US strikes raze Falluja hospital

[Guest Cerebus]

So no information on whether the hospital was being used as an ammo dump or a hideout for terrorists. Go BBC.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Some thoughts...

 

Killing 3000 civilians in cold blood is a little different then killing civilians accidently through collateral damage. Some things are just unavoidable.

 

These deaths will stop eventually when the situation gets sorted out in Iraq, be it next year or in ten years. Under the Saddam regime and his successors (I feared his sons alot more than I feared him) this could have continued for centuries, or at least until a bloody civil war/invasion would create the same problems that are there now. Iraq was/is a mess, and it will take awhile to clean up. People can talk about Germany & Japan as much as they like, but those two nations at least had some experience with democracy (Japan had for 50 years prior to 1932). The people haven't had a voice in Iraq, since...ever, I think....possibly with one of the short lived city-states back some 3000 years ago. This is going to be hard.

 

The fundamentalist Islamists don't just want Americans dead. They want Canadians, Australians, British, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, other Muslims, Indians, Germans, and basically everyone else who isn't exactly the same as they are to be killed too. If this was about American Imperialism, they wouldn't despise these other countries too. Many of whom don't even support the US war effort.

 

Canada does not approve of the war in Iraq, but they are angry with the UN and support an invasion of the Sudan. Also, Bob, Toronto is the San Francisco of Canada. It is the most left-wing liberal area in Canada, where politicians cater to the homeless while driving out native Torontonians out of the city and into the 905 area. Ottawa is also liberal, but not nearly as obnoxiously so.

[bob_barron 0]

I've realised that in my three years living here.

[Guest MikeSC]

No one needs to believe in some sort of conspiratorical doctrine to know that the actions taken by this administration are not benifitting the Iraqi, Afghani or American people for that matter.

Removing the Taliban and allowing them to vote for their own leaders doesn't benefit the Afghans? Allowing the Iraqis to vote for their own leader doesn't benefit the Iraqis? Trying to put a cap on int'l terrorism doesn't benefit us?

You accuse me of constantly pointing out the 'evils' of US foreign policy. I have serious qualms with the way your country has gone about their actions, so obviously I would. By the same token I could say that you act as a constant reminder that further exemplifies the 'my country, right or wrong' attitude when all you do is act as an apologist for the war, never acknowledging the many things that have gone wrong since the invasion or even coming to terms that your government has done some awful things in the past and present no matter how many instances are brought up.

Who denies we've done bad things in our past? However, it is ironic that European powers have the sheer audacity to complain about OUR "imperialist tendencies", given YOUR lovely history on that front.

 

Our "Bad" acts were done for good reasons.

Anything other than the same rheoteric being echoed by the media is considered outrageous and border-line conspiracy, heaven forbid the US has unjust intentions. There's a noble and honest reason for everything right?

Almost universally, yes.

Psychologically the Twin Towers falling means more to Americans? That's understandable, but how do you think an Iraqi man 'pyschologically' feels about his family being killed as a result of a US air raid?

And you ignore the world of difference between unintentional collateral damage and intentional killing.

Your getting into personal bias, obviously the recipeints of such crimes are going to feel the pain more. However, when the death tally is added up between the the war on Iraq and 9/11 the devastation is highly more severe in Iraq.

Consider the lives they WERE living, they are significantly better off.

And for what? Not for WMD's you say? What did Bush say exactly on his address to the nation just before the war? Not for democracy you say? Funny, Bush uses buzzwords like that whenever the issue is brought up regarding what will happen to the country. Hmmm. So, according to you, it's a fight against Islamofacism?

Wrong. Bush GAVE numerous reasons --- but the underlying reason for ALL we're doing is dealing with Islamofascism. And you should be glad as that is going to become an increasing problem in Europe in the very near future.

 

Let's just say that in about 20 years, the murder of Theo Van Gogh is not going to be all that isolated an incident.

Well, it's good to know that your government is helping to deter the beliefs of millions in the Middle East. Now, you'll argue the term is synonymous with tyranny and terrorism, and in some ways, you'd be right, but why would there be such resentment towards the West in the first place? General distain for the West based on religious doctrine that totally unjustifiable? An ideology has been created based on US foreign policy, 'destroying' it by launching wars against nations such as Iraq is counter-productive.

Which is certifiably absurd. The Islamofascist ideology is against EVERYTHING Western. If Europe wishes to believe that it is ONLY because of America, they're going to have a problem because Muslims hate YOU, too.

You act as if American imperialism is some fabricated notion of a delusional mind. If that were the case, there wouldn't be so many pissed off Arabs in the Middle East. Or are they just bitching for no reason?

Germans believes Jews were behind all of their problems when they were led by Hitler. Just because a lot of people believe something hardly makes it accurate or true.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm not going to bother aruging, Mike, because your embarrassing lack of human emotion continually drives you to flaming others for disagreeing with you.

No, my utter disdain for twidding idiots makes me unwilling to deal with inferior examples of carbon-based lifeforms.

 

Resume murmuring, because your writing and thought are inept.

-=Mike

Sorry Mike, totally forgot that you were Mr Genius 2004. You should run for office, seeing as you're far more intelligent than us all.

Not us all. Just far more intelligent than you --- but outside of fungus under a rock, C-Bacon, and INXS, who isn't?

-=Mike

I don't think you are in any position to comment on my intelligence, Mr Ignorant.

YOU are in no position to comment on anybody's ignorance, son.

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

Sure he is, Mike. You just got PWNED~! by a kid that steals money from his girlfriend. Yep. Owned indeed.

[Guest MikeSC]

Sure he is, Mike. You just got PWNED~! by a kid that steals money from his girlfriend. Yep. Owned indeed.

And that bangs her when he thinks he has an STD.

 

A winner is he.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

We do our best to make sure we kill as little as possible.

 

This is true. But why do we do so? Because of the vigilance of the antiwar set.

 

So much effort would not likely be put into limiting civilian casualties if the military didn't know there BUTT was going to be held to the fire for it.

[bob_barron 0]

I think we do so because we don't want to kill people we don't mean to kill

[Guest MikeSC]

We do our best to make sure we kill as little as possible.

 

This is true. But why do we do so? Because of the vigilance of the antiwar set.

No, we do so because WE DO NOT WANT TO KILL INNOCENTS. It is not in our interests and it's not in our make-up. We are doing this as antiseptically as possible and MOST of our deaths is caused by that.

So much effort would not likely be put into limiting civilian casualties if the military didn't know there BUTT was going to be held to the fire for it.

Like it or not, the military is made up of HUMANS who don't pop wood at the idea of killing innocents.

-=Mike

[bob_barron 0]

No one needs to believe in some sort of conspiratorical doctrine to know that the actions taken by this administration are not benifitting the Iraqi, Afghani or American people for that matter.

 

Iraqi people: Have a free democratic government and don't have to live in fear of a dictator like Saddam Hussein

 

Afghani people: See above but replace Hussein with Taliban.

 

American people: Feel safer at home, get to know their country is doing good in the world.

 

Anything other than the same rheoteric being echoed by the media is considered outrageous and border-line conspiracy, heaven forbid the US has unjust intentions. There's a noble and honest reason for everything right?

 

The US isn't perfect and no one claims they are. But they do have honest and noble intentions. I know you don't want to believe it- but it's true.

 

Psychologically the Twin Towers falling means more to Americans? That's understandable, but how do you think an Iraqi man 'pyschologically' feels about his family being killed as a result of a US air raid? Your getting into personal bias, obviously the recipeints of such crimes are going to feel the pain more. However, when the death tally is added up between the the war on Iraq and 9/11 the devastation is highly more severe in Iraq.

 

There's a big difference between an accidental unintentional civilian death and 3,000 Americans dying on a single day because they decided to show up to work. Do you understand that?

 

Also- 9/11 was one day. The Iraq War is 18 months. Do the math.

 

Of course to you Americans choosing their leader in a free and democratic fashion was a lot worse then the Towers falling.

 

Of course you'd like to conveniently draw a parallel between me thinking that the specific act of a President I do not like being re-elected and the events of 9/11 being on the same level. This is not the case, i'm looking at the entire scope of things here, the re-election of a man that sent thousands to die in the desert and kill ten to hundreds of thousands in the process.

 

You're the one who said it. You're also the one still parrotting around that ridicilous 100,000 number.

 

Does Bush wish death upon the world? It seems like your trying to paint me as somone who is literally trying to say that Bush and Satan are one in the same. An extreme exaggeration on my stance on the whole issue really. No, I do not believe that Bush 'wishes' death upon the world, but rather he has no qualms about the loss of human life to sustain this administrations goals. And evidently, neither do you.

 

Bush understands the world that we live in and understands what can happen if you don't take care of terrorism before it happens.

 

You don't.

 

 

And for what? Not for WMD's you say? What did Bush say exactly on his address to the nation just before the war? Not for democracy you say? Funny, Bush uses buzzwords like that whenever the issue is brought up regarding what will happen to the country. Hmmm. So, according to you, it's a fight against Islamofacism? Well, it's good to know that your government is helping to deter the beliefs of millions in the Middle East. Now, you'll argue the term is synonymous with tyranny and terrorism, and in some ways, you'd be right, but why would there be such resentment towards the West in the first place?

 

 

I'm sorry you don't like terrorists being captured and killed. The beliefs of those people want to do terroristic acts on us. Bush has no problem with the Muslim or Islamic people and has reached out many times to say so.

 

General distain for the West based on religious doctrine that totally unjustifiable? An ideology has been created based on US foreign policy, 'destroying' it by launching wars against nations such as Iraq is counter-productive. And again, it's interesting how the US picks and chooses which nations are a threat and which they can leave on their own and not worry about. Your rationale dictates that Iraq is the centre of Islamic fundamentalism. You know that's not the case. Of course when you have a leader that basis his actions on 'good' vs. 'evil' you tend to get this fundamental Christain attitude towards the Middle East. Their wrong, we're right, they must be changed. Is this suppose to ease resentment towards the West? Or further propagate future terrorists and al-Qaeda members?

 

They hate everyone jackass. Canadians died on 9/11. So did people from many other countries.

 

According to you i'm trying to allude that Saddam never comitted any atrocities and Saddam is the glue that holds the country together. I love your spin doctoring here, it's admirable in the sense that you try so hard to vigilantly accuse me as a Saddam apologist to coincide with your opinion that i'm merely here to act as an anti-American zealot.

 

You're the one who said:

 

Nor do I recall civilians being physically humiliated and emotionally and sexually tortured

 

If your solution to maintaining peace and civility and a democracy that is unlikely to sustain itself is to bomb the country and kill thousands of civilians, then the rest of the world has lots to look forward to.

 

You have a very warped and fucked up view of what we're doing.

 

You act as if American imperialism is some fabricated notion of a delusional mind. If that were the case, there wouldn't be so many pissed off Arabs in the Middle East. Or are they just bitching for no reason?

 

Many people do not like that we help Israel. Are they correct?

 

 

But hey, if reality to you means America as the peace-spreading, equal opportunity and down-right do-gooding nation, who am I to trample on your bubble?

 

Pop quiz:

 

Who gives more humanitarian aid then any other country?

[Guest INXS]

Sure he is, Mike. You just got PWNED~! by a kid that steals money from his girlfriend. Yep. Owned indeed.

And that bangs her when he thinks he has an STD.

 

A winner is he.

-=Mike

There you go again, showing your ignorance.

 

Go re-read the two threads in Love, Sex & Dating and you will see that I never stole from my girlfriend nor did I seriously think I had an STD.

 

How my posts in Love, Sex and Dating have any relevance to the razing of an Iraqi hospital I don't know; in future please refrain from flaming me.

[Guest MikeSC]

Sure he is, Mike. You just got PWNED~! by a kid that steals money from his girlfriend. Yep. Owned indeed.

And that bangs her when he thinks he has an STD.

 

A winner is he.

-=Mike

There you go again, showing your ignorance.

 

Go re-read the two threads in Love, Sex & Dating and you will see that I never stole from my girlfriend nor did I seriously think I had an STD.

 

How my posts in Love, Sex and Dating have any relevance to the razing of an Iraqi hospital I don't know; in future please refrain from flaming me.

Sorry, she has to lock money in a box so you can't get to it --- and you stole from the box ANYWAY. Again, my sympathy for her is gone since she lets you do it.

-=Mike

[Slayer 0]

please refrain from flaming me.

Fuck you, ignorant cunt

[Guest INXS]

Sure he is, Mike. You just got PWNED~! by a kid that steals money from his girlfriend. Yep. Owned indeed.

And that bangs her when he thinks he has an STD.

 

A winner is he.

-=Mike

There you go again, showing your ignorance.

 

Go re-read the two threads in Love, Sex & Dating and you will see that I never stole from my girlfriend nor did I seriously think I had an STD.

 

How my posts in Love, Sex and Dating have any relevance to the razing of an Iraqi hospital I don't know; in future please refrain from flaming me.

Sorry, she has to lock money in a box so you can't get to it --- and you stole from the box ANYWAY. Again, my sympathy for her is gone since she lets you do it.

-=Mike

:Sigh: You'll get there eventually.

 

You're incorrect but as it is irrelevant to this thread i'll let it go.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

Why couldn't daddy Bush have got the job done in 1990 or whenever it was, saving us this nonsense?

[Guest BDC]

IIRC, the UN.

[Guest thebigjig]

Jesus fucking Christ... THIS is one of the main reasons I took a goddamned break from this place.

 

You're all acting like immature fucktards and you're not getting anywhere convincing the other side, so what do you do? You bring up personal crap that has nothing to do with anything what so ever and when someone doesn't agree with your ideology they automatically are shouted down for the opinions that they express.

 

Yay Democracy.

 

This thread has degenerated into a flame war with no point to anything having to do with the original subject and I request it to be closed.

[Guest MikeSC]

The original post was flaming. The thread went on from there.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

No one needs to believe in some sort of conspiratorical doctrine to know that the actions taken by this administration are not benifitting the Iraqi, Afghani or American people for that matter.  You accuse me of constantly pointing out the 'evils' of US foreign policy. I have serious qualms with the way your country has gone about their actions, so obviously I would. By the same token I could say that you act as a constant reminder that further exemplifies the 'my country, right or wrong' attitude when all you do is act as an apologist for the war, never acknowledging the many things that have gone wrong since the invasion or even coming to terms that your government has done some awful things in the past and present no matter how many instances are brought up. Anything other than the same rheoteric being echoed by the media is considered outrageous and border-line conspiracy, heaven forbid the US has unjust intentions. There's a noble and honest reason for everything right?

You've tried to push on us proof that the US Government is trying to set up a consumer-slave culture across the world. That's not conspiratorial? I guess I missed that meeting.

 

Bob already pointed out the benefits to each country. Afgani women, for the first times in memory, got their chance to vote for their leader. Of course, you were quick to point out that the elections had problems (To which investigators were quickier to show that it was needless whining from the losers), but to say they haven't benefitted at all is ignorance, plain and simple.

 

I've never denied that things haven't gone wrong, nor that the US hasn't done anything wrong. We've made mistakes in the past. I hardly, though, think that past mistakes are accurate ammunition against the United States today, nor do I think that they intentionally tried to hurt anyone with their mistakes, unlike you who always seems to assume that we like to abuse as many people as we can get our hands on.

 

And the reason your own rhetoric is considered conspiracy is not considered valid is because, as a rule, it IS conspiratorial. Bush has his hand in everything, every attrocity, every oil transaction, everything.

 

And on the whole "My country, right or wrong" statement, I don't accuse Jobber of being a bad person who hates America. He might throw in a few cheap shots, but damn if I can say that he honestly hates America. There ARE valid criticism of America, the best being we went in with one shitty occupational plan. It's not the same with you: You're hatred is so pronouned that you can't get past any event without hinting at some US injustice being committed or some underlying plot by Bush to further rape the lands. Your bitterness is just utterly incredible, so much so that we can no longer take you seriously because you pretty much go out of your way to try and make the US some evil empire that destroys everything it touches.

 

Psychologically the Twin Towers falling means more to Americans? That's understandable, but how do you think an Iraqi man 'pyschologically' feels about his family being killed as a result of a US air raid? Your getting into personal bias, obviously the recipeints of such crimes are going to feel the pain more. However, when the death tally is added up between the the war on Iraq and 9/11 the devastation is highly more severe in Iraq. Of course you'd like to conveniently draw a parallel between me thinking that the specific act of a President I do not like being re-elected and the events of 9/11 being on the same level. This is not the case, i'm looking at the entire scope of things here, the re-election of a man that sent thousands to die in the desert and kill ten to hundreds of thousands in the process.

 

Perhaps I'm missing the fact where one was an accident and one was meant to kill as many innocent civilians as possible. There's a different between an accident and an attack, and the size of the attack. No offense, but one air raid accidentally killing a family doesn't equal up to 9/11 simply because of the size, scope, and intent. It's an inaccurate comparison, but I figured you'd be desperate enough to try and make it.

 

No, you aren't looking at the entire scope of things, because then you'd realize that Iraq, in the long run, is likely better off because of this. If you were looking at the whole scope of things, you'd realize that there is something noble behind what's going on, even if it's a last ditch attempt to change the region. But you don't. All you can look through your colored glasses is an inflated death count, which means everything to you and your argument. Don't try to act like you are the one looking at the big picture when all you seem to be able to concentrate on is one subject.

 

Does Bush wish death upon the world? It seems like your trying to paint me as somone who is literally trying to say that Bush and Satan are one in the same. An extreme exaggeration on my stance on the whole issue really. No, I do not believe that Bush 'wishes' death upon the world, but rather he has no qualms about the loss of human life to sustain this administrations goals. And evidently, neither do you.

 

You believe that he's an inherently evil man for his actions. You honestly believe that he doesn't care about any of this, that he has no compassion or sympathy for these people. Perhaps it's just because I understand the situation better that I realize that he made hard decision, and one that he probably regrets despite knowing it's the right one. Of course, continue to preach that he's a soulless tool of corporatism that will do anything to further his own goals.

 

Remember, kids, that's not conspiratorial in the least!

 

And for what? Not for WMD's you say? What did Bush say exactly on his address to the nation just before the war? Not for democracy you say? Funny, Bush uses buzzwords like that whenever the issue is brought up regarding what will happen to the country. Hmmm. So, according to you, it's a fight against Islamofacism? Well, it's good to know that your government is helping to deter the beliefs of millions in the Middle East. Now, you'll argue the term is synonymous with tyranny and terrorism, and in some ways, you'd be right, but why would there be such resentment towards the West in the first place? General distain for the West based on religious doctrine that totally unjustifiable? An ideology has been created based on US foreign policy, 'destroying' it by launching wars against nations such as Iraq is counter-productive.  And again, it's interesting how the US picks and chooses which nations are a threat and which they can leave on their own and not worry about. Your rationale dictates that Iraq is the centre of Islamic fundamentalism. You know that's not the case. Of course when you have a leader that basis his actions on 'good' vs. 'evil' you tend to get this fundamental Christain attitude towards the Middle East. Their wrong, we're right, they must be changed. Is this suppose to ease resentment towards the West? Or further propagate future terrorists and al-Qaeda members?

 

*Sigh*

 

I figured you'd defend it. You defended a viewpoint that 9/11 was only a response to a massive consumer-slave culture being pushed upon the rest of the world by Bush and company.

 

It is synonamous with Terrorism and Tyranny and intolerance. Have we ever found a regieme that's truly been tolerant of multiple religions? Certainly not the Taliban; they demolished Buddhist statues all around Afghanistan. Apparently that was caused by US Foreign policy. The virulent hatred of Jews. I guess, when they got their own state, we must have tricked the Arab countries into attacking them rather than compromise, right? I guess this:

 

 

Just wasn't enough for the Arabs. But that's our fault.

 

Face it, it's been growing and developing for a long time now. It's been growing and developing, without US assistance. It's grown because the culture there is behind the culture change in the West, which naturally creates jealousy. Why wouldn't someone believe that the US is holding them down when we have such wealth and they don't? It's easy to point a finger at us, so they do. It's not as though we haven't tried working with them, they just refuse to work with us many times.

 

It wasn't created by the US. It was created by the culture and wealth gap of the West, which is something we are actually helping with the institution of Demcracy there. Invading hardcore dictatorships that support this doctrine of hate and abuse their people are exactly what we want to target. Sure, claim that we give them more terrorists: They'd be getting them anyways. It's easy to twist any action of our around into some Imperialist plot to steal their oil and wealth. I mean, hell, you seem to do it often enough that I'm sure that the professionals can make it pretty damn convincing. The fact is that if we did nothing, they'd count it as a victory, that they intimidated the US, and their ranks would swell with those who wanted to be on the winning side of things. If we attack, they call it open warfare and their ranks swell again. They will swell as long as these leaders are in political power in the Middle East and they can speak out. One way, we are making progress, even if they are gaining troops because they will ALWAYS be until we start to cut down on their political power structure. Create pressure by destroying the political systems that started this viewpoint and allow it to thrive.

 

No, my policy doesn't state that it's the center of Islamic Fundamentalism. If there are more dominos to be set up, then it obviously isn't the center. The center is Saudi Arabia, but it's pretty much impossible to justify an attack there. We realize this, which is why we are trying to set up democracy after democracy around it. It'll cave under the notion of social change and understanding. Of course, you're getting desperate, so a purposeful misinterpretation of my policy is pretty much expected right now. I mean, seriously, you are defending the concept of Islamofacism.

 

And, no offense, but right now more than one religion is in on the whole "The Middle East is wrong". It's not strictly Christian right now, it's pretty worldly. That's because the idea that all other who don't believe in your religion are evil and must be destroyed generally doesn't come across well to, well, those that don't share that belief. Oops.

 

According to you i'm trying to allude that Saddam never comitted any atrocities and Saddam is the glue that holds the country together. I love your spin doctoring here, it's admirable in the sense that you try so hard to vigilantly accuse me as a Saddam apologist to coincide with your opinion that i'm merely here to act as an anti-American zealot. I never did try to paint Saddam as anything less than a tyrant, but merely pointed out that the current status of the US occupied Iraq is far more devastating before the invasion. Even more outrageous is your warped claim that I somehow condone the actions of those who attack civlians and behead people. Obviously I don't condone the attacks on civlians, otherwise i'd be siding with you on your stance on how the US has gone about bombing the damn country. There were no qualms about targeting 'soft' targets such as in Nicaragua, and this war against the resistance movement is eerily similar. And no one should have been put in harms way for these barbarian fundamentalists to behead such prisoners in the first place.

 

Nor do I recall civilians being physically humiliated and emotionally and sexually tortured. Nor do I recall the amount of lives taken being on the same level as Saddam's regieme.

 

Uh, you were very, very wrong on both accounts, though you don't seem to admit it. Good for you, though, to try and take the moral highground.

 

I say you condone these actions because you constantly act as an an appoligist, not I. They kill people not because they are extremists who are intolerant and thrive on dictatorships and religious fundamentalism, but because they are a product of US Foreign policy and simply misunderstood. We need to help them, right? By condoning their reasoning, you do condone their actions. I never condoned the torture of Abu Ghraib; I didn't condone the mindset and I'm glad they are being punished. You, on the other hand, condone the mindset as not their fault, so through that you condone their actions as not really their fault. You condone them by not damning them; it's as simple as that.

 

Hey, and trying to make a veiled attack by saying I condone civilian attacks by the US! Good for you. Of course, there's a distinct difference between 'accidental' and 'purposeful', but you didn't grasp that with 9/11 so why should I expect you to now?

 

Once again, you fail to give a solution under your own doctrine. How do you want to deal with the 'barbarians'? Give me a solution better than the one right now. How should we have dealt with Saddam? More inspections? More time?

 

If your solution to maintaining peace and civility and a democracy that is unlikely to sustain itself is to bomb the country and kill thousands of civilians, then the rest of the world has lots to look forward to.

 

You wonder why I call you a child. Here's why. You act as though we go in, bomb indiscriminately, and say "Hey, we got Democracy!". You overgeneralize and simplify so that you can validate your extreme viewpoint.

 

You act as if American imperialism is some fabricated notion of a delusional mind. If that were the case, there wouldn't be so many pissed off Arabs in the Middle East. Or are they just bitching for no reason? Of course believing the status quo makes everything seem justifiable. That US foreign policy is fine the way it is, and the course of action currently being taken is truly the way to achieve a safer world.

 

They've been bitching ever since we rightly supported Israel during the first invasion of their country. It's made them bitter and they've refused to recognize their mistake in doing so. I'll say we've made mistakes there, but it hardly accounts for all of the accusations being made, nor does it count as something one would consider 'rampant imperialism'.

 

Yeah, believing in the Status Quo does help ya. It's okay to have fundamentalist dictators running around. It's our fault, anyways, so let's just sling some rhetoric around and not actually do anything while feeling good about ourselves for being so darn progressive and understanding.

 

And I really find it ironic for you to call me a child, all the while your slinging your childish insults as a means of validating your positions as correct.

 

No, because things like "That really showed the terrorists!" really is so mature. You've shown a lack of understanding when it comes to the reality of the world we live in; you have yet to grow up. Until then, you are a child. Sorry, that's life.

 

But hey, if reality to you means America as the peace-spreading, equal opportunity and down-right do-gooding nation, who am I to trample on your bubble?

 

I guess if one wants to believe that we are all just slaves to corporate America, that the United States Government is intent on dominating the world through the imposement of consumerism on all we can see, that we are selfish, heartless tools of a soulless hegemony that demands more money and oil to fill it's coffers, I must be living in a dream. It all fits together so well. Perhaps after reading this, I should blow up a government building so that I can fight the power as well as my freedom-fighting brothers in the Middle East, right?

 

I never said there weren't problems with what's going on: There will always be. It's inevitable. But your warped viewpoint is utterly indefensible. It lacks reality and it lacks logic.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

We do our best to make sure we kill as little as possible.

 

This is true. But why do we do so? Because of the vigilance of the antiwar set.

No, we do so because WE DO NOT WANT TO KILL INNOCENTS. It is not in our interests and it's not in our make-up. We are doing this as antiseptically as possible and MOST of our deaths is caused by that.

So much effort would not likely be put into limiting civilian casualties if the military didn't know there BUTT was going to be held to the fire for it.

Like it or not, the military is made up of HUMANS who don't pop wood at the idea of killing innocents.

-=Mike

Targeting civilians has gone way down in recent wars. I think we can all agree that this is a good thing.

 

World War II saw massive killing of civilians--take Dresden for instance. It worked well. But since then, we have realized that killing civilians en masse is unethical.

 

And I think this is, at least in part, due to agitation by humanitarians and antiwar groups.

 

The military's job is to win swiftly and decisively. If the military was all soft and cuddly it wouldn't be nearly as effective. I think that if it wasn't for the aforementioned agitation then the military would still be using the very effective method of targeting civilians. Not because they're evil, but because they're smart and they want to win.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I just wanted to say that, Powerplay, your posts in this topic have been, in my opinion, very persuasive and well thought out.

 

However, due to your avatar, whenever I read your posts I hear Al Sharpton's voice in my head.

[Guest MikeSC]

Targeting civilians has gone way down in recent wars. I think we can all agree that this is a good thing.

 

World War II saw massive killing of civilians--take Dresden for instance. It worked well. But since then, we have realized that killing civilians en masse is unethical.

 

And I think this is, at least in part, due to agitation by humanitarians and antiwar groups.

 

The military's job is to win swiftly and decisively. If the military was all soft and cuddly it wouldn't be nearly as effective. I think that if it wasn't for the aforementioned agitation then the military would still be using the very effective method of targeting civilians. Not because they're evil, but because they're smart and they want to win.

I'm sure the anti-war protestors of the past did it. I also suspect that the lessons of

Vietnam (namely, killing lots of people is unlikely to win the public over) helped. The battlefield uses the political system of the countries to a large degree and Americans have a severe distaste for just slaughtering lots of people.

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

Wow. Lot of work here. Ok then *takes deep breath*, here we go….

 

Yea- you're a worthless fuckhead.

 

The 100,000 dead Iraqi thing is completely inaccurate and has been refuted here many times.

 

3,000 lives were taken on ONE day. 3,000 ordinary Americans who had nothing to do with anything were taken just for being Americans and showing up to work or getting a plane. A firefighter from my town- who I know had a family. Does that mean anything to you? No.

 

You'd rather sit here and piss and moan about Americans using their freedom and taken advantage of their democratic system and turning out in record numbers to vote. What a horrible day eh?

 

I'd much rather relive a day where I didn't know whether my mom was okay for 4 hours then a day where I watched election returns on CNN.

 

 

Fuckhead? C'mon Bob, i'm sure you could find better insults to use just by watching your favourite pre-teen movies. That seems your area of expertise, this nullifying anything you say here as the same old conservative drivel that helps to put a happy face on the massacre thats going on in Iraq.

 

Of course your being subjective, 9/11 is going to mean more to you than the war on Iraq is going to mean on the famalies that lost loved ones. Your ignorance is truly remarkable and further exemplifies the epedemic that only cares what happens in our part of the world. Of course you blatntatly ignore what I said about the ramifications of the election and still imply that i'm more pissed off at the literal act of Bush being re-elected. I'd re-iterate the part you quoted, but it would either fall on deaf ears, or your blatant lack of understanding will misconstrue the message yet again.

 

If I were you, I’d be pissed off that my President used 9/11 to exploit peoples emotion’s in order to wage war on a Third World country.

 

The real impact of this election won't be seen until 10 years from now...

 

People like you make me sick. Canadians like you made me express any of my political views my first two years of school.

 

Boo hoo. There's a reason why we didn't go to this unjust war and why the world is against it. Your diehard conservative attitude has distorted your view of reality as you grasp for straws to find justification. So your not getting any sympathy.

 

What's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan is justifiable. I'm sorry that a guy wanting to bring democracy to this world upsets you but I guess you only care about your own ass.

 

Oh, the irony. Nothing anyone has posted here has made the war against these nations justifiable. None. But if your view of democracy is whats going on in Iraq right now, I pity you.

 

The fact that you felt the same sick feeling in your stomach when Kerry conceded that you did when the Towers were attacked makes you a worthless human being. You're one selfish disgusting son of a bitch.

 

On the contrary, it means i'm sick to my stomach of what will happen in the next four years as a result of Bush being re-elected. I feel the sick feeling everytime I read of the huge humanitarian crisis thats going on the country. But if images like this make you feel better about whats going on in the world, it's clear here who really disregards the value of human life.

 

You're the one who said:

 

Nor do I recall civilians being physically humiliated and emotionally and sexually tortured

Re:

Funny, I don't recall hospitals collapsing and cities being destroyed the way they are now while Saddam was in power. Nor do I recall civilians being physically humiliated and emotionally and sexually tortured.

 

 

Civilians do die in Iraq- and it's unfourtnuate. We do our best to make sure we kill as little as possible.

 

But how many more civilians would've died under Saddam's regime? Think about it.

 

It's unfortunate and unccessary. I can tell you right now the civilian deathswould not be on the same level as they are now. Nevermind that Saddam could have been removed without going to war (which i'll get to later).

 

And obviously the civilian casulaties is in fact, a non issue. Why, all we have to do is look at what happened this past week. They're targeting hospitals. A good way to make sure your enemy cannot rejuvenate, but what about the civilians? This tactic is also illegal in adherence to the Geneva Convention, but hey, fuck that too right?

 

In regards to the casualty numbers, there's a reason we never hear an exact number. We rarely we hear of them, and they aren't officially tabulated and the US estimations are significantly lower than that of everyone elses. So by that token, the actual death toll seems to be closer to the hundreds of thousands than it does of the ttens of thousands.

 

 

Yea- the WTC attack had a lot of dire consequences on terrorists and countries that harbour terrorists.

 

You might as well be blowing up the entire Middle East with that attitude. Civilians will be taken down, but as along the terrorists are marginally taken care of, everything will be all right.

 

Removing the Taliban and allowing them to vote for their own leaders doesn't benefit the Afghans? Allowing the Iraqis to vote for their own leader doesn't benefit the Iraqis? Trying to put a cap on int'l terrorism doesn't benefit us?

 

Ah yes, the Afghani elections, a prime example of the US history of creatign a de factor President into foreign nation with little to no opposition. Sure, there were a dozen names on the ballot, but who were they exactly? And who was voted in? Why, just who the American's wanted, Hamed Karzai, and his willingness to comply with the planned Unocal pipeline. Of course the country is still in shambles, but as long as their government remains the US lap dog, i'm sure there will be great strides that benefit the people. Nevermind the election process was a farce, with many people having multiple votes. Funny how the only person that is claiming the elections to be fair, is Karzai himself.

 

Iraq remains to be seen, but we already know that territories will not be represented and various Sunni groups are protesting it. How legitimate will they be if only part of the country is allowed, or part of the country is willing to partipate in this?

 

When the people of Iraq were asked their opinion of the US occupation:

 

- 1% thought the US invaded to bring democracy, 50% felt that the US wants democracy in Iraq.

 

The full response is that the US wants to establish a democratic government but will not allow Iraqi’s to do without the US pressure and influence. Ah, that wonderful democracy, how convenient. Democracy is fine, but only if you do what your told. (see also: Haiti)

 

More facts (Oxford Research, btw):

 

- less than 1% worry about occupation forces actually leaving

- 60 % want Iraqi’s to be in charge of security

- 79% have no confidence in US/UK forces

 

Nominal sovereignty is a deliciously appeasing term.

 

 

Bush did not put a cap on international terrorism, he merely inticed more of it.

 

 

And you ignore the world of difference between unintentional collateral damage and intentional killing.

 

Had Iraq had a hand in 9/11 the world might be a bit more forgiving. Yes there is differences in each concept, but the ideology of the Bush admin. is posing a threat to millions, and the collateral damage will suffer through these reckless and unjust actions.

 

Which is certifiably absurd. The Islamofascist ideology is against EVERYTHING Western. If Europe wishes to believe that it is ONLY because of America, they're going to have a problem because Muslims hate YOU, too.

 

Fanatical Islams do, yes. But now your generalizing. It's the result of the MINORITY suffering under Western exploitation. The common misconception is that ALL Muslims are extremists and violent and generally barbaric. Gotta love the media for portraying this lovely stereotype. If somone attacks a mosque in the name of Judaism or a Christian commits a hate crime against a Muslim community, are thse reflective of their beliefs as a whole. Islam, the word itself derives from the root worde meaning peace. They'll fight, but like Christinaity it will be in defense (i'm not condoning terrorist attacks here, just providing rationale towards their stance). Fundamentalists will mis-interpret and twist the Quran to their favor for their own ideological purposes. Christanity is also terribly guilty of this in relation to the Bible. The core basics of Islam, promote peace.

 

It's not the same with you: You're hatred is so pronouned that you can't get past any event without hinting at some US injustice being committed or some underlying plot by Bush to further rape the lands. Your bitterness is just utterly incredible, so much so that we can no longer take you seriously because you pretty much go out of your way to try and make the US some evil empire that destroys everything it touches.

 

See, thats your problem, your trying to label me as such. I don't go around looking for unjust reasons for every questionable move the US makes. But when it becomes so blatant and detrimental it's terribly hard to find any good. Am I bitter? No, i'm deeply concerned that the route your government is taking the world down.

 

Perhaps I'm missing the fact where one was an accident and one was meant to kill as many innocent civilians as possible. There's a different between an accident and an attack, and the size of the attack. No offense, but one air raid accidentally killing a family doesn't equal up to 9/11 simply because of the size, scope, and intent. It's an inaccurate comparison, but I figured you'd be desperate enough to try and make it

 

Except the accident was the result of a war that was totally unjustifiable. Would what you just said be any concellation for the famalies those already dead? That they died in 'some accident' and 'an attack' . Your trying to dictate how people should feel about having a loved one killed. Here's news for you, they feel the same no matter what, and in both cases, the deaths are in vain. Both examples are unjust acts. Both are the results of an out of control tyrant.

 

No, because things like "That really showed the terrorists!" really is so mature. You've shown a lack of understanding when it comes to the reality of the world we live in; you have yet to grow up. Until then, you are a child. Sorry, that's life.

 

What I said was in relation to the mindset of many. The majority of Bush supporters will have that kind of attitude. And why not? 70% that voted for him still believe that Iraq had WMD and they had a hand in 9/11. It's downright scary.

 

No, you aren't looking at the entire scope of things, because then you'd realize that Iraq, in the long run, is likely better off because of this. If you were looking at the whole scope of things, you'd realize that there is something noble behind what's going on, even if it's a last ditch attempt to change the region. But you don't. All you can look through your colored glasses is an inflated death count, which means everything to you and your argument. Don't try to act like you are the one looking at the big picture when all you seem to be able to concentrate on is one subject.

 

You believe that he's an inherently evil man for his actions. You honestly believe that he doesn't care about any of this, that he has no compassion or sympathy for these people. Perhaps it's just because I understand the situation better that I realize that he made hard decision, and one that he probably regrets despite knowing it's the right one. Of course, continue to preach that he's a soulless tool of corporatism that will do anything to further his own goals.

 

I say you condone these actions because you constantly act as an an appoligist, not I. They kill people not because they are extremists who are intolerant and thrive on dictatorships and religious fundamentalism, but because they are a product of US Foreign policy and simply misunderstood. We need to help them, right? By condoning their reasoning, you do condone their actions. I never condoned the torture of Abu Ghraib; I didn't condone the mindset and I'm glad they are being punished. You, on the other hand, condone the mindset as not their fault, so through that you condone their actions as not really their fault. You condone them by not damning them; it's as simple as that

 

I lumped these quote together for the sake of convenience so we can take a look at the 'grander scheme of things' as it relates US intentions and Iraq/Saddam Hussien.

 

When Iraq was first invaded, oil installations were immediately seized. The second largest oil reserves are now safe again for the world market and global oil companies. Controlling Iraq means that the US is in a position to extend it’s domination of the major energy resources of the world. This much is known to be true. In short, Iraq has become the “Petri dish” (thank you NY Times) in this experiment for pre-emptive policy. Next on the list, Iran. Words like “liberation” and “democracy” will be used as a pretext for whatever else happens. The problem with Iraq is handing it over to the people and leaving without any US ‘guidance’ will prove to be an unwise move from the US standpoint. With a Shiite majority, strides will be made to improve relations with Iran.

 

Preventive war falls within the category of war crimes. Any country has the potential to produced WMD, the intent is in the eye of the beholder. How low will the bar go to take measures such as this? The US has outlined their global management since WWII. The premise is to basically containing the centers of global power within the overall framework of order and to be able maintain control of the world’s energy supplies. Cheney, Rumsfeld and co. are officially declaring an even more extreme policy that aims at permanent global hegemony by reliance on force where necessary.

 

Another threat to humanity is the ridiculous need to militarize space and create ballistic missile defense systems. This of course, will facilitate the more effective application of US military power abroad and will make it easier for the US to shape environment. Is this really meant to protect America, or a means to secure dominance? After all, building up arms is counter productive in the sense that other nations will follow suit, and create a ripple effect around the world. Not to mention the US is one of only a few countries that refuses to sign any treaties that will prevent moves such as this.

 

Why are so many skeptical over the situation in Iraq? Why do so many people question the actions of the US government? All you need to go is look at the past. The US itself has committed acts of terrorism and aided terrorists in the name of ‘democracy’. Look at the 80’s, where the two main foci on the war on terror were Central America and the Middle East. In Central America, the terrorists were infact the US themselves, helping to aid Contras that attacked soft targets in Nicaragua, including the fact they were trying to oust their democratically elected government. All you need to do is look at El Salvador, Panama, Cuba etc. for more indication. According the official definition of terror, this would make the US literally the leading terrorist state.

 

Additionally, anyone that opposes their ideology is deemed a terrorist. Look at US and Israel. They regard Hezbollah as a leading terrorist organization, not because of the terrorist acts they commit, but because it was formed to resist the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, and succeeded in driving out invaders after two decades of defiance of Security Council orders to withdraw. So basically, anyone that resists US aggression is defined as a terrorist (South Vietnam, Iraq). One of the single worst atrocities occurred during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the 80’s. Now, I’m certainly not condoning the acts of Palestinian terrorists, or any terrorism for that matter. But the fact remains that the US supplied Israelis with the power and arms for invasions such as this and operations such as this add to the US record of state-supported international terrorism. You only have to look at the car bombings in Beirut and the bombing of Tunisians for more examples.

 

Terrorist networks can be weakened. This happened to al-Qaeda after 9/11, thanks to strong police work notable in places like Germany and Pakistan. Delicate social and political problems can not be ‘bombed’ away. It’s counter productive. It entices terrorism. Al-Qaeda recruitment dwindled after 9/11 but shot up after the Iraqi invasion, so using the argument that ‘they were going to join anyway’ is a fallacy. The actions of the Bush admin. have made the world much less safe for Americans in this sense. The actions taken has increased radical fundamentalism around the world, and its growing concern would not be an issue in the first place, had years of previous foreign policy not occurred. The war has created a new terrorist haven, Iraq itself. Terrorism is born of fear, resentment and powerlessness in the face of massive expansion from the West.

 

And what really has changed since 9/11? The US STILL supports dictatorships of Central Asia, yet they use the argument of removing another dictator as a means for going to war. This is why there is so much hostility and how Islamic Fundamentalism spreads, since the US supports every possible anti-democratic government in the Islamic world. Terms like ‘freedom’ and democracy’ cannot be taken seriously. Egypt is a prime example amongst many, where the human rights record is atrocious, but they’re ok to support since they’re so vital to US interests.

 

If unseating people like Saddam was really a top priority for war, why wasn’t he taken out years ago? The motive the Bush admin. keeps spewing is similar to that of Hitler of 1939. Now no one is going to draw a parallel to the level of threat between these two now are they? The motives for declaring war on Hitler were honorable, so was the removal of Saddam but this was not the reason for war to begin with was it? Of course Bush would have the American public believe that he did indeed have a hand in 9/11, as I mentioned before, many still do, no matter how much evidence proves otherwise. Regieme change does not mean a regime that Iraqi’s will prefer, but one that the US imposes, and calling it ‘democratic’. Throw in a seemingly unstable “election” in a couple of months, and you have a nice little occupied nation and energy reserves occupied. Mission accomplished!

 

Of course the twelve years of economic sanctions only strengthened Saddams regime, thus the people depended on him for survival is usually a fact that’s overlooked. Had the Iraqi’s had their economy and lives back, the Shiite majority would have almost certainly rebelled and overthrown him in. There is reason to believe that if the sanctions had been directed at PREVENTING weapons programs rather than administering them in the manner the US demanded, the population of Iraq could have been able to send Saddam to the same fate as others supported by the US. Tyrants like Ceausescu, Marcos and Chun Doo-Hwan were ousted without invasion. Saddam’s reign has been terribly shaky the past few years anyway. Unless the population is given the opportunity to overthrow a brutal tyrant as they did with other members of the US Dictatorship Fan club, there is no justification to resort to outside force to do so.

 

So in summary, any justification for attacks on acts of terror and wanting to bring democracy, while at the same time supporting dictatorships around the world , make the US one of the most hypocritical of nations, thus their stance on the ‘war on terror’ can hardly be seen as noble. Yes, the US provides humanitarian aid and does do well in the world. Don’t take my rant as entirely anti-US for the sake of doing so. It’s not. I like the US as a country, I just the despise the way its foreign policy has taken shape, especially now, and how the American public has been duped into conforming to this ideology

 

“The president has adopted a policy of "anticipatory self-defense" that is alarmingly similar to the policy that imperial Japan employed at Pearl Harbor, on a date which, as an earlier American president said it would, lives in infamy. Franklin D. Roosevelt was right, but today it is we Americans who live in infamy.” – Arthur Schlesinger, Historian

[Guest UncleKimmyGibler]

Targeting civilians has gone way down in recent wars.  I think we can all agree that this is a good thing. 

 

World War II saw massive killing of civilians--take Dresden for instance.  It worked well.  But since then, we have realized that killing civilians en masse is unethical. 

 

And I think this is, at least in part, due to agitation by humanitarians and antiwar groups. 

 

The military's job is to win swiftly and decisively.  If the military was all soft and cuddly it wouldn't be nearly as effective.  I think that if it wasn't for the aforementioned agitation then the military would still be using the very effective method of targeting civilians.  Not because they're evil, but because they're smart and they want to win.

I'm sure the anti-war protestors of the past did it. I also suspect that the lessons of

Vietnam (namely, killing lots of people is unlikely to win the public over) helped. The battlefield uses the political system of the countries to a large degree and Americans have a severe distaste for just slaughtering lots of people.

-=Mike

Mike, I heard you suck cock. I do too. Wanna hang out?

 

 

HOLA TANNERINOS

[Guest MikeSC]

Fuckhead? C'mon Bob, i'm sure you could find better insults to use just by watching your favourite pre-teen movies. That seems your area of expertise, this nullifying anything you say here as the same old conservative drivel that helps to put a happy face on the massacre thats going on in Iraq.

Aren't you being awfully ethnocentric here?

If I were you, I’d be pissed off that my President used 9/11 to exploit peoples emotion’s in order to wage war on a Third World country.

Well, if I cared about people of a darker skin hue than myself, I'd think them living under tyranny would be bad. But that's just me.

People like you make me sick. Canadians like you made me express any of my political views my first two years of school.

Boo hoo. There's a reason why we didn't go to this unjust war and why the world is against it. Your diehard conservative attitude has distorted your vew of reality as you grasp for straws to find justification. So your not getting any sympathy.

The "world" is against it due to bribery and an utter disdain for giving a shit about anybody who doesn't give them a lot of money.

 

The "world" is refusing to assist us in any way in dealing with the Sudan problem. The "world" can happily bite my ass.

What's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan is justifiable. I'm sorry that a guy wanting to bring democracy to this world upsets you but I guess you only care about your own ass.

Oh, the irony. Nothing anyone has posted here has made the war against these nations justifiable. None. But if your view of democracy is whats going on in Iraq right now, I pity you.

If you believe that doing nothing would ever allow the Iraqis to be free, you're sadder than you've appeared thus far.

 

Creating a democracy isn't pretty.

The fact that you felt the same sick feeling in your stomach when Kerry conceded that you did when the Towers were attacked makes you a worthless human being. You're one selfish disgusting son of a bitch.

On the contrary, it means i'm sick to my stomach of what will happen in the next four years as a result of Bush being re-elected. I feel the sick feeling everytime I read of the huge humanitarian crisis thats going on the country. But if images like this make you feel better about whats going on in the world, it's clear here who really disregards the value of human life.

Several months ago, I posted pics of what Saddam did to his own people. It made your picture look like a walk in the park.

 

Look at the results of what he did to the Kurds. And then come back and tell me how removing him was less than humanitarian.

You're the one who said:

 

Nor do I recall civilians being physically humiliated and emotionally and sexually tortured

Re:

Funny, I don't recall hospitals collapsing and cities being destroyed the way they are now while Saddam was in power. Nor do I recall civilians being physically humiliated and emotionally and sexually tortured.

And that far right group Human Rights Watch says you're full of shit on that.

Torture was EXCEPTIONALLY prevalent. Saddam would tie prisoner's hands to fans and twist their legs, breaking their back.

 

This wasn't a rare punishment.

Civilians do die in Iraq- and it's unfourtnuate. We do our best to make sure we kill as little as possible.

 

But how many more civilians would've died under Saddam's regime? Think about it.

It's unfortunate and unccessary. I can tell you right now the civilian deathswould not be on the same level as they are now. Nevermind that Saddam could have been removed without going to war (which i'll get to later).

Hmm, no mass graves on our part.

And obviously the civilian casulaties is in fact, a non issue. Why, all we have to do is look at what happened this past week. They're targeting hospitals.

Just like the bombed "Baby Milk Factories" during the First Gulf War, right?

A good way to make sure your enemy cannot rejuvenate, but what about the civilians? This tactic is also illegal in adherence to the Geneva Convention, but hey, fuck that too right?

That is actually quite false.

In regards to the casualty numbers, there's a reason we never hear an exact number. We rarely we hear of them, and they aren't officially tabulated and the US estimations are significantly lower than that of everyone elses. So by that token, the  actual death toll seems to be closer to the hundreds of thousands than it does of the ttens of thousands. 

Strange that only one exceptionally dubious study has the civilian death toll anywhere near that number.

Removing the Taliban and allowing them to vote for their own leaders doesn't benefit the Afghans? Allowing the Iraqis to vote for their own leader doesn't benefit the Iraqis? Trying to put a cap on int'l terrorism doesn't benefit us?

Ah yes, the Afghani elections, a prime example of the US history of creatign a de factor President into foreign nation with little to no opposition.

Except those 16 opponents and all.

Sure, there were a dozen names on the ballot, but who were they exactly? And who was voted in? Why, just who the American's wanted, Hamed Karzai, and his willingness to comply with the planned Unocal pipeline.

Using laughably discredited Moore conspiracy theories only makes you look like a bigger jackass than you already appear to be.

Of course the country is still in shambles, but as long as their government remains the US lap dog, i'm sure there will be great strides that benefit the people. Nevermind the election process was a farce, with many people having multiple votes. Funny how the only person that is claiming the elections to be fair, is Karzai himself.

And the int'l observers.

 

Can you actually PROVE your accusation, or are you simply throwing shit on a wall in an attempt to demonize America?

 

And if you think the Taliban in control was better, then you had best never criticize a soul's humanitarian streak.

Iraq remains to be seen, but we already know that territories will not be represented and various Sunni groups are protesting it. How legitimate will they be if only part of the country is allowed, or part of the country is willing to partipate in this?

Same as here. If you choose not to participate, that is your own damned problem.

And you ignore the world of difference between unintentional collateral damage and intentional killing.

Had Iraq had a hand in 9/11 the world might be a bit more forgiving. Yes there is differences in each concept, but the ideology of the Bush admin. is posing a threat to millions, and the collateral damage will suffer through these reckless and unjust actions.

The world wouldn't be more forgiving as the world is what it actually portrays America as being: Uncaring brutes whose ONLY concern is money.

Which is certifiably absurd. The Islamofascist ideology is against EVERYTHING Western. If Europe wishes to believe that it is ONLY because of America, they're going to have a problem because Muslims hate YOU, too.

 

Fanatical Islams do, yes. But now your generalizing. It's the result of the MINORITY suffering under Western exploitation.

Yet the leaders all seem to be fabulous wealthy. Strange how that works. The "oppressed ones" don't seem to be ever be actually calling for these movements.

 

But, hey, you can't trust them dark-skinned folks to make their own choices, right?

The common misconception is that ALL Muslims are extremists and violent and generally barbaric. Gotta love the media for portraying this lovely stereotype. If somone attacks a mosque in the name of Judaism or a Christian commits a hate crime against a Muslim community, are thse reflective of their beliefs as a whole.

No --- but Christians and Jews will quickly denounce the attacks. Good luck finding Muslims who denounce beheadings without adding in a "but...".

Islam, the word itself derives from the root worde meaning peace.

It actually translates to "submission" --- but I doubt you actually care.

The core basics of Islam, promote peace.

You might want to try actually reading to Koran at some point. You couldn't be more incorrect.

It's not the same with you: You're hatred is so pronouned that you can't get past any event without hinting at some US injustice being committed or some underlying plot by Bush to further rape the lands. Your bitterness is just utterly incredible, so much so that we can no longer take you seriously because you pretty much go out of your way to try and make the US some evil empire that destroys everything it touches.

 

See, thats your problem, your trying to label me as such. I don't go around looking for unjust reasons for every questionable move the US makes.

You did mention a Unocal pipeline as a reason behind the war in Afghanistan.

But when it becomes so blatant and detrimental it's terribly hard to find any good. Am I bitter? No, i'm deeply concerned that the route your government is taking the world down.

And I'd hate to live a life where I'd be happy allowing people to wallow in misery because it's more profitable to do so.

When Iraq was first invaded, oil installations were immediately seized.

Seeing as how that was a primary target of terrorists and the only real means Iraq has of financially rebuilding was oil sales...

The second largest oil reserves are now safe again for the world market and global oil companies.

Strange that the US is accused of "war for oil", yet we side with Israel --- who has no oil --- against the Arabs who have all of it. We refuse to buy oil from Iran (note: your country cannot claim the same)

 

Damn our obsession with oil.

Preventive war falls within the category of war crimes.

Hold onto that fallacious assumption.

Why are so many skeptical over the situation in Iraq? Why do so many people question the actions of the US government? All you need to go is look at the past. The US itself has committed acts of terrorism and aided terrorists in the name of ‘democracy’. Look at the 80’s, where the two main foci on the war on terror were Central America and the Middle East. In Central America, the terrorists were infact the US themselves, helping to aid Contras that attacked soft targets in Nicaragua, including the fact they were trying to oust their democratically elected government.

You REALLY need to read on Nicaragua as you could not conceivably be less accurate on your info than you are. You really are WAY off.

All you need to do is look at El Salvador, Panama, Cuba etc. for more indication. According the official definition of terror, this would make the US literally the leading terrorist state.

You can --- and I mean this nicely --- go screw yourself.

Additionally, anyone that opposes their ideology is deemed a terrorist. Look at US and Israel. They regard Hezbollah as a leading terrorist organization, not because of the terrorist acts they commit, but because it was formed to resist the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, and succeeded in driving out invaders after two decades of defiance of Security Council orders to withdraw.

Nah. They view Hezbollah as terrorist due to their tendency to bomb buses and civilian targets.

 

I know, you don't care about the darker-skinned folks of the world.

 

How does life go when you are utterly clueless as to everything?

Terrorist networks can be weakened. This happened to al-Qaeda after 9/11, thanks to strong police work notable in places like Germany and Pakistan.

Shocking --- no mention of the US. Figures.

Delicate social and political problems can not be ‘bombed’ away. It’s counter productive. It entices terrorism. Al-Qaeda recruitment dwindled after 9/11 but shot up after the Iraqi invasion, so using the argument that ‘they were going to join anyway’ is a fallacy. The actions of the Bush admin. have made the world much less safe for Americans in this sense. The actions taken has increased radical fundamentalism around the world, and its growing concern would not be an issue in the first place, had years of previous foreign policy not occurred. The war has created a new terrorist haven, Iraq itself. Terrorism is born of fear, resentment and powerlessness in the face of massive expansion from the West.

We'd been attacked for nearly a DECADE before we did anything.

If unseating people like Saddam was really a top priority for war, why wasn’t he taken out years ago?

We listened to "the world" for years. A mistake we should never make again.

The motive the Bush admin. keeps spewing is similar to that of Hitler of 1939. Now no one is going to draw a parallel to the level of threat between these two now are they? The motives for declaring war on Hitler were honorable, so was the removal of Saddam but this was not the reason for war to begin with was it?

Well, you're expanding your obvious lack of knowledge.

Of course the twelve years of economic sanctions only strengthened Saddams regime, thus the people depended on him for survival is usually a fact that’s overlooked. Had the Iraqi’s had their economy and lives back, the Shiite majority would have almost certainly rebelled and overthrown him in.

No, they wouldn't have.

 

You know why?

 

Because they TRIED IT ONCE. And were annihilated.

 

Why were they so thoroughly defeated?

 

Because the aid Bush Sr. promised them was withheld --- because we listened to "the world" asking us to not get involved.

Unless the population is given the opportunity to overthrow a brutal tyrant as they did with other members of the US Dictatorship Fan club, there is no justification to resort to outside force to do so.

I'd suggest you cease typing, as you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

“The president has adopted a policy of "anticipatory self-defense" that is alarmingly similar to the policy that imperial Japan employed at Pearl Harbor, on a date which, as an earlier American president said it would, lives in infamy. Franklin D. Roosevelt was right, but today it is we Americans who live in infamy.” – Arthur Schlesinger, Historian

No, the President adopted a policy of "anticipatory self-defense" that if Europe had any balls to do themselves, would've prevented Hitler from butchering millions of Jews.

 

Then again, that assumes that Europe gives two shits about Jews.

Mike, I heard you suck cock. I do too. Wanna hang out?

How sad is your life that you troll a wrestling-based message board, despite repeated bannings?

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

See, thats your problem, your trying to label me as such. I don't go around looking for unjust reasons for every questionable move the US makes. But when it becomes so blatant and detrimental it's terribly hard to find any good. Am I bitter? No, i'm deeply concerned that the route your government is taking the world down.

I'll start with my quotes first.

 

If the label fits...

 

Yes, you do. You assume we are bombing the hell out of the civilian population for kicks or whatever other reason you can make up. You honestly think that the Bush Administration is trying to create a New World Order starting with Iraq. It's quite obvious that you are trying very hard to try and find some massive, underlying evil with Bush and his administration.

 

And yes, you are bitter. If you can't recognize that 9/11 is a bigger tragedy than this election, you are extremely bitter. You're hatred colors you very much so.

 

Except the accident was the result of a war that was totally unjustifiable. Would what you just said be any concellation for the famalies those already dead? That they died in 'some accident' and 'an attack' . Your trying to dictate how people should feel about having a loved one killed. Here's news for you, they feel the same no matter what, and in both cases, the deaths are in vain. Both examples are unjust acts. Both are the results of an out of control tyrant.

 

I've justified the war to you already. There are numerous ones under the large, overarching reason I gave you. You can't give me another solution to Iraq besides the incredibly vague "Stop being so damn Imperialistic". Face it: Your ideology lacks a solution to the Middle East. If it were up to you, we'd still have the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq because nothing was going to be done about them by the World. Give me a solution to fix those problems other then spouting off rhetoric and vague statements and we'll have an actually 'two-sided' argument going.

 

I'm not trying to dictate how they feel. Of course there will be sadness and anger after a family member dies by accident. But the realization sets in that it wasn't purposeful and that it was an honest accident. Obviously you don't quite realize that people do rationalize an "Accident" and an "Attack" in different lights.

 

And, of course, everything is in vain because Bush is a 'tyrant out of control'. Nope, no blinding hatred there.

 

What would you say to those who had family members killed or tortured by Saddam, or those who suffered because Saddam was completely abusing the programs meant to help them?

 

"Sorry, better luck next time?"

 

What I said was in relation to the mindset of many. The majority of Bush supporters will have that kind of attitude. And why not? 70% that voted for him still believe that Iraq had WMD and they had a hand in 9/11. It's downright scary.

 

No, it was childish. Take responsibility for your own fucking quotes and actions. You are the one who made the childish attack, and now you are trying to pass the blame like a child. Very very nice.

 

I'd say your the one who is scary. They only believe that because, well, the UN and every other country in the world told them that for around 11 years. It's hard to believe after finding weapons throughout the early and mid-90s that suddenly he doesn't have any anymore. At least theirs is more understandable. You believe that Bush is some soulless tool of the business leaders to enforce consumerism on the rest of the world. You believe that the US purposefully commits these attrocities for profit and pleasure. Seriously, theirs had a realistic, factual basis. Yours is basically tied together by a loose amagamation of conspiratorial facts and beliefs. Who is worse off?

 

I lumped these quote together for the sake of convenience so we can take a look at the 'grander scheme of things' as it relates US intentions and Iraq/Saddam Hussien.

 

When Iraq was first invaded, oil installations were immediately seized. The second largest oil reserves are now safe again for the world market and global oil companies. Controlling Iraq means that the US is in a position to extend it’s domination of the major energy resources of the world. This much is known to be true. In short, Iraq has become the “Petri dish” (thank you NY Times) in this experiment for pre-emptive policy. Next on the list, Iran. Words like “liberation” and “democracy” will be used as a pretext for whatever else happens. The problem with Iraq is handing it over to the people and leaving without any US ‘guidance’ will prove to be an unwise move from the US standpoint. With a Shiite majority, strides will be made to improve relations with Iran.

 

This is a joke, right?

 

Do you understand why the oil fields were seized first? Lemme give you a clue:

 

 

Last time we left the oil fields alone, Saddam burned them up in one of the largest ecological disasters of the time. Seriously, get your head out of the "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" box long enough to understand how dangerous it is to allow these to be lit up. This time there were only 40 oil well fires, thankfully, so we managed to avoid another huge environmental disaster. So... what's the problem with that? Or does actual military strategy not fit into your plan?

 

It's funny, really. This post really has such little substance outside of accusations about oil and invading Iran (Because, you know, the Ayattollah is such an excellent, excellent guy. Seriously, I'd want him sticking around...) that there's little else to comment on. Veiled comments about the imminent failure in Iraq with little to actually sustain it.

 

Preventive war falls within the category of war crimes. Any country has the potential to produced WMD, the intent is in the eye of the beholder. How low will the bar go to take measures such as this? The US has outlined their global management since WWII. The premise is to basically containing the centers of global power within the overall framework of order and to be able maintain control of the world’s energy supplies. Cheney, Rumsfeld and co. are officially declaring an even more extreme policy that aims at permanent global hegemony by reliance on force where necessary.

 

Um, any proof on that first statement, or still talking out of your ass? Because it's a really ridiculous statement.

 

And um, the Dueffler report pretty much shreads your second statement up completely, since it's been proven that Saddam was actually looking to make WMDs after he was able to buy sactions off. If you actually bothered to read anything outside of CommonDreams or Matthew Good, perhaps you would get somewhere here.

 

Uh... okay then. I'm not even gonna address the second part of the statement because it's basically conspiratorial crap that you've claimed you don't put forth. This is a lot easier than last time.

 

Another threat to humanity is the ridiculous need to militarize space and create ballistic missile defense systems. This of course, will facilitate the more effective application of US military power abroad and will make it easier for the US to shape environment. Is this really meant to protect America, or a means to secure dominance? After all, building up arms is counter productive in the sense that other nations will follow suit, and create a ripple effect around the world. Not to mention the US is one of only a few countries that refuses to sign any treaties that will prevent moves such as this.

 

Yep, keep posting the baseless conjecture and black helicopter stuff.

 

Why are so many skeptical over the situation in Iraq? Why do so many people question the actions of the US government? All you need to go is look at the past. The US itself has committed acts of terrorism and aided terrorists in the name of ‘democracy’. Look at the 80’s, where the two main foci on the war on terror were Central America and the Middle East. In Central America, the terrorists were infact the US themselves, helping to aid Contras that attacked soft targets in Nicaragua, including the fact they were trying to oust their democratically elected government. All you need to do is look at El Salvador, Panama, Cuba etc. for more indication. According the official definition of terror, this would make the US literally the leading terrorist state.

 

*Sigh* Alright, we are just getting desperate here.

 

Yes, we've made mistakes.

 

Then again, hindsight is 20/20. You forgot the massive genocides of people like Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh (I'm sure the Brits regret helping him now), and Jung. Hey, that's practically all the major Communist leaders there. Fancy that. All the regiemes you speak of are either 1) Communist or 2) Religious theocracy. I've already told you why we don't trust Communist Regiemes: They tend to execute massive amounts of people, starve them, and become militant in the region whenever possible. Explain why we should expect anything less from another Communist regiemes? Look at the Middle East constantly invading Israel during the period you speak of. You act as though these incidents were simply the US trying assert power over whatever it could rather than actually looking at what happens when a Communist regieme would take over or an unfriendly religious theocracy was in place. All those incidents are justifiable. Maybe mistakes, but they are justifiable from what other regiemes had shown us before.

 

Of course, in your view, we simply put these brutal dictators and contras in place to suit all our own needs. We are a ruthless bunch, we are. We never have honest intentions like you. Only a thirst for money and power. Never anything good. Never.

 

Additionally, anyone that opposes their ideology is deemed a terrorist. Look at US and Israel. They regard Hezbollah as a leading terrorist organization, not because of the terrorist acts they commit, but because it was formed to resist the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, and succeeded in driving out invaders after two decades of defiance of Security Council orders to withdraw. So basically, anyone that resists US aggression is defined as a terrorist (North Vietnam, Iraq). One of the single worst atrocities occurred during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the 80’s. Now, I’m certainly not condoning the acts of Palestinian terrorists, or any terrorism for that matter. But the fact remains that the US supplied Israelis with the power and arms for invasions such as this and operations such as this add to the US record of state-supported international terrorism. You only have to look at the car bombings in Beirut and the bombing of Tunisians for more examples.

 

Uh, corrected a mistake in there. Of course, if you want to defend a corrupt nepotist like Diem, go for it! *thumbs up*

 

Moving on...

 

On Hezbollah: First off, Israel invaded Lebanon not because they just felt like it, but because the PLO and they had signed a cease-fire agreement and the PLO repeatedly violated that agreement. At the time, the PLO had massive weapons stockpiles and training camps in Lebanon, which made it impossible for the Israelis to slow down their growth. Because of these attacks (It came down to an attempted assassination of an Israeli Ambassador to really push Israel over the edge) and the situation at hand, Israel was forced to invade. Hezbollah was formed as a Catspaw by Iran, not the Lebanese, and at the moment it's controlled and funded by both Syria and Iran. Whoa, nothing to worry about there. Certainly not terrorism. I mean, with a resume like this:

 

- a series of kidnappings of Westerners, including several Americans, in the 1980s;

- the suicide truck bombings that killed more than 200 U.S. Marines at their barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983;

- the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847, which featured the famous footage of the plane's pilot leaning out of the cockpit with a gun to his head;

- and two major 1990s attacks on Jewish targets in Argentina—the 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy (killing 29) and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center (killing 95).

 

I can't understand HOW we could possibly label them as terrorists. But hey, I guess it's all because they disagree with us, right?

 

On the attrocties: All I find is PLO troops massacring the Christian town of Damour, and the Carbombing is the one that killed the American Troops, correct? Are you blaming the US and Israel for these somehow? And is the one in Tunisia in 2002, that killed all the tourists?

 

Seriously, how are you condoning this by tossing the blame on the US? You continually say "Well, I'm not condoning this" the go on to claim "But you guys brought it on yourselves with your own foreign policy". That's called excusing it, and excusing organizations who are intent on only creating more death and destruction to further their own political causes.

 

The UN has always had a significant bias against Israel. France and Russia are probably the two biggest, since both of them have been manufacturers of Arab Military equipment for quite a while. Many of the UN resolutions against Israel are pushed through because of the large amount of anti-semetism in the World Assembly and on the Council itself. Hell, they had one condemning Israel for having a military parade after the 7 Days War. Please, don't get me started on this.

 

I'd just like to say, as an asside, that was perhaps the shittiest argumetn you've put forth in this entire thing.

 

Terrorist networks can be weakened. This happened to al-Qaeda after 9/11, thanks to strong police work notable in places like Germany and Pakistan. Delicate social and political problems can not be ‘bombed’ away. It’s counter productive. It entices terrorism. Al-Qaeda recruitment dwindled after 9/11 but shot up after the Iraqi invasion, so using the argument that ‘they were going to join anyway’ is a fallacy. The actions of the Bush admin. have made the world much less safe for Americans in this sense. The actions taken has increased radical fundamentalism around the world, and its growing concern would not be an issue in the first place, had years of previous foreign policy not occurred. The war has created a new terrorist haven, Iraq itself. Terrorism is born of fear, resentment and powerlessness in the face of massive expansion from the West.

 

No, again, you fall victim to treating the symtoms, not curing the disease. Police actions DON'T work: you are fooling yourself when you think police actions work. Clinton practiced police actions, and we can see what it got us. Police actions are a step backwards, not forwards. Just as we saw with Lebanon and Israel in the above statement, you can only fight so much on your home turf.

 

You are missing the point on Al-Qadia: Many of those who are apart of it now in Iraq were former Fejadeen fighters and such. There were already part of the extremist Islamic movement, only under Saddam. You don't take into account the fact that many of those who joined were already doing such things and believing such things under Hussein, so the pickup isn't nearly as massive as you think: They are simply moving from one side to another. I didn't expect you to catch that, though.

 

Terrorism was born out of the culture gap between the West. To rectifiy this, we need to bring the Middle East into the 21st Century. Allowing people like Saddam to further propgate their sort of hateful Islam neutrilizes anything that we do with police actions, and because of this need to start taking out those in power who push this sort of belief.

 

Your foreign policy doesn't have a solution for that. You can't give me a solution where we can fight terrorism and allow these people to continue to fund and allow terrorists to hide inside their countries. You can only do so much at home before you have to root them out and destroy the places that they are allowed to breed.

 

And what really has changed since 9/11? The US STILL supports dictatorships of Central Asia, yet they use the argument of removing another dictator as a means for going to war. This is why there is so much hostility and how Islamic Fundamentalism spreads, since the US supports every possible anti-democratic government in the Islamic world. Terms like ‘freedom’ and democracy’ cannot be taken seriously. Egypt is a prime example amongst many, where the human rights record is atrocious, but they’re ok to support since they’re so vital to US interests.

 

See two entries up. Plus, actually read my previous posts instead of posting your knee-jerk, played out reactions. Pressure of change and all that jazz.

 

Otherwise, this post is again useless rhetoric. You have a lot more of this this time, lemme say...

 

If unseating people like Saddam was really a top priority for war, why wasn’t he taken out years ago? The motive the Bush admin. keeps spewing is similar to that of Hitler of 1939. Now no one is going to draw a parallel to the level of threat between these two now are they? The motives for declaring war on Hitler were honorable, so was the removal of Saddam but this was not the reason for war to begin with was it? Of course Bush would have the American public believe that he did indeed have a hand in 9/11, as I mentioned before, many still do, no matter how much evidence proves otherwise. Regieme change does not mean a regime that Iraqi’s will prefer, but one that the US imposes, and calling it ‘democratic’. Throw in a seemingly unstable “election” in a couple of months, and you have a nice little occupied nation and energy reserves occupied. Mission accomplished!

 

Easy. People like you, the UN, and those who supported police actions wanted sactions and inspections. Please, don't tell me that I should have gone earlier when you said that I shouldn't have gone at all. It just shows how hypocritical you are: We didn't go in because people like you wanted to work it out through diplomacy and police actions (Inspections), and it failed miserable. Now it's time to actually fix the problem rather than spew some useless rhetoric and pat each other on the back.

 

Again, you focus desperately on one reason because you know that there are dozens others that invalidate your claim. It was quite obvious that there was more to the invasion of Iraq than just WMDs; it's more complex than one reason. The reason why that one was expounded was because the other ones would promptly be laughed out of the UN (See: Darfur). If the UN wanted to do it on humanitarian needs, they would have gone in a while ago. But the UN doesn't care about that. Bush tried to frame it in a way that the UN would actually give a damn about.

 

Yes, yes, we've imposed a despotic regieme under Allawi. Of course. All we did was just bomb the place, put this guy in, and it's all done. Now we steal the oil and run. Democracy!

 

Seriously, and you can't understand why I call you a child when you post that 14-year old response.

 

Of course the twelve years of economic sanctions only strengthened Saddams regime, thus the people depended on him for survival is usually a fact that’s overlooked. Had the Iraqi’s had their economy and lives back, the Shiite majority would have almost certainly rebelled and overthrown him in. There is reason to believe that if the sanctions had been directed at PREVENTING weapons programs rather than administering them in the manner the US demanded, the population of Iraq could have been able to send Saddam to the same fate as others supported by the US. Tyrants like Ceausescu, Marcos and Chun Doo-Hwan were ousted without invasion. Saddam’s reign has been terribly shaky the past few years anyway. Unless the population is given the opportunity to overthrow a brutal tyrant as they did with other members of the US Dictatorship Fan club, there is no justification to resort to outside force to do so

 

Not true at all. This is a fact. We tried to let the Shiite majority rebel back in 1991 when there was little left of Saddam's military, but he managed to utterly brutalize the resistance and push it down. If they couldn't beat Saddam when he was at his weakest without our help, how in God's name could they possible rebel against him? It makes no sense. He would have kept them under reigns just as he did before. You lack a true understanding of how much control he actually had. Saddam's reign hadn't been shaky at all in the past few years. I don't see where you get that idea, especially with sanctions waning.

 

Of course, though, sanctions and the whole Food-For-Oil scandal was our fault yet again. Damn us for letting him get away with this stuff! It's obvious he wouldn't have been bad if we had just let him loose!

 

Of course, it was the US all along giving the biggest support to Saddam. Ah, I love that myth, since he his entire military was made up of Soviet equipment and all, and much of his chemical weapons came from Russia, Germany, and France. But hey, what did Kierkgaard say? Belief has nothing to do with how or why. Belief is beyond reason. They believe because it is absurd.

 

Keep believing, buddy.

 

So in summary, any justification for attacks on acts of terror and wanting to bring democracy, while at the same time supporting dictatorships around the world , make the US one of the most hypocritical of nations, thus their stance on the ‘war on terror’ can hardly be seen as noble. Yes, the US provides humanitarian aid and does do well in the world. Don’t take my rant as entirely anti-US for the sake of doing so. It’s not. I like the US as a country, I just the despise the way its foreign policy has taken shape, especially now, and how the American public has been duped into conforming to this ideology

 

Of course, you've proven yourself to be a massive hypocrite, approving of the reasoning behind the terrorists while saying you don't actually condone their actions. Ask us why we didn't take care of this along time ago while condemning us for taking care of it now. You ignore the absolute genocides committed by Communist regiemes which influenced our foreign policy, then decry us for trying to stop them from coming to power. You say we support dictatorships while defending to the death people like Saddam Hussein and the Taliban from being prosecuted. You are the hypocrite, you only need to open your eyes and take a long look at your argument here to see it.

 

You've also shown us that, beyond a shadow of any reasonable doubt, you don't have a firm grip on the reality of the world. Your own hatred of America in general (As shown by your utter trashing of anything they do as something out of greed, deceit, and lust for power) and of the current administration. You've gone over tired and worn talking points that no longer hold water anymore. Everything that is done over there now has some conspiratorial link right to the top, to some massive takeover and implementation of a slave society under consumerism where Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld preside over as kings. Nothing is to be taken at face value, because that's what the Illuminati want you to think. Because of you, I reward you with this:

 

 

Occaim's razor. It's not just for shaving anymore.

 

I'll get to the earlier part of your post in a little bit. After sifting through all that bullshit, I think I need a long shower.

[bob_barron 0]

Fuckhead? C'mon Bob, i'm sure you could find better insults to use just by watching your favourite pre-teen movies. That seems your area of expertise, this nullifying anything you say here as the same old conservative drivel that helps to put a happy face on the massacre thats going on in Iraq.

 

You're the one going to your left wing biased sites (Matthew Good??) and posting it as news, and babbling about a New World Order.

 

Of course your being subjective, 9/11 is going to mean more to you than the war on Iraq is going to mean on the famalies that lost loved ones. Your ignorance is truly remarkable and further exemplifies the epedemic that only cares what happens in our part of the world. Of course you blatntatly ignore what I said about the ramifications of the election and still imply that i'm more pissed off at the literal act of Bush being re-elected. I'd re-iterate the part you quoted, but it would either fall on deaf ears, or your blatant lack of understanding will misconstrue the message yet again.

 

If I were you, I’d be pissed off that my President used 9/11 to exploit peoples emotion’s in order to wage war on a Third World country.

 

I'm just using your words against you. On 9/11 the terrorists MEANT to attack us. They MEANT to kill us. When we attack Iraq- we don't mean to kill civilians. We don't mean to kill innocent people.

 

The election of Bush will do a lot of good in trying to reduce terrorism and prevent 9/11 like acts. I'm sorry if that upsets you but we're doing the right thing.

 

9/11 changed the way we look at things. We can't just let them be as long as we don't hurt them. If they are terrorists or pose a threat- it's best to kill them before they kill us.

 

Would you rather we responded to 9/11 by saying 'Oh that sucks- let's hope they don't do it again.' Saddam Hussein funded suicide bombers in Israel, had ties to Al Qada, was presumed to have WMDs (and didn't seem to like inspectors looking), violated various UN resolutions and did a lot of bad stuff to the Iraqi people. He had to go and I'm glad Bush had the balls to do something about it.

 

 

There's a reason why we didn't go to this unjust war and why the world is against it.

 

Do you support the War in Afghanistan? Did you support the Persian Gulf War?

 

Your diehard conservative attitude has distorted your view of reality as you grasp for straws to find justification. So your not getting any sympathy.

 

I'm not asking for your sympathy since sympathy from a mentally retarded person doesn't help.

 

I don't have a diehard conservative attitude. I didn't even vote Republican for Senate. I have my beliefs and I look up every candidate running for office and see if I agree with their voting record. I even considered voting Charles Schumer- a Democrat- and almost did.

 

 

 

Oh, the irony. Nothing anyone has posted here has made the war against these nations justifiable. None. But if your view of democracy is whats going on in Iraq right now, I pity you.

 

Things aren't easy over there and I hope no one expected it to be. Saddam built a network of guerilla loyalists and people who want his regime to stay. Free elections are scheduled for January and I'm looking forward to it.

 

(Free elections means democracy by the way)

 

 

 

On the contrary, it means i'm sick to my stomach of what will happen in the next four years as a result of Bush being re-elected. I feel the sick feeling everytime I read of the huge humanitarian crisis thats going on the country. But if images like this make you feel better about whats going on in the world, it's clear here who really disregards the value of human life.

 

If you care so much about the Iraqi people and their suffering, why did you say:

 

Funny, I don't recall hospitals collapsing and cities being destroyed the way they are now while Saddam was in power. Nor do I recall civilians being physically humiliated and emotionally and sexually tortured.

 

You don't seem to care that America is the #1 giver in aid around the world and we're always there to help countries out if they need it.

 

In the mid-90s we loaned money to Russia when they were having a severe economic crisis. This is a country we hated for a long time.

 

I'm the one who wants the Iraqi people to have a democratic government and be rid of Saddam and the loyalists. You're the one going around whining about stuff.

 

Here's a dirty little secret for you: Kerry said he would've gone to war WMDs or not.

 

 

It's unfortunate and unccessary. I can tell you right now the civilian deathswould not be on the same level as they are now. Nevermind that Saddam could have been removed without going to war (which i'll get to later).

 

We sanctioned him, we asked the UN to take care of it, we made resolutions. He didn't care. He kept on giving money to suicide bombers.

 

And obviously the civilian casulaties is in fact, a non issue. Why, all we have to do is look at what happened this past week. They're targeting hospitals. A good way to make sure your enemy cannot rejuvenate, but what about the civilians? This tactic is also illegal in adherence to the Geneva Convention, but hey, fuck that too right?

 

Here's a thought. You ever think that maybe the hospital was used to store explosives and other potential weapons by the people in Falljuah?

 

We're not killing a hospital so the enemy cannot rejuvinate moron.

 

In regards to the casualty numbers, there's a reason we never hear an exact number. We rarely we hear of them, and they aren't officially tabulated and the US estimations are significantly lower than that of everyone elses. So by that token, the actual death toll seems to be closer to the hundreds of thousands than it does of the ttens of thousands.

 

So every estimate except for the one that supports your argument is wrong? Okay then. It's not 100,000 though.

 

You might as well be blowing up the entire Middle East with that attitude. Civilians will be taken down, but as along the terrorists are marginally taken care of, everything will be all right.

 

Any country that willingly supports or harbours terrorists should be dealt with. What would you do?

 

 

Ah yes, the Afghani elections, a prime example of the US history of creatign a de factor President into foreign nation with little to no opposition. Sure, there were a dozen names on the ballot, but who were they exactly? And who was voted in? Why, just who the American's wanted, Hamed Karzai, and his willingness to comply with the planned Unocal pipeline. Of course the country is still in shambles, but as long as their government remains the US lap dog, i'm sure there will be great strides that benefit the people. Nevermind the election process was a farce, with many people having multiple votes. Funny how the only person that is claiming the elections to be fair, is Karzai himself.

 

Proof? Sources? Anything? Of course women being given the right to vote for the first time thanks to us is something you'll ignore.

 

(Michael Moore doesn't count)

 

If you think the Afghani war is about oil then you really need help. Because you know- when people think of a country with oil flowing out every which way- they think Afghanistan.

 

Do you support the war in Afghanistan?

 

Iraq remains to be seen, but we already know that territories will not be represented and various Sunni groups are protesting it. How legitimate will they be if only part of the country is allowed, or part of the country is willing to partipate in this?

 

Wait- what the hell? If you said what I think you said then you really need help.

 

 

Blah blah blah poll numbers

 

The Iraqi people can elect whomever they want. Once the Iraqi people are trained for security and can police themselves- we'll leave. It will take a while but leaving the country when we're not ready is just asking for trouble and it's horribly irresponisble.

 

 

Had Iraq had a hand in 9/11 the world might be a bit more forgiving. Yes there is differences in each concept, but the ideology of the Bush admin. is posing a threat to millions, and the collateral damage will suffer through these reckless and unjust actions.

 

Iraq was in cahoots with Al Quada, Saddam funded suicide bombers. Sounds like a bad guy to me.

 

 

Fanatical Islams do, yes. But now your generalizing. It's the result of the MINORITY suffering under Western exploitation. The common misconception is that ALL Muslims are extremists and violent and generally barbaric. Gotta love the media for portraying this lovely stereotype. If somone attacks a mosque in the name of Judaism or a Christian commits a hate crime against a Muslim community, are thse reflective of their beliefs as a whole

 

That's because you don't hear about Christians amd Jews blowing up buildings and stuff. It sounds mean but it's true.

 

The core basics of Islam, promote peace.

 

Then why did no group come out and condemn 9/11? Pretty peaceful guys eh?

 

 

See, thats your problem, your trying to label me as such. I don't go around looking for unjust reasons for every questionable move the US makes. But when it becomes so blatant and detrimental it's terribly hard to find any good. Am I bitter? No, i'm deeply concerned that the route your government is taking the world down.

 

But you do. Going to left wing propaganda sites like Common Dreams doesn't sound like you accidentally stumble upon the crap you find.

 

 

 

 

Except the accident was the result of a war that was totally unjustifiable. Would what you just said be any concellation for the famalies those already dead? That they died in 'some accident' and 'an attack' . Your trying to dictate how people should feel about having a loved one killed. Here's news for you, they feel the same no matter what, and in both cases, the deaths are in vain. Both examples are unjust acts. Both are the results of an out of control tyrant.

 

You're the one comparing it to 9/11 though. In 9/11 people were murdered for being Americans and going to work and enjoying life. In the Iraq war a civilian is killed for being in the wrong place wrong time. It's totally tragic and I hate that civilians have to die but we do our absolute best to attempt to minimise civilian deaths as best as possible.

 

 

 

What I said was in relation to the mindset of many. The majority of Bush supporters will have that kind of attitude. And why not?

 

Because we know the war was the right thing to do and we applaud our President for having the balls to do it. You just look for reasons to whine.

 

 

I lumped these quote together for the sake of convenience so we can take a look at the 'grander scheme of things' as it relates US intentions and Iraq/Saddam Hussien.

 

Conspiracy theory, oil, oil, blah blah

 

Why didn't we just invade Venezeula to get oil? It's closer and probably easier.

 

Powerplay even showed you pictures of why we seized the oil fields.

 

Would George Bush go through all this trouble just to get some oil? I don't think so. And again- if the war was about oil- why is gas so expensive?

 

And you don't remember that I believe in Kashmir Saddam burned tons of oil and it was really really bad.

 

Preventive war falls within the category of war crimes. Any country has the potential to produced WMD, the intent is in the eye of the beholder. How low will the bar go to take measures such as this? The US has outlined their global management since WWII. The premise is to basically containing the centers of global power within the overall framework of order and to be able maintain control of the world’s energy supplies. Cheney, Rumsfeld and co. are officially declaring an even more extreme policy that aims at permanent global hegemony by reliance on force where necessary.

 

If Saddam didn't have any WMD or wasn't making any WMD- why did he kick weapons inpsectors out many times? Why didn't he let the inspectors in and show that he had nothing to hide?

 

Because he did have something to hide.

 

 

Additionally, anyone that opposes their ideology is deemed a terrorist. Look at US and Israel. They regard Hezbollah as a leading terrorist organization, not because of the terrorist acts they commit, but because it was formed to resist the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, and succeeded in driving out invaders after two decades of defiance of Security Council orders to withdraw.

 

I'm stealing Slapnuts' gimmmick:

 

Activities

Known or suspected to have been involved in numerous anti-US and anti-Israeli terrorist attacks, including the suicide truck bombings of the US Embassy and US Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 and the US Embassy annex in Beirut in September 1984. Three members of Hizballah—‘Imad Mughniyah, Hasan Izz-al-Din, and Ali Atwa—are on the FBI’s list of 22 Most-Wanted Terrorists for the hijacking in 1985 of TWA Flight 847 during which a US Navy diver was murdered. Elements of the group were responsible for the kidnapping and detention of US and other Westerners in Lebanon in the 1980s. Hizballah also attacked the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in 1992 and the Israeli cultural center in Buenos Aires in 1994. In fall 2000, Hizballah operatives captured three Israeli soldiers in the Shab’a Farms and kidnapped an Israeli noncombatant whom may have been lured to Lebanon under false pretenses.

 

In 2003, Hizballah appeared to have established a presence in Iraq, but for the moment its activities there are limited. Hizballah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah stated in speeches that “we are heading . . . toward the end and elimination of Israel from the region” and that the group’s “slogan is and will continue to be death to America.” Hizballah’s television station, al-Manar, continued to use inflammatory images and reporting in an effort to encourage the intifadah and promote Palestinian suicide operations.

 

So basically, anyone that resists US aggression is defined as a terrorist (South Vietnam, Iraq). One of the single worst atrocities occurred during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the 80’s. Now, I’m certainly not condoning the acts of Palestinian terrorists, or any terrorism for that matter. But the fact remains that the US supplied Israelis with the power and arms for invasions such as this and operations such as this add to the US record of state-supported international terrorism. You only have to look at the car bombings in Beirut and the bombing of Tunisians for more examples.

 

Good- the Palestinians deserve everything they get.

 

As Powerplay said, PLO kept thumbing their nose at Israel and ignoring treaties and other orders and Israel invaded in response to that.

 

Don't use the UN as a source that shows Israel is the bad guys. They're a bunch of Anti-Semites who don't like the concept of a Jewish state.

 

Oh! Saddam, that awesome guy, he once invaded Israel.

 

 

Terrorist networks can be weakened. This happened to al-Qaeda after 9/11, thanks to strong police work notable in places like Germany and Pakistan.

 

Where do you think Pakistan got the idea to start going after terrorists? Yea that was us.

 

 

And what really has changed since 9/11? The US STILL supports dictatorships of Central Asia, yet they use the argument of removing another dictator as a means for going to war. This is why there is so much hostility and how Islamic Fundamentalism spreads, since the US supports every possible anti-democratic government in the Islamic world. Terms like ‘freedom’ and democracy’ cannot be taken seriously. Egypt is a prime example amongst many, where the human rights record is atrocious, but they’re ok to support since they’re so vital to US interests.

 

Israel is kind of in the Islamic word and they support them. Are they anti-democratic?

 

If unseating people like Saddam was really a top priority for war, why wasn’t he taken out years ago? The motive the Bush admin. keeps spewing is similar to that of Hitler of 1939.

 

Because now we have learned you have to smoke out threats before they happen. That's what 9/11 taught us. It's an unfourtnuate lesson to learn but it's something we have to act on.

 

The motives for declaring war on Hitler were honorable, so was the removal of Saddam but this was not the reason for war to begin with was it? Of course Bush would have the American public believe that he did indeed have a hand in 9/11

 

Show one quote where Bush said that. I dare you.

 

 

Of course the twelve years of economic sanctions only strengthened Saddams regime, thus the people depended on him for survival is usually a fact that’s overlooked. Had the Iraqi’s had their economy and lives back, the Shiite majority would have almost certainly rebelled and overthrown him in. There is reason to believe that if the sanctions had been directed at PREVENTING weapons programs rather than administering them in the manner the US demanded, the population of Iraq could have been able to send Saddam to the same fate as others supported by the US. Tyrants like Ceausescu, Marcos and Chun Doo-Hwan were ousted without invasion. Saddam’s reign has been terribly shaky the past few years anyway. Unless the population is given the opportunity to overthrow a brutal tyrant as they did with other members of the US Dictatorship Fan club, there is no justification to resort to outside force to do so.

 

No no no no no no.

 

The Saddam loyalists and all that are giving us, the US military some trouble right now.

 

So if we can't beat them easily, imagine how Iraqi rebels would do against these same people. Not very well eh?

 

We placed sanctions on Iraq and wouldn't deal with them. Other countries did. Who is the bad guy here?

 

 

 

So in summary, any justification for attacks on acts of terror and wanting to bring democracy, while at the same time supporting dictatorships around the world , make the US one of the most hypocritical of nations, thus their stance on the ‘war on terror’ can hardly be seen as noble. Yes, the US provides humanitarian aid and does do well in the world. Don’t take my rant as entirely anti-US for the sake of doing so. It’s not. I like the US as a country, I just the despise the way its foreign policy has taken shape, especially now, and how the American public has been duped into conforming to this ideology

 

So will you continue to be hypocritical by claiming we condem terrorists while saying terrorism is bad, by just blaming everything on the US and ignoring countries that aided Saddam and Iraq, etc etc?

 

Stop the conspiracy theories, stop saying stuff like Bush winning is worse then 9/11 and stop going to Matthew Good for sources and you might be okay.

[Guest Cerebus]

 

Seems to sum up C-Bacon's stay here.

[NoCalMike 0]

Because now we have learned you have to smoke out threats before they happen. That's what 9/11 taught us. It's an unfourtnuate lesson to learn but it's something we have to act on.

There was no threat in Iraq to smoke out. Sorry, but there wasn't. If you want to go after the people who fund Al Qaeda/The Taliban, look no further then Saudi Arabia, which there still has been no answer as to why they have been ignored in those whole situation. Also, Al Qaeda was not limited to Afganistan. If Bush wanted to show that he wants to rid the world of terrorism, then after Afganistan, he should be going after other parts of the world that are Taliban strong holds. One of which is NOT Iraq. Our goal I thought was to wipe out terrorism, not remove dictators. And the citizens of Iraq while I could never support them because they are firing at US Troops, are still Iraqi Citizens that oppose the occupation, not Al Qaeda terrorists. I guess you could argue that once they start shooting at our military then it doesn't matter about technicalities, and with that I would fully agree, but I think we need to get the facts straight about who exactly we are fighting right now. It would be the same as Germany trying to take over america in WWII, and every american citizen fighting off the Germany until death was being called a Terrorist by the German media. Those idiot Iraqis that are fighting the US Occupation, are in disagreement of what is going on there, and I would venture the madness goes deeper then, "we hate america arghhh" They probably see the situation with their natural resources no longer belonging to them, and US Global corporations raking in some killer profits rebuilding the cities that our military has leveled. This is not in any way to suggest they are in the right, however it is not such a black and white issue that some people are trying to make it. It is a mess, a fucked up mess, as predicted it would be by the so-called, "hippie left-wing commies"