Support the troops... why?

I agree... but our government did not help out "whenever possible".. the Bush administration set its sights on Iraq for oil only... I highly doubt they have any care whatsoever for the Iraqi people.

You stated earlier that you believe this war is for nothing but oil and power... so it'll all be alright if we pull out peacefully?

I'm saying that he knew what was going on, but refused to intervene anyway... with Saddam gassing the Kurds and his own people, this had been known throughout the '90s. What do we do? We encourage the UN to put sanctions on Iraq that kill thousands more Iraqis... but yeah, Clinton was an idiot too so...

We do have Guantanamo Bay, Abu-Grahib, and however many of these so-called "detention centers" have not yet been discovered.

Would you care to share any links about the weapon stockpiles hidden in schools and hospitals?
I see the insurgency as their army of the people... if we weren't wanted, the majority of the people of Iraq qouldn't be burning American flags and trying to kill American soldiers..

That's not really proof at all, seeing that there is evidence that the elections were more of a fix than the last two here.

Yes, because we all know that the American way is the only right way to do things in this world.

 

oops

Or maybe the rest of the world is envious that we have an unbelievable amount of poverty for being such a developed country?

 

Reading the newspaper is a wonderful thing.
Espically in order to discuss such topics.
To get the balanced story, you have to read more than one paper.
I could read about the same issue in The NY Times and The Wall St. Journal and you'd never know they were speaking about the same thing.
All media has some small bias.
I support our troops. Bring em home soon !



home soon.

 

i'm pretty sure chuck was saying he doesn't read mainstream american news, because of the extreme bias.

 

err watch it on tv i mean.

 

The international red cross has provided lots of money, but doesn't have anywhere near the man power to fill the gap.

Heres a good article,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6754820/

The fact is that that nobody besides our military could mobolize relief efforts quick enough. Its only now that relief organizations are able to fill the gap from the militarys withdrawl.

Militarys have killed and saved billions of people over the course of history.

Tens of thousands of people died, but is that an unusually high number of people to die in Iraq?

Even if the reason we went into Iraq was bullshit, good things can still come out of it.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/11153325.htm

We're killing hostiles everyday, most of them are aiming at civilians. AThe people we're killing are civillians because they're not soldiers.

Of course we do. Rumsfield has said that the geneva convention doesn't apply to captured insurgents and hes technically right, the Geneva convention only applies to captured soldiers, not insurgents.

We still fully comply with the rest of the geneva convention... unless we can find a loophole.

Like oil for food... thats killed a lot of people.

Oil for food has saved millions of lives in the Middle East, even if it was shift as fuck.

The US has saved billions of lives in the past 50 years.

There was a very large insurgency in Berlin in the 40's.

Buscho said the war on terror would never end, but that was just a ploy to get people to support Iraq and make people think he was a 'war time president.'

Maybe so, but we can't think all insurgency would stop if we left tommorow... I don't think its very prudent to leave when Iraq doesn't have a suitable police force.

 

Hahahahahaha, are you fucking kidding me? Yes the war is unjust, however these people are dieing for you! And what do you do? You turn around and tell them that you won't support them? I guess giving up your life for little stuck up bitches like you doesn't mean anything anymore.

 

Maybe I've missed something... but I don't remember anyone on this thread asking the troops to die for them, infact I was under the impression that the majority in here irrespective of their stance on this situation did by-and-large want the soldiers back home with their familes and the killing to stop... where the hell they are out there for us I can not see, even if you think they are a necessary force now that the intial war has taken place, I can't see how they are out there for us?? Much more for the Iraqi people and the tense political motivations.

I think it is hard to say in eitherway if the troop presence is helping us very much in the long or short term, not that we're the most important in this situation in anycase... the people most important has to be the people in the firing-line. And please let us remember that everyone involved in this situation is a person, be them soldiers or civilians, and even a lot of the inhuman things that do happen are happening in an environment that is hardly comprehendable to most of us, a level of perspective has to be maintained when judging individuals... I am not sure I can put the Bush administration into that catergory however.

 

We'll on the other hand, this isn't a story book, and results matter a lot more then intentions.

If Iraq becomes stable and democratic, it doesn't matter what an Idiot Bush is...

He might get more credit then he deserves... the real credit goes to the Iraqis, but whatever.

Its better then alright, its ideal, but I still don't think we should till Iraq has a suitable police force.

Well our intervention in Germany could have come a lot sooner, but at least it came eventually.

I agree with what else you said.

It's not like we can not imprison people. That doesn't compare to government sanctioned gang rapings and ethnic slaughter.

Heres the first thing google pulled up

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2004/n04252004_200404252.html
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/

Weapon stockpiles are primarily hidden in schools, mosques and hospitals because the US has strict poliocies about searching there, I think its the geneva convention, but it might be another treaty.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1110597563559
http://www.keralanext.com/news/indexread.asp?id=137873
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/apress_021905_iraq.html
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4189118

If the insurgents are an army, they sure don't give a fuck about Iraqis.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/nation/10889294.htm

I never said the only right way, but we certainly want to share our quality of life with the rest of the world.

 

We are pretty high on the Gini index compared to most of our European friends, which is a measure of wealth distribution, right above Pakistan at 41 highest inequality of 121 nations counted.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_dis_of_fam_inc_gin_ind

However, this number is a weighted average and doesn't reflect our tremendous income, thats poverty divided by the amount of GDP so...

A person in poverty in the US isn't nessecarily poor in Spain.

So a more logical way to look at inequality would be to look at its human development index, HDI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

When looked at from a development standpoint, the US is the 8th most equal country on the planet.


1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Australia
4. Canada
5. Netherlands
6. Belgium
7. Iceland
8. United States
9. Japan
10. Ireland

11. Switzerland
12. United Kingdom
13. Finland
14. Austria
15. Luxembourg
16. France
17. Denmark
18. New Zealand
19. Germany
20. Spain

21. Italy
22. Israel
23. Hong Kong (SAR)
24. Greece
25. Singapore
26. Portugal
27. Slovenia
28. South Korea
29. Barbados
30. Cyprus

 

It's a shame so many children try to hide ignorance behind arrogance.

human history is of a piece- not merely events of the last 30 years, students.

apparently, nethier sponer or soulrebel know any history.

as for canada- if I were stuck in America's bitch country, the Newfies would be in armed rebellion against the elitist who run canada. But for now, canada can just continues to shut up and do as it's told.
The candian gov has LITERALLY sold the north atlantic cod population into extinction- DELIBERATELY AND THOUGHTFULLY! Canada is a joke. It's a US territory- ispo facto.

 

Geckopelli, you're a newfie? haha rough.

And Lodui, regardless of intent, America has fucked up Iraq beyond recognition. America sold the Iraqi government's resources and capitol at ridiculously low prices, attempted to justify it by giving them the most open economy since chile had in the 70's (which had a fairly resonating collapse), and now their economy is nonexistant, as is any infrastructure, and the population not only is being killed by an invading army but also by lack of sanitation and water and food.

Face it, America has done nothing good for their country. Life under Saddam was a hell of a lot better then what they've become, and without America's illogical trade sanctions life would of been a hell of a lot better then that the preceding 8 pre-war years.

For this reason, I'll support the insurgents. I hope they win, I hope they force America to leave (and the only way this will be accomplished is by dead soldiers), and I hope they take back what Americas stolen.

At any rate i'm pulling out of this thread... Its going nowhere.

 

It's definatly not any worse then pre saddam days, Iraq's lack of infrastructure has been devistated with Iraq's war with Iran.

I don't see how you can attempt to prove that, Iraq's infrastructure may be damaged now, but it's nothing that can't be be quelled.

http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Iraq/181328

Most of the stress curently on Iraqs health care today is because of these insurgent actions you seem to be cheering for, which more often effect civilians then soldiers.

Glad you're looking out for your nations largest ally,

But that aside, the people being affected from this aren't only the soldiers, its the civilians who get slayn by insurgents all the time.

You could think about making some grand statement without wishing for many deaths on all sides. Think about the Americans and Iraqis caught in between.

 

I'm so glad I only read the first post.

 

I thought you all might like to read this article:

03/02/2005

Why the U.S. Must Get Out of Iraq, Pronto
Maj. General Harry Upman (retired)

March 2, 2005

Let me say in no uncertain terms, we must get out of Iraq.

There is nothing to gain and everything to lose in Iraq. We have lost over four thousand of our military, those who were killed in Iraq and those who died in intransit from Iraq to our hospitals in Germany and in Europe. We have had over 10,000 of our troops wounded. According to a report I heard last night on Frontline on PBS, 1 in 6 of our people coming home from Iraq need mental help.

What have we gained in Iraq? Absolutely nothing.

What have we lost? Our leadership in the world militarily, morally and financially.

Frankly, Generals Franks and Abizaid have failed. Donald Rumsfeld has failed, as have his top aides. As a former military leader, I am appalled at the Pentagon leadership and the leadership in our military. These men should be drummed out of the military with their heads in shame for the needless loss of the lives of our young men and women.

But that's not the worst of it. What business did they have calling up our Reserves and National Guard to attack another country. These troops are for emergencies and to protect our nation. I know the law, that these troops can be called up.
On the other hand, they are to be used for short periods of time, not for long periods of time as they have been abused in Iraq. I note that the recruiters are having a hard time in the Reserves and the National Guard. I can't blame the people for walking away. I would if I'd been lied to this much.

As a man of three wars, from Korea to Viet Nam to Gulf War I, I am embarrassed by such men as General Mattis. If he was under my command, I'd have him disciplined for ignorance and leading his men astray. No, it is not "fun" to kill people.
Killing is a serious business, not something you brag about to businessmen or to the media about. We never told our men to kill for the fun of it. You killed to save yourself and to achieve an objective, never for the "fun of it."

I fear that we have hit the bottom in our military men and women. Lower level officers are now afraid to report atrocities for fear that they will lose their rank, men are afraid to admit they are shot, women are afraid to report rape, when they report rape they are told it was their fault!
What has this man's army come to? Have we totally lost our honor? To be a military man in this army means to be immoral, a liar, to accuse the innocent and to not grieve for killing women and children.

more: http://www.stopwarcoalition.org/news/news_items.php?shownews=1086

 

Thanks Goddess, I did like reading it

 

You don't actually believe the crap spewing out of your mouth, do you?
In pre-Saddam days, they still had Baghdad, Fallujah, and the hordes of other cities which *no longer exist* because America bombed them beyond recognition. In pre-Saddam days, Iraq didn't have it's heritage continually robbed from them, only to find parts of Iraq's history on internet auction sites. In pre-Saddam days, villages weren't wiped out by aerial attacks, leaving only remains/dog food for wild dogs. Saddam never turned the Iraqis into dogfood.

Good job avoiding his statement about the U.S.-lead sanctions that waws placed on their country after the Gulf War.

The insurgents know who the bad guys are. Americans couldn't tell an Iraqi from an Israeli.

I believe the only way that the U.S. will be pulled out of Iraq and the Middle East is if thousands more Amreican troops die. It's a harsh reality, but it's the only sollution. The administration will not pull out for any other reason.

 

With precise tactical missile strikes, aiming at mostly military targets. Thuis has been the one of the most civilian friendly war in history.

Not that civilians have been safe, but pre war Iraq wasn't safe either.

Unless you were Shiite or Kurdish... the majority of the country.

No, they prefered wiping out villages with chemical attacks.

You mean his opinion, it would be hard to prove the Iraq would have been better off, because the ethnic gassings pretty much stopped after the sanctions, and it prevented Iraq from aquiring more weapons.

I could, and so could almost everyone I know maybe you should stop hanging around idiots.

You didn't seem to have a responce for this divine justice of the insurgents when civillians are being targeted more then soldiers.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/080/world/Attacks_across_Iraq_kill_civil:.shtml

Maybe you didn't like the war in Iraq, but the insurgents aren't patriots... they sure as fuck don't care about Iraqi civillians.

Or we could stay and keep peace in Iraq. Iraq would be divided into brutal civil war if we 'pulled out'. Less american troops would die that way, but a hell of a lot more Iraqis would die.

 

"One of the most civilian friendly wars"... you are a fucking disgrace to humanity.
Americans were bombing the cities, with World War I & II bombs... dropped out of planes, at night... those bombs can't tell the difference between an enemy hideout and a house with a family of five hiding in it... they attacked the neighborhooded areas of Fallujah in their rape of the city... Americans only destroyed the entire city, there was nothing left but rubble when their "raid" was over.

Like I said.. American soldiers can't tell the difference.

So you admit your first statement was a lie in an attempt to prove me wrong? How can villages be wiped out with chemical attacks if the gassings stopped after the sanctions were imposed?
I have read of no Saddam-backed gassings that have taken place since after the Gulf War.

Well they can't tell the difference between an Italian reporter and an insurgent.. http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=10947
I remember last year they shot a British reporter... that camera must've looked like an M-16!

" In Samarra, an explosives-laden pickup truck driven by a suicide bomber went off prematurely near a hospital, wounding about a dozen civilians and damaging homes,"
Went off prematurely... why would they knowingly waste ammunition on civilians? They don't have the massive amounts of weapons that America has.
"In the deadliest attack Monday on civilians, a roadside bomb killed four women and three children in Aziziyah,"
Yes, because I'm sure the bomb was planted there to kill those women and children... we all know how much of a threat they are!

They have to find other "inapropriate" ways to beat the coalition forces, the coalition's military is too big... in the American Revolution, Americans were called cowards for hiding behind trees when they attacked the British. War changes as time goes on and people and technology evolve.

What makes you think America cares about Iraqi civilians too? You yourself said that this war is about oil... what do the freedoms of Iraqis mean to oil companies? Absolutely nothing.. this whole "democracy and freedom for Iraq" is just icing and confetti for the sheeple... you sure seem to be buying into it.

We are keeping peace by killing the people who do not agree with the U.S. government being there... as time goes on, more Iraqis (and citizens of the world) will come to question the U.S. actions, and obviously, disrupt peace. Should we kill them too?

 

soul rebel,

have you ever been under fire?

obviously not- you're way to naive.

You're believing your own bullshit.

I wish the US wasn't in iraq- but it is. Deal with it.

Maybe we should kill some canadian civil servents. By your reasoning, that would fix some of canada's many problems.