WOW, that's a bunch of tripe if we haven't heard it a thousand times before. Still too obstinate to admit that there are MANY reasons for being in Iraq, and oil isn't even at the top of that list, eh?
Grow up. Grow a brain.
Jason
Originally posted by: TheGreenGoblin
I really can't believe that there are still ppl out there that think the U.S. is in Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people and to give them democracy. How much more evidence to the contrary is needed ?
It's all about oil and defense contracts , people. Making the rich richer , at the expense of an entire nation of people. If there was any justice in this world , Bush , Rumsfeld and their cronies would already be on trial for war crimes.
The funny thing is , this is the 2nd time the American populace has been tricked by the same gang of crooks. 25 years ago Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were demonizing the Russians and holding press conferences where they'd reveal their manufactured evidence of Soviet mobile nuclear labs.
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: jpeyton
We can't pick and choose which "oppressed" people we want to free. No country in the world has the right to overthrow any dictatorship they want.
No, you're wrong. Any FREE nation ALWAYS has the right to overthrow ANY dictatorship at ANY time. End of story.
Jason
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Centinel
Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm crossing my fingers that we lose horribly in Iraq.
The motives behind this war are so blatantly obvious now, it's digusting.
Iraq's oil was never worth all this.
Nice of you to thank of all the soldiers that will die defending your right to say what you just did so that your dream may come true.
.....and that doesnt even count all the Iraqi lives that would be lost as well.
Comments like this are sickening. The US going into Iraq was wrong, i'll admit that. But we are there NOW and we owe it to our troops and the Iraqi people to finish the job, regardless of your feelings about the war.
We owe it to our troops and Iraqi people to get the hell out of there so they can clean up the mess we left for them.
Wow, you are a woefully ignorant man if you truly believe that. They CAN'T clean it up without our help. They've not the resources, the money or the manpower, and without us they have NO protections against whatever would-be dictator who can rouse a small army would set loose upon them.
Shame on your for being a fool and a candyass.
Jason
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: chess9
All the major industrialized nations have made the same mistake the U.S. is making, though most of them made those mistakes 200 years ago. Blair is apparently not a good student of history, otherwise his empire building ambitions would have been repressed. We know GW couldn't have found Iraq on a world map prior to 9-11, so his conduct comes as no surprise.
What is also not a surprise is the quagmire we are in. Every day those troops are in Iraq and over-extended as most of them are is not only a day we've wasted millions of dollars but a day we've wasted human lives and our reputation, such as it is.
The conduct of these Marines does not surprise me in the least. They are expected to act that way by our civilian and military leaders. When you want something destroyed today, call in the Marines. But, the relativistic justification I hear above for this conduct is sheer nonsense. At almost all levels of meaning, the conduct is abhorrent.
Also, many on this board served in the military in time of war. That doesn't mean we have special qualifications to criticize the military, but it does mean we earned our right to criticize them. But, if anyone thinks the Marines' conduct is justifiable, war or not, they are wrong.
Get out of Iraq now. Why wait until we've lost 10,000 Americans?
-Robert
Nonsense. Their conduct is TYPICAL of soldiers in war. War is, in and of itself, an AWFUL business. Pulling out now would be exactly what we did in 1991 and it would leave the Iraqi people defenseless against the totalitarianism of the Muslim world that seeks to keep Iraq oppressed.
Vietnam was a quagmire; Iraq is not. Yeah, it's a b1tch, it's been a dangerous and costly fight, but as wars go we've lost VERY few men.
Jason
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: TheGreenGoblin
I really can't believe that there are still ppl out there that think the U.S. is in Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people and to give them democracy. How much more evidence to the contrary is needed ?
It's all about oil and defense contracts , people. Making the rich richer , at the expense of an entire nation of people. If there was any justice in this world , Bush , Rumsfeld and their cronies would already be on trial for war crimes.
The funny thing is , this is the 2nd time the American populace has been tricked by the same gang of crooks. 25 years ago Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were demonizing the Russians and holding press conferences where they'd reveal their manufactured evidence of Soviet mobile nuclear labs.
WOW, that's a bunch of tripe if we haven't heard it a thousand times before. Still too obstinate to admit that there are MANY reasons for being in Iraq, and oil isn't even at the top of that list, eh?
Grow up. Grow a brain.
Jason
Originally posted by: yllus
Generally speaking (though it's likely 100% the case), those who do not 'conform' to your core set of beliefs are always either going to be directly or indirectly trying to undermine your position and security in the world. That goes whether you're a republican talking about a dictator, a communist talking about a fascist, whatever. Ideologies do not play well with others.Originally posted by: Aelius
So it's perfectly ok to undermine, spy on, assassinate, torture, and occassionaly invade nations that don't conform to your certain set of rules (regardless of what that might be)?
What if they don't attack you or your allies is it ok to do this?
These "certain set of rules" are not like traffic violations. They're the big ones: The rights to life, liberty and security of person. Yes, I think it's 100% justifiable to undermine and spy on countries that do not share these views. Ninety percent of a nation's efforts are going to be in one of those two categories. And where deemed necessary, assassinations and invasions are acceptable in my view (torture has little value on the global level). Part of doing this 'morally' is the use of only necessary force. If Saddam could have been assassinated and his family would not have just stepped up in his place, who would honestly be against that?
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: jpeyton
We can't pick and choose which "oppressed" people we want to free. No country in the world has the right to overthrow any dictatorship they want.
No, you're wrong. Any FREE nation ALWAYS has the right to overthrow ANY dictatorship at ANY time. End of story.
Jason
I don't recall Iraq's majority asking to be freed from Saddam.
You just pissed away any moral high ground you might have had.
Originally posted by: jpeyton
A little excerpt from Howard Zinn last night:
Chistopher Columbus came to the New World under the pretense of bringing Christianity to the savages (Indians).
His real motive: gold. He used his forces to slaughter countless Indians in the process.
Now we have Bush, who has come with his forces to Iraq to bring Democracy to the savages (Iraqis).
His real motive: oil. And his forces are racking up the bodies in the process.
IMO, Columbus was a better man. Why? Because he was actually WITH his forces when raped and pillaged the Indians.
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: jpeyton
We can't pick and choose which "oppressed" people we want to free. No country in the world has the right to overthrow any dictatorship they want.
No, you're wrong. Any FREE nation ALWAYS has the right to overthrow ANY dictatorship at ANY time. End of story.
Jason
I don't recall Iraq's majority asking to be freed from Saddam.
You just pissed away any moral high ground you might have had.
Right, because if they asked to be freed, their family would be executed while they're forced to watch.
?If anyone gets too close to us we fvcking waste them,? says a bullish lieutenant. ?It's kind of a shame, because it means we've killed a lot of innocent people.?
Since discovering that roadside bombs, known as Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), can be triggered by mobile telephones, marines say they shoot at any Iraqi they see handling a phone near a bomb-blast. Bystanders to an insurgent ambush are also liable to be killed.
According to the marine lieutenant: ?It gets to a point where you can't wait to see guys with guns, so you start shooting everybody...It gets to a point where you don't mind the bad stuff you do.?
Since September 1st, when the battalion's 800 men were deployed to Ramadi, they have killed 400-500 people, according to one of their senior officers. A more precise estimate is impossible, because the marines rarely see their attackers. When fired upon, they retaliate by blitzing whichever buildings they think the fire is coming from.
In Fallujah, 40 miles (64km) east of Ramadi, the marines who survived the fierce assault on the town in November have a sardonic acronym for the skills it taught them: FISH, or Fighting In Someone's House. FISH involves throwing a hand grenade into each room before checking it for unfriendlies, or ?Muj?, short for mujahideen, as the marines call them.
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: jpeyton
We can't pick and choose which "oppressed" people we want to free. No country in the world has the right to overthrow any dictatorship they want.
No, you're wrong. Any FREE nation ALWAYS has the right to overthrow ANY dictatorship at ANY time. End of story.
Jason
I don't recall Iraq's majority asking to be freed from Saddam.
You just pissed away any moral high ground you might have had.
Right, because if they asked to be freed, their family would be executed while they're forced to watch.
I'd really like to see verification of that claim.
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: jpeyton
We can't pick and choose which "oppressed" people we want to free. No country in the world has the right to overthrow any dictatorship they want.
No, you're wrong. Any FREE nation ALWAYS has the right to overthrow ANY dictatorship at ANY time. End of story.
Jason
I don't recall Iraq's majority asking to be freed from Saddam.
You just pissed away any moral high ground you might have had.
Right, because if they asked to be freed, their family would be executed while they're forced to watch.
I'd really like to see verification of that claim.
You think Saddam allowed his people to speak freely against him? Funniest thing I've heard all week.
What I got from this was that lawlessness reigned where people voted Republican. :|According to official American reports, the insurgency is relatively concentrated: 14 out of Iraq's 18 provinces are said to see fewer than four attacks on coalition forces per month. But this includes several potentially volatile Shia provinces, like Dhi Qar and Maysan, parts of which are run by the still-armed Mahdi Army militiamen loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia cleric who made mayhem between April and August. Only four provinces?Baghdad, Anbar, Salah ad Din and Ninewa?see many more attacks. But as they include the capital city, the third-biggest city (Mosul) and the homeland of most of the country's Sunnis, they are no small problem: the equivalent in the United States might be an insurgency raging in those states that voted Democrat in November, and sporadic lawlessness in many of the rest.
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: jpeyton
We can't pick and choose which "oppressed" people we want to free. No country in the world has the right to overthrow any dictatorship they want.
No, you're wrong. Any FREE nation ALWAYS has the right to overthrow ANY dictatorship at ANY time. End of story.
Jason
I don't recall Iraq's majority asking to be freed from Saddam.
You just pissed away any moral high ground you might have had.
Right, because if they asked to be freed, their family would be executed while they're forced to watch.
I'd really like to see verification of that claim.
You think Saddam allowed his people to speak freely against him? Funniest thing I've heard all week.
You made the claim, you provide the proof.
Nice of you to ingore the rest of my post. It's OK, I understand why you did.
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: jpeyton
We can't pick and choose which "oppressed" people we want to free. No country in the world has the right to overthrow any dictatorship they want.
No, you're wrong. Any FREE nation ALWAYS has the right to overthrow ANY dictatorship at ANY time. End of story.
Jason
I don't recall Iraq's majority asking to be freed from Saddam.
You just pissed away any moral high ground you might have had.
Right, because if they asked to be freed, their family would be executed while they're forced to watch.
I'd really like to see verification of that claim.
You think Saddam allowed his people to speak freely against him? Funniest thing I've heard all week.
You made the claim, you provide the proof.
Nice of you to ingore the rest of my post. It's OK, I understand why you did.
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: jpeyton
We can't pick and choose which "oppressed" people we want to free. No country in the world has the right to overthrow any dictatorship they want.
No, you're wrong. Any FREE nation ALWAYS has the right to overthrow ANY dictatorship at ANY time. End of story.
Jason
I don't recall Iraq's majority asking to be freed from Saddam.
You just pissed away any moral high ground you might have had.
Right, because if they asked to be freed, their family would be executed while they're forced to watch.
I'd really like to see verification of that claim.
You think Saddam allowed his people to speak freely against him? Funniest thing I've heard all week.
You made the claim, you provide the proof.
Nice of you to ingore the rest of my post. It's OK, I understand why you did.
Right. I guess in totalitarian regimes, the dictator allows free speech. If you seriously think that, then there's no hope with you.
Whose terrorism? Saddam's? The "insurgents"? Or ours?Originally posted by: BannedTroll
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline...20030225ll_karbala.ram
and no it doesn't prove his exact claim but there was a desire at one time to rid Iraq of Saddam. I'd imagine after what happened speaking out would be something you didn't want to do. It (desire) could be seen after the fall of regime. The problem is depending on your view point "liberation" has taken too long or the Iraqi population is too easily swayed by terrorism.
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: jpeyton
We can't pick and choose which "oppressed" people we want to free. No country in the world has the right to overthrow any dictatorship they want.
No, you're wrong. Any FREE nation ALWAYS has the right to overthrow ANY dictatorship at ANY time. End of story.
Jason
I don't recall Iraq's majority asking to be freed from Saddam.
You just pissed away any moral high ground you might have had.
Right, because if they asked to be freed, their family would be executed while they're forced to watch.
I'd really like to see verification of that claim.
From the OP, I do have verification of these...
?If anyone gets too close to us we fvcking waste them,? says a bullish lieutenant. ?It's kind of a shame, because it means we've killed a lot of innocent people.?
Since discovering that roadside bombs, known as Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), can be triggered by mobile telephones, marines say they shoot at any Iraqi they see handling a phone near a bomb-blast. Bystanders to an insurgent ambush are also liable to be killed.
According to the marine lieutenant: ?It gets to a point where you can't wait to see guys with guns, so you start shooting everybody...It gets to a point where you don't mind the bad stuff you do.?
Since September 1st, when the battalion's 800 men were deployed to Ramadi, they have killed 400-500 people, according to one of their senior officers. A more precise estimate is impossible, because the marines rarely see their attackers. When fired upon, they retaliate by blitzing whichever buildings they think the fire is coming from.
In Fallujah, 40 miles (64km) east of Ramadi, the marines who survived the fierce assault on the town in November have a sardonic acronym for the skills it taught them: FISH, or Fighting In Someone's House. FISH involves throwing a hand grenade into each room before checking it for unfriendlies, or ?Muj?, short for mujahideen, as the marines call them.
Bush invaded Iraq based on false claims of the threat Iraq's non-existent WMD posed.
We are witnessing the results of foreign policy built on lies in Iraq.
No nation has the right to attack another nation unprovoked.
Even if Iraq was about liberation (and it wasn't), when you go down the road of "nation building" by choosing which dictator to overthrow out of a hat, you wind up with...Iraq.
We'd do much better right now to worry about our own freedom before we export any.
Sorry didn't really come to argue one point or the other. I will ask you though what you feel the situation would be like without the insurgents and if you feel their acts are representitive of the underlying feelings of the majority of the citizens of Iraq?Originally posted by: BBond
Whose terrorism? Saddam's? The "insurgents"? Or ours?Originally posted by: BannedTroll
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline...20030225ll_karbala.ram
and no it doesn't prove his exact claim but there was a desire at one time to rid Iraq of Saddam. I'd imagine after what happened speaking out would be something you didn't want to do. It (desire) could be seen after the fall of regime. The problem is depending on your view point "liberation" has taken too long or the Iraqi population is too easily swayed by terrorism.
Originally posted by: BannedTroll
1. I'm not so sure there were not any WMDs.
2. Bush Bush Bush and his jump to war. I'm sure in Jr. High you weren't tuned into these things so here is a cronology of events from the end of the Gulf War up to is administration:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...s/unscom/etc/cron.html
3. As far as liberation and the "murdering" of civilians you can't have it both ways. There were many public outcries over the number of deaths sanctions were causing. Should we have continued touse them until Saddam died of old age? Would that have caused less anymosity toward the US? Should we have just said screw it and dropped sanctions?
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: BannedTroll
1. I'm not so sure there were not any WMDs.
2. Bush Bush Bush and his jump to war. I'm sure in Jr. High you weren't tuned into these things so here is a cronology of events from the end of the Gulf War up to is administration:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...s/unscom/etc/cron.html
3. As far as liberation and the "murdering" of civilians you can't have it both ways. There were many public outcries over the number of deaths sanctions were causing. Should we have continued touse them until Saddam died of old age? Would that have caused less anymosity toward the US? Should we have just said screw it and dropped sanctions?
OMG, face it. There are no weapons of mass destruction. We've been there for 2 months shy of 2 years. Believe me, if the WMD was there they would have trumpeted it by now.
When I went to school there was no junior high.
The public outcries over the sanctions doesn't justify an unprovoked invasion that is killing more civilians per year than the sanctions did.
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
What, you thought it would be all fun and games? There is a REASON why the term "War is Hell" came into common usage and has been brought up during every war fought.
Oh, and incidentally, I found Grace. She works at the front desk in my office
Jason