Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: vikingpower on May 15, 2007, 09:47:25 AM
-
i just saw pix of 2 of them on cnn, ... thought id start a thread to document the hunt for them and their eventual demise.... will post the beheading vids and whatnot
:D
-
i just saw pix of 2 of them on cnn, they looked like trailer trash... thought id start a thread to document the hunt for them and their eventual demise.... will post the beheading vids and whatnot
:D
What difference does it make on how they look? They are kidnapped US servicemen who will likely die and you are talking about how they look like trailer trash?
-
keep in mind, thse people are involved in a premeditatd war of agression ... that is exactly what we hung the german generals for after WWII ... what am i saying? these are soldiers, but they are also war criminals and its rewarding to see them get whats coming :)
-
at least this homeboy had the balls to die like a man ... too bad he left the ghetto for this shit huh
-
keep in mind, thse people are involved in a premeditatd war of agression ... that is exactly what we hung the german generals for after WWII ... what am i saying? these are soldiers, but they are also war criminals and its rewarding to see them get whats coming :)
I'd like to government officials take the fall and not soliders.. That's not right.
-
I'd like to government officials take the fall and not soliders.. That's not right.
fuck that noise ... the soldiers are the ones killing people
.
what is the difference between this photo and the ones we will soon see of blindfolded hick soldiers with a machette to their neck?
-
I think all of those guys should decide well in advance not to be taken alive, given the possible torture that could well accompany a beheading.
-
It is a war of aggression.
I find nothing to celebrate about the deaths of these guys.
They may have believed the 9/11-Hussein snowjob that Bush et. al. sold to the public.
The whole adventure in Iraq is miserable.
When the time comes, justice should be meted out in a somber manner.
-
I think all of those guys should decide well in advance not to be taken alive, given the possible torture that could well accompany a beheading.
all throughout history the rule of war is you dont become a prisoner ... your life isnt worth more than the damage the info in your head can cause
.
look at this tough guy ... hopefully hes "next"
-
It is a war of aggression.
I find nothing to celebrate about the deaths of these guys.
They may have believed the 9/11-Hussein snowjob that Bush et. al. sold to the public.
The whole adventure in Iraq is miserable.
When the time comes, justice should be meted out in a somber manner.
justice is coming to these 3 soldiers from the only true freedom fighters in this war, the terrorists
you and i would do the exact same shit if they rolled up into our hood
-
justice is coming to these 3 soldiers from the only true freedom fighters in this war, the terrorists
you and i would do the exact same shit if they rolled up into our hood
It is very likely that I would also attack an invading force. These people see their friends, families and businesses destroyed.
Of course they resent our attacks on them.
But I don't know all the circumstances involved with these soldiers.
There may be mitigating circumstances to their particular situations.
Unfortunately for them, the Nuremberg holdings are still good law: crimes against peace, war of aggression, crimes against humanity, etc.
I hold Bush largely responsible for this.
He misused his authority as commander and chief. He should stand trial first.
-
i do think soldiers are essentially mindless, but letting them off the hook is the same "following orders" mentality the germans tried to use and we know how history has judged them
u gotta remember, that bush is just a cheerleader ... if he was told to start preaching withdrawl, or osama's glory he would do that too
the real power comes from money, which is the industrial military industry, oil, insurance, wallstreet, banks, and drugs ... and when you go high up enough on the food chain its all the same people :(
-
i do think soldiers are essentially mindless, but letting them off the hook is the same "following orders" mentality the germans tried to use and we know how history has judged them
u gotta remember, that bush is just a cheerleader ... if he was told to start preaching withdrawl, or osama's glory he would do that too
the real power comes from money, which is the industrial military industry, oil, insurance, wallstreet, banks, and drugs ... and when you go high up enough on the food chain its all the same people :(
I understand that 'just following orders' is not sufficient to escape criminal liability. But also remember that there were Acquittals at the Nuremberg Trials.
Legally under the constitution, Bush is the commander and chief of the military. If for whatever reason, he takes his orders from the military industrial complex, that's his problem.
The buck stops at the commander's desk.
On a side note, you are dead on about the convergence of the military industrial complex and our government. Brown and Root/Halliburton are longtime business interests of the Bush family.
These elitests use government to enrich themselves (privatized) and the enterprise is irrelevant--soy beans or ak-47s.
-
legally the buck stops at the commanders desk, but realistically hes a puppet its been like that ever since kennedy was assassinated ... and to be sure im just regurgitation, more informed peole have come up with these ideas before i got to em :P
-
legally the buck stops at the commanders desk, but realistically hes a puppet its been like that ever since kennedy was assassinated ... and to be sure im just regurgitation, more informed peole have come up with these ideas before i got to em :P
That's why we need a new FDR. A man of substance and balls. Not some pretender which is what President Bush is.
FDR roped in some the big business interests, so much so, that they tried a coup de tat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
FDR survived the putsch and led like a real man.
Bush would have to look up to see the bottoms of FDR's shoes.
-
ah, but a new FDR (lets call him ron paul) would never get elected
-
That's why we need a new FDR. A man of substance and balls. Not some pretender which is what President Bush is.
FDR roped in some the big business interests, so much so, that they tried a coup de tat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
FDR survived the putsch and led like a real man.
Bush would have to look up to see the bottoms of FDR's shoes.
You are saying Bush doesn't have balls? If there is one thing he does have it is balls to stand for what he feels is right despite what the public and polls say. I know you want government by polls
-
You are saying Bush doesn't have balls? If there is one thing he does have it is balls to stand for what he feels is right despite what the public and polls say. I know you want government by polls
Bush has no balls.
Real men admit mistakes, adapt and move on.
Bush is a broken record. Do not mistake 'balls' for obduracy: He's a one trick pony without the ability to govern like a truly competent man...he hides behind the same failed policies knowing he's untouchable--legally or politically.
Come on, Bush listens to polling like every other politician.
As for listening to the will of the American people...do I even have to explain that one?
-
Bush has no balls.
Real men admit mistakes, adapt and move on.
Bush is a broken record. Do not mistake 'balls' for obduracy: He's a one trick pony without the ability to govern like a truly competent man...he hides behind the same failed policies knowing he's untouchable--legally or politically.
Come on, Bush listens to polling like every other politician.
As for listening to the will of the American people...do I even have to explain that one?
He has admitted mistakes in the Iraq war. How has he conceded to polls?
-
It's right here.
weird.
-
notice the recycle thread indicatior symbol ;)
-
you and i would do the exact same shit if they rolled up into our hood
Exactly.
It always amazes me when some people seem not to comprehend why the Iraqi's are fighting back or to think it is wrong. Hello.....foreign forces are in their lands! The day a whole crew of Russian soldiers roll up into the US, I am 100% positive that Americans will fight back as well. Here, we'd get crushed in about 6 hours if invaded, as our main line of defence would be to throw coconuts at the marines, but I most certaintly would not roll out the welcome wagon if we were invaded. I would grab my coconut, and prepare to defend >:(
-
VIKING SO WE ARE CRYSTAL CLEAR>>>YOUR A PIECE OF INTERNET SHIT ....while u sit behind your computer..those kids are risking their lives....following orders being a man. Basically doing a huge list of things u will never do because ur worthless. You'd shit your pants doing what these kids do.
-
... but they are also war criminals and its rewarding to see them get whats coming :)
Someone's badly in need of a bitch-slapping. :-\
-
Its amazing all these post..like 911 didn't happen and your not included in the big world wide tour of jihad. At some point you idiots will learn that they hate and would kill u if they could. Further..no matter how many naive posts this board collects it won't save u from what they want to do to u and your famlies....
-
VIKING SO WE ARE CRYSTAL CLEAR>>>YOUR A PIECE OF INTERNET SHIT ....while u sit behind your computer..those kids are risking their lives....following orders being a man. Basically doing a huge list of things u will never do because ur worthless. You'd shit your pants doing what these kids do.
something vexes thee?
-
Its amazing all these post..like 911 didn't happen and your not included in the big world wide tour of jihad. At some point you idiots will learn that they hate and would kill u if they could. Further..no matter how many naive posts this board collects it won't save u from what they want to do to u and your famlies....
I actually agree with what you say in principle but not in the situation presented to us in 2003 when we did invade.
I retrospect i think its easy now to say we would have been better off not invading iraq to begin with.
-
I actually agree with what you say in principle but not in the situation presented to us in 2003 when we did invade.
I retrospect i think its easy now to say we would have been better off not invading iraq to begin with.
Sure but this thread isn't about politics..its about Viqueen posting a bs thread and sorry..unlike some..I'm going to defend my countrymen and felllow soldiers form assholes like him.
-
and im going to crack a corona when they die, just like id do for you :)
-
Karama sucks dude...I've seen a lot of folks get killed in the last 4 years....good friends and shit talkers..u got it coming..... ;D
-
im probably not going to die soon, these soldiers are, and they will be tortured like the scum they are ... :-*
.
threatening me is not a smart idea on here btw ... come on up to venice gym in toronto or wait till i find you ;)
Exactly.
It always amazes me when some people seem not to comprehend why the Iraqi's are fighting back or to think it is wrong. Hello.....foreign forces are in their lands! The day a whole crew of Russian soldiers roll up into the US, I am 100% positive that Americans will fight back as well. Here, we'd get crushed in about 6 hours if invaded, as our main line of defence would be to throw coconuts at the marines, but I most certaintly would not roll out the welcome wagon if we were invaded. I would grab my coconut, and prepare to defend >:(
eloquently stated
-
Its amazing all these post..like 911 didn't happen and your not included in the big world wide tour of jihad. At some point you idiots will learn that they hate and would kill u if they could. Further..no matter how many naive posts this board collects it won't save u from what they want to do to u and your famlies....
As far as my personal perspective, 9/11 was 20 ppl of varying nationalities who attacked [and yes that was horrrible, no disputing that]...however all the people in Iraq did not do that, now there are what 60,000 dead? The average Iraqi had nothing do with 9/11. And I am not being naive, it's my opinion, we all have different ones. The same way you defend your nation, they defend theirs. All around I think the whole situation is sad. For the record, I know you're in the forces and I wish you safety ;)
eloquently stated
Thanks, I try :D
-
As far as my personal perspective, 9/11 was 20 ppl of varying nationalities who attacked [and yes that was horrrible, no disputing that]...however all the people in Iraq did not do that, now there are what 60,000 dead? The average Iraqi had nothing do with 9/11. And I am not being naive, it's my opinion, we all have different ones. The same way you defend your nation, they defend theirs. All around I think the whole situation is sad. For the record, I know you're in the forces and I wish you safety ;)
Thanks, I try :D
And again we can debate the politics of the war..and yes horrible things happen..to both sides. I've seen civilians killed ..kids etc..it sucks....I have a 12 year old and feel bad when i see it..but i don't feel as bad as when i see my guys getting it. Its naive to think these guys will exempt you and yours because we disagree on the war. I'm glad u disagree..maybe we can leave sooner if smart folks decide its time to go
-
And again we can debate the politics of the war..and yes horrible things happen..to both sides. I've seen civilians killed ..kids etc..it sucks....I have a 12 year old and feel bad when i see it..but i don't feel as bad as when i see my guys getting it. Its naive to think these guys will exempt you and yours because we disagree on the war. I'm glad u disagree..maybe we can leave sooner if smart folks decide its time to go
Nice post, and yes I can only shudder to think of things that you see :-\
-
And I guess this is the thing.....I don't make policy bro...You know what I was doing on 911..i was with a buddy going over football plays for the Post flag football playoffs. His wife calls and about tower one and we make it to my office just in time to see plane two plow into the towers. Nobody had any idea about Iraq at that time. Maybe old george did and maybe its time for him to go...no real debate about that from me. But soldiers don't make policy and we'd all rather be state side 'knee deep' and drinking beer.
-
you dont make policy but you signed up to kill and to die ... so dont be a crybaby when the dying comes around
-
Who's crying bitch....nobody said I gave a shit about dying..either your dead or your not..we all know that. But when somebody who sits behind his computer in a fucking basements comments on the fact that he finds joy in the torture and deaths of my fellow soldiers..i'm going to comment myself.
-
He has admitted mistakes in the Iraq war. How has he conceded to polls?
I stand corrected.
The Bush administration does not use polls or focus groups or marketing ploys.
Read this article:
The Other War Room
President Bush doesn't believe in polling---just ask his pollsters.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0204.green.html
Simply admitting, "mistakes were made" is about as convincing as "Mission Accomplished."
-
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
there there
-
I stand corrected.
The Bush administration does not use polls or focus groups or marketing ploys.
Read this article:
The Other War Room
President Bush doesn't believe in polling---just ask his pollsters.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0204.green.html
Simply admitting, "mistakes were made" is about as convincing as "Mission Accomplished."
you said a rela man admits mistakes, he admitted his, just not the ones your narrow mind wanted to hear
-
The average Iraqi had nothing do with 9/11.
NO iraqi had anything to do with 911. not even saddam. Despite this, they have tried like hell to convince folks otherwise, and to some extent it has worked.
-
Well the other thing to consider is that we're not fighting just Iraqi's in Iraq...we sucked in Al-queda and we're fighting them their as well. It really wouldn't matter what country we went into..they would flock their to fight.
-
you said a rela man admits mistakes, he admitted his, just not the ones your narrow mind wanted to hear
He admitted nothing.
His behavior did not change. Wouldn't a reasonable man change his actions after admitting a mistake?
What did Bush change?
He ordered a surge after admitting he made some mistakes in handling Iraq.
More of the same expecting different results is the definition of insanity in that instance.
I don't have a narrow mind.
You are just being mean.
-
Well the other thing to consider is that we're not fighting just Iraqi's in Iraq...we sucked in Al-queda and we're fighting them their as well. It really wouldn't matter what country we went into..they would flock their to fight.
it's resource theater, baby. al quida wants to keep the oil in the region too. they're blowing up the pipeline every chance they get cause they know whose ships that oil goes to
-
He admitted nothing.
His behavior did not change. Wouldn't a reasonable man change his actions after admitting a mistake?
What did Bush change?
He ordered a surge after admitting he made some mistakes in handling Iraq.
More of the same expecting different results is the definition of insanity in that instance.
I don't have a narrow mind.
You are just being mean.
The mistakes that were made in Iraq can't be change that simply. I know you aren't one of the few that think we should still pull out tommorrow. He ordered a surge to try and correct the mistakes.
-
The mistakes that were made in Iraq can't be change that simply. I know you aren't one of the few that think we should still pull out tommorrow. He ordered a surge to try and correct the mistakes.
I understand. I just don't see the wisdom of more of the same.
-
I understand. I just don't see the wisdom of more of the same.
what wisdom is there in a withdrawl?
-
Well the other thing to consider is that we're not fighting just Iraqi's in Iraq...we sucked in Al-queda and we're fighting them their as well. It really wouldn't matter what country we went into..they would flock their to fight.
So you admit the US created the insurgency in Iraq?
-
i just saw pix of 2 of them on cnn, ... thought id start a thread to document the hunt for them and their eventual demise.... will post the beheading vids and whatnot
:D
You have to be the most disgusting sack of worthless shit in the world. These guys are facing death and you were intimidated by special ed. ::) By the way, you are the one who looks and acts like "trailer park trash". ::) You are truly pathetic. Men are dying while your existence is making posts about myspace.com. You should kill yourself and just get your meaningless life over with.
-
Yeah he's an idiot...CJ....I'm not sure there is anything to admit. I think sucking these guys into Iraq is not nessisarily a bad thing. I'm not so sure if we are stopping so many attacks here as that they are focused else in Iraq. Their resources and best planners are a finite resource so i guess they figure they will get the most bang for their buck in Iraq. Its gotten very tough to operate as they once did. I think there are alot of unemployed angry arab men looking for a cause....and Bush gave them one. I think there are alot of repressive moderate muslim governments that pray we keep this thing going to take pressure off of them.
-
VIKING SO WE ARE CRYSTAL CLEAR>>>YOUR A PIECE OF INTERNET SHIT ....while u sit behind your computer..those kids are risking their lives....following orders being a man. Basically doing a huge list of things u will never do because ur worthless. You'd shit your pants doing what these kids do.
Not to take sides but, I'm sure the terrorists are following orders too being men and all.
-
You have to be the most disgusting sack of worthless shit in the world. These guys are facing death and you were intimidated by special ed. ::) By the way, you are the one who looks and acts like "trailer park trash". ::) You are truly pathetic. Men are dying while your existence is making posts about myspace.com. You should kill yourself and just get your meaningless life over with.
i know
why dontcha cry about it
-
VIKING SO WE ARE CRYSTAL CLEAR>>>YOUR A PIECE OF INTERNET SHIT ....while u sit behind your computer..those kids are risking their lives....following orders being a man. Basically doing a huge list of things u will never do because ur worthless. You'd shit your pants doing what these kids do.
What would you expect from a guy who fvcks hookers unprotected?
Viking will always be a POS loser................... period.
-
Not to take sides but, I'm sure the terrorists are following orders too being men and all.
A valid point. To me, all the men fighting are just doing what they think is right/following orders etc.
One thing I don't get though, not your post but in general, is why the Iraqi's fighting back are called terrorists/insurgents? They are on their own country and fighting foreign invaders who broke international law and invaded their home soil.
-
Most of the guys fighting are from other countries..the most dynamic attacks are conducted by foreign fighters. Its like that in Afghanistan as well except the population generally doesn't like them much and dimes them out the Americans.
-
One thing I don't get though, not your post but in general, is why the Iraqi's fighting back are called terrorists/insurgents? They are on their own country and fighting foreign invaders who broke international law and invaded their home soil.
Like HH6 said, many *are* terrorists from other countries.
But here's the thing - people like me are the only ones who've insisted on using the term 'terrorists'. The media is intent on calling them 'insurgents', because insurgents are certainly more noble than terrorists, are they not?
-
i just saw pix of 2 of them on cnn, ... thought id start a thread to document the hunt for them and their eventual demise.... will post the beheading vids and whatnot
:D
Not on this board.
You are sick.
-
A valid point. To me, all the men fighting are just doing what they think is right/following orders etc.
One thing I don't get though, not your post but in general, is why the Iraqi's fighting back are called terrorists/insurgents? They are on their own country and fighting foreign invaders who broke international law and invaded their home soil.
You and the other guy seem to conveniently forget the fact that most of the people these insurgents are killing are each other.
How is bombing a mosque or a shopping center fighting foriegn invaders?
You also seem to forget that Iraq was being ruled by one of the world's most brutal dictators that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis wanted to see gone.
That said, I've always thought this war was a bad idea from a foriegn policy standpoint. When you take out a dictator, old ethnic rivalries are gonna flare up, and now these soldiers are stuck playing policeman over there.
I remember hearing Pat Buchanan saying, at the start of this, that we would be creating our own Gaza Strip over there. Hard to see how he's not right.
-
Not on this board.
You are sick.
Good new policy!
Will you be going back and deleteing all the pics of detained, tortured, captured, or killed Iraqis also?
-
Good new policy!
Will you be going back and deleteing all the pics of detained, tortured, captured, or killed Iraqis also?
Thank you.
No.
-
You and the other guy seem to conveniently forget the fact that most of the people these insurgents are killing are each other.
How is bombing a mosque or a shopping center fighting foriegn invaders?
You also seem to forget that Iraq was being ruled by one of the world's most brutal dictators that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis wanted to see gone.
That said, I've always thought this war was a bad idea from a foriegn policy standpoint. When you take out a dictator, old ethnic rivalries are gonna flare up, and now these soldiers are stuck playing policeman over there.
I remember hearing Pat Buchanan saying, at the start of this, that we would be creating our own Gaza Strip over there. Hard to see how he's not right.
I'm not forgeting anything Thin Lizzy, I just have a differing viewpoint.
Not on this board.
You are sick.
BB, not trying to be inflammatory here and I agree Jimmy is quite rude, but I do hope that the same respect will be paid regarding posts about the deaths/captures of all nationalities, not just one.
-
Good new policy!
Will you be going back and deleteing all the pics of detained, tortured, captured, or killed Iraqis also?
Funny thing is that the people posting those pictures of Iraqi's are the liberals on the board, Ribonucleic, Jag etc.
-
Thank you.
No.
See you in hell..........
....from heaven!
-
I would agree to that...not that i would post that stuff...(I have great pics....too bad ;D) but 'jimmy' needs to be banned or time outed for this crap. Even 1 day would work..send a message.
-
I'm not forgeting anything Thin Lizzy, I just have a differing viewpoint.
BB, not trying to be inflammatory here and I agree Jimmy is quite rude, but I do hope that the same respect will be paid regarding posts about the deaths/captures of all nationalities, not just one.
Rude is an understatement. I don't know him, but he sounds like a sociopath. We're not going to use this board to showcase the decapitation of American soldiers for the pleasure of one idiot. He is free to post those videos, pictures, etc. on the X, V, and Z boards. I've gotten a number of complaints already.
Maybe I missed it, but I have not seen anyone posting pictures of dead people, solely to celebrate that they were murdered (except maybe Ribo).
-
See you in hell..........
....from heaven!
::)
-
No matter what the politics wanting three POWs to die is just plain wrong.
-
I'm not forgeting anything Thin Lizzy, I just have a differing viewpoint.
Of course you are.
You're reducing what's going on over there to people trying to expel foreign invaders. When, in fact, Sunnis and Shites have been killing each other since before there was such a thing as America.
-
U have a bunch of idiots that hate each other. Somehow Saddam kept a lid on it. Then we knocked him off. They were chomping at the bit to kill each other and we can't stop them. Behind that there are a ton of foreign fighters stirring them up and killing our guys. These people suck..we need to go.
-
Rude is an understatement. I don't know him, but he sounds like a sociopath. We're not going to use this board to showcase the decapitation of American soldiers for the pleasure of one idiot. He is free to post those videos, pictures, etc. on the X, V, and Z boards. I've gotten a number of complaints already.
Maybe I missed it, but I have not seen anyone posting pictures of dead people, solely to celebrate that they were murdered (except maybe Ribo).
O, I wasn't sayin I have BB, I think you guys are doing a good job as mods and all...just meant in 'principle/future' type of thing.
Of course you are.
You're reducing what's going on over there to people trying to expel foreign invaders. When, in fact, Sunnis and Shites have been killing each other since before there was such a thing as America.
No, I'm not, again I simply have a different viewpoint. I realize there is much happening there, my only point was I feel the morons who blow up buses of their own ppl, sure call them terrorists/insurgents but those that fight againest US/Coalition forces I don't agree with them being labeled terrorists/insurgents at all, they are defending their soil which majority of people would do if their nation was invaded.
-
O, I wasn't sayin I have BB, I think you guys are doing a good job as mods and all...just meant in 'principle/future' type of thing.
Thanks CQ.
-
No, I'm not, again I simply have a different viewpoint. I realize there is much happening there, my only point was I feel the morons who blow up buses of their own ppl, sure call them terrorists/insurgents but those that fight againest US/Coalition forces I don't agree with them being labeled terrorists/insurgents at all, they are defending their soil which majority of people would do if their nation was invaded.
Your argument assumes that no country would welcome a foriegn invasion.
What if you lived in a country where you had virtually no rights and were invaded by a country whose presense would insure you with many rights. Would you fight those invaders?
-
No, I'm not, again I simply have a different viewpoint. I realize there is much happening there, my only point was I feel the morons who blow up buses of their own ppl, sure call them terrorists/insurgents but those that fight againest US/Coalition forces I don't agree with them being labeled terrorists/insurgents at all, they are defending their soil which majority of people would do if their nation was invaded.
If they were smart, then they'd see the benefits of the US occupation. And I respectfully disagree on insurgents all being 'freedom fights' because they're causing serious damage to the rebuilding of their own nation. They don't care about their soil, their people, but they do care about taking control to advance their own selfish interests of creating a super fundamentalist Islamic state.
I still disagree with the war, occupation, but I know whining wont help. We're there so we might as well get the benefits even if it's at the expense of Iraqis.
-
Yeah no shit....Nobody on our side would be blowing anything up if these assholes weren't shooting at us. No airstrike...power and water 24 hours a day..all the net porn these closeted muslim weirdo's could handle and with intact oil piplines..BMW"s for everybody. But instead u get IED's...1 hour of light and vest bombs.
-
Your argument assumes that no country would welcome a foriegn invasion.
What if you lived in a country where you had virtually no rights and were invaded by a country whose presense would insure you with many rights. Would you fight those invaders?
I do see where you are coming from, but for me nothing justifies the death of 60,000/600,000 [depending what report]. Also, I do not for one minute believe that the US/Coalition forces really had any good intention of "liberating" anyone. Why did the US never go into South Africa and liberate the blacks who had minimal rights? Why not liberate the North Koreans? The Burmese?
America gets attacked and loses 2,000 odd lives, so they feel the need to attack 3 other nations, kill 60,000+ ppl for a period of 5+ years and everyone understands why they "fight back"....but Iraq is supposed to get attacked and sit and smile wildly, I just don't see it. It is the principle for many, patriotism is not restricted only to Americans, or people from prosperous nations. Anyone invades my country, for any reason, I will in fact be pissed. Just my opinion of course, but thats how I would feel.
-
Not on this board.
You are sick.
delete me and join teh email list ... tis your call
-
delete me and join teh email list ... tis your call
what a sorry ass, all you can do is threaten e-mails?
-
delete me and join teh email list ... tis your call
::)
-
Saddam was a dictator that did some horrible things to his own folks..might have had WMDs..had ambitions anyway..and was athreat to stability in the region. Besides not one of these groups has ever come out and said....'hey we exist to liberate Iraq from the oppresive occupation by America"..Nope they all declare a jihad and kill us and each other. Most of them kill us because we are in the way of killing more of their sunni or shite enemies...which of course is completely ridiculous if ur a true follower of the "Religion of peace'.
-
with an email address, especially a private one ... you can find out vast amounts of information about a person
ask flower for details :)
-
Why would u bother screwing with someone....whats ur point.
-
delete me and join teh email list ... tis your call
;D BB just got OWNED!!!!
-
Saddam was a dictator that did some horrible things to his own folks..might have had WMDs..had ambitions anyway..and was athreat to stability in the region. Besides not one of these groups has ever come out and said....'hey we exist to liberate Iraq from the oppresive occupation by America"..Nope they all declare a jihad and kill us and each other. Most of them kill us because we are in the way of killing more of their sunni or shite enemies...which of course is completely ridiculous if ur a true follower of the "Religion of peace'.
I think you are mostly correct here. I don't think Hussein was a threat to the area's stability though. It seems evident that he was a major stabilizing force in the area.
Now that he's gone, the middle east is a powder keg.
-
I think you are mostly correct here. I don't think Hussein was a threat to the area's stability though. It seems evident that he was a major stabilizing force in the area.
Now that he's gone, the middle east is a powder keg.
Saddam a stabilizing force? He sure didn't stabilize the Kurds or Kuwait. He was also about to invade Saudi Arabia before we stopped him.
-
Saddam a stabilizing force? He sure didn't stabilize the Kurds or Kuwait. He was also about to invade Saudi Arabia before we stopped him.
Is Iraq more or less stable without Saddam?
-
Is Iraq more or less stable without Saddam?
It was unstable with him and it's unstable without him. Although he may have prevented civil war, like many dictators before him, he was torturing and murdering his own people and pillaging his country's resources.
But the point I was addressing was whether he was a stabilizing force in the region. I think the answer is "no," in part because he invaded another country (Kuwait), was about to invade another (Saudi Arabia), dropped bombs on Israel, sponsored suicide bombers in Israel, and was trying to develop and/or obtain WMDs.
-
It was unstable with him and it's unstable without him. Although he may have prevented civil war, like many dictators before him, he was torturing and murdering his own people and pillaging his country's resources.
But the point I was addressing was whether he was a stabilizing force in the region. I think the answer is "no," in part because he invaded another country (Kuwait), was about to invade another (Saudi Arabia), dropped bombs on Israel, sponsored suicide bombers in Israel, and was trying to develop and/or obtain WMDs.
I take that as you conceding Iraq was more stable under Saddam.
Is the region more stable now?
(Note: I'm all for the war because I like gas prices and my standard of living - saddam being offed was needed for that, so be it. But I have to disagree with you on the "we fixed everything in iraq" - more people die per day now, and the country is less productive now)
-
I take that as you conceding Iraq was more stable under Saddam.
Is the region more stable now?
(Note: I'm all for the war because I like gas prices and my standard of living - saddam being offed was needed for that, so be it. But I have to disagree with you on the "we fixed everything in iraq" - more people die per day now, and the country is less productive now)
You take that as exactly what I said.
I've already answered your question. The region was unstable with him and is unstable without him.
-
A valid point. To me, all the men fighting are just doing what they think is right/following orders etc.
One thing I don't get though, not your post but in general, is why the Iraqi's fighting back are called terrorists/insurgents? They are on their own country and fighting foreign invaders who broke international law and invaded their home soil.
That is true and to a certain degree it is spin, but they are killing a lot of iraqis while they are at it and don't forget about the sectarian violence between the sunis and shiites.
-
The region was unstable with him and is unstable without him.
Okay. But domestic violence in Iraq is worse now. You cannot deny that.
-
Okay. But domestic violence in Iraq is worse now. You cannot deny that.
I can neither confirm nor deny. I don't know. Domestic violence was committed by Saddam before he was overthrown. I don't think you can simply do a body count comparison to determine whether one was "worse" than the other. It was bad under Saddam and it's bad now.
-
I can neither confirm nor deny. I don't know. Domestic violence was committed by Saddam before he was overthrown. I don't think you can simply do a body count comparison to determine whether one was "worse" than the other. It was bad under Saddam and it's bad now.
if you believe this, you believe this.
-
Saddam a stabilizing force? He sure didn't stabilize the Kurds or Kuwait. He was also about to invade Saudi Arabia before we stopped him.
Your assertion is absurd.
How many civil wars broke out under Hussein?
Was Al Qaeda burgeoning in Iraq under Hussein?
He ruled with an iron hand but your contention contradicts the facts.
How do you know that he was about to invade Saudi Arabia? On its face that is preposterous.
-
I will concede that domestically things were more stable..that is the genocide(s) were very quiet and orerly compared to the chaos now.....As far as what decker says.....I think that post 911 things changed..i think Iraq saw an oppertunity to do damage to the US and would have funded more attacks and grown closer to groups like Al queda....Besides at that point OBL would have taken any allies he could....Iraq has proven to be a great recruiting tool for the group and would have provided them with a base of operations had the US not invaded. Further they could have been a conduit for any WMDs that Saddam had or wanted to build. Pure speculation based on historical evidence..I didn't come up with any of this crap....just stuff I've come across.
-
How can we say the region was unstable with Saddam?
Westerners could travel there a were relatively safe.
People (Iraqis) could drive on roads and not have to worry about IED's
People could go to markets and not have to worry about bombs
People could live in neighborhoods and not have to worry about getting bullied into supporting the local religious sect.
The only thing you couldn't was oppose Saddam politically. Otherwise you get gassed.
-
How can we say the region was unstable with Saddam?
Westerners could travel there a were relatively safe.
People (Iraqis) could drive on roads and not have to worry about IED's
People could go to markets and not have to worry about bombs
People could live in neighborhoods and not have to worry about getting bullied into supporting the local religious sect.
The only thing you couldn't was oppose Saddam politically. Otherwise you get gassed.
LOL... remember the American reporters who would roam the streets of baghdad in 2000, 2001, and 2002? They had a govt minder to ensure they didn't say the wrong thing, but they were free to walk down any street with their CNN/US flag on the van and had no worries.
Try driving thru poor side of baghdad today with your american flag on a white TV van. You'd get dead quick.
-
LOL... remember the American reporters who would roam the streets of baghdad in 2000, 2001, and 2002? They had a govt minder to ensure they didn't say the wrong thing, but they were free to walk down any street with their CNN/US flag on the van and had no worries.
Try driving thru poor side of Baghdad today with your American flag on a white TV van. You'd get dead quick.
When Cheney has to wear a bullet proof vest while exiting an Airplane and bombs go off in the "green" zone while he is there, it is safe to say it's unsafe anywhere.
Why people will still allow them selves to believe Iraq was unstable before the invasion is beyond me.
-
Your assertion is absurd.
How many civil wars broke out under Hussein?
Was Al Qaeda burgeoning in Iraq under Hussein?
He ruled with an iron hand but your contention contradicts the facts.
How do you know that he was about to invade Saudi Arabia? On its face that is preposterous.
Brush up on your history Decker. Here is what I recall:
1. Saddam gassed his own people.
2. He had torture chambers and tortured and murdered his own people. He was actually tried and executed for murdering his own people. Not much of a stabilizing force when you're murdering your own people.
3. He invaded a sovereign country - Kuwait - and only left when we kicked him out.
4. He was massing his troops on the Saudi border when we initiated Operation Desert Storm.
5. He dropped scuds on Israel during Desert Storm.
6. Hillary, Bill, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, Berger, Albright, Byrd, and a host of other Democrats all told the American people that Saddam had WMDs or was trying to obtain them. Doesn't sound very stable to me.
7. Saddam gave financial rewards to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.
EDIT:
8. He was pilfering his country's resources.
Now, if you look at those facts and conclude that the region and Iraq was "stable," I'd say your position is absurd.
-
some of the events you listed happened 20+ years before we invaded.
We had riots in Los Angeles 20 years ago. Is America an unstable nation?
-
Brush up on your history Decker. Here is what I recall:
1. Saddam gassed his own people.
2. He had torture chambers and tortured and murdered his own people. He was actually tried and executed for murdering his own people. Not much of a stabilizing force when you're murdering your own people.
3. He invaded a sovereign country - Kuwait - and only left when we kicked him out.
4. He was massing his troops on the Saudi border when we initiated Operation Desert Storm.
5. He dropped scuds on Israel during Desert Storm.
6. Hillary, Bill, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, Berger, Albright, Byrd, and a host of other Democrats all told the American people that Saddam had WMDs or was trying to obtain them. Doesn't sound very stable to me.
7. Saddam gave financial rewards to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.
Now, if you look at those facts and conclude that the region and Iraq was "stable," I'd say your position is absurd.
for the average Iraqi person is was very stable unless you were a Kurd and even then as long as you didn't speak out or try to over throw Saddam you were ok.
The examples you gave there were years old or didn;t have anything to do with Iraq other than torture chambers which were for political opposition and was a effective way of dealing with the secs in that country.
Those examples are moot and pale in comparison to what's going on there now.
What had Saddam been doing since the year 2000 other than playing games with the UN inspectors?
-
some of the events you listed happened 20+ years before we invaded.
We had riots in Los Angeles 20 years ago. Is America an unstable nation?
It was a consistent pattern.
Comparing the U.S. to Iraq? How stupid is that?
-
Domestically you guys are all correct...BB and I are saying (I think) that after 911 all bets were off as to what this guy could do. Al Queda would allow this guy to do more damage to us and others in the region.....anyway he had to go....what followed is up for debate.
-
for the average Iraqi person is was very stable unless you were a Kurd and even then as long as you didn't speak out or try to over throw Saddam you were ok.
The examples you gave there were years old or didn;t have anything to do with Iraq other than torture chambers which were for political opposition and was a effective way of dealing with the secs in that country.
Those examples are moot and pale in comparison to what's going on there now.
What had Saddam been doing since the year 2000 other than playing games with the UN inspectors?
So as long as you weren't a Kurd and weren't foolish enough to say anything bad about Saddam, either of which resulted in torture and murder, you were okay. You call that stable? You gotta be kidding.
Nothing changed for the Iraqi people during his entire reign of terror. He was raping his people financially and he was a constant threat to his neighbors.
-
It was a consistent pattern.
Comparing the U.S. to Iraq? How stupid is that?
YOU were the one who compared Pre- to Post-war and wouldn't admit it's more violent and dangerous today than before.
I guess admitting it would compeltely undermine your own moral position on the war - you've repeatedly said it's only about democracy and saving iraqis and NOT about oil. So, if we indeed did make it more unsafe than before, it would become a failure in your eyes. that fragile house of lies you use to support the war couldn't withstand that.
-
So as long as you weren't a Kurd and weren't foolish enough to say anything bad about Saddam, either of which resulted in torture and murder, you were okay. You call that stable? You gotta be kidding.
Nothing changed for the Iraqi people during his entire reign of terror. He was raping his people financially and he was a constant threat to his neighbors.
In comparison to what's going right now it was very stable.
Saddam raping his people financially is not instability it's corruption.
My idea of instability is every day violence in the ordinary life of a person who works, goes to school, to the market etc.... In that sense Iraq is a very unstable place in relation to the way it was under Saddam.
-
keep in mind, thse people are involved in a premeditatd war of agression ... that is exactly what we hung the german generals for after WWII ... what am i saying? these are soldiers, but they are also war criminals and its rewarding to see them get whats coming :)
You may be the only person on earth that I hope rots in hell and by golly you seem to have that locked up.
Rot in helll you piece of shiat.
-
You may be the only person on earth that I hope rots in hell and by golly you seem to have that locked up.
Rot in helll you piece of shiat.
I certainly hope you see the "goat for a goat" in this "get your Goat" sweepstakes that is being played here since you are a professional at it.
;D
-
I certainly hope you see the "goat for a goat" in this "get your Goat" sweepstakes that is being played here since you are a professional at it.
;D
Of course I do, what the hay, you think i'm blind brother?
-
Brush up on your history Decker. Here is what I recall:
1. Saddam gassed his own people.
2. He had torture chambers and tortured and murdered his own people. He was actually tried and executed for murdering his own people. Not much of a stabilizing force when you're murdering your own people.
3. He invaded a sovereign country - Kuwait - and only left when we kicked him out.
4. He was massing his troops on the Saudi border when we initiated Operation Desert Storm.
5. He dropped scuds on Israel during Desert Storm.
6. Hillary, Bill, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, Berger, Albright, Byrd, and a host of other Democrats all told the American people that Saddam had WMDs or was trying to obtain them. Doesn't sound very stable to me.
7. Saddam gave financial rewards to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.
EDIT:
8. He was pilfering his country's resources.
Now, if you look at those facts and conclude that the region and Iraq was "stable," I'd say your position is absurd.
Internal strife happens in every country.
Kuwait is surrounded by Saudi Arabia.
Of course he's going to have troops by the border if Hussein is annexing Kuwait.
The Iraq-Kuwait problem was an oil problem--surprise. Kuwait was cross drilling into Iraq reserves. April Glaspie--the US diplomat--told Hussein that the US had no opinion on his annexation of Kuwait.
Pilfering is not relevant.
In all fairness, the middle east is a hotbed.
Kuwait & Iraq were allies in the Iraq/Iran war. The character of ally/enemy changes rather quickly there.
Iraq was no more a threat to the stability of the region than any other country there.
Israel has massacred the Palestinians, commandeered their land and choked off Palistine's commerce. Palestine has responded with attacks including suicide bombing.
I would argue that Israel's threat to the area dwarfed any from Iraq.
Anyways, if you look at:
the ongoing civil war,
the growth of Al Qaeda terrorism,
the tiny green zones of "safety" amidst
the demilitarized zones,
and the influx of Iranian influence into the area
I'd say Iraq is a tad bit more unstable than at any time under Hussein.
-
YOU were the one who compared Pre- to Post-war and wouldn't admit it's more violent and dangerous today than before.
I guess admitting it would compeltely undermine your own moral position on the war - you've repeatedly said it's only about democracy and saving iraqis and NOT about oil. So, if we indeed did make it more unsafe than before, it would become a failure in your eyes. that fragile house of lies you use to support the war couldn't withstand that.
Actually, I wasn't the one who started the discussion about whether Iraq was stable before the war. It was Decker and I was responding his assertion.
Comparing Iraq to the U.S. is stupid.
-
In comparison to what's going right now it was very stable.
Saddam raping his people financially is not instability it's corruption.
My idea of instability is every day violence in the ordinary life of a person who works, goes to school, to the market etc.... In that sense Iraq is a very unstable place in relation to the way it was under Saddam.
Anyone who happened to be a Kurd or oppossed Saddam in any way was tortured and murdered. Hardly sounds like domestic tranquility to me. People were controlled by fear. That isn't stability.
-
Anyone who happened to be a Kurd or oppossed Saddam in any way was tortured and murdered. Hardly sounds like domestic tranquility to me. People were controlled by fear. That isn't stability.
Well here's the definition:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
sta·bil·i·ty /stəˈbɪlɪti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[stuh-bil-i-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties.
1. the state or quality of being stable.
2. firmness in position.
3. continuance without change; permanence.
4. Chemistry. resistance or the degree of resistance to chemical change or disintegration.
5. resistance to change, esp. sudden change or deterioration: The stability of the economy encourages investment.
6. steadfastness; constancy, as of character or purpose: The job calls for a great deal of emotional stability.
7. Aeronautics. the ability of an aircraft to return to its original flying position when abruptly displaced.
8. Roman Catholic Church. a vow taken by a Benedictine monk, binding him to residence for life in the same monastery in which he made the vow.
The US hasn't been able to create a "stable" situation in Iraq.
Saddam had accomplished this. There was: firmness in position and continuance without change; permanence. Now, his government wasn't a good thing, but for the average citizen, there wasn't the violence then that we now see very day and the uncertainly of future.
What you are talking about is a governing issue involving free speech or peaceful change of power (like presidential elections in the USA) without penalty.
2 very different things.
I think you are incorrectly comparing an unstable situation with a "bad" government or repressive dictatorship.
-
Internal strife happens in every country.
Kuwait is surrounded by Saudi Arabia.
Of course he's going to have troops by the border if Hussein is annexing Kuwait.
The Iraq-Kuwait problem was an oil problem--surprise. Kuwait was cross drilling into Iraq reserves. April Glaspie--the US diplomat--told Hussein that the US had no opinion on his annexation of Kuwait.
Pilfering is not relevant.
In all fairness, the middle east is a hotbed.
Kuwait & Iraq were allies in the Iraq/Iran war. The character of ally/enemy changes rather quickly there.
Iraq was no more a threat to the stability of the region than any other country there.
Israel has massacred the Palestinians, commandeered their land and choked off Palistine's commerce. Palestine has responded with attacks including suicide bombing.
I would argue that Israel's threat to the area dwarfed any from Iraq.
Anyways, if you look at:
the ongoing civil war,
the growth of Al Qaeda terrorism,
the tiny green zones of "safety" amidst
the demilitarized zones,
and the influx of Iranian influence into the area
I'd say Iraq is a tad bit more unstable than at any time under Hussein.
Decker you are sugarcoating Saddam and his brutal regime. Internal strife? Are you kidding? It was the torture and murder of Iraqi civilians by the Iraqi government. You call that stable?
So Saddam invades Kuwait and then begins massing his troops on the Saudi border and this is not evidence that he was going to invade Saudi Arabia? Give me a break.
A dictator pilfering his country's resources, resulting in many of the people living in poverty is absolutely relevant to whether or not the country is stable.
Iraq was at war with Iran for 8 years and this isn't evidence of instability in the region?
Are you actually trying to justify Saddam dropping scuds on Israel and sponsoring terrorism in Israel?
This is crazy. How can you look at what happened in that country in the decades before we invaded and conclude it was stable? Look at this story:
Inside Saddam's torture chamber
By Bill Neely
Basra, southern Iraq
Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a state of terror, and the security apparatus was at the heart of it.
As I walked into the secret police headquarters in Basra - which is now in British hands - I met former inmates and ordinary Iraqis had been terrified to come here until now.
The secret police building is now a bombed out shell
What was to follow was a horrific education in terror.
In the smoking basement of the bombed building was a warren of cells where prisoners had been tortured.
"People died, people were imprisoned without trial," one man told me.
We went further down, to cells that had no light and little air. They were covered with cockroaches and filth - and on the ground I saw a gas mask and bottles of chemicals.
One man said he had spent eight years inside, just for attending Friday prayers. He prayed too much and was seen as a dangerous radical.
But the secret police headquarters had more horrors to reveal.
One man whose relatives had been killed here said they had their hands tied behind their backs, and were left to hang from their arms for days on end.
Crying out
Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq through fear, torture and execution. It happened here to tens of thousands of Iraqis deemed dangerous by the secret police.
Former prisoners showed how they were interrogated
A man cowered for months, crammed with 300 others into a huge cell.
Hameed Fatil told me he was tortured, along with his two brothers who were executed, and re-enacted their ordeal.
Security officers kept record of prisoners. Their fingerprints are all that is left of them - apart from photographs of their interrogations.
To call all this a chamber of horrors is a cliche - and this place is beyond cliche. The hundreds or thousands that died here and were given no trial, no voice, cry out.
On the ground I found a book called the Psychology of Interrogation, as if the men who worked here needed a handbook.
On my way out I was glad of the fresh air and glad to leave - glad that I could.
No one knows yet whether the new Iraq will be the kind of place where children can grow up free of the fear, the horror of torture.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2930739.stm
-
Well here's the definition:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
sta·bil·i·ty /stəˈbɪlɪti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[stuh-bil-i-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties.
1. the state or quality of being stable.
2. firmness in position.
3. continuance without change; permanence.
4. Chemistry. resistance or the degree of resistance to chemical change or disintegration.
5. resistance to change, esp. sudden change or deterioration: The stability of the economy encourages investment.
6. steadfastness; constancy, as of character or purpose: The job calls for a great deal of emotional stability.
7. Aeronautics. the ability of an aircraft to return to its original flying position when abruptly displaced.
8. Roman Catholic Church. a vow taken by a Benedictine monk, binding him to residence for life in the same monastery in which he made the vow.
The US hasn't been able to create a "stable" situation in Iraq.
Saddam had accomplished this. There was: firmness in position and continuance without change; permanence. Now, his government wasn't a good thing, but for the average citizen, there wasn't the violence then that we now see very day and the uncertainly of future.
What you are talking about is a governing issue involving free speech or peaceful change of power (like presidential elections in the USA) without penalty.
2 very different things.
I think you are incorrectly comparing an unstable situation with a "bad" government or repressive dictatorship.
You're focusing on one issue, which I think is only part of the analysis. You can apply that definition to any regime that has a dictator and uses torture and murder to control the people. I'm saying this kind of dictatorship, which includes the murder of civilians by the government, is part of what made Iraq and the region unstable. There is also:
- An eight year war with Iran
- The invasion of a sovereign country
- The attempted invasion of another sovereign country
- Dropping bombs on yet another sovereign country
- Sponsoring terrorism in another sovereign country
- Stealing the country's resources and forcing large segments of the population to live like cavemen
- Attempting to develop and/or obtain WMDs
IMO, whether or not Iraq and the region is more unstable now than before the war is debatable, but whether Iraq and the region were unstable before the war is as plain as J-Lo's butt.
-
You're focusing on one issue, which I think is only part of the analysis. You can apply that definition to any regime that has a dictator and uses torture and murder to control the people. I'm saying this kind of dictatorship, which includes the murder of civilians by the government, is part of what made Iraq and the region unstable. There is also:
- An eight year war with Iran
- The invasion of a sovereign country
- The attempted invasion of another sovereign country
- Dropping bombs on yet another sovereign country
- Sponsoring terrorism in another sovereign country
- Stealing the country's resources and forcing large segments of the population to live like cavemen
- Attempting to develop and/or obtain WMDs
IMO, whether or not Iraq and the region is more unstable now than before the war is debatable, but whether Iraq and the region were unstable before the war is as plain as J-Lo's butt.
Just about everything you listed there is before 1993. 10 years of practically nothing to 2003. Now we have what 2500 of al queda int he country and a situation that is forcing us to stay there and pour more of our money and lives into it because all hell will really break lose if we leave. Not that Cheney's bullet proof vest is any indication of how safe it is there now.
-
Just about everything you listed there is before 1993. 10 years of practically nothing to 2003. Now we have what 2500 of al queda int he country and a situation that is forcing us to stay there and pour more of our money and lives into it because all hell will really break lose if we leave. Not that Cheney's bullet proof vest is any indication of how safe it is there now.
I disagree. At the time we invaded:
- Torture and murder of his own people = ongoing
- Sponsoring terrorism in Israel = ongoing
- Stealing his country's resources = ongoing
- Attempting to develop and/or obtain WMDs = ongoing
And the only reason he wasn't attacking people (other than sponsoring terrorism) was the presence of our military.
-
I disagree. At the time we invaded:
- Torture and murder of his own people = ongoing
- Sponsoring terrorism in Israel = ongoing
- Stealing his country's resources = ongoing
- Attempting to develop and/or obtain WMDs = ongoing
And the only reason he wasn't attacking people (other than sponsoring terrorism) was the presence of our military.
None of those fit into the definition of instability. They do fit into the definition of the repressive dictatorship.
The questions now are:
- Is torture and murder fro political reason going on right now in Iraq? YES and YES
- Is there increased terrorism in Iraq and outside Iraq? YES and YES
- Who's getting their resources now? (all i know is that i pay $3.29 for gas versus $1.89 and we are still 400 billion in debt over this)
- Who needs WMD's when you have a cache of fanatic suicide bombers ready to show for turnips?
-
None of those fit into the definition of instability. They do fit into the definition of the repressive dictatorship.
The questions now are:
- Is torture and murder fro political reason going on right now in Iraq? YES and YES
- Is there increased terrorism in Iraq and outside Iraq? YES and YES
- Who's getting their resources now? (all i know is that i pay $3.29 for gas versus $1.89 and we are still 400 billion in debt over this)
- Who needs WMD's when you have a cache of fanatic suicide bombers ready to show for turnips?
True, if you accept your definition of stability. I don't. I think it's too narrow.
And your questions are relevant to whether Iraq and the region are more unstable now than before the war. IMO, it's sort of pointless to argue this, if you conclude (like I have) that it was unstable before the war.
-
True, if you accept your definition of stability. I don't. I think it's too narrow.
And your questions are relevant to whether Iraq and the region are more unstable now than before the war. IMO, it's sort of pointless to argue this, if you conclude (like I have) that it was unstable before the war.
I hear ya, although i disagree.
I look at things from the point of view as to where we can better put our energies and resources in fighting terrorism to work and that's part of the reason why i didn't think invading Iraq was good in the first place.
Our actions in Afghanistan where very justifiable to almost all arabs at that time. Invading Iraq spent all the credit we built up from that. Credit we could use to fight terrorism.
-
Decker you are sugarcoating Saddam and his brutal regime. Internal strife? Are you kidding? It was the torture and murder of Iraqi civilians by the Iraqi government. You call that stable?
So Saddam invades Kuwait and then begins massing his troops on the Saudi border and this is not evidence that he was going to invade Saudi Arabia? Give me a break.
A dictator pilfering his country's resources, resulting in many of the people living in poverty is absolutely relevant to whether or not the country is stable.
Iraq was at war with Iran for 8 years and this isn't evidence of instability in the region?
Are you actually trying to justify Saddam dropping scuds on Israel and sponsoring terrorism in Israel?
This is crazy. How can you look at what happened in that country in the decades before we invaded and conclude it was stable? Look at this story:
.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2930739.stm
There's rampant torture in Iraq today based on sectarian difference. That's not going away.
Under Hussein, only his enemies were victims. That's disgusting but certainly less lethal than today's situation in Iraq where it’s shia v sunni v extreme factions of each.
Hussein was a rather practical man. His beef over the cross drilling was with Kuwait and not with Saudi Arabia. Given that he checked out the US’s position prior to annexing Kuwait, I would surmise that he’d view an invasion of Saudi Arabia w/out the US’s consent as a ‘no-go.’ But you are free to speculate as you wish.
As for the Iraq/Iran war, that war was a long time in the making. It was as much a religious war as anything else. Sunni v. Shia.
Which side did the US support again? That's right, both sides.
Do you really think that I'm justifying Saddam's violence? Shame, shame, shame….
Here's how I can look at what happened in that country and conclude it was more stable then than it is now:
The origin of instability in the Middle East is largely due to religious differences. Bush's illegal invasion removed a stopgap that kept Iran and Iraq divided. Now with Hussein out of power, it's only a matter of time before the Shia majority cleanses Iraq of the sunni minority.
Guess what?
Iran (largely Shia) has more ties to the Shia majority than we do. Guess who the real benefactor is? Iran.
Think about that the next time you consider today's Iraq a stabilizing force in the area.
On second thought, I guess it is: The shia of Iran will run the entire Iran/Iraq area. Now that's stability.
-
I hear ya, although i disagree.
I look at things from the point of view as to where we can better put our energies and resources in fighting terrorism to work and that's part of the reason why i didn't think invading Iraq was good in the first place.
Our actions in Afghanistan where very justifiable to almost all arabs at that time. Invading Iraq spent all the credit we built up from that. Credit we could use to fight terrorism.
I was in favor of invading and still believe it was the right thing to do. I know we disagree on that. But we do agree that the war was not managed properly. I think we screwed up by not listening to General Shinseki. Our force wasn't nearly large enough. Our men and women were not properly equipped. They weren't really trained well enough to deal with guerilla warfare. Now we're stuck in a quagmire with no end in sight and we're not even sure who the enemy is. :-\
-
Alot of this could have been mitigated by huge numbers of troops and an ROE that would have alllowed guys like me to shoot folks we knew were Bathists and Fedayeen Saddam and avoid guys over there now, having to deal with them.
-
There's rampant torture in Iraq today based on sectarian difference. That's not going away.
Under Hussein, only his enemies were victims. That's disgusting but certainly less lethal than today's situation in Iraq where it’s shia v sunni v extreme factions of each.
Hussein was a rather practical man. His beef over the cross drilling was with Kuwait and not with Saudi Arabia. Given that he checked out the US’s position prior to annexing Kuwait, I would surmise that he’d view an invasion of Saudi Arabia w/out the US’s consent as a ‘no-go.’ But you are free to speculate as you wish.
As for the Iraq/Iran war, that war was a long time in the making. It was as much a religious war as anything else. Sunni v. Shia.
Which side did the US support again? That's right, both sides.
Do you really think that I'm justifying Saddam's violence? Shame, shame, shame….
Here's how I can look at what happened in that country and conclude it was more stable then than it is now:
The origin of instability in the Middle East is largely due to religious differences. Bush's illegal invasion removed a stopgap that kept Iran and Iraq divided. Now with Hussein out of power, it's only a matter of time before the Shia majority cleanses Iraq of the sunni minority.
Guess what?
Iran (largely Shia) has more ties to the Shia majority than we do. Guess who the real benefactor is? Iran.
Think about that the next time you consider today's Iraq a stabilizing force in the area.
On second thought, I guess it is: The shia of Iran will run the entire Iran/Iraq area. Now that's stability.
I'm focusing on the condition of Iraq before we invaded. Even if you only focus on the most recent events, you have him sponsoring terrorism in another country, which creates immense problems in the region, and you have the torture and murder of civilians domestically:
"People died, people were imprisoned without trial," one man told me.
We went further down, to cells that had no light and little air. They were covered with cockroaches and filth - and on the ground I saw a gas mask and bottles of chemicals.
One man said he had spent eight years inside, just for attending Friday prayers. He prayed too much and was seen as a dangerous radical.
But the secret police headquarters had more horrors to reveal.
One man whose relatives had been killed here said they had their hands tied behind their backs, and were left to hang from their arms for days on end.
-
I was in favor of invading and still believe it was the right thing to do. I know we disagree on that. But we do agree that the war was not managed properly. I think we screwed up by not listening to General Shinseki. Our force wasn't nearly large enough. Our men and women were not properly equipped. They weren't really trained well enough to deal with guerilla warfare. Now we're stuck in a quagmire with no end in sight and we're not even sure who the enemy is. :-\
Agreed.
When the iraqis started raiding and pilfering government buildings it was the water shed moment for the chaos that grown to what it is now.
-
I watched it...i remember some guys taking crap from a hospital..we called it up..there was a15 min pause as my boss asked wht to do from his..they came back with..fuck it..'let em do it until somebody gets back to us". My boys were all ready to light them up.
-
I'm focusing on the condition of Iraq before we invaded. Even if you only focus on the most recent events, you have him sponsoring terrorism in another country, which creates immense problems in the region, and you have the torture and murder of civilians domestically:
"People died, people were imprisoned without trial," one man told me.
We went further down, to cells that had no light and little air. They were covered with cockroaches and filth - and on the ground I saw a gas mask and bottles of chemicals.
One man said he had spent eight years inside, just for attending Friday prayers. He prayed too much and was seen as a dangerous radical.
But the secret police headquarters had more horrors to reveal.
One man whose relatives had been killed here said they had their hands tied behind their backs, and were left to hang from their arms for days on end.
We are in agreement that Hussein was a monster and he did horrible things.
But his rule of Iraq created a buffer zone btn the sunni arabs of saudi arabia and shi arabs of Iran.
That buffer zone is gone.
Iran will necessarily have an effect on the outcome the Iraq experiment b/c the ruling class and majority of Iraqis are Shia as Iran is Shia.
I just can't put a stable happy face on this situation.
-
I watched it...i remember some guys taking crap from a hospital..we called it up..there was a15 min pause as my boss asked wht to do from his..they came back with..fuck it..'let em do it until somebody gets back to us". My boys were all ready to light them up.
wow. Yeah i remember that as coming off as completely unexpected. I was really surprised when that happened. I don't think anyone really knew what to do about it. But if you killed or shot at a few of the looters i think it would have stopped pretty fast around the country.
-
Alot of guys..myself included made the mistake of asking permission..culture of our time I guess...If it had been Desert Storm..there would have been alot of dead rags.....
-
This guy will say anything to get attention. He is actually crying out for help.
-
I think all of those guys should decide well in advance not to be taken alive, given the possible torture that could well accompany a beheading.
That's always been my feeling. I would fall on a grenade rather than be captured by Muslims.
Arabs are sadistic.