't bother me now. What has to happen, has to happen. Better to be strong about it than depress myself with it. and of course, time tells all. i understand that

[Xebsball]

muh... muh...




muh muh muh...





M U R D E R E R S

[halfling]

Oh, the drama.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by old jong
I hate to say that but,the Iraki people are far from being "free"...They just went from an unwanted ruler to another.

Have to kinda agree here.

Also what is freedom, when your shop can get looted, there is lynching and simialr going on, there is no police, water-supply, etc.

Iraq so far has set one foot on the road to freedom, but it is still a long walk and many obstacles till they reach it.

[Xebsball]

M M M M M M M

U U U U U U U

R R R R R R R

D D D D D D D

E E E E E E E

R R R R R R R

E E E E E E E

R R R R R R R

S S S S S S S

[ZIM]

i guess i just went into this whole war thing knowing there would be many, many innocent people killed. I accepted it then and it doesn't bother me now. Right. A bullet flies, it has to go somewhere. Not all enter an Iraqi *Soldier's* body, nor do all kill, but instead wound.


to me "blood bath" is thousands deadYou'd "like" the Congo then. Approx. 1000 killed in 3 hours. Thursday, I think.


I wish people espousing wacky conspiracy theories and throwing around comparisons of Bush to Nazis wouldn't associate themself with my side of various arguments. That kind of nonsense does nothing but rob the left of credibility. I think we ought to just chuck this AND "Vietnam" from our political vocabularies... nobody in the spectrum can use these without conjuring false demons, losing perspective. We do, of course, need to remember them- but thats a different thing.

So I propose a new one: Bush is NOT a nazi, and we are NOT Germany! We are Oceania!!!! :D

Xebsball- NO. Thats the militaries of SOUTH America you're describing.

[Third Degree]

Originally posted by ZIM

I think we ought to just chuck this AND "Vietnam" from our political vocabularies... nobody in the spectrum can use these without conjuring false demons, losing perspective. We do, of course, need to remember them- but thats a different thing.



The US is planning to build an 80,000-man Afghan national army, trained by American 'advisors'.

This harks back to Vietnam. does it not?

The Soviets did exactly the same thing after they invaded Afghanistan in 1979.

Third Degree

[joedoe]

Sharaf deserves an Oscar. How he could deliver those press conferences with a straight face I don't know. :D

[rogue]

I loved sitting down in front of the tube with a Pop Tart and a cup of Joe and getting the morning sit rep from M.S.S. I miss him already.:(


I wonder if he'll get hired by CNN or Fox! Maybe Fox will do a show, Joe Iraqi Minister of Information where beautiful women vie for the affections of M.S.S. The twist is that they don't know that he's now only the new host of Family Fued and not a IMoI.

[Third Degree]

Originally posted by old jong
I hate to say that but,the Iraki people are far from being "free"...They just went from an unwanted ruler to another.



The war in Iraq is unjustified really. If the aim of this war was to liberate the people of Iraq, why didn't the US-British forces go into Iraq back in the 1980s when Saddam committed his worst atrocities? Surely it wasn't because Iraq was a US-British ally was it?!? Perish the thought.

The Coalition were unable to locate Iraq's US-British supplied weapons, and were also unable to link Iraq to Osama bin Laden.

Now all of a sudden, Bush and Blair now wanted Iraq's people to be liberated from despot Saddam Hussein.

Bush was so intent on invading Iraq as it allegedly posed a present and future security risk to America. I don't see how those 150km range al-Samoud missiles can reach America? Maybe Bush thinks Iraq is somehow closer as the map he uses is probably quite small with a confusing scale on it.

North Korea on the other hand do have weapons, nuclear weapons, that can reach America. Of course, Bush says North Korea is only a "regional problem" when it comes to security threats. That **** small map and scale again! I think Bush will find that North Korea has less oil.

Third Degree

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Third Degree
If the aim of this war was to liberate the people of Iraq, why didn't the US-British forces go into Iraq back in the 1980s

Or directly following the first gulf war?

Because they made terrible mistakes. That doesn't mean they are incapable of ever doing anything right.


Originally posted by Design Sifu
The only event worthy of celebrating WRT this "historic event" is the safe return of anyone I know.

Desposing Saddam's regime isn't worthy of celebrating? :confused:


Originally posted by Third Degree
It is hardly surprising people will think this when in the build up to this war, Colin Powell presented false documents...

The WMD concerns are a non-issue. There was never any question that Iraq possessed WMD; they were admitted in their own documents to the UN, the countries that sold them to Iraq recount the events, and further were found and widely recounted by the UN weapons inspectors.

[Third Degree]

Originally posted by Christopher M


That doesn't mean they are incapable of ever doing anything right.




Only this week, Bush went to Belfast to meet 'President' Blair and Bush's men had security passes which read something like - President Bush visiting Belfast, Ireland.

Excuse me President Bush but I think you'll find that there is a Northern Ireland and a Republic of Ireland. Bush was there to discuss the Northen Ireland peace talks for f**ks sake!! It is that small out of date map again playing havoc!

"Belfast? Is that some sort of Church bell which rings too frequently?" Bush asks Irish Taoiseach Bertie Aherne........probably.

I heard the other day that only 5 per cent of the population in the USA have passports so when the US Government don't even know they have made an error on their security passes, it all began to make sense!



[i]
Originally posted by Third Degree

It is hardly surprising people will think this when in the build up to this war, Colin Powell presented false documents...


[i]
The WMD concerns are a non-issue. There was never any question that Iraq possessed WMD; they were admitted in their own documents to the UN, the countries that sold them to Iraq recount the events, and further were found and widely recounted by the UN weapons inspectors.


My point wasn't about weapons of mass destruction, it was to do with fabricating evidence.

I was pointing out the fact that Colin Powell and the people around him must have known the documents showing that Iraq had bought nuclear materials were false and so people's mistrust of what the USA give as evidence is somewhat justified.

Third Degree

[rubthebuddha]

i heard a rumour that he's going to do start a career in customer service at MicroSoft:

"I tell you, Bill Gates be praised, that there are no bugs in Windows XP, and that, Bill Gates willing, it will ruin the mercenaries of Steve Jobs and besiege Apple and ruin it."

[Third Degree]

Originally posted by PaulH
They found this place now looting by the populace. Timely reminder of the man and his atrocities at this moment in time.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12279884,00.html


You hear about the killings of Kurds at Halabja in 1988 being repeated from George Bush all the time but the CIA back in 1988 had evidence that it was the Iranians which killed the Kurds back in 1988.

The majority of the dead at Halabja died from a cynanide based chemical which the Iraqis did not have but the Iranians did.

The Reagan administration during the 1980s knew Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iran but didn't bat an eyelid cause it was just another way of killing.

President Reagan ordered the Defense Department and the CIA to supply Iraq's military with intelligence information, advice, and hardware for battle after being advised to do so by CIA Director William Casey.

The US have a history of using chemical agents on their unsuspecting test subjects. Civilians were exposed to harmless "simulants" or what were then thought to be harmless agents meant to stand in for deadlier ones. Of course, some of those were later discovered to be dangerous.

Third Degree

[Unstoppable]

You are A Traitor why Do you say You Love that MAN? lol judy joking Hes funny but bad.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by joedoe
Secondly, isn't Turkey a fairly successful Middle Eastern democracy?

No, it isn't.

It has a tenuous link to democracy.

It is dirt poor.

It has the newly elected Pres Erdogan, who was constitutionally banned from taking part in any Turkish elections for life in 1998 for extremist Islamic leanings (but supported by the Bush admin until he failed to get permission for them to use Turkish bases).

It has two main parties: one of these is extremist Islamic, the other a centre-right unltra-nationalist party at the beck and call of the National Security Council which is an unelected military think-tank, and is largely responsible for the closing down of the offices of just about every other party that dares to form.

It has a long-running record of torture, and unqualified and unlimited detention, to say nothing of a rather distasteful history of of killing 35000 Kurds (sound familiar?).

The leader of their main human rights organisation was shot six times through the lungs and legs (survived... those security forces obviously need more CIA/SAS training!:rolleyes: )

This is off the top of my head. Do a search.

[Unstoppable]

i think Turkey is EUROPEAN tehcnically not MIDDLE EASTERN (ASIAN)

i know they play in UEFA

[Vapour]

For very strange reason Israel also perticipates. Plus they once won Eurovision. I guess Middle East is part of Europe now.

[Budokan]

He's a pretty funny bastiche.

[Budokan]

You can bet there are some governments in the Middle East that are now (and not just metaphorically) filling their drawers with hot, steaming loaves now that Iraq is winding down....

[rubthebuddha]

Originally posted by Budokan
He's a pretty funny bastiche.
you've been watching johnny dangerously again, haven't you. :)

[fa_jing]

Mmm. Hot, steaming loaves. Freshly baked bread anyone?
:D

[Marky]

I always hoped that one day, the Iraqi Information Minister would be standing there proclaiming, "Bahgdad is under our control, there are no US forces here", and IMMEDIATELY AFTER HE SAYS IT, a couple of US tanks drive by in the background, complete with troops waving at the cameras.

That would have been so crazy!

[Laughing Cow]

Marines Ordered to Dump Iraq War Booty
1 hour, 13 minutes ago

By RAVI NESSMAN, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Since they arrived, U.S. Marines have been doing their own kind of looting — grabbing Iraqi pistols, rifles, uniforms and pictures of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

On Friday, they were ordered to dump what they took or lose their rank.

"You did not conquer ... this country. Get off your high horse," Lt. Col. Michael Belcher told his officers. "You took some thugs and ran them out."

The commander of the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, reminded his soldiers that the Iraqi people allowed U.S.-led forces to oust Saddam Hussein. They deserve respect, he said, and that means no looting.

There will be no "'I won this country back. I can take what I can get,'" Belcher said.

Then he pulled out a pile of booty already confiscated: a picture of Saddam with a bullseye drawn on it, ammunition magazines and Iraqi uniforms.

Stolen tear gas canisters particularly infuriated Belcher, who worried that a Marine might fire off a canister to disperse unruly crowds in the city.

"It's chemical warfare," Belcher said.

Soon, a group of quiet Marines glumly gathered to toss their booty onto an ever-growing pile.

They threw in Kalashnikov rifles, gas masks and sacks of bullets.

One Marine dropped an assault vest filled with ammunition clips.

Another put in a rocket-propelled grenade round.

Lance Cpl. Randall Taylor, 19, of Texarkana, Texas, came out of his Humvee carrying two Iraqi grenades he had hoped to use before leaving.

"I was gonna throw these," he said, smiling like a shamed child.

Other Marines were angry.

"You don't have to give that up, do you?" Pfc. Michael Lara, 19, of Raymondville, Texas, asked as a colleague added a helmet to the pile.

Some Marines plotted to smuggle home smaller things — a pistol, Iraqi military patches ripped from uniforms, small pictures of Saddam.



They had been warned before against collecting war souvenirs, but some Marines had been rapidly collecting huge caches.

At first they took small things — knives, perhaps a pistol or two. But as they stumbled upon large armories filled with nearly every type of weapon in Iraqi's arsenal, they became more brazen, taking rifles and rocket-propelled grenade launchers.

A bartering economy emerged based on weaponry and cigarettes. One Marine offered an Iraqi sword for a pack of hard-to-get smokes. He was turned down. Hiding a military patch is one thing. Smuggling a sword is altogether different.

Cpl. Jesse Schutz, 21, of Omaha, Neb., happily surrendered two Kalashnikov rifles and swords a few days ago so they could be run over by a tank and destroyed.

"It just isn't worth it," he said. "I can go back to Wal-Mart to buy a gun instead of stealing it from a country."

[Black Jack]

Anyone can tell this is from some rag. The undercurrent is to put down the marine core units stationed their as a whole. To paint them in a bad light instead of the liberators which they are. BTW-Soliders since the first war have brought keepsakes back home.

It's nothing new.

[Laughing Cow]

BJ.

This comes from the Yahoo News site.

Of course they bring keepsakes back, just like the estimated 500.000 Japanese Swords off the US-coast that were chucked overboard when the soldiers were told of disciplinary action against them. Some of those were heirlooms.
:(

Nobody talks about small things you can put into your pockets, put rifles, grenades, etc.

Still the article is good for US public relations.

BW, what's this I just heard about the $7 Billion no-bid Iraq contract awarded to a Haliburton subsidiary.

Now that I consider bad publicity.

Seeya.

[Black Jack]

I understand the point of the article but Iraqi pistols and Kalashnikov rifles are a tad different than imperial and historic family heirlooms.

I just don't like the undercurrent tone of the article. Nothing more.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Black Jack
I just don't like the undercurrent tone of the article. Nothing more.

Pls, take that one up with the writer of the article not me.

This was the first and only article I found so far on that topic.

Cheers.

[Black Jack]

It has nothing to do with you. My distaste was not about you putting up the article at all. It was about the article. I did not mean for it to sound confused.

[ngokfei]

US again betrays the Kurds. First Bush senior leaves them holding the ball back in 91. Well only about 2 thousand were murdered.

Now Bush Junior betrays their trust again. Secrete agenda of Turkey is revealed to prevent the Kurds from obtaining their own independent country.

The Kurdish people live in Iraq and Turkey. In Turkey they are persecuted just like the Chinese are doing to Tibetans. (Illegal to speak their own language, native dress or even get an education)

What do we have to do wait for an ethnic cleansing like the Nazi's did to the Jews. Then out of guilt take over palestinian land and give it to them. (really the world foundout that we knew as early as 1942 what the nazi's were doing and just ignored it as the US actually hates Jews as much as they hate Blacks).

So in actuallity the US has caused all this mess in the first place.

bring it on.

[ngokfei]

Well what would you do.

If the US was under siege/invasion (search for weapons of mass destruction!!!!) and Washington DC had fallen wouldn't you think that the "our" gov't would keep it from us as long as possible.

think about it...

[Rockwood]

Right, how could those marines be taking home souvenirs like that!!!

Shame on them.

Actually, so the f what?

Bu$h's pals like halliburton are Ruining our treasury, schools close, states bancrupt, no money for the poor or sick or the old. Multi billionaires make off like bandits.

HAHAHAHAHAH! They laugh all the way to the bank as Faux news and Rush keep up the propaganda that this war was anything but a cash cow for the weapons and oil industry.

Doesn't any one give a **** that these people are slandering and using our sacred Army for their own private profit, pocketing billions from our soldiers' sacrifice??????

-JessO

[Souljah]

I always hoped that one day, the Iraqi Information Minister would be standing there proclaiming, "Bahgdad is under our control, there are no US forces here", and IMMEDIATELY AFTER HE SAYS IT, a couple of US tanks drive by in the background, complete with troops waving at the cameras.

LOL, i was thinking the same thing.
That guy is one funny dude.
Though they seem to have vanished off the face of the earth.....:confused: :confused: :confused: :eek:

[Souljah]

I know I may be hated for this but sorry I had to post it (http://www.buddha-fist.com/lol.htm)

lol!

[@PLUGO]

Ain't IT Da Truuuph!!!

[Laughing Cow]

Straight from the horses mouth.

[ZIM]

Fri 11 Apr 2003, 06:53 PM
Yesterday, millions of confused soccer fans worked the phones to get the scores from a game that never happened.

Witnessing the looting taking place in Baghdad, soccer fans immediately assumed that they had missed a vital soccer match, and scrambled to determine the outcome.

"Where there's riots and looting, there's soccer," said Chip O'Malley, a drunk three-toothed Irishman. "When I saw those videos of people burning buildings and looting, it was plain to see that a secret soccer game had taken place right under our noses."

Others were not so easily fooled.

"No way was that a soccer match," said Erik Jurgensen, a local soccer fan. "There were only a couple of deaths and a few injuries. Only a couple of buildings were burned. And nobody was throwing-up drunk. A soccer game is much more dangerous than the activity we saw yesterday on TV."
----------------------

:p? (http://www.skeptician.com/skeptician/skeptician.nsf/rsrc/649E2E7BA281462786256CFF0017735B/$file/elvis-n-saddam.jpg)

Who to "take out" next: Ariel Sharon! (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=263941&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)

scuds (http://ricn.ru/humour/posts/images/1241.jpg)

[rogue]

i heard a rumour that he's going to do start a career in customer service at MicroSoft:

"I tell you, Bill Gates be praised, that there are no bugs in Windows XP, and that, Bill Gates willing, it will ruin the mercenaries of Steve Jobs and besiege Apple and ruin it."

RTB, I heard that it's the other way around, he recieved his training at MS and then was recruited to be IIM. Actually Sadaam wanted Steve Balmer but he was too crazy.

[taijiquan_student]

It's true that the US has made some mistakes, in fact many mistakes.
However, I hate to break it to you that there is not some evil guy named "United States of America" sitting in the top of a dark tower, laughing maniacally saying "I hate jews and black people". It's just not true. Some people would have you believe that, even comparing Dubya to Hitler, but that's ridiculous (just as ridiculous as when pro-war people compare Saddam to Hitler). I'm definitely a lefty, and anti-ourcurrentadministration, but I have a strong distaste for so many tree-hugging liberals that have no idea what they're talking about. It's one thing to be a left-winger, and another to be stupid. Sorry, the rant ends there. I've had a bad day. Carry on...

[scotty1]

"It's one thing to be a left-winger, and another to be stupid."

True, unfortunately many people don't realise that.

[Unstoppable]

"For very strange reason Israel also perticipates. Plus they once won Eurovision. I guess Middle East is part of Europe now."

Israle is in Europe group so they dont have to play Suaid Arabia and Iran and stuff. Geographical theyt are Asia. DUH. Is this a FORUM FOR KIDS or for Grownups?????? ;)

[shaolin kungfu]

Ouch!:eek:

That poor camal.

[Black Jack]

No its the same thing. Left-wing equals stupid.

This post topic proves that point very well. It made no connection whatsoever to the U.S. f'ing the Kurds. Any rimjob who has been following the news for the last week can see this is a day of liberation for the iraqi kurds.

[David Jamieson]

No its the same thing. Left-wing equals stupid.

coming in from the right it only follows that this would be your p.o.v. and so, it completely lacks credibility.

Unless of course you were being facetious :D (which I doubt)

The middle path is the path worth walking from my subjective point of view.
Both extremes display stances that are agressive and incorrect in their assumptions.

The facts are the only thing worth looking at in my opinion.
There are rights and wrongs in both extremes, but when weighed against what is truly democratic and high minded, what the US has done and is doing is wrong in so many ways.

who will profit the most from this war?
Why does the gaurding of oilfield suprcede the restoration of order?

simple questions that won't be answered by the right for fear of what the left will say.

btw, these are not left wing questions, they are just observational.

anyway, it's gonna be a mess for a long tiome and there are many more now who have strengthened there resolves against the US for the invasion into Iraq and their track record in foreign policies.

It's going to get much worse before it gets better.

cheers

[Black Jack]

Kung Lek- okeledokelee......yea you sure you walk in the middle of the political road. Be honest dude. Now who is being facetious:D

Maybe stupid is to hard a word. Maybe mental illness is better;)

[ZIM]

Any rimjob who has been following the news for the last week can see this is a day of liberation for the iraqi kurds. A little early to say so, isn't it? Have you been following the Kurd Sellout Watch? (http://slate.msn.com/id/2081404/) I'm not saying we will sell them out, but Its an entertaining blog.

Kung Lek- c'mon, don't you know there's no center anymore? ;) Actually, there's more than 3 possible 'positions' on it all.... any objections I had to Iraq II did not involve Iraq *as such* at all, nor geopolitics- its just good to see a dictator go and our army to do so well in that.

So: anyone got any thoughts about the UN? Any role for the future, or is it kaput?

WRT subject of 'world governmental bodies', like the UN- does it have to be the UN? How about NATO? The Hague? Can another body emerge triumphant, and would you want that to happen?

[Tinman]

I don't think it will be any longer than 4 1/2 weeks

[Chang Style Novice]

Why the F##$% are the honchos over there allowing HOSPITALS and ARSENALS to be looted?!!?

This makes the US look like a) callous b@stards and b) idiots with no sense of self preservation.

We'd better manage the rest of the clean up better than this.

[WinterPalm]

Way to go amerikkka!!
You finished off that evil no-democratic country!
Goood jobbbbbbbbbbb!!!!!!11

[Unstoppable]

WTF??????? :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Why the F##$% are the honchos over there allowing HOSPITALS and ARSENALS to be looted?!!?

This makes the US look like a) callous b@stards and b) idiots with no sense of self preservation.

It's not the US doing the looting. There's not enough US there to guard an all of Baghdad. Hospitals are being guarded.

I'm really not sure how you'd prefer they handle the situation. We should try to recognize the difficult position the US is in, rather than taking the popular reflex of 'explaining away' anything tragic that happens as the fault of the US. We have to remember that the people 'looting' are the people the US claims to have 'liberated.' Above all, the US has to avoid coming across as if they have 'conquered' these people, by acting as military occupiers acting as primary nation builders. We have to remember that Bush Jr, contrary to the Project for the New American Century and other Neo-Reaganites, positions himself as not being a primary nation builder. Rather than '****ing them if they do and ****ing them if they don't', we should be clear to understand the intricacies of this situation and determine which solutions we agree with.


Originally posted by BlackJack
Any rimjob who has been following the news for the last week can see this is a day of liberation for the iraqi kurds.


Originally posted by ZIM
A little early to say so, isn't it? Have you been following the Kurd Sellout Watch?

This is a serious concern.

Initially, the situation boded well for the Kurds - with the US entering Iraq on a northern front via Turkey, the Kurds were positioned as the major internal 'cooperatory' force, and thus were well positioned to monitor their own interests and benefit from the war effort.

When the Turkey situation caused that plan to be dropped, the Kurds changed from the major 'cooperatory' force to a point of contention in tense diplomatic relations, and an unknown variable surrounding important oil fields and the Turkey-Iraq variable. People should be pointing a leery eye at Turkey on this point. While it wasn't published as such, analysis seems to indicate that the major point of contention that prevented Turkey and the US from coming to an agreement regarding the northern front was the US's refusal to give Turkey some degree of control over northern (Kurdish) Iraq. Despite their withdrawl from the war effort, Turkey made a unilateral military move to occupy this region as soon as the war began (not as part of the war against Saddam's regime, but simply to pursue their own interests there). The Iraqi Kurds are perfectly positioned now for a major screwing-over.

We should all hope that the US will make some move of beneficent magnanimousness, recognize the cooperation they made with the Kurds, and involve their interests as if there were a major northern front. I don't think it's clear at this point which way this will go, in terms of US involvement.

It's worth noting that Kurdish Iraq has a tragic history of being screwed-over by just about everyone following just about every event in the region.

[Xebsball]

THE BATTLE OF DA MILLENIUM

EVIL EMPIRE vs AXIS OF EVIL

and you wonder why i grin and laugh at yo asses 24/7 :D

[Chang Style Novice]

It's not the US doing the looting.

True


There's not enough US there to guard an all of Baghdad.

Obviously


Hospitals are being guarded.

According to the most recent reports I had heard when I posted this (I haven't heard anything to the contrary since,) false.


I'm really not sure how you'd prefer they handle the situation.

Guard the large, central hospital complex that serves all of Baghdad. Keep looters away from the drugs, make it safe as possible to seek treatment.


We should try to recognize the difficult position the US is in, rather than taking the popular reflex of 'explaining away' anything tragic that happens as the fault of the US.

Yes, but the US' rational for entering Iraq was in part to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people under Saddam Hussein. I'm as pleased as anyone could be that S.H. no longer seems to have any significant power, but I'm more concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people. My objections to this war have always been (in part) about the possible worsening of the situation for the Iraqi citizens. There was inevitably going to be some pandemonium and 'take-what-you-can' in the wake of decades of brutal police state disappearing overnight. The social contract in Iraq has been absent for the entire lifetimes of an huge portion of the populace, and in it's place has been the repression of the Baathists. Now with the Baathists all but gone, there is a void in behavioral restrictions. This is predictable, and has been seen over and over again in history. The role of the US (or better yet, IMO, the UN) in a humanitarian sense (aka Winning the Peace) is to reinstate the social contract. It won't be easy and it won't be fast. But in the meantime we have to keep the country from decending into a smoldering ruin. Not just for humanitarian reasons, but because if it does become a smoldering ruin, the entire muslim world will blame us for it, (with some justification I amy add) and the bloody Jihads will continue if not worsen.

[Black Jack]

From what I gather today the Marines are helping a Iraqi police force get everything more under control and they have a temp re-building field unit set up their now untell the main unit can come down in 2-3 weeks for the serious rebuilding and start of a new Iraq.

Kinda a temp mayor untell a new government can be set up.

[shaolin kungfu]

Not just for humanitarian reasons, but because if it does become a smoldering ruin, the entire muslim world will blame us for it, (with some justification I amy add) and the bloody Jihads will continue if not worsen.

Which brings us back to the reason the mid-east hates us in the first place. We have a long history of screwing them in a very uncomfortable place, and i'm not talking about the back of a volkswagon.

[dezhen2001]

As far as im aware there are only like 100 or so police officers/workers who have decided to go back... there are also "vigilante" groups who are trying to stop the looting, but that may just be as bad as the looters. i really hope that the people will soon have some kind of order and that medical/important facilities will be kept protected.


We have a long history of screwing them in a very uncomfortable place, and i'm not talking about the back of a volkswagon. depends how tall you are ;)

Blackjack: hope your back feels better soon man :)

dawood

[Laughing Cow]

I will get some flack for saying this.

The looting was to be expected after the regime goes down, AFAIK, it ahs happened so far in any other conflict.

The Military needed to have gathered for this by assigning troops for that specific type of work.

IMO, it looks like the coalition forces pushed too hard and too fast for certain objectives and forgot other issues like policing and so on.

This can of course bite them in the butt as the good-will of freed Iraqi will be diminished due to concerns for their safety and belongings.

I know it is hard to plan, but a total collapse of the regime and social services should have been anticipated and troops been prepared to do do duties like police, etc.

OTOH, the US forces were never that good at peace-keeping missions

Seeya.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
According to the most recent reports I had heard when I posted this (I haven't heard anything to the contrary since,) false.

"He [Rumsfield] said U.S. forces also were busy guarding hospitals..." 59 minutes ago from Reuters.

"Now the idea is to safeguard whatever has been left and second to ensure security and safety for the medical personnel to come back to the hospitals...But I must say a lot of them have stayed in the hospitals to prevent further looting." 9 hours ago from Reuters.

"U.S. soldiers are guarding..a major hospital in a welcome move to curb looting in the Iraqi capital... There are signs that the U.S. forces are trying to make such contacts and take such action that will go in the direction of what we have been asking, which is securing vital infrastructure... U.S. troops were also protecting a major hospital, she added. 'Medical City Hospital seems for the most part secured so that we're able to go back'" 31 hours ago from Reuters.

Do these citations suffice?


Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Yes, but the US' rational for entering Iraq was in part... and the bloody Jihads will continue if not worsen.

I agree with everything you say here; I just don't understand what your complaint is.


Originally posted by Laughing Cow
The Military needed to have gathered for this by assigning troops for that specific type of work.

IMO, it looks like the coalition forces pushed too hard and too fast for certain objectives and forgot other issues like policing and so on.

What they pushed 'too hard and too fast' for was the Karbala Gap. They did this in response to the Republican Guard withdrawing from Baghdad in order to defend this piece of strategic land.

The alternative would have been to fight the Republican Guard within the streets of Baghdad, which would have been indescribably worse.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Christopher M

The alternative would have been to fight the Republican Guard within the streets of Baghdad, which would have been indescribably worse.

Worse for whom the Iraqi citizens or the Coalition forces.

Up to now whenever you took a strategic location you placed some troops to defend the place and keep the population from rising up.

This of course meant that you move on with a smaller and smaller force, unless you get re-inforcements.

Liberating a country normally is a slow and painful process.

IMHO, the Troops moved way too fast from the get go by circumnavigating towns with enemy soldiers, etc.

Luckily it worked for them, but it is not a strategy I would recommend against a more worthy opponent.

IMO, I think the Iraqi might have been more willing to uprise if they saw a place being liberated, policed and supplies/care given to the people.
And thus would have known the seriousness of the coalition forces in liberating them and caring for their well-being.

But than what to I know.

[diego]

I'm thinking the us and brits let the iraqi's do they thang thang to show them that they were not there to loot like the japs did in nanking.....things like that type of thinking
Like if the coalittion said stop looting right away the iraqi's may have thunk why do you want us to stop looting, do you yanks want the palace goods etc!?.

then agian i don't got cable, so thats just from what i read........one thing tho, two to three weeks ago all i would read about in iraq is that the coallition was going to have troubles getting into baghdad.......then its just like **** THAT WAS QUIK!:)

Anyone know how big saddams army was?. us and brit had like 100k of soldiers over there did they not?.

[Black Jack]

I think britian had around 40-50,000. The U.S. was somewhere around 300,000+ I believe. The aussies around 5,000.

[diego]

They don't really have the numbers for those on saddams side yet do they?.:)

[diego]

not to be an ass, but oz had like 5g......:D **** did they do in the war....sit in the barracks and play ping pong:D :D ....seriously didn't even know they were over there!!??????????.:cool:

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by diego
I'm thinking the us and brits let the iraqi's do they thang thang to show them that they were not there to loot like the japs did in nanking.....things like that type of thinking
Like if the coalittion said stop looting right away the iraqi's may have thunk why do you want us to stop looting, do you yanks want the palace goods etc!?.

A certain amount of looting & destroying of Saddams stuff is ok and a needed form of release, IMO.

But when they start to go into Museums and destroy valuable historical artifacts objects for a bit of gold or for the sheer fun ot it.

There were also reports of looters going through shops, apartment buildings and similar, attacking fellow citizens for their stuff.
They even ransacked the U.N. offices and tried to make off with the U.N. cars too.

In todays newspaper there was a pic of a guy carrying a SACK of cash from a bank and holding a knife to defend himself in case he gets attacked.

This type of "looting" has to be stopped before it even starts.

At the moment it is pretty much anarchy with the guys running unchecked and doing as they please.
Nor do I belive will they look kindly upon the US troops turning round and saying give the stuff up that they looted under their noses.

Cheers.

[ZIM]

not to be an ass, but oz had like 5g...... **** did they do in the war....sit in the barracks and play ping pong ....seriously didn't even know they were over there!!??????????. AFAIK, The ozzy's had mostly SAS types over there, and pilots. You didn't hear about them too much becoz they ate the reporters... too stringy tho...:p


In todays newspaper there was a pic of a guy carrying a SACK of cash from a bank and holding a knife to defend himself in case he gets attacked. Heck yeah! Thats what I'D be doing!!! More power to him! Capitalism RUN AMOK!!!!! :p :p

[Chang Style Novice]

I agree with everything you say here; I just don't understand what your complaint is.

I find it very hard to take this seriously, but here it is:

My complaint is that I don't want more terrorism, more Al-Qaeda, more Osama Bin Laden, more 9-11.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Worse for whom the Iraqi citizens or the Coalition forces.


Both.


Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
My complaint is that I don't want more terrorism, more Al-Qaeda, more Osama Bin Laden, more 9-11.

Did anyone ever suggest anything to the contrary? :confused:


Originally posted by Kung Lek
There are rights and wrongs in both extremes, but when weighed against what is truly democratic and high minded, what the US has done and is doing is wrong in so many ways.

My point of view is that we must do whatever we can to minimize human suffering, regardless of geopolitical interests. I contend that from this point of view, what the US did was correct.

Do you value geopolitical intertests more than human suffering, or do you disagree with my analysis?

[@PLUGO]

Min:
1373

Mav:
1786

[ZIM]

Become a Rent-A-Cop in sunny Iraq! (http://www.policemission.com/iraq.asp)

US citizenship is required. If interested, please call toll-free 866-258-8770 or email cops.recruiting@dyncorp.com or visit www.policemission.com.

Qualifications
US Citizen
Applicant must have a total of ten (10) years of sworn civilian domestic law enforcement experience.
Actively serving sworn law enforcement officer, or recently separated sworn law enforcement official (within 5 years but 3 years is prefered).
Ability to communicate in English.
Valid US driver's license and ability to operate a standard transmission vehicle.
Unblemished background.
Excellent health.
Valid U.S. passport will be required.
We are seeking specialized skills - this is not a generalist position.


Additional details will be discussed.
;)

[Third Degree]

George W Bush says the world community "has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life."

A democratic Iraq according to Bush would be "a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom."

So with all this talk about democracy, why is the Bush administration actively undermining the democratically-elected government in Venezuela?

America rushed to recognise the coup last April.

In December Bush called for "early elections", ignoring the fact that President Chavez Frias has won three elections and two referendums and, in any case, early elections would be unconstitutional.

President Chavez probably got more votes than his nearest rival, something that Bush didn't achieve!!

Oil, wouldn't be the reason why America is wanting Chavez Frias out is it? Surely not!

Third Degree

[dezhen2001]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030414/140/dxqi3.html

----------------------------------------------------

Tuesday April 15, 08:50 AM
Rumsfeld: Syria Has Chemical Weapons

Syria has conducted chemical weapons tests during the past 15 months, US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said. "We have seen chemical weapons tests in Syria over the past 12, 15 months," he said.Syria denies it has chemical weapons.

Rumsfeld said the United States also has intelligence that Syria has allowed Syrians and others enter Iraq with arms and leaflets indicating that they would be rewarded for killing Americans.

Amid fears that the US could embark on the road to war with Syria, British foreign secretary Jack Straw has played down talk that Britain could be involved in any conflict.

Road to war

As US-Syrian tension mounts, Washington has announced that it is considering imposing sanctions against Syria for its support of the deposed Iraqi regime.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell said: "We will examine possible measures of a diplomatic, economic or other nature as we move forward.

"We are in touch with Syrian authorities ... and will make them aware of our concerns and we'll see how things unfold as we move forward."

Denied allegations

Syria has insisted it never co-operated with Saddam Hussein's administration and has denied the US allegation that it had chemical weapons.

"We say to President George Bush that Syria has no chemical weapons and that the only chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in the region are in Israel, which is threatening its neighbours and occupying their land," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Buthaina Shaaban said.

[BatesMotel]

Check it out when you have a minute...

Http://www.jafo.net/stuff/soldiers/

REMINDER: It is much better to turn your speakers up when viewing since both play (great) music.

Kathy :)

[shaolin kungfu]

This belongs in the iraq thread.

[BatesMotel]

Thank you for the move!

[Black Jack]

Lets not forget that Syria has long been on the State Departments list of rogue nations which state sponsor terrorism.

They need to clean up their act and review their practices. Hiding fleeing Iraqi leaders, military weapons and giving homes to such
groups as the Hizaballah Jihad Islami and Hammas is not a good side to be on.

[carly]

they just arrested the very nasty Abu Abbas, who killed the American Leon Klinghoffer (man in wheelchair) on the Achille Lauro cruiseship off Greece.

[Laughing Cow]

Looks like there is growing anti-US sentiment in Iraq.

Today's Newspapers reported some Anit-coalition demonstrations and apparently one was broken up where the demonstrators claimed the US soldiers shot inot the crowd killed 10~12 and injured 100.
Troops say they shot at 2 snipers at the top of a building behind the crowd that fired at them.

Some Iraqi said things along the lines of:
"Saddam is gone time for the coalition forces to head home too. We object to being occupied, nor will be accept any goverment imposed by outsiders."

Add to that what the Pentagon is saying:
"The Pentagon said Monday that it has no plans to determine how many Iraqi civilians may have been killed or injured or suffered property damage as a result of US military operations in Iraq."

The same was said in 2002 for the supplemental spending bill that covered Afghanistan War costs.

[dezhen2001]

"The Pentagon said Monday that it has no plans to determine how many Iraqi civilians may have been killed or injured or suffered property damage as a result of US military operations in Iraq." that really ****es me off :mad:

dawood

[@PLUGO]

"We don't do bodycounts"
General Tommy Franks, US Central Command


thankfully someone's trying to... (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/)
Current Civilian Bodycount:

MIN:
1402

MAX:
1817

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
...

Did something change in the 48 hours between your posts that the US wasn't doing enough in Iraq and your post that they were doing too much?

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Christopher M


Did something change in the 48 hours between your posts that the US wasn't doing enough in Iraq and your post that they were doing too much?

You lost me there.

Are you talking about the US soldiers apparently opening fire on anti-US protesters and killing 10, injuring another 100 out of 150 demonstrators.

I thought they were there to instill democratic principles and demonstration I thought was a democratic right as was freedom of speech.

There is a difference between suppressing a demonstration and letting people lynch and loot their own country.

[Marky]

"The Pentagon said Monday that it has no plans to determine how many Iraqi civilians may have been killed or injured or suffered property damage as a result of US military operations in Iraq."


Actually, in the Pentagon briefing where this was discussed, the spokeswoman said that they have no concrete plan that describes HOW it will be done. In other words, they don't have a "plan" for collecting the information, but they are going to do it (but they still have this pesky WAR to think about!). I would advise that you actually WATCH the briefings, instead of reading some out-of-context blurb about it later.


"Looks like there is growing anti-US sentiment in Iraq"

The Iraqi's have been telling Coalition forces to get out since Baghdad was "liberated", it's not exactly headline news. Of course, since they owe $17 billion to Russia, and probably billions to other countries as well, they might want the Coalition's diplomatic clout on their side. It's not exactly a "let's start over from scratch" scenario, as nice as that would be for the Iraqi's. If the Coalition just left a diplomatic vacuum and went on their merry way, the Iraqi's would be in even more trouble than if they still had Saddam. Though I'd like to see the Iraqi's governing themselves as soon as possible as much as anyone else.


Coalition forces found Russian missiles in Iraq made in 2000, and French missiles made in 2002.

[rogue]

The anti-Iraq War crowd are still funny in a sad warped way.:D

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
You lost me there.

I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to say. Two days ago you posted several times arguing that the US was moving too fast, and should slow down, and enforce more order. Now you seem to be arguing the opposite.

I'm not trying to argue against either position, I'm just trying to figure out what position it is that you hold.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Marky

I would advise that you actually WATCH the briefings, instead of reading some out-of-context blurb about it later.


Unfortunately that footage is NOT always shared with the majority of the world or broadcast at a time when it is convenient for us to watch..

5,8 Billion people DO NOT have access to local US channels, and thus we have to rely on reports and newspapers.

That section was copied word by word from the newspaper and simialr things were mentioned in 4~5 articels coming from diferent US Newspapers.
They actually name the paper from whcih they are sourced and are not locally written.
Pick up the "Washington Post" and read it yourself.

Plus, believe it or not our lives do not revolve around the USa and it's doings.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Christopher M


I'm not trying to argue against either position, I'm just trying to figure out what position it is that you hold.

My position is that they appear to go to extremes with no real plan or goal.

They need to supress looters, lynching mobs and help restore social services like electricity, water supply.

The above mentioned demonstration happened at a public speech of the new "interim" governor in Iraq.

Problem is that the majority of the Iraqi's do not like the coalition forces perse, yes, they are happy that they were freed and would have cheered a Japanese, German or Russian army as much as they did the Coalition forces.


Cheers.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
My position is that they appear to go to extremes with no real plan or goal.

Can you explain this? I'm not sure what it means.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Christopher M

Can you explain this? I'm not sure what it means.

Preventing Iraqi's from exercising democratic rights while saying we free you so that you can be a democracy is a bit strange to me.

I know many people don't mind double-speech and double-standard, but where I grew up the rules were hard and fast and equally applied to anybody.

Cheers.

[Laughing Cow]

Just noticed my last post was reply No.:

666

Way to go.
:D

[Marky]

Iraq is still a war zone, so democracy might take a while (likely years) to start up. When you're a marine standing on what is still the battlefield, and a bunch of Iraqi's are running around screaming at you, and homicide bombers in civilian clothes have killed your friends in situations just like this, someone's going to get hurt or killed.

You might have read that "Democratic thinking" has led to the deaths of dozens of marines in the last few weeks, because they let confrontations get out of hand in the hopes of being "fair". Unfortunately, those who attack them have taken advantage of it, and now the marines will shoot first and ask questions later. It's really too bad, but when the alternative is that the marine will get blown up by some guy with a C-4 vest, then he has a right to defend himself from all possible threat.

And if "defending himself" means killing a crying woman who's running up to him, because the woman doesn't stop when he repeatedly tells her to (with the appropriate gestures, if he doesn't know how to say it in Arabic), then so be it. Because Coalition forces have been killed in situations exactly like that!!!

[Chang Style Novice]

This CAN'T be a good sign. (http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=41433)

You gotta admit, tho, Saddam had classy taste! (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/75594p-69826c.html)

On a lighter note...

The Onion offers some much needed perspective. (http://www.theonion.com/onion3914/saddam_proud.html)

http://www.theonion.com/onion3914/area_man_supports.htmlAnd some more perspective.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
I know many people don't mind double-speech and double-standard, but where I grew up the rules were hard and fast and equally applied to anybody.

Right. Which is why I was confused by your sudden change of stance. Still am.

[ewallace]

Do you happen to know the number of Iraqi civilians killed during the rule of the Baath party?

[@PLUGO]

It seems to me there's a difference between armed marines and a group of protesters, no matter how surley.

A Marine in a war zone is a trained member of a fighting unit who has consciously made the choice to put their life at risk for the sake of their Nation's goal or stratagem. Or so I understand it.

Should people have the right to gather & protest in relative safety in a Democracy ?

I understand the crowd got rowdy and started pitching bottles & stuff @ General WHAT'SHisFace (that guy taking over IRAQ now), but that is not like a "suicide bomber" running into a check point with an explosive vest.

As I've heard the News the Marines where first firing at a sniper on a building accross the street. Later they said they only fired at the windows accross the street to dispurse the crowd. This seem to undermine any arguement that these marines fired at someone who appeared to be a "suicide bomber."

Now, as for shooting down a panicked pregnant woman who doesn't understand a hand signal...
Morally dubious at best...
Why not shoot over her head first, or at her feet?
But that's very much a common situational tragedy in WAR. My sympathies go out to any soilder who will have to live with that sort of act.

There's also some question as to why the Military would make a point of securing the Ministry of Oil building but allow the looting & distruction of Libraries, Moscs, Museums especially when the significnace of these sites where pointed out to them by the U.N. months in advance.

But these seem like 2 topics converging. The act of an individual soldier fearing for his life & the acts of a military unit that seem to contradict their publicly stated goals.

[@PLUGO]

Originally posted by ewallace
Do you happen to know the number of Iraqi civilians killed during the rule of the Baath party?

I've been looking for a decient source for that question...

If you've got one please point me to it... I'll certianly post such info as soon as I find it...

It seems a bit simplistic to justify the civilian deaths associated with a 3 week military action by comparing them with the deaths caused by an obviously corrupt dictatorship that has been in power since 1978. However, I'm sure a suitable equasion can be made to balance out such variable...not by me though....

While we're on the topic... should we look into the number of civilians executed throughtout U.S. history?

or durring the Rule of the Democratic party?

or durring the Rule of the Republican party?

What if we break it down by race? Age? gender?

I think it might be interesting to see overall what government is killing whome... why & how...

So far Amnesty International (http://www.web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/webmepcountries/IRAQ?OpenDocument) had this to say in their 2001 report:


Hundreds of people, among them political prisoners including possible prisoners of conscience, were executed. Hundreds of suspected political opponents, including army officers suspected of planning to overthrow the government, were arrested and their fate and whereabouts remained unknown. Torture and ill-treatment were widespread and new punishments, including beheading and the amputation of the tongue, were reportedly introduced. Non-Arabs, mostly Kurds, continued to be forcibly expelled from their homes in the Kirkuk area to Iraqi Kurdistan.

Arrests of political opponents:
Politically motivated arrests continued.

Students who set up an independent union, the Free Students and Youth Union, in 1999 were reportedly targeted for arrest in the area controlled by the PUK. Of 11 students arrested in January, nine were released days or weeks afterwards. It was not known whether the remaining two, Hussain Alek Ahmad and Khaled Khidir Babeker, were still held at the end of 2000.
In March, five people reportedly appeared on television in the KDP-controlled area and confessed to their involvement in bomb attacks and killings since 1997. Four of them were said to be members of the Islamic Movement in Iraqi Kurdistan. Their fate was unknown.


Political killings:
Reports of political killings continued to be received.

In Arbil, in KDP-controlled Iraqi Kurdistan, Sirbit Mahmud, leader of the Democratic Nationalist Union of Kurdistan, and Osman Hassan, a parliamentary deputy, were killed by unidentified gunmen in June and July respectively.


Extrajudicial executions:
In October dozens of women accused of prostitution were beheaded without any judicial process in Baghdad and other cities. Men suspected of procurement were also beheaded. The killings were reportedly carried out in the presence of representatives of the Ba'ath Party and the Iraqi Women's General Union. Members of Feda'iyye Saddam, a militia created in 1994 by 'Uday Saddam Hussain, used swords to execute the victims in front of their homes. Some victims were reportedly killed for political reasons.

Dr Najat Mohammad Haydar, an obstetrician in Baghdad, was beheaded in October after being accused of prostitution. However, she was reportedly arrested before the introduction of the policy to behead prostitutes and was said to have been critical of corruption within the health services.
In October several women were beheaded in Mosul in northern Iraq. They included Fatima 'Abdallah 'Abd al-Rahman, Shadya Shaker Mahmoud and Iman Qassem Ahmad.

Death penalty:
The large-scale application of the death penalty continued. Hundreds of people, including possible prisoners of conscience, were executed. The victims included army officers suspected of having links with the Iraqi opposition abroad or plotting to overthrow the government and Shi'a Muslims suspected of anti-government activities. In many cases it was impossible to determine whether the executions were judicial or extrajudicial, given the secrecy surrounding them.

In February, 38 Republican Guard officers were executed. They were arrested in January, reportedly after a failed attempt to assassinate the President. Those executed included General 'Abd al-Karim Hussain al-Dulaimi, head of the Republican Guard's second brigade.
A Jordanian national, Dawud Salman al-Dallu, was executed in Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad in June after being convicted of espionage. He had been detained since 1993. The date and details of his trial were not known.
Seven employees at the government's Central Computer Department were executed in July on charges of treason.



Have you come accross any such info?

Is anyone else interested in finding such out??

Or was that question more from an arguementative stance?

[Third Degree]

Originally posted by dezhen2001
lets just hope this time u do a better job helping the iraqis than you have in afghanistan. Its still a rotting cesspool over there according to what my Afghani friends tell me.

dawood

The Americans have done their job in Afghanistan with the setting up of army bases!! Add Kyrgyzstan (a country that in the past was impossible for the US to penetrate), Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and the US have fulfilled their promises! The "new silk road" of oil is underway which goes from the Caspian Sea/Central Asia, Iraq to Kosovo. Iraq completed the link in many ways.

The Americans have invaded Iraq to satisfy a few objectives -

1 - to change oil trading back to the US Dollar instead of the Euro and thus setback the European Union - their only rival in terms of currency trading.
2 - to frighten other oil nations off to converting to the Euro - Iran etc.
3 - place the world's 2nd most plentiful supply of oil in American hands.
4 - to suppress/subdue the Arabs for Israel.

Iraq, much like Afghanistan, has a lot of ethnic groups - Sunni, Shi'ites, Marsh Arabs, Kurds etc. and getting rid of Saddam was the easy bit as getting in a leader who appeases all these ethnic groups will be difficult. Russia took over Afghanistan relatively easy but the uprising/trouble they faced later on was huge.

This can be illustrated by what happened last week. Iraqi Shi'ite exile Abdul Majid al-Khoei got assassinated after only a few days after getting back in Iraq. Abdul Majid al-Khoei was one of the exiles who had backing from Washington to rule Iraq but other Shi'ites in Iraq didn't quite agree.

Ahmad Chalabi is another who has backing from the Pentagon. Ahmad Chalabi has somesort of fraud and embezzlement charges in Jordan but I'm sure the Pentagon will overlook that just like they overlooked Saddam's murderous hitman past when they backed him to power in the 1970s.

America is squabbling over who runs Iraq, basically their own puppet leader who they can push around. The Iraqis resent this as they don't want a leader imposed on them.

Hamid Karzai, the UK and US backed leader of Afghanistan is being constantly targeted by assassins as people in Afghanistan don't like him. Incidentily, what was the first thing Hamid Karzai did when he got 'control' of Afghanistan? He signed a contract with the Americans for an oil pipeline which the Taliban constantly rejected. Some people may say the pipeline contract was the catalyst for the war in Afghanistan.

In Serbia, President Zoran Djindjic was assassinated by people who still supported Milosevic. The assassination was 2 years after the toppling of Milosevic. Serbia is an example of what instabilities Iraq can face over the coming years.

You can add also Kosovo to the list of places who have had a 'liberating' war decimate them but now see 80 per cent unemployment as the benefits!

Kofi Annan said something like "Iraq have paid a heavy price for getting rid of Saddam Hussein."

Third Degree

[Chang Style Novice]

It seems to me there's a difference between armed marines and a group of protesters, no matter how surley(sic).

True, but keep in mind the guerrilla tactics of the Baath loyalist troops: wearing civilian clothes, feigning surrender as a prelude to ambush and so on.

I'm still not sure the war was a good idea, and am very unhappy about the way we entered into it, but my main complaints about the way it has been waged center on not protecting the civilian-type infrastructure sufficiently (ie: allowing looting of hospitals, museums, etc.), not the number of direct civilian casualties. Which, as far as I can tell, has been remarkably low. I'm still concerned that indirect civilian casualties from difficulties during the aftermath may make the cost benefit analysis more problematic. In other words, the aftermath of the invasion may be worse from a humanitarian standpoint than Saddam's reign was, but that remains to be seen. Then there's the whole issue of the invasion perhaps provoking further anti-american sentiment in the Muslim world, as referenced in one of my links above. That, too, is going to be a complicated and most likely impossible quantity to measure. That doesn't mean it should not be a concern, however.

[@PLUGO]

Personally, I think knowledge of the civilian impact of war is valuable in light of the constant abstraction presented by much of U.S. media....
It sometimes looks safer than a football game

However, the topic of "indirect civilian casualties" can just as easily bring about alot of discussion on the impact from GulfWar I as well as the time inbetween.

I.E:
1996
UNICEF reports that more than
4,500 children under age five die monthly
in Iraq.

1997
UNICEF reports that more than
1.2 million people, including 750,000
children under age five, have died due to
scarcity of food and medicine. Of those
under five, 32 percent - 960,000
children-are chronically malnourished,
a rise of 72 percent since 1991. An
additional 23 percent are underweight.

1998
World Health Organization (WHO)
reports that 5,000 to 6,000 children
die every month as a result of the
economic sanctions against Iraq.
www.who.int/disasters/repo/7114.pdf

More
details here. (http://grassrootsvoices.org/images/Iraq%20Facts.pdf)

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by ewallace
Do you happen to know the number of Iraqi civilians killed during the rule of the Baath party?

There's no official count, but you can look up individual instances. For instance, the first Kurdish Uprising was 15,000 civilians dead, cumulating in Halajba which was another 5,000 in a single day. The Shiite uprising was 50,000 civilians dead, etc


Originally posted by Design Sifu
It seems a bit simplistic to justify the civilian deaths associated with a 3 week military action by comparing them with the deaths caused by an obviously corrupt dictatorship that has been in power since 1978.

Well, I'm not sure what interests dictate your judgements surrounding this event, but mine are dictated in terms of human suffering. From this point of view, far from being too "simplistic" an analysis, this is the only one that matters.

If your main concern is something else, like money or power or politics, then of course you'd do a different analysis.


Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
In other words, the aftermath of the invasion may be worse from a humanitarian standpoint than Saddam's reign was

Saddam's regime left an 'aftermath' of humanitarian tragedy from destruction of property, poor economy, etc as well. And it's equally disproportionate to that caused by the US as is his death count.


Originally posted by Design Sifu
However, the topic of "indirect civilian casualties" can just as easily bring about alot of discussion on the impact from GulfWar I as well as the time inbetween.

Are you suggesting with those numbers that every death in Iraq in the 90s was caused by the Americans? That's an... ambitious... viewpoint.

Remember the Persian Gulf War had very little penetration into Iraq itself (as opposed to Kuwait). Of course, the sanctions didn't help; but they were from the UN, not the US; and since they were imposed as a non-military means of trying to get him to stop doing things like Halajba, the assertion that they are the primary evil isn't particularly convincing (especially when you consider the application of additional programs in place to keep the sanctions from effecting food supply).

On the other hand, following the Persian Gulf War, Saddam did things like, just as a single example, bulldoze entire cities to punish the Shiites. At minimum 300,000 people were left not just homeless from that, but utterly depossessed, cityless; and it's but one example.

Do you think those deaths you're listing might have anything to do, perhaps, things like this, rather than the Americans?

[ewallace]

It was a simple yes/no question.

[@PLUGO]

The Pentagon just admitted culpability in the Marien shooting into the crowd insident Just as another such shooting is reported... :eek:

_____________________________
==========================

Well, I'm not sure what interests dictate your judgements surrounding this event, but mine are dictated in terms of human suffering. From this point of view, far from being too "simplistic" an analysis, this is the only one that matters.

If your main concern is something else, like money or power or politics, then of course you'd do a different analysis.

Not sure what you're attempting to state or imply with that statment... what are you refering to when you say "this event" there are several events being discussed concurently here...

Simplistic:
attemping to clarify, IMO it's simplistic to compare X deaths caused in 3 weeks vs. Y deaths caused in 25 years then state because Y is greater than [/b]X, X[/b] is an unimportant factor. or whatever... I not even attempting to say that is what you are stating.
Both X and Y should be examined in the light of contributing factors. If Y is such a significant factor then should we then examine when & where opportunities to stop or lower that sum where overlooked?
Should we also examine the situations that allowed that number to beging in the first place?
who supplied the weapons used during "Halajba"?
What was done there & then?



Saddam's regime left an 'aftermath' of humanitarian tragedy from destruction of property, poor economy, etc as well. And it's equally disproportionate to that caused by the US as is his death count.

Should we then examine the factors contributing to his rise to power?

How about actions and support for his position throughout those 25 years?


Remember the Persian Gulf War had very little penetration into Iraq itself (as opposed to Kuwait).
Yes... Hindsite =20/20 eh?
I wonder how different things would be if Iraq was penetrated then?
Would BUSH I have been re-elected?:eek:
Would this then be Clinton's second term?:eek:



Of course, the sanctions didn't help; but they were from the UN, not the US; and since they were imposed as a non-military means of trying to get him to stop doing things like Halajba, the assertion that they are the primary evil isn't particularly convincing

Not argueing that... However a play by play of UN activity on this topic in relation to say... US, China, Russia, France, middle-east, Isreali votes would make interesting, and probably daunting, reading.


On the other hand, following the Persian Gulf War, Saddam did things like, just as a single example, bulldoze entire cities to punish the Shiites. At minimum 300,000 people were left not just homeless from that, but utterly depossessed, cityless; and it's but one example.

OKAY... Saddam is certainly not alone in such activities and some of those others known to "bulldoze entire cities" are counted among U.S. allies. A whole other subject eh?



Do you think those deaths you're listing might have anything to do, perhaps, things like this, rather than the Americans?

I wouldn't apply an either/or view. More So there's is plenty of culpability to be shared amonst plenty of governing bodies... Iraq, UN, U.S. an so forth...

Great points Christopher, much appriecated.

[@PLUGO]

Well is wasn't a simple Yes/no answer . . . ;) :p :D

[ewallace]

If someone asks you if you have blue eyes (or brown, green) do you say yes or do you give them the RGB value of your eye color?

You assumed I was going to justify the number killed in the war by using the number killed during the reign of the regime. You were incorrect.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Design Sifu
what are you refering to when you say "this event" there are several events being discussed concurently here...

The war.


IMO it's simplistic to compare X deaths caused in 3 weeks vs. Y deaths caused in 25 years then state because Y is greater than X, X is an unimportant factor.

Right. But that doesn't mean any analysis comparing the actions of Saddam's regime and the Americans gets dismissed by the same account.


who supplied the weapons used during "Halajba"?
What was done there & then?

Not the Americans, if that's what you're after; although the Iraqis got the helicopters they used there from the Americans.

Halabja refers to an incident ending the first Kurdish uprising where Saddam's forces flew helicopters mounted with crop dusters filled with nerve gas and sprayed the Kurds. It was March 16th, 1988 and 5000 people were killed immediately, and probably at least that much again over the next couple days.


Should we then examine the factors contributing to his rise to power?

How about actions and support for his position throughout those 25 years?

Are you being rhetorical?


Remember the Persian Gulf War had very little penetration into Iraq itself (as opposed to Kuwait).
Yes... Hindsite =20/20 eh?
I wonder how different things would be if Iraq was penetrated then?

The reason I brought this up, though, was in respect to the issue of American damage to Iraq and the subsequent fallout during and after the Persian Gulf War. Obviously, it's a crucial point.

Many things would be different if the Saddam regime had been defeated in Persian Gulf War; the most important of which would have been the prevention of an awful lot of atrocities, including this war.


Not argueing that... However a play by play of UN activity on this topic in relation to say... US, China, Russia, France, middle-east, Isreali votes would make interesting, and probably daunting, reading.

Are you being rhetorical?


OKAY... Saddam is certainly not alone in such activities and some of those others known to "bulldoze entire cities" are counted among U.S. allies. A whole other subject eh?

Indeed. And it doesn't change how we make our analysis on what factors contributed to the deaths you mentioned.


I wouldn't apply an either/or view. More So there's is plenty of culpability to be shared amonst plenty of governing bodies... Iraq, UN, U.S. an so forth...

I agree completely. There are numerous accounts on which I find the US culpable (eg. Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton's handlings of foreign policy involving Iraq, and many elements of Gen. Franks recent campaign) as well as the UN (eg. the criminally negligent phrasing on 1441 which caused it's meaning to be misconstrued post hoc). And of course American actions in the Persian Gulf War no doubt had negative impact on Iraqi citizens; as you said, it's not an either/or issue. However, none of this changes what should be a clear observation - that the vast bulk of the deaths you brought up were following the actions of Saddam's regime.

Taking one example: whatever civilian property may have been destroyed by the American incursion into Iraq during the Persian Gulf War simply doesn't compare to the immense, systematic, and wide-scale destruction under Saddam (of which I've given an example).

Both are surely culpable, but bolstering the formers culpability with the tragedy's caused by the latter is intolerable. No one brings up Holocaust deaths to bolster the culpability of British destruction of German civilian property during WWII. We should be blind to race and politics and exercise the same imperative here.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Christopher M


Right. Which is why I was confused by your sudden change of stance. Still am.

What change of stance?

Maybe you want anti-us demonstations in your country managed the same way?

Those were NOT enemy combatants or people doing illegal things.

Looting and lynching re illegal things.

If the same amount of looting and lynching happened in the states, a state of emergency would have been declared, curfews imposted and the national guard been called out.

My stance is still the same, they are not doing enough(the right things to maintain law and order).

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
What change of stance?

Your remarks seem alternately to suggest that you want the Americans occupying and controlling Iraq with military forces or that you chide them for trying to do so and demand they leave.


My stance is still the same, they are not doing enough(the right things to maintain law and order).

Ok, this clarifies it, thanks.

You should know though that alot of people (importantly, alot of Iraqis) are strongly opposed to the idea of American military occupation and government of Iraq.

[Xebsball]

http://www.masturbateforpeace.com

Thats right!! you heard me!

War is silly, whack your willy
War's no joke, stop and stroke!
War is heinous, thumb your anus
I'm going blind for mankind
Abuse your middle piece, not the Middle East
All we are saying, is give peace a wank
War is out, pound your trout
Touch your sack, not Iraq
My bush doesn't declare war
I cum in peace

[Xebsball]

War's not cool, school your tool
Peace is good -- pull back your hood
Don't listen to Blair, play with your pubic hair
Slap your tool, don't fight for fuel
Rub your snake for peace's sake
War is unpleasant, tickle your pheasant
Don't cross the ocean, just grab some lotion
Don't attack - play with Jack
Peace is cool, pull your tool
Wank, Spank, Stop that Tank
Don't enlist, use your fist!
War is dumb, beat yourself numb
Peace is the goal, stroke your pole
Peace: a stroke of genius
Fight for good, beat your wood
Peace is right, grip it tight
Attack your crack, not Iraq!
Stop human loss, give yourself a toss
Ignore Bush's war calls, play with your balls
Stop the hurt, let it spurt

[Xebsball]

Don't be Bush's flunky, spank your monkey
War is sick, play with your ****
Peace rocks, whack your ****s!
Put your guns on your shelf, go **** yourself
Stop the war, I want to get off
War is evil, wank your weasel
Smack your Jack, not Iraq!
Save Our Soldiers, Touch Your Privates
Let your wood do some good
I'm frigging against this war
Ring your bell. Stop this hell
War's funky, spank your monkey
Beat your little man, not Afghanistan
Don't flatten Iraq, just strangle Kojak
Save our nation through masturbation
Don't send troops to die, give masturbation a try
War can wait, masturbate!
Vibrate don't annihilate
If you don't stroke it who will
War is fickle, tickle your pickle
Who wants to mourn? Jerk of to net-porn!
Forget war, be a self *****!
My patriot missile explodes for peace
No military rank comes close to a wank
Forget Jihad, shoot your wad
A stroke a day keeps the bombs away
Enough with rancor, yank your wanker

[Xebsball]

I'd rather spill than kill
Stab your clam.... not Saddam!
No need to hurt when you can squirt!
Punch the clown... Not the enemy!
Give war the finger
Semper Fi, self-gratify
Lay a hand on yourself before laying a hand on others
Pull your **** not a glock
Pull together for peace
Self-Love Not War
More head less dead
No missiles in the sky, self-gratify
Rub Your Wombat If You Hate Combat
Be a healer spank your weiner
Be kind - make yourself blind
Let's beat violence together
Peace won't work unless you jerk
Peace is but a few strokes away
Stroke your piece for peace
Slap the salami, not Saddam-i!
More Wanks, Less Tanks
We've got the whole world in our hands....
Whack, don't attack!
Don't hate, masturbate
World peace is at hand
All We Are Saying Is Give Peace A Hand
Forget Iraq... Stay Home and Whack
Spank **** & Bush For Peace!!!!
Peace is Coming ... and Coming
Peace is in your hands
Beat your meat, not your neighbor
Rub out hate!
Shoot loads not guns

[Xebsball]

Stroke a load for peace
There's no time for war if your meat is too sore!
Jizin' against Jihad
Masturbate before it's too late
Give peace a chance, to explode in your pants.
Right-hand for peace
Choke your Chicken, Not your Neighbor
Cum together in peace
Touch the world while touching yourself

[dezhen2001]

forgetting the poem about choking your chicken for a min xebs - where did the lyrics at the bottom of your sig come from? :)

dawood

[Xebsball]

"oh moma just chill
its just the
BEA-
STIE
BOYS"

Its from Sure Shot of the Beastie Boys

[Mr Punch]

reasons for war part one (http://www.policemission.com/iraq.asp)

is this the same company that sold weapons to iraq in 1989? surely not... they're an IT company... (http://www.dyncorp.com/)

and regularly sells to saudi arabia and israel, and has sold to iran and syria...?

so the bush admin is correcting 'mistakes'? no, it's opening deals.

these ****ers are corrupt. more corrupt than many. please, this is not anti american, but please... love your country and get your heads out of your arses and get rid of these people (ie your ****ing govt).

please.

thank you.

[Dark Knight]

Some company is being contrated out to do police work. They have been doing it for years in other countries.

[African Tiger]

Why does everybody act like Bush is the be all and end all of all the bulls-hit in this country? Is it because he's currently in office?

Please, everyone needs to get off their liberal high horses and remind ourselves that everything Bush is doing is everything Clinton did, is everything Bush Sr. did, is everything Reagan did, is everything Carter did, etc.... There's just no difference people - just time frames and administrations.

Tell me who was in charge when an aspirin factory in the Sudan was bombed? Tell me who signed the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, which made it US policy to get rid of Sadaam? Tell me then who acted without UN approval in Bosnia?

And when you're done, tell me why we're wasting valuable Terabytes discussing political **** on a ****ing Kung Fu board?

Let's keep this board for what it was meant: dissing Shaolin Do and Temple Kung Fu, and trolling in the CMA vs BJJ vein :mad:

[norther practitioner]

Please, everyone needs to get off their liberal high horses and remind ourselves that everything Bush is doing is everything Clinton did, is everything Bush Sr. did, is everything Reagan did, is everything Carter did, etc.... There's just no difference people - just time frames and administrations.

Thank you AT!






Let's keep this board for what it was meant: dissing Shaolin Do and Temple Kung Fu, and trolling in the CMA vs BJJ vein

Again, agreed.

[Mr Punch]

some company is being contracted out...

in colombia (http://www.colombiareport.org/colombia78.htm)

etc.


AT
Why does everybody act like Bush is the be all and end all of all the bulls-hit in this country? Is it because he's in office?
no, it's because he's a ****. a snivelling little ****. in the pockets of a bunch of ****s, whose last interest is the american people, and whose first interest is a buck at the expense of those people.


i'm not saying it's any different to anything that reagan did, clinton did, thatcher did, or blair did. i'm saying it's wrong.

i'm no ****ing liberal. check my posts.

[norther practitioner]

whose last interest is the american people, and whose first interest is a buck at the expense of those people.


Are you really sure about this, have you met all these people?:D

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by norther practitioner



Are you really sure about this, have you met all these people?:D

laugh? i nearly shat.

live in ignorance. die in fear. slaves to freedom.

[Mr Punch]

OK, so i'm gonna regret that last post!!!

:D :p :D

[norther practitioner]

Mat,
Glad to see you can keep a sense of humour over this.

[Mr Punch]

NP, i love you, i want your puppies...

as long as they don't take it up the ass like the rest of the american people...!

:eek: :p :D :D

[Black Jack]

Of course you are. Plain as day.

[norther practitioner]

Black Jack,
What is that in reference to?

[Black Jack]

Matt not you,

He says he is not a liberal. I say bullsh!t.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Mat
so the bush admin is correcting 'mistakes'? no, it's opening deals.

Mistakes: (1) the American policy of war-by-proxy which gave power to Saddam under the name of opposing Iran. (eg. Reagan) (2) the conclusion of the Persian Gulf War which failed to induce any lasting change in the region. (eg. Bush Sr) (3) the subsequent years where Iraqis were butchered without anyone batting an eye, while ineffective sanctions only made matters worse. (eg. Clinton)

Problem: Saddam's regime is in power, and it's actions are utterly intolerable.

How do we solve this problem? Insofar as American mistakes led to it, how do the Americans 'fix' their mistakes?

Bush Jr's answer is to induce a regime change through overt war. Hence they are 'fixing their mistakes.'

Mat - What flaw do you see in this position?

[Mr Punch]

well, i don't see liberal as a label to have to defend... i remember when liberal meant someone who stands up for freedom... at that time i thought they were freaks...!

but i ain't one anyway...

as i said... check my posts.

or don't...

see if i give a ****!

:D

[Mr Punch]

chris m, as i said, the people in the uk govt and the french govt responsible for the weapons/training supply to hussein were fired. in the us, they, or their close associates are still in power.

i didn't say it was just the us. i didn't say it was just an american mistake. i said it was largely the fault of the self-serving people who are largely still in office in the us, and historically, people in the uk govt, and the french, and others.

i have no quarrel with hussein's regime being ****ed up and as close to evil as i can believe, and i have no quarrel with getting rid of it and (much as my 'liberal' tendencies would belie killing all those responsible...)...

i do have a quarrel with the reasons of the people instigating the regime change.

there is no way, even given historical perspectives of 'containment' during the cold war, that supporting hussein was right in the first place. and sure, getting rid of him was the right thing to do, even and especially in the first gulf war, when the then 'allies' persuaded so many of the iraqi people to fight the regime, only to desert them to the us/uk trained republican guard to torture and kill for the next 12 years...

now i believe the reasons are more tied to private defence companies than anything else... the same companies who funded bush's election campaign, and brokered weapons deals with many middle eastern countries, let alone corrupt and genocidal regimes in central and south america, to say nothing of the specialist training of the very forces that the allies have been fighting, are now getting the contracts to rebuild the country and provide logistical, aid and peacekeeping support.

[Christopher M]

It sounds like you agree with the actions Bush Jr is taking, you're just ascribing to him undesirable motivations.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Christopher M

How do we solve this problem? Insofar as American mistakes led to it, how do the Americans 'fix' their mistakes?

Bush Jr's answer is to induce a regime change through overt war. Hence they are 'fixing their mistakes.'

Mat - What flaw do you see in this position?

sorry, didn't answer this question. probably because it is irrelevant to my original point. see above for why i don't think it is 'america's fault': also see my original supposition to understand why the excuse 'fixing mistakes' is not good enough.



It sounds like you agree with the actions Bush Jr is taking, you're just ascribing to him undesirable motivations.
i am not ascribing anything to bush jnr (other than my obviously outrageous suggestion that he's a ****bag :D ). i am suggesting that his motivations are based on corrupt, venal and moneygrabbing principles which should have no place in modern politics and furthermore, are very bad for both the world situation and the american people.

if i don't agree with his motivation, i don't agree with the way he is doing what he is doing , and although i have serious doubts as to the efficacy of the attempt to establish democracy in iraq, i don't necessarily disagree with the actions of the war.

that was not the point.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Mat
i don't think it is 'america's fault'... the excuse 'fixing mistakes' is not good enough.

Well... I think alot of the fault lies on America. Reagan's, Bush Sr's, and Clinton's treatments of the situation which I alluded to, I find repugnant.

Of course, you're right that other countries have alot to account for. You noted, for example, France's prominent role in arms sales.

I didn't mean to suggest that 'fixing mistakes' was an excuse; simply that 'fixing mistakes' seems like one possible description of what's going on.

I don't think the actions need an excuse, since, as you seemed to agree, they were the actions that needed to be taken.


i am not ascribing anything to bush jnr..

i am suggesting that his motivations are based on corrupt, venal and moneygrabbing principles which should have no place in modern politics and furthermore, are very bad for both the world situation and the american people.

I don't understand the difference between these two things. Could you explain?

[Mr Punch]

From MW:

Main Entry: as·cribe
Pronunciation: &-'skrIb
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): as·cribed; as·crib·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin ascribere, from ad- + scribere to write -- more at SCRIBE
Date: 15th century
: to refer to a supposed cause, source, or author
- as·crib·able /-'skrI-b&-b&l/ adjective
synonyms ASCRIBE, ATTRIBUTE, ASSIGN, IMPUTE, CREDIT mean to lay something to the account of a person or thing. ASCRIBE suggests an inferring or conjecturing of cause, quality, authorship <forged paintings formerly ascribed to masters>.


Main Entry: sug·gest
Pronunciation: s&g-'jest, s&-'jest
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Latin suggestus, past participle of suggerere to pile up, furnish, suggest, from sub- + gerere to carry
Date: 1526
1 a obsolete : to seek to influence : SEDUCE b : to call forth : EVOKE c : to mention or imply as a possibility <suggested that he might bring his family> d : to propose as desirable or fitting <suggest a stroll> e : to offer for consideration or as a hypothesis <suggest a solution to a problem>
2 a : to call to mind by thought or association <the explosion... suggested sabotage -- F. L. Paxson> b : to serve as a motive or inspiration for <a play suggested by a historic incident>
- sug·gest·er noun
...

My intention was the use highlighted in red.

Though you could legitimately accuse me of the blue!:D

[kungfu cowboy]

How would be being liberal be a bad thing? Especially if conservative views seem to be trying to tell people what to do, when to do it, and all "I'm the boss of you" like stuff, huh? What the heck makes these former high school nerds turned "hey I'm the dude who makes laws now and will put the whipping on if you don't listen to me the big thumb sucking cry-baby waah-waah" think they really have that right? What exactly is a political view anyway? For that matter, what are politics? I wish the aliens would come down and save humanity, or at least revamp our network programming. It's high time.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Christopher M


Well... I think alot of the fault lies on America. Reagan's, Bush Sr's, and Clinton's treatments of the situation which I alluded to, I find repugnant.

Of course, you're right that other countries have alot to account for. You noted, for example, France's prominent role in arms sales.

No, I didn't. I referred to the governments. Hence my distinction between it not being America's fault, and it being the fault of successive governments.


I didn't mean to suggest that 'fixing mistakes' was an excuse; simply that 'fixing mistakes' seems like one possible description of what's going on.

I don't think the actions need an excuse, since, as you seemed to agree, they were the actions that needed to be taken.

The reason I would quibble that the word 'excuse' is appropriate is because I don't believe the word 'mistake' is appropriate. The Hussein regime was set up as a deliberate act. Even if we give the previous ('responsible') administrations the benefit of the doubt by putting it in the context of cold-war containment, it is great leap of faith to say that they were acting without any idea of the consequences.

I don't think it was a mistake. I think it was a gamble. A gamble with a lot of people's lives at stake. A gamble with no ethical justification. A gamble to continue to realise the status quo of personal gain.

[Mr Punch]

That's what I said KC. Or should I call you Zamfir?

I should just say that while in the above post I said I don't blame the American people, I would just like to make the exception of Mr Black Jack, who appears to believe that anything he doesn't believe is liberal, and also seems to believe that this is somehow a bad thing...!!!:D

[Christopher M]

Mat - Going by your definitions:

On one hand, there is 'inferring or conjecturing' that Bush has undesirable motivations.

On the other hand, there is 'offering for consideration' that Bush has undesirable motivations.

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what distinction you are trying to make.


Originally posted by Mat
No, I didn't [note, for example, France's prominent role in arms sales].

I'm sorry, you editted it out of your post after I posted.


The reason I would quibble that the word 'excuse' is appropriate is because I don't believe the word 'mistake' is appropriate.

I don't understand... if something isn't a mistake, then it doesn't require an excuse. :confused:


Even if we give the previous ('responsible') administrations the benefit of the doubt by putting it in the context of cold-war containment, it is great leap of faith to say that they were acting without any idea of the consequences.

Again I don't understand. I said plain out I laid blame upon previous administrations... :confused:


I don't think it was a mistake. I think it was a gamble. A gamble with a lot of people's lives at stake. A gamble with no ethical justification. A gamble to continue to realise the status quo of personal gain.

What are you referring to here? The second Persian Gulf war?

[Kuen]

So the big statue toppling was a fake. Who would've ever guessed....

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm

[Kristoffer]

not surprised

[@PLUGO]

These sentiments where being expressed by those not in bed...er embeded, with the military the moment the footage hit the mainstream...

won't keep folks from believing what they want to believe though....sad.

[Chang Style Novice]

I think I saw somewhere that the account linked above had been discredited somewhat. Don't recall where. Basically, the arguement was the crowd dispersed somewhat after the statue fell, leaving the appearance in wide shots that the crowd was smaller than it seemed in the tight shots. But also that the tight shots made the crowd seem somewhat larger than it really was.

In any case, I have no doubt that the joy of the people beheading the statue and dragging the severed noggin through the streets was real. Whether there were a lot of them who felt safe to come out so soon after the fighting (and while lawlessness was still the rule in most parts of the city) is a different matter, and the two are hardly mutually exclusive. So, proving one doesn't mean you have disproven the other.

[Kuen]

It hasn't been "discredited" by anyone. In fact there are several more accounts from different sources to be found all over the web. Sorry your fantasy didn't happen.

[Chang Style Novice]

Who says it's my fantasy, nitwit?

Anyway, found the link...

http://calpundit.blogspot.com/2003_04_06_calpundit_archive.html#92492777

If it doesn't take you right to it, look for "A Tale of Two Photos."

[Kuen]

Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension skills a bit. #1 Your source is a Blog, an internet opinion column, not news. #2 Your own Blog admits that there were no more than 200-300 people there (in a city of several million) nor does it explain why certain Iraqi dissedents who were flown in by the Pentagon are the promenently featured players-so you have confirmed that what was shown on American news as thousands of jubilant Iraqi's giving America the photo op that Bush so needed was in fact deception.

I suggest you take time to read your own source material, READ the link I posted and do a Google search for other sources.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kuen
#1 Your source is a Blog, an internet opinion column, not news.

Informationclearinghouse.info is an internet opinion column as well.


Originally posted by Design Sifu
won't keep folks from believing what they want to believe though....sad.

The Shiite and Kurdish uprisings were probably American conspiracies too. They probably paid 78% of Iraq's population to pretend like they were siezing power from the Baathists, and the 75,000 civilian executions which followed were all volunteers to make it look real. The 300,000 refuges arriving at Iran's border following this were all actually extras from Friends.

Also, when the famous 'human shields' returned from Baghdad in support of the war, they were all actually just human clones of the originals, bred for the purpose.

And when the ex-pat Iraqis in London went to the anti-war protests there to try to explain to the middle class europeans that they actually supported the war, it was actually the members of PNAC with makeup on. And it was only ELF-based mind control that made it look like no Iraqis were in support of the protest.

I mean, we have to remember to respect other people's culture. It's not right for us to impose our values of 'genocide is bad' upon other cultures. There is surely a time and a place for genocide, torture, and rape. Who are we to judge? It's very clear that the Iraqis love Saddam for it. That these idiotic right-wingers don't realize this is just sad. I mean, weren't they listening to the Iraqi Information Minister when he set the record straight on this?

[Waidan]

LOL @ people citing "informationclearinghouse.info" and then slamming others for their sources. gj.

[Third Degree]

The Americans have invaded Iraq to satisfy a few objectives -

1 - to change oil trading back to the US Dollar instead of the Euro and thus setback the European Union - their only rival in terms of currency trading.
2 - to frighten other oil nations off to converting to the Euro - Iran etc.
3 - place the world's 2nd most plentiful supply of oil in American hands.
4 - to suppress/subdue the Arabs for Israel.





Point 3 is a very tenuous link to the looting at the museums....US army was told to protect looted museum (http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,940047,00.html)........cause if the museums were next to oil wells or had oil reserves beneath them, I'm sure the American military would have moved quicker than a African American accidentally walking into a Ku Klux Klan convention!

The securing of oil wells in the 1991 Oil War was a sham as well. The torching of oil wells was done by US troops to make it seem like the Iraqi regime was even more evil than it was already.

Who benefited from the Kuwaiti oil wells being torched? George Bush, his sons and his cronies who then made vast personal fortunes from rebuilding Kuwait's infrastructure.

This is again happening in this 2003 Oil War. George W Bush and his cronies profiting from the misfortune of Iraq.

As they say, no act is completely selfless!

In relation to point 4.....Israel seeks pipeline for Iraqi oil (http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,940054,00.html). Now call me sceptical but Ariel Sharon saying "We control America" seems to be quite true. America plan to set up 4 army bases within Iraq despite the fact that gratitude for the removal of Saddam Hussein has almost gone.

"1984" by George Orwell anyone?!?

Third Degree

[Laughing Cow]

Hmmm.

I was decried for stating some of those very same points as the objective for the war not too long ago.
Especially points 1~3.

Makes me wonder.

One other thing I noted in todays Newspaper.

The Christian in iraq are worried if they will be able to practice their religion under the NEW regime. Saddam never interfered with them and they were free to practice christianity.

[rogue]

At this point I don't care what anybody says...

We did it, we went in, we kicked a$$, we're getting the Iraqi people back on their feet, and after finding that stash of green backs (not Euros) looks like the Iraqi people will get a great head start. Seems that even Syria may be getting out of the terrorism business. Prediction, peace talks between Syria and Isreal within 12 months.

And as I watch a sub-group of malcontent Iraqi protest America all I can do is smile and say neener, neener, neener. It's good to be a super-power.


PS, we helped the Nothern Alliance over throw the Taliban and al Qeda with only 120 Green Berets and air power. Once again, it's good to be a super-power.

End of my gloat!!! :D :D :D :D

[Laughing Cow]

rogue.

Many countries are not happy with the iraq war, as they now don't seem to get paid what Iraq owed them.

Example:
Iraq owes Japan $5 Billion, and it doesn't look like Japan will see 1 cent of it.
Also japan relies on oil from iraq and is heavily invested there.

Keep gloating.

[rogue]

I don't care if other countries are un-happy as it wasn't our goal to make them happy. Also they should know better than to deal with evil dictators. I'm sorry, but I just feel so American right now. :D :D :D

Japan will be taken care of as they provided assistance to the US and UK. France and Russia will also be taken care of, though Poland may be toward the front of the line and France and Russia in the back.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by rogue
Japan will be taken care of as they provided assistance to the US and UK. France and Russia will also be taken care of, though Poland may be toward the front of the line and France and Russia in the back.

Hey, they weren't even part of the "Oil for food" program.

Here is an old link that you might find interesting and might explain why 84% of the japanese population were opposed to the war.

Koizumi sealed his fate by supporting the War.
:D

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/BUSINESS/asia/09/11/japan.oil.biz/?related


Cheers.

[dezhen2001]

why do you think the taliban overtook afghanistan in the first place? oh yeh - because the northern alliance are a group of pillaging and cruel bandits :rolleyes: Not saying taliban were any better of course.

A few of the people in my mosque are afghanistani and told me (thru someone who could translate) what it was like in BOTH those time periods. Lets just say many of the people originally applauded the coming of Taliban because of EXACTLY what is happening in afghanistan now.

so you can gloat all you like.

Also like LC said, i know christianity and judaism were practised pretty freely in iraq compared to other places, as well as that Saddam gave huge amounts of money to rebuild churches and the like.

dawood

[rogue]

why do you think the taliban overtook afghanistan in the first place? oh yeh - because the northern alliance are a group of pillaging and cruel bandits And now they're learning to be leaders who need to take care of their country. Isn't the world a better place? Dictators are more polite, people are smiling at each other, Susan Sarandans TV movie came in last place, there are protests in Baghdad. It's all puppy dogs and candy canes.

BTW The Afghani army is being trained by the Green Berets with assistance from the French, in how to be an effective fighting force without being thugs. It's what the Green Hats do.

[rogue]

Also like LC said, i know christianity and judaism were practised pretty freely in iraq compared to other places, as well as that Saddam gave huge amounts of money to rebuild churches and the like. Wow Sadaam was a real Mother Theresa!:rolleyes: :p

Dude, he pillaged the wealth of his country, he abused his people and was a general pain in the ass to the world. As a Christian, I don't care how many churches he built as they're just buildings, the guy was/is a maggot.

PS. My maggot remark was not meant to really equate Sadaam with maggots. If I've offended any maggots out there I apologize.

[dezhen2001]

rogue: im not arguing with you mate, i think he was a prime time @sshole as well, just saying the picture isnt ase rosy coloured as it seems.
And now they're learning to be leaders who need to take care of their country. yup, if u get rid of their leaders like you got rid of saddam maybe they would be able to do that - meanwhile the opium crop is getting pretty ripe and seems to be travelling all the way around the world.

3.15am so nite :)
dawood

[Black Jack]

Rogue,

Is their room for two to join in with the gloat. Don't be such a gloat hog:D

Here is my offical gloat :D :D :D :D

[Chang Style Novice]

Kuen, if you check my posts on this thread and others like it, you will find that few people are more serious about being anti-Bush and anti-war than I am. But that doesn't give me the right to make stuff up to discredit him (as far as I'm concerned his actual policies do that very nicely.) The war on Iraq has been a marginal success so far at best, I'd say, since we haven't found Saddam, we haven't found WMD's, and we've aggravated Muslim opinion against the United States a thousandfold, thereby putting us on the path to more terrorism instead of less.

But if we use spurious or questionable info to make our arguments, we hand ammo to our enemies. I don't want idiots on my side. Be smarter.

[ewallace]

I'd say, since we haven't found Saddam, we haven't found WMD's, and we've aggravated Muslim opinion against the United States a thousandfold
Folks, this ain't Burger King. It may take more than a couple weeks to find a handful of people.

It may take a few more weeks to find WMD that could be burried in the sand for all we know.

It doesn't matter what we do or if there is a republican or democrat in office. The majority of the muslim world will continue to hate us. Do you seriously think that al queda was planning their attack for the next republican president?

It's funny to me the people that have failed to learn one of the most basic of life's lessons...you cannot please everyone.

[MasterKiller]

Folks, this ain't Burger King. It may take more than a couple weeks to find a handful of people

The same way we caught Osama?:rolleyes:

[Christopher M]

I thought the purpose of the war was regime change.

Where are you getting this contrary position from?

[ewallace]

It's like me (a white boy) going to the west side of San Antonio, and announcing that I am looking to kill Juan Rodriquez. I will not have a very receptive audience.

[MasterKiller]

If you were the richest, strongest white boy in the hood, and was offering a lot of moola and strong arm tactics, chances are someone would sell him out if you handled yourself properly.

[ewallace]

You'd think so. Now add to the fact that said Juan is traveling undergound from W. San Antonio to Southern Mexico, Los Angeles, Tiajuana, San Diego...see where it can get complicated?

Sorry for the ethnic analagy but I can't think of a better one right now.

[MasterKiller]

The richest, strongest country the world has ever laid eyes on should be able to track down anyone on the planet. Period.

[ewallace]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow

Many countries are not happy with the iraq war, as they now don't seem to get paid what Iraq owed them.

Example:
Iraq owes Japan $5 Billion, and it doesn't look like Japan will see 1 cent of it.
Also japan relies on oil from iraq and is heavily invested there.

Keep gloating.

Exactly. Which is why I'm really **** tired of hearing about how this war is for oil. These countries of which you speak were willing to turn a blind eye to everything that was going on in Iraq for their own economic benefit. If your true concern is fairness and what is right, you would make just as much of a fuss over this as you have about the evil empire.

[Chang Style Novice]

Christopher M -

The stated purpose of the war changed numerous times in the months leading up to it. They included regime change and it looks like that will occur, although whether the new regime will be better than the old one in the long run obviously remains to be seen. I freely admit they'd have to be pretty god**** awful to be worse than Saddam. But Khomeni proved it can be done.

In addition to regime change, preventing terrorism and eliminating WMD's were thrown around as justification. My personal criteria for the success of the war are whether the world is more peaceful, free, and safe after than before. I'm not yet convinced that will be the case. My skepticism about the war to start with came from my worries we'd make things worse and not better, not from any desire to see S.H. left alone.

Ewallace -

I understand that, and I hope for the U.S.' continued strong standing in the world that we do find S.H. and WMD's. But as time passes and nothing is found, you have to admit it seems less likely it will ever come to pass.

As for Muslim public opinion, it may be that the US will remain widely hated no matter what (and of course I don't believe that OBL went after Bush rather than Clinton - the attack on the WTC was an attack on the US' global economic power, not on our domestic political power.) However, that doesn't mean we should write off the Muslim world entirely. I'm a little incredulous that you could suggest such a thing, actually.

[ewallace]

The richest, strongest country the world has ever laid eyes on should be able to track down anyone on the planet. Period.
It's a bit harder to track people than a stolen cadillac. It wouldn't be if all those stubborn dentists would just comply.

[ewallace]

However, that doesn't mean we should write off the Muslim world entirely.
I fully agree. But I also don't think that we should base our decisions on whether or not a certain group of people like us.


But as time passes and nothing is found, you have to admit it seems less likely it will ever come to pass.
That's the great thing about the truth. Sooner or later it comes out.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
In addition to regime change, preventing terrorism and eliminating WMD's were thrown around as justification.

Right. Both of which are adjuncts in that they are accomplished by instituting a regime change.

Eliminating WMDs doesn't equate to "finding WMDs", it equates to changing the regime. Preventing terrorism doesn't equate to "finding Saddam", it equates to changing the regime.

So I don't feel your description of why the war wasn't a success is reasonable.


My personal criteria for the success of the war are whether the world is more peaceful, free, and safe after than before.

My personal criteria are somewhat different: that the intolerable atrocities committed at the hands of the Iraqi government cease.

[ewallace]

A lot of people feel that the war will be successful when we find WMD.

A lot of people feel that the war on terror will be successful when we find OBL.

I feel that the war on terror is successful every day there isn't another 9/11 or WTC1.

Some people (in general) just need physical proof.

[Chang Style Novice]

Eliminating WMDs doesn't equate to "finding WMDs", it equates to changing the regime.

This is only true if the WMDs were really there to begin with. As I've said, we haven't found anything yet. Maybe the embargoes were doing a better job tham many seem to think.


Preventing terrorism doesn't equate to "finding Saddam", it equates to changing the regime.

This is only true if Saddam was truly behind the terrorism. I think it's pretty well established he had nothing to do with 9-11 or any other Al-Qaeda activities, and his bounties for suicide bombers are the only other thing I can think of (off the top of my head) which he's been implicated in and qualifies. And I think it's better to deal with that by trying to broker peace in Israel/Palestine than by invading Iraq.

[ewallace]

and his bounties for suicide bombers are the only other thing I can think of (off the top of my head) which he's been implicated in and qualifies
That's not enough?

[Chang Style Novice]

My personal criteria are somewhat different: that the intolerable atrocities committed at the hands of the Iraqi government cease.

Which would go a long way toward making the world freer, safer, and more peaceful.:D My concern is that the aftermath may be worse (in the long run) than Saddam's reign. I'd love to be wrong.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
This is only true if the WMDs were really there to begin with.

I agree. However, I do not believe this was ever under question.

Neither does the UN, including France, Germany, and Russia, as described officially in resolution 1441.

Do you disagree?


This is only true if Saddam was truly behind the terrorism. I think it's pretty well established he had nothing to do with 9-11 or any other Al-Qaeda activities, and his bounties for suicide bombers are the only other thing I can think of (off the top of my head) which he's been implicated in and qualifies.

The goal of the war wasn't to "end all terrorism." The goal of the war was to end Iraqi sponsorship of terrorism.

Do you disagree?

Thus, again, this is clearly accomplished by regime change.


Which would go a long way toward making the world freer, safer, and more peaceful.

Let me try to explain the distinction I am making.

If I am standing in an alleyway with two men and a woman; one of the men is raping the women; and the other man tells me he will attack me if I try to stop the rape: the goals of stopping the rape and having the alleyway be 'maximally peacefull' are contrary. My goal would be to stop the rape.


My concern is that the aftermath may be worse (in the long run) than Saddam's reign.

This is my concern as well. However, this concern does absolutely nothing to disuade against the justification of the war.

Going back to the alley, it could well be true that if I save that woman she's going to wander down another alley and end up in a worse situation. This is a real concern. However, it does nothing to disuade me from trying to help her.

Considering what Saddam did, it doesn't seem very likely though.

[Chang Style Novice]

I think I've made myself about as clear as I can. I'm gonna stay off this thread for awhile.

[Christopher M]

Take care man.

[Third Degree]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow


One other thing I noted in todays Newspaper.

The Christian in iraq are worried if they will be able to practice their religion under the NEW regime. Saddam never interfered with them and they were free to practice christianity.


POLITICS AND RELIGION DISCUSSION..........(dons hard hat and waits for the abuse.....)

The Christians in Iraq can always pay the old jiziah (religious tax) for being non-Muslims or they can simply convert as Islam is influenced by Judeo-Christian teachings so they have much in common!

Religion is obviously going to be around forever so I just wish it became less political and less intrusive. As Mr Mackey might say - "Religions are bad and if you do religion you're bad, mmmkay?"

Humans naturally want control and destiny so they concocted the notion of God to represent the forces in nature. How many religious figures had dreams, visions or hallucinations and so a feeling of spirituality or other-worldyness then came about. Most of these religious experiences (voices in head, visitations from angels etc) are due to mental illness, mild schizophrenia or temporal lobe activity etc. Religions evolved to survive and adapt to human minds.

Religions have the idea that we are doomed to hell and their job is to save us! In a progressive society, they'd all be treated for mental illness and not be encouraged (just look at the Shi'ites in Karbala slashing their heads as some sort of self-flagellation (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_773362.html?menu=) ). Instead, religion spread, hierarchies formed and religion turns into a political institution to control people's minds, keeping them happy as to their place in the universe, explain their actions and to justify their aspirations. So many irrational and delusional ideas that change the way people think - sort of a like a mind virus.

Intelligent humanistic philosophy and pragmatic world views such as Taoism or Confucianism are fine as they don't base themselves on guilt or don't refer to mystical rubbish such as virgin births, parting of seas, speaking ants, fully speaking one-year olds etc.

Islam has been getting bad press in recent years but Christianity, Judaism and all the other religions have been as bad in the past or present. What Islam can be accused of is that in their holy books there are clear, precise and specific commandments and doctrine to deal with those who do not subscribe to their religion.

How does all this relate to Iraq? Well, read on.....

In Lebanon, the Americans and British were cheered as they helped restore a bit of order, remove the thugs and murderers from the streets and dabbled in a bit of regime change (sound familiar?). We all know what happened in Lebanon 20 years ago - bombings and kidnaps of Americans, British, French etc. - another successful chapter in US Foreign policy!. The similarities of Lebanon and Iraq are apparent.

Lebanon had a poor, desperate Shi'ite population which looked to clerics for answers and so sought ties with the Shi'ites in Iran and Syria (who the Americans antagonised) and up popped up Hizballah ("Party of God" - could they be next in the war on terrorism?) to drive out the Israelis and any western influences. Forward it to 2003 and we have a Shi'ite population in Iraq who are seeking answers in Islam (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L2694160.htm), we have America saying that Syria and Iran are candidates for regime changes.

Iraqi Shi'ites have closer ties with Iran than the Lebanese Shi'ites had and so it would be presumptuous, but as history has a habit of repeating itself, that there will be a possible link in political ideologies between Iran and Iraq. Iranian appreciation of Iraq's society and culture is going to be greater than America's and so the Iraqi Shi'ites will probably take sides with Iranians ahead of the people who abandoned them in the uprising against Saddam in 1991, the Americans (who are against a Theocracy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63760-2003Apr20.html) ). Iran has not delivered neither prosperity nor sanctity to it's people but religion might be the attraction to Iraqis. The walls near the main Shi'ite mosque in Iraq are adorned with pictures of Iranian clerics.

Democracy struggles to rear it's head in Islamic society and so Iraq might be a Theocracy like in Iran even though the southern Shi'ite towns in Iraq are different to the ones in 1970s Iran. Iraq under Saddam was a secular veil for oppressing Shi'ites. Even if Iraq doesn't become a Theocracy, will the vast majority want a liberal version of Islam or a strict, extreme version? Any challenge to the teachings of the Koran is not an option and so any challengers are quickly shouted down as the faith Muslims have in the Koran is so strong. Will the Shi'ites and Sunnis get along? Will the factions within the Shi'ites get along?

This is the main difference for me, in that Christian, Hindu or Buddhist nations have relatively secular and democratic governments. Reason as to why Iraq don't really have a "role-model" to base their new government on. Religions like Christianity are now more on a personal level and don't affect politics as much as Islam. 48 nations are considered "Not Free" (No political rights and civil liberties). Of these nations, 28 have majority Islamic populations.

Islam is very pervasive as it affects every part of your everyday life and language - incantations before and after using the toilet for example. Islamic countries have a fervent need to run their countries according to the literal and final revelations made by God. A few of them (about 10 or so) still strongly adhere to the 1,400 year old Sharia Law. The majority loosely base themselves on Sharia Law. Afghanistan is still under Sharia Law. Muslims I think believe that the Koran (despite it's many scientific errors) contains all knowledge needed to govern and live. "God you're everywhere. You're omnivorous," as Homer Simpson might say!

However, America is a very Christian country which causes it's own problems as you can see in George Bush Jr who seems to think the "liberating" war in Iraq was somehow God's gift as religious scriptures say God appoints leaders such as himself. Basically we have a religious zealot who controls the world's most powerful military which is as bad as any Islamic fundamentalist. Hope can be found in the fact that Bush has only one more term in office thanks to America's political system!

Democracy is not perfect either (legislations basically eroding away basic privacy or personal freedoms since Sep 11) but it is probably the best of a bad bunch! The thing about America and it's politicians is that it wishes the undemocratic world to all follow the "American way"....the most perfect socio-political system in existence.........

Ultimately, a democratic state is one which separates religion from the state. In that case, Iraq might not ever be a true democracy that the US so desires.

Third Degree

[dezhen2001]

dont really wanna argue with u about religion - much easier over tea and dim sum :)

First of all i have NO IDEA why the Shiites do that during the festival to mark the death of Ali's son Hussain and his family... really confuses me :confused:


What Islam can be accused of is that in their holy books there are clear, precise and specific commandments and doctrine to deal with those who do not subscribe to their religion. not so clear as much of it is dealing with specific encounters with the tribes around mecca and medinah, as well as what happens during warfare etc. Those dont apply to a normal situation and are usually taken out of context by the hate filled "religious" clerics.


Iraq who are seeking answers in Islam, im sure if it WAS Islam and not some biased hate filled, misused Islam propagated by those who have a hate for all things and people outside of it - then things would be fine. Heck even some groups hate all Muslims who dont follow their particular school!


Even if Iraq doesn't become a Theocracy, will the vast majority want a liberal version of Islam or a strict, extreme version? this is the scary part.


Any challenge to the teachings of the Koran is not an option and so any challengers are quickly shouted down as the faith Muslims have in the Koran is so strong. i see no reason why it isnt apart from the fact many people want to keep hold of their power base and are greedy. Christianity and Judaism are still strong even though the OT and Bible have been "challenged", so i dont see any problem with it. The faith Muslims have in Quran is the same as many Christians or ANYONE has in their own scriptures - no different really.


Islam is very pervasive as it affects every part of your everyday life and language - incantations before and after using the toilet for example. Most of those things are for historical interest and are not obligatory. There is variation between schools and even between people on how they do things. Again its only when some power hungry hate filled person is in power that things get extreme.


A few of them (about 10 or so) still strongly adhere to the 1,400 year old Sharia Law. If the Shariah Law is understood properly and studied IN DEPTH then it is not so extreme and abused as it commonly is in Nigeria and Afghanistan.


Muslims I think believe that the Koran (despite it's many scientific errors) contains all knowledge needed to govern and live. Nah, it just tells us what we need to know about our relationship with God. Doesnt tell us how to drive a car, fly a plane or any other thing - as an example.


However, America is a very Christian country which causes it's own problems as you can see in George Bush Jr who seems to think the "liberating" war in Iraq was somehow God's gift as religious scriptures say God appoints leaders such as himself. This is where the trouble starts!


Basically we have a religious zealot who controls the world's most powerful military which is as bad as any Islamic fundamentalist. uhoh! it depends on whos eyes you are looking thru though, as many people see each "side" the opposite way from each other, or are stuck in between like me.


The thing about America and it's politicians is that it wishes the undemocratic world to all follow the "American way"....the most perfect socio-political system in existence......... doesnt that sound kinda like those zealots who want the whole world to be under islamic law and everyone to be muslim? :confused: on the Islamic side i still have no idea why people think that as there is nothing in scripture that specifically says that (that i have found).

dawood

[Serpent]

The thing about America and it's politicians is that it wishes the undemocratic world to all follow the "American way"....the most perfect socio-political system in existence.........


The trouble is that America is absolutely not the most perfect socio-political system in existence, even for Americans, let alone other cultures.

[dezhen2001]

here we go again... im off to bed as i cant be bothered doing all this again. Have fun mate! :D

might be heading your way at the end of may btw. :)

dawood