Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: ieffinhatecardio on February 16, 2007, 02:20:17 PM
-
Until the recent crackdown on the anarchy that was Baghdad it wasn't uncommon to find 40 or more dead bodies in the streets excluding the bombings. Where were these gangs and this violence before we occupied? These savages must have been thrilled when Saddam was toppled.
Check out this small excerpt from the article.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - As a military offensive seeks to bring Baghdad from the brink of anarchy, a top Iraqi security officer tried Friday to measure its early stages using the grim logic of a place with daily bloodshed: by counting the bodies arriving at the morgue.
A total of 10 corpses were collected off the streets - apparently all victims of the city's lawless jumble of gang justice and sectarian payback. The daily body tally recently has often been 40 or more, excluding major bombings, said Brig. Gen. Qassim Moussawi.
http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20070216/D8NB27G00.html (http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20070216/D8NB27G00.html)
-
One thing is for sure:
You could go to the local market with your family without worrying about a BOMB blowing up and killing you children.
THANKS BUSH, you assclown.
-
One thing is for sure:
You could go to the local market with your family without worrying about a BOMB blowing up and killing you children.
THANKS BUSH, you assclown.
That 40+ number of dead bodies a day EXCLUDED bombing victims. WTF, that must be a fun way to live.
-
Pretty sad they start a scientific measure within hours after a mission, monster scientific reasoning :-X ::)
-
What needs to be done to restore order are brutal things we refuse to do, things we just put Saddam to death for doing. But guess what, folks? That's the only thing that works and the only thing people respect in an enviornment like the middle east. We can't go in there and "police" like we're patrolling the streets of American suburbia... we need to take the first fuccker who steps out of line, chop his dick off, then rape his daughters and kill his entire family while forcing him to watch, burn his house down, and finally gouge his eyes out, afterwhich we set him free to serve as a warning to others. Of course we'll never do that, so maybe we should put an Iraqi leader in power who will? Otherwise, this chaos and disorder will never end. The fucckers need to be scared, and they're just not scared of us.
-
Damn, we sure are helping them.
What pisses me off is that some people will just blame the Iraqis. I know most of them aren't open minded saints, but they shouldn't have this kind of life.
Of course we'll never do that, so maybe we should put an Iraqi leader in power who will? Otherwise, this chaos and disorder will never end. The fucckers need to be scared, and they're just not scared of us.
Yep.
-
What needs to be done to restore order are brutal things we refuse to do, things we just put Saddam to death for doing. But guess what, folks? That's the only thing that works and the only thing people respect in an enviornment like the middle east. We can't go in there and "police" like we're patrolling the streets of American suburbia... we need to take the first fuccker who steps out of line, chop his dick off, then rape his daughters and kill his entire family while forcing him to watch, burn his house down, and finally gouge his eyes out, afterwhich we set him free to serve as a warning to others. Of course we'll never do that, so maybe we should put an Iraqi leader in power who will? Otherwise, this chaos and disorder will never end. The fucckers need to be scared, and they're just not scared of us.
You and I think alike on this.... I've been saying for a couple of years now that they shoulda put Saddam back in charge. (or someone ruthless like him)
He understood that their society was defined by strength and he promoted that by showing his strength.
His people didn't get out of line and they didn't cause problems... If they did, he took care of it.
I love how we talk about freedom for these people... Don't you think that some people can not HANDLE freedom and need to be ruled with an iron fist?
It certainly would seem so in this instance.
-
One thing is for sure:
You could go to the local market with your family without worrying about a BOMB blowing up and killing you children.
THANKS BUSH, you assclown.
you're right!!
bush is strapping bombs to some local iraqi kids as you post.
::)
-
bush is strapping bombs to some local iraqi kids as you post.
I wouldn't worry too much... Bush will probably forget to arm them or something.
-
you're right!!
bush is strapping bombs to some local iraqi kids as you post.
::)
No, he's not, but he our attack on that country has now enabled kids to HAVE the exploding backpacks that they did not have before.
-
No, he's not,
i know
tell ozmo that
-
i know
tell ozmo that
I am inherently agreeing with him on his point that without Bush, there wouldn't be kids in Iraq blowing shit up.
-
Goat = correct.
you're right!!
bush is strapping bombs to some local iraqi kids as you post.
::)
mighty,
if you see no connection between Bush being the public face of the war decimating their previously stable lives, and the orphaned kids wandering into a group of US troops wearing a bomb - and you're a military man, right? - then this war will never be won.
Re-read that again a few times til it makes sense.
-
Goat = correct.
mighty,
if you see no connection between Bush being the public face of the war decimating their previously stable lives, and the orphaned kids wandering into a group of US troops wearing a bomb - and you're a military man, right? - then this war will never be won.
Re-read that again a few times til it makes sense.
what do you mean by "public face of war"?
again i'll tell you, i'm not in the military.
-
One thing is for sure:
You could go to the local market with your family without worrying about a BOMB blowing up and killing you children.
THANKS BUSH, you assclown.
No you didn't have to worry about suicide bombers under Saddam, but there was that whole rape, pillage, plunder, and murder thing.
-
What needs to be done to restore order are brutal things we refuse to do, things we just put Saddam to death for doing. But guess what, folks? That's the only thing that works and the only thing people respect in an enviornment like the middle east. We can't go in there and "police" like we're patrolling the streets of American suburbia... we need to take the first fuccker who steps out of line, chop his dick off, then rape his daughters and kill his entire family while forcing him to watch, burn his house down, and finally gouge his eyes out, afterwhich we set him free to serve as a warning to others. Of course we'll never do that, so maybe we should put an Iraqi leader in power who will? Otherwise, this chaos and disorder will never end. The fucckers need to be scared, and they're just not scared of us.
great post goat, made a lot of sense.
-
what do you mean by "public face of war"?
again i'll tell you, i'm not in the military.
sorry, i get you and mm69 mixed up.
public face of the war = the guy who tells the world we're going to invade, orders the invasion, then seems to be the only voice still pushing it.
he is what motivates these young suicidal idiots, as he is the face they give to whatever horrors they now face.
-
No you didn't have to worry about suicide bombers under Saddam, but there was that whole rape, pillage, plunder, and murder thing.
don't forget, gas, torture and genocide.
ahhhhhh!!! the good ole days.
-
No you didn't have to worry about suicide bombers under Saddam, but there was that whole rape, pillage, plunder, and murder thing.
The numbers say that more died per year in 2003,4,5,6 than in each year of saddam's reign.
fancy that, huh?
-
The numbers say that more died per year in 2003,4,5,6 than in each year of saddam's reign.
fancy that, huh?
It's the Iraqi's fault and we're not responsible for putting them in this situation! Stop hating America and our service men! ::)
-
don't forget, gas, torture and genocide.
ahhhhhh!!! the good ole days.
If only we had it so good in the U.S.
-
The numbers say that more died per year in 2003,4,5,6 than in each year of saddam's reign.
fancy that, huh?
More insurgents are blowing up Iraqis than were tortured and murdered by Saddam? I guess that means Iraqis were just fine under Saddam. ::)
-
sorry, i get you and mm69 mixed up.
public face of the war = the guy who tells the world we're going to invade, orders the invasion, then seems to be the only voice still pushing it.
he is what motivates these young suicidal idiots, as he is the face they give to whatever horrors they now face.
a couple of problems,
why did we invade?? we done it to remove a threat. i'm sure you'll disagree.
how is he pushing it?? he's trying to STOP it.
if were still fighting the iraqi's then you would be right. we're not.
those idiots don't need bush for motivation. they've been brainwashed for a long time.
they just have a battlefield right now.
-
More insurgents are blowing up Iraqis than were tortured and murdered by Saddam?
Yes.
I guess that means Iraqis were just fine under Saddam. ::)
No, by our standards. Yes, by the standards which their culture dictated for 1500 years.
-
a couple of problems,
why did we invade?? we done it to remove a threat. i'm sure you'll disagree.
how is he pushing it?? he's trying to STOP it.
if were still fighting the iraqi's then you would be right. we're not.
those idiots don't need bush for motivation. they've been brainwashed for a long time.
they just have a battlefield right now.
here's the problem.
we WON. saddam isn't really a threat these days. But we won't turn over control to iraqis yet.
why not?
-
The numbers say that more died per year in 2003,4,5,6 than in each year of saddam's reign.
fancy that, huh?
i'll try to put this another way.
right now, if we acheive our goal in iraq, stable democratic gov., strong military and police force, do you think the iraqi's have a better future ahead than if saddam was still in power??
if you say yes, then would you say we done the right thing?
if no, explain
-
here's the problem.
we WON. saddam isn't really a threat these days. But we won't turn over control to iraqis yet.
why not?
so, by that you think we should just leave now??
-
i'll try to put this another way.
right now, if we acheive our goal in iraq, stable democratic gov., strong military and police force, do you think the iraqi's have a better future ahead than if saddam was still in power??
if you say yes, then would you say we done the right thing?
if no, explain
bro, it would be great if that could happen, but if saddam was still there, iraq would be a much better place compared to now.
-
It's the Iraqi's fault and we're not responsible for putting them in this situation! Stop hating America and our service men! ::)
Who hates America? I love this country... I think we are just loving it's freedoms and saying what we believe.
We ARE somewhat responsible for this situation... without our intervention, this would not be happening... end of story.
I get very upset when people who voice their displeasure with the war and believe that WE are responsible (You, me, all Americans are somewhat responsible) are told that we "hate" America and our troops... That statement is disgusting and you are WRONG.
I love EVERY service man who is doing their job... I want them to do it on our shores, providing defense to our children, not the Iraqi children, but they can't... Because they were told they have to take out a terrible evil man... only to find out that the terrible evil man was simply keeping ALL of the terrible EVIL men at bay, and now they are running loose.
If you think that roles were reversed and someone invaded your sovereign land in the guise of freeing you from tyranny, but conveniently decided to hang out awhile, and you wouldn't start bombing the people you see every day who supposedly "freed" you, but seem to be the law in your own back yard... you're crazy.
We are in their house, they are not in ours, and that is why we need to get the hell out...
The damned problem is that our brothers and sisters are getting blown to hell for doing a job that they were told to do, even if it is wrong, and the people pulling the strings don't give a shit about the man on the ground.
-
so, by that you think we should just leave now??
Correct. Once you achieve the goals of the war, you leave.
Bush's stated goals to the Congress were 1) WMD 2) Saddam 3) Democracy.
well, wmd were never there and aren't there now, saddam is word food, and they held democratic elections.
Q: Why are we still there?
A: Oil.
-
right now, if we acheive our goal in iraq, stable democratic gov., strong military and police force, do you think the iraqi's have a better future ahead than if saddam was still in power??
if you say yes, then would you say we done the right thing?
if no, explain
1. This goal was not defined to congress. Bush made it up later. There is no congressional approval for "serving as referee in religious civil war".
2. The right thing? Not for the families of the 3100 dead soldiers' families. Really depends on whose point of view you take. There are causes in every nation on earth we *could* take on. But oddly, we only take on causes in places where there is oil.
-
Correct. Once you achieve the goals of the war, you leave.
Bush's stated goals to the Congress were 1) WMD 2) Saddam 3) Democracy.
well, wmd were never there and aren't there now, saddam is word food, and they held democratic elections.
Q: Why are we still there?
A: Oil.
So why do you want us to leave if we haven't secured this oil yet?
-
So why do you want us to leave if we haven't secured this oil yet?
Is the oil worth the cost?
If someone thinks it is... and I do not myself... Then when we do secure it... will my gas price go down to 99 cents a gallon?
The phrase "Dare to dream" comes to mind.
-
Correct. Once you achieve the goals of the war, you leave.
Bush's stated goals to the Congress were 1) WMD 2) Saddam 3) Democracy.
well, wmd were never there and aren't there now, saddam is word food, and they held democratic elections.
Q: Why are we still there?
A: Oil.
so your saying it's ok to leave and let anyone come in and run the joint?
control the oil?
i am obviously no high ranking politcal official, but that's a load of horse hockey.
i don't want islamic fanatical terrorists to have any oil revenues? do you?
so we leave after the goals of war are achieved?
i guess we should be packing up any day now in germany and korea.
1. This goal was not defined to congress. Bush made it up later. There is no congressional approval for "serving as referee in religious civil war".
hindsight. your using it in your arguement. you can't because you will always be right.
still didn't answer the question.
if iraq gets better, do they have a better future now or if saddam was still there?
-
So why do you want us to leave if we haven't secured this oil yet?
I don't want us to leave Iraq. I want us to stop getting men killed in the cities. I want our men and women to pull outta the cities and guard the bases/pipelines/oil ministry and let the Iraqi police handle the shit killing the shit plus innocents in baghdad.
-
Is the oil worth the cost?
If someone thinks it is... and I do not myself... Then when we do secure it... will my gas price go down to 99 cents a gallon?
The phrase "Dare to dream" comes to mind.
I dream about hot naked girls. Alternative energy sources rarely make the cut.
Gas will go up way more than 99 cents a gallon. And everything that needs gas to be built or shipped will go up too, including food. Plus, the CHinese will grab the oil and suddenly THEY will *find* WMD or they will false flag attack and blame the US, and in 30 years they'll be doing to us, what we are doing to iraq. history says it will happen.
And yes, oil is worth the cost. Google the value of the oil under Iraqi sands. We're talking 20 to 50 trillion dollars worth at market price.
-
I don't want us to leave Iraq.
You just said the complete opposite, Rob.
-
so your saying it's ok to leave and let anyone come in and run the joint?
control the oil?
i am obviously no high ranking politcal official, but that's a load of horse hockey.
i don't want islamic fanatical terrorists to have any oil revenues? do you?
No. We leave the cities yet guard the oil facilities and the borders. you come within 5 miles, you are neutralized by air. We stop losing men, and let the iraqi police do their job without the US and their pesky liberal media slowing them down.
hindsight. your using it in your arguement. you can't because you will always be right.
Nothing to do with hindsight. Bush asked for A,B,C. Today, A,B,C are all completed. Bush then introduced D. Will E, F, G be next?
if iraq gets better, do they have a better future now or if saddam was still there?
I think anyone who has been there can answer this - Iraq will not get better until another ballbreaker opens up shop and does exactly what saddam did. The people there only undersstand power, ball crushing power. They don't have the internal controls of most Americans. They will loot, rape and kill til they're scared not to.
So peace will only come when another Saddam takes power, sadly.
-
So peace will only come when another Saddam takes power, sadly.
Iraq was 'peaceful' when Saddam was in power? This is one of the more idiotic statements I've seen you make.
-
Weren't we hearing about all the good we are doing for the Iraqis? Aren't we bringing them Democracy and freedom? Aren't we making their lives better? I remember reading posts that said just that.
Guess what? The streets of Baghdad are a lawless waste zone. More than 40 murdered per day EXCLUDING the major bombings is not a better life. I love the justifications too. Sticking by your party no matter what is just so sad to witness.
Iraq is one giant CLUSTERFUCK right now.
-
Iraq was 'peaceful' when Saddam was in power? This is one of the more idiotic statements I've seen you make.
Internally, it was... All of Saddam's killing sprees had happened a long time ago.
-
Iraq was 'peaceful' when Saddam was in power? This is one of the more idiotic statements I've seen you make.
BRUCE,
Was Iraq more peaceful:
1) in 1998, under saddam, or
2) in 2006, under al maliki/us presence?
You can quantify any way you choose.
-
Okay guys, just because the deaths Iraq weren't shoved down your throat before we went there, you just keep on pretending it was a peaceful wonderland.
The rest of us will remember Saddam using WMD on his own citizens and making people disappear as he pleased. Oh happy days.
I'll take anyone to 'The Cage' on this one.
-
BRUCE,
Was Iraq more peaceful:
1) in 1998, under saddam, or
2) in 2006, under al maliki/us presence?
You can quantify any way you choose.
How about I take you to 'The Cage' on this issue?
-
Okay guys, just because the deaths Iraq weren't shoved down your throat before we went there, you just keep on pretending it was a peaceful wonderland.
The rest of us will remember Saddam using WMD on his own citizens and making people disappear as he pleased. Oh happy days.
I'll take anyone to 'The Cage' on this one.
it's comparing one really bad thing to another bad thing.
no one is saying saddam was anything other than an evil murderer.
Question is, did more people die per year NOW, or under saddam?
-
The topic can be something along the lines of: 'Is post-war Iraq a better nation than before coalition intervention?'.
-
so your saying it's ok to leave and let anyone come in and run the joint?
control the oil?
i am obviously no high ranking politcal official, but that's a load of horse hockey.
i don't want islamic fanatical terrorists to have any oil revenues? do you?
Islamic terrorist funding people already have a TON of oil, and we buy it every day... Saudi Arabia... Kuwait.
so we leave after the goals of war are achieved?
i guess we should be packing up any day now in germany and korea.
Having a base in a strategic location is different than fighting a war day in and day out.
if iraq gets better, do they have a better future now or if saddam was still there?
Unfortunately, I don't work to well in "ifs" of this nature... I really am too tired of seeing troops come home in bodybags and having to have average citizens patrol our borders to worry about "If Iraq gets better". How about we "Make the US Better"?
-
How about I take you to 'The Cage' on this issue?
huh?
someone posted the numbers here, # of deaths per year under saddam and under our rule.
more people die now.
no one is defending saddam dude. but it's no picnic in there with this democracy because the people are not programmed to use it and it'll take 1-2 generations for them to become trained to accept it. And there might not be too many left to enjoy it by that point.
-
no one is defending saddam dude.
No? Then what is this?
So peace will only come when another Saddam takes power, sadly.
Get a grip.
-
Islamic terrorist funding people already have a TON of oil, and we buy it every day... Saudi Arabia... Kuwait.
Having a base in a strategic location is different than fighting a war day in and day out.
Unfortunately, I don't work to well in "ifs" of this nature... I really am too tired of seeing troops come home in bodybags and having to have average citizens patrol our borders to worry about "If Iraq gets better". How about we "Make the US Better"?
we do need to control iraqi oil, i don't think anyone argues that. They're gonna get assplunged by someone. The plunger might as well be made in the USA and not china.
-
someone posted the numbers here, # of deaths per year under saddam and under our rule.
more people die now.
This post is a complete and utter lie.
Let's consider the real information at hand, guys:
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=1008 (http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=1008)
1980-1988
Some 1.7m died on both sides during the Iran-Iraq war, started by Saddam.
1987-1989
At least 100,000 Kurds were slaughtered in the so-called Anfal campaign. Some were gassed, others cast alive into
Care to review your statement, Rob?
I haven't even got started on this yet.
-
peace will only come under a dictatorship, not a democracy. the people aren't trained for that.
-
No? Then what is this?
Get a grip.
You truly think a group of people with no concept of democracy will understand what it's all about?
They are proving every day that they do not... Religious factions boycotting, people being killed by their own countrymen in the streets... They are a society who's ideals are not in line with yours or mine and as such will not get it for probably another 500 years.
I don't know if the removal of Saddam was worth 500 years of death and destruction in a country who basically had zero crime before.
-
What the hell is "The Cage"?
-
You truly think a group of people with no concept of democracy will understand what it's all about?
They are proving every day that they do not... Religious factions boycotting, people being killed by their own countrymen in the streets... They are a society who's ideals are not in line with yours or mine and as such will not get it for probably another 500 years.
I don't know if the removal of Saddam was worth 500 years of death and destruction in a country who basically had zero crime before.
You must have missed the elections held in Iraq, and the millions that turned out (even in the face of terror) and bravely voted for this democracy.
Your 500 year statement is a fantasy, let's try and bring you back to earth.
-
What the hell is "The Cage"?
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=127624.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=127624.0)
Also known as 'The Pit'.
-
This post is a complete and utter lie.
Let's consider the real information at hand, guys:
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=1008 (http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=1008)
1980-1988
Some 1.7m died on both sides during the Iran-Iraq war, started by Saddam.
1987-1989
At least 100,000 Kurds were slaughtered in the so-called Anfal campaign. Some were gassed, others cast alive into
Care to review your statement, Rob?
I haven't even got started on this yet.
So you're saying that death during a war doesn't count?
Yes, Saddam slaughtered people, but since let's say 1995 how many people have been killed by Saddam? How many have been killed since he was removed?
I mean, you can say we killed millions during the civil war, but we don't count that against murders committed daily today... It's all killing yes, and it's bad, but you're comparing completely different times. If that's the case, we could talk about how many people were killed due to being sent to Vietnam or how many US Soldiers are killed by being in Iraq...
If you don't see the correlation great... because I don't see it in your post either.
-
This post is a complete and utter lie.
Let's consider the real information at hand, guys:
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=1008 (http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=1008)
1980-1988
Some 1.7m died on both sides during the Iran-Iraq war, started by Saddam.
1987-1989
At least 100,000 Kurds were slaughtered in the so-called Anfal campaign. Some were gassed, others cast alive into
Care to review your statement, Rob?
I haven't even got started on this yet.
Of course, you're gonna skew the numbers if you throw in the # killed while iraq was IN A WAR WITH IRAN.
At the moment, Iraq isn't in a war with anyone. They have a democratically elected govt and they even have the US there to help them out. If you remove the US and let iran open up on them, the numbers would be staggering.
Take a year when there wasn't war in iraq. 1995. 1996. 1997. 1998. 1999. 2000. how many people were killed then? Then, look at 2003 to 2007. Estimates range from 150k (UN) to 655k (JH).
So if you really want to win this argument, then by all means, throw in nnumbers from a brutal war with their bordered neighbor. or, if you want to compare apples with apples, choose a more recent year and one in which they weren't engaged in war.
-
Sorry I asked.
Are the Iraqis better now, years after Hussein was toppled or were they better during his reign? Fair question considering the current state of Iraq.
-
So you're saying that death during a war doesn't count?
Yes, Saddam slaughtered people, but since let's say 1995 how many people have been killed by Saddam? How many have been killed since he was removed?
I mean, you can say we killed millions during the civil war, but we don't count that against murders committed daily today... It's all killing yes, and it's bad, but you're comparing completely different times. If that's the case, we could talk about how many people were killed due to being sent to Vietnam or how many US Soldiers are killed by being in Iraq...
If you don't see the correlation great... because I don't see it in your post either.
You're moronic beyond belief. I show you the facts - that far more people were dying under Saddams reign - and you rant on about the civil war and Vietnam. Unbelievable, you'll buy into anything you want.
-
You must have missed the elections held in Iraq, and the millions that turned out (even in the face of terror) and bravely voted for this democracy.
Your 500 year statement is a fantasy, let's try and bring you back to earth.
Haha... you think those elections were a statement? They still BARELY have a working government... those elections were for show... plain and simple.
I think it's you who need a dose of reality... the way they treat their own women is very much as Europe did 500 years ago... The way they allow their religion to cause mass murder is the way Europe was 500 years ago.
I'm afraid that in this case, you are delusional my friend... I won't be alive to see it, but if I had a time machine I would guarantee you that they, without a ruthless dictator, will be fighting internally for at least the next 500 years.
-
What the hell does the Iran/Iraq War have to do with this? ::)
-
You're moronic beyond belief. I show you the facts - that far more people were dying under Saddams reign - and you rant on about the civil war and Vietnam. Unbelievable, you'll buy into anything you want.
I'm a moron? You are the one bringing up wars to skew numbers... I merely responded in kind.
Wow... when someone posts something that shows your bias, they're a moron... Wow... good thing I don't sit around worry about what you think of me.
-
Of course, you're gonna skew the numbers if you throw in the # killed while iraq was IN A WAR WITH IRAN.
At the moment, Iraq isn't in a war with anyone. They have a democratically elected govt and they even have the US there to help them out. If you remove the US and let iran open up on them, the numbers would be staggering.
Take a year when there wasn't war in iraq. 1995. 1996. 1997. 1998. 1999. 2000. how many people were killed then? Then, look at 2003 to 2007. Estimates range from 150k (UN) to 655k (JH).
So if you really want to win this argument, then by all means, throw in nnumbers from a brutal war with their bordered neighbor. or, if you want to compare apples with apples, choose a more recent year and one in which they weren't engaged in war.
You're the fool that said more have died in this current conflict than during Saddam's reign. You were wrong, way wrong, accept that.
And that you can try and pin the deaths of innocent Iraqis at the hands of terrorists on Americans is atrocious. The truth is, the majority of people that are dying in Iraq are being killed by terror attacks, whose side are you on?
-
What the hell does the Iran/Iraq War have to do with this? ::)
Nothing... Oh... and if you really want to bring it up... Who enable Saddam to kill so many during that time.
Oh right... the US... so does that mean that WE are responsible for those deaths as well? Not in Bruce's mind obviously...
By his rationale though, we are... and so that should be added to our tally in Iraq as well.
:)
-
You're moronic beyond belief. I show you the facts - that far more people were dying under Saddams reign - and you rant on about the civil war and Vietnam. Unbelievable, you'll buy into anything you want.
you're missing the point about comparing wartime to peacetime stats.
Iraq isn't fighting a war at the moment. If they WERE, holy shit, the death rates would be astronomical.
-
you're missing the point about comparing wartime to peacetime stats.
Iraq isn't fighting a war at the moment. If they WERE, holy shit, the death rates would be astronomical.
Oh, god. You're all getting worse and worse. I showed you the numbers and you chose to close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, and pretend that Saddam's regime was better for Iraq than this struggling democracy.
Good luck with that - let me know when this thread is done if someone wants to take me on in reasonable debate on this issue.
-
You're the fool that said more have died in this current conflict than during Saddam's reign. You were wrong, way wrong, accept that.
And that you can try and pin the deaths of innocent Iraqis at the hands of terrorists on Americans is atrocious. The truth is, the majority of people that are dying in Iraq are being killed by terror attacks, whose side are you on?
Who's side am I on?
You have completely shown yourself to be completely unthinking... Look at my posts Bruce... I'm on the side of the AMERICANS... not the Iraqi's... I'm on the side of the troops... to bring them home.
I'm not on the side of controlling oil, or Iraqi freedom... I'm not on the side of freeing other countries from people that they should free themselves of.
The real question is whose side are YOU on... you're the one speaking like Iraq is so great... I know it sucks. If you like it... feel free to move there.
Who's pinning deaths on Americans... I'm saying that this COUNTRY... you, me, all of us are partially responsible for what has happened in that country... the problem is, like many, you don't seem to want to accept your responsibility. Where I have.
-
You're the fool that said more have died in this current conflict than during Saddam's reign. You were wrong, way wrong, accept that.
And that you can try and pin the deaths of innocent Iraqis at the hands of terrorists on Americans is atrocious. The truth is, the majority of people that are dying in Iraq are being killed by terror attacks, whose side are you on?
Wow, your emotinoal involvement in this is reducing you to namecalling and ignoring facts.
Saddam had what, 23 years to kill the 1.8 million you mentioned.
We've been there 4 years, and it's 150k confirmed to 655k estimated.
AND, you're ignoring the fact that many of saddam's folks died in a war with a bordered strong neighbor.
Finally, you're taking any attack on the belief they can use democracy, as a pat on saddam's back. Don't do that. Making that stretch is just terribly assumptive and outright ugly.
-
Oh, god. You're all getting worse and worse. I showed you the numbers and you chose to close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, and pretend that Saddam's regime was better for Iraq than this struggling democracy.
Good luck with that - let me know when this thread is done if someone wants to take me on in reasonable debate on this issue.
Now we're worse... feel free to respond to my post about how we enable Saddam during that Iran/Iraq war...
Oh right... you'll see we did no such thing... those are on his head, not ours... nevermind... when you feel like spouting a different line of rhetoric, we'll be here.
-
Nothing... Oh... and if you really want to bring it up... Who enable Saddam to kill so many during that time.
Oh right... the US... so does that mean that WE are responsible for those deaths as well? Not in Bruce's mind obviously...
By his rationale though, we are... and so that should be added to our tally in Iraq as well.
:)
It's bruce, take what he posts for what it's worth.
By the way, I love "The Cage". LOL
A goofier name couldn't be chosen for such and endeavor.
I'm still kind of giggling about the Iran/Iraq War thing. ;D
Good luck with that - let me know when this thread is done if someone wants to take me on in reasonable debate on this issue.
Yes, about as reasonable as throwing 1.7 million deaths from the Iran/Iraq War into the mix. LOL ::)
-
Yes, about as reasonable as throwing 1.7 million deaths from the Iran/Iraq War into the mix. LOL ::)
He stopped debating once we mentioned this was skewing his numbers in a major way.
I thought the debate was about "gang violence in Iraq", then he throws in an external enemy which killed over 1.7 million and adds those numbers in.
-
He stopped debating once we mentioned this was skewing his numbers in a major way.
I thought the debate was about "gang violence in Iraq", then he throws in an external enemy which killed over 1.7 million and adds those numbers in.
Some people will never let rationale thinking be involved...
-
He stopped debating once we mentioned this was skewing his numbers in a major way.
I thought the debate was about "gang violence in Iraq", then he throws in an external enemy which killed over 1.7 million and adds those numbers in.
Well, considering that's the name of the thread and the debate is about 40+ people killed everyday by "GANGS" you might figure that he might have realized bringing a War might not have been the correct thing to do.
Good thing you didn't go into "The Cage" with him. ;D
Come on, let's go to battle in "The Cage".
-
what is the cage? i completely missed that thing. like a 'challenge someone to a debate on a topic' thing?
-
Sorry I asked.
Are the Iraqis better now, years after Hussein was toppled or were they better during his reign? Fair question considering the current state of Iraq.
the question i posed was:
do they possibly have a better future now or if saddam was there still??
-
the question i posed was:
do they possibly have a better future now or if saddam was there still??
I didn't see your question. It's possible they might have a better future, it's also possible they might not. We're trying to bring democracy to a people that might not even want it.
What I do know is that Hussein has been gone for a few years now and Iraq is one big clusterfuck, 40+ murders a day not including the bombings is no way to live life.
-
what is the cage? i completely missed that thing. like a 'challenge someone to a debate on a topic' thing?
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=127624.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=127624.0)
Apparently the name has been changed to "The Cage".
-
the question i posed was:
do they possibly have a better future now or if saddam was there still??
*possibly*?
It's possible they'll all buy John Lennon records tomorrow and give peace a chance.
probable? Who knows. Likely, there will be 20 years of violence and chaos before all the killers are killed, and population dwindles, and the next generations grow up with democracy. So sure, their future is brighter. Long as you can survive the 20 years of murder and general suckiness. it's worth it if you're born in 2040. Not so much if you're around today.
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=127624.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=127624.0)
Apparently the name has been changed to "The Cage".
ah, okay.
I'm fine with using it for debates with many details and somethere we can all learn from. As far as iraqi deaths over time periods, it's pretty cut and dry. Living under saddam sucked. Living there now sucks worse. Too many died under saddam. More die now. not sure it contains the potential for interest and learning to make it worth the time.
-
I didn't see your question. It's possible they might have a better future, it's also possible they might not. We're trying to bring democracy to a people that might not even want it.
What I do know is that Hussein has been gone for a few years now and Iraq is one big clusterfuck, 40+ murders a day not including the bombings is no way to live life.
would you agree that there possibility for a better future is more attainable with the US there?? i think so. so it would be in their and our best intrest to help stabilize the govt.
and i believe they do want democracy with the millions that showed up to vote.
iraq is not on big cluster f**k. baghdad is.
-
would you agree that there possibility for a better future is more attainable with the US there?? i think so. so it would be in their and our best intrest to help stabilize the govt.
and i believe they do want democracy with the millions that showed up to vote.
iraq is not on big cluster f**k. baghdad is.
I would like to know since when did we give a shit about bringing freedom to other people....
Ok, let's see that democracy has a better shot with the US there... great... now what.
How is that our issue.
It's still not why we went there in the first place... It was tagged on after all of the other items didn't come to fruition.
-
What needs to be done to restore order are brutal things we refuse to do, things we just put Saddam to death for doing. But guess what, folks? That's the only thing that works and the only thing people respect in an enviornment like the middle east. We can't go in there and "police" like we're patrolling the streets of American suburbia... we need to take the first fuccker who steps out of line, chop his dick off, then rape his daughters and kill his entire family while forcing him to watch, burn his house down, and finally gouge his eyes out, afterwhich we set him free to serve as a warning to others. Of course we'll never do that, so maybe we should put an Iraqi leader in power who will? Otherwise, this chaos and disorder will never end. The fucckers need to be scared, and they're just not scared of us.
you're right about that ;D
this is my favorite post of the day.
-
I would like to know since when did we give a shit about bringing freedom to other people....
Haiti, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Kuwait, etc., etc.
-
Haiti, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Kuwait, etc., etc.
1) Haiti:
Effects of the US occupation on Haiti (WIKI)
The occupation by the United States had several significant effects on Haiti. An early period of unrest culminated in a 1918 rebellion by up to 40,000 former cacos and other disgruntled people. The scale of the uprising overwhelmed the Gendarmerie, but Marine reinforcements helped put down the revolt at an estimated cost of 2,000 Haitian lives.
Thereafter, order prevailed to a degree that most Haitians had never witnessed. The order, however, was imposed largely by white foreigners with deep-seated racial prejudices and disdain for the notion of self-determination by inhabitants of less-developed nations. Such attitudes particularly dismayed Haiti's mulatto elite, who had heretofore believed in their innate superiority over the black masses.
The white American occupiers, however, did not distinguish among Haitians, regardless of their skin tone, level of education, or sophistication. Their intolerance provoked indignation and resentment — and eventually a racial pride that was reflected in the work of a new generation of Haitian historians, ethnologists, writers, artists, and others, many of whom later became active in politics and government. Still, as Haitians united in their reaction to the racism of the occupying forces, the mulatto elite managed to dominate the country's bureaucracy and to strengthen its role in national affairs.
The occupation greatly improved some of Haiti's infrastructure. Roads were improved and expanded through the use of forced labor gangs. This violent form of "corvée labor" — with chain gangs, and armed guards permitted to shoot anyone who fled compulsory service — was widely regarded as tantamount to slavery.
-
Plan to fix Iraq:
1: Isolate the major criminal players and their sub groups-
2: Create an advanced model of the problems in Iraq based on advanced mathematical modeling. Use 10 super computers.
3: Define the most effective "striking points"
4: Kill all the major players with highly effective army assassins
5: Create 10 simple rules that holds every citizen accountable for his actions.
6: Constantly monitor all problems that arise within the advanced model found in #2
7: Create concentration camps.
8: Put all losers ranking 8 or more on the "danger" scale in teh camps.
9: Put tracking devices in the skull of every person in Iraq. Create "ok" zones for every person.
10: Make a mega computer run the entire country
11: Turn the citizens into slaves slaves for the mega computer
12: Put Gary Busey in charge.
-
12: Put Gary Busey in charge.
;D
Hey, come to think of it, that emoticon looks suspiciously like.......
-
;D
Hey, come to think of it, that emoticon looks suspiciously like.......
;D
(http://www.tropiccomics.com/ebay/lcpredator28.jpg)
-
Ron Avidan - you owe Gary Busey royalties dammit!
-
sorry, i get you and mm69 mixed up.
public face of the war = the guy who tells the world we're going to invade, orders the invasion, then seems to be the only voice still pushing it.
he is what motivates these young suicidal idiots, as he is the face they give to whatever horrors they now face.
To which group of young suicidal idiots are you refering? Just wanna make sure I'm following along. :P
-
LOL!
bruce go really quiet on this topic.
-
No. We leave the cities yet guard the oil facilities and the borders. you come within 5 miles, you are neutralized by air. We stop losing men, and let the iraqi police do their job without the US and their pesky liberal media slowing them down.
Pesky liberal media... {lol} oh no... surely you did not say that. What pesky liberal media? FOXNews?
I think when you set the theatre of engagement 5 miles out, you're inviting nuclear catastrophe.
Nothing to do with hindsight. Bush asked for A,B,C. Today, A,B,C are all completed. Bush then introduced D. Will E, F, G be next?
He's gonna keep going even if the only ones left supporting him are Laura and Barney.
I think anyone who has been there can answer this - Iraq will not get better until another ballbreaker opens up shop and does exactly what saddam did. The people there only undersstand power, ball crushing power. They don't have the internal controls of most Americans. They will loot, rape and kill til they're scared not to.
So peace will only come when another Saddam takes power, sadly.
Then when he loses favour with imperialist powers, ...Iraq will undergo a sweeping Islamic revival like Iran in the 70s, or she will be re-invaded, the dictator overthrown, hung, ...and more Americans & Iraqi's will die in the streets of Baghdad... until the next puppet regime is chosen.
-
we r realizing..
some people NEED a guy like saddam to keep em in check!
-
1) Haiti:
Effects of the US occupation on Haiti (WIKI)
The occupation by the United States had several significant effects on Haiti. An early period of unrest culminated in a 1918 rebellion by up to 40,000 former cacos and other disgruntled people. The scale of the uprising overwhelmed the Gendarmerie, but Marine reinforcements helped put down the revolt at an estimated cost of 2,000 Haitian lives.
Thereafter, order prevailed to a degree that most Haitians had never witnessed. The order, however, was imposed largely by white foreigners with deep-seated racial prejudices and disdain for the notion of self-determination by inhabitants of less-developed nations. Such attitudes particularly dismayed Haiti's mulatto elite, who had heretofore believed in their innate superiority over the black masses.
The white American occupiers, however, did not distinguish among Haitians, regardless of their skin tone, level of education, or sophistication. Their intolerance provoked indignation and resentment — and eventually a racial pride that was reflected in the work of a new generation of Haitian historians, ethnologists, writers, artists, and others, many of whom later became active in politics and government. Still, as Haitians united in their reaction to the racism of the occupying forces, the mulatto elite managed to dominate the country's bureaucracy and to strengthen its role in national affairs.
The occupation greatly improved some of Haiti's infrastructure. Roads were improved and expanded through the use of forced labor gangs. This violent form of "corvée labor" — with chain gangs, and armed guards permitted to shoot anyone who fled compulsory service — was widely regarded as tantamount to slavery.
Not sure what your point is with this cut-and-paste, but I was responding to this question: "I would like to know since when did we give a shit about bringing freedom to other people...."
Among the things I mentioned was Haiti, where we reinstalled a democratically elected leader that was overthrown by an illegal coup. That happened just a tad more recently than 1918.
-
There'll always be another crazy bastard who 'threatens' world peace and the US government dive on. It's always been and always will be about money and resources. The funny thing is that these foreign leaders have historically been friends and allies with the peaceful nations.
If you look at WW2 Germany, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. these were people who had support and financial aid from the US, UK, etc. then laughed in their faces and started shit. So we have to go in and protect the people (read: reclaim the resources).
But no-one ever seems to learn from these mistakes, and we end up doing the same thing over and over again. In the next ten years, it'll be North Korea who are 'threatening world peace'. In twenty years it'll be Iran, or some other crazy nation.
Some countries will always be like this, and unless you're willing to throw out all human rights and go to extreme lengths, it won't change.
-
LOL!
bruce go really quiet on this topic.
Sorry Rob, I forgot.
::)