The war against the Iraqi people

[Inoculator9]

Exactly! Hussein would have to have several forms of mental retardation to use wepaons against us, even if he did have them.

And about the supposed link between Al Qeada and Iraq... Iraq is a dictatorship and is not operated in a manner that could be compatible with religion. Hussein couldn't control religious fanatics, and doesn't want to have to.

[die4honr]

What do you have against the USA Edric??? U seem to have nothing nice to say about them ;)

[Gobalopper]

Reports in the US press have said that the US administration is considering a plan to occupy Iraq and install a US-led military government as a way of avoiding the country's chaotic disintegration.

I think you are putting the emphasis on the wrong words there Edric and forgetting about the as a way of avoiding the country's chaotic disintegration part.

[zamboe]

We will now free Iraqi slaves and (mostly) white people want to stop it.

Very funny.

US only cares to free slaves that live in a land very rich in oil.

Those slaves that live in lands with virtually nothing, well, US dont care about it.

[emprworm]

innocenct civillians died when britain, US, and Russia liberated France and defeated Hitler, freeing Jewish slaves from oppression.

Innocent civillians died when blacks rose up 150 years ago and with the help of others, fought for their freedom

today, there is another push to free slaves. Yet there are scores of white people of European descent that want to stop them from being freed and keep them in servitude.

white man doesn't change much, does he?

[zamboe]

innocenct civillians died when britain, US, and Russia liberated France and defeated Hitler, freeing Jewish slaves from oppression.

Innocent civillians died when blacks rose up 150 years ago and with the help of others, fought for their freedom

today, there is another push to free slaves. Yet there are scores of white people of European descent that want to stop them from being freed and keep them in servitude.

white man doesn't change much, does he?

You are starting to express like KKK.

Some people change faster, other don't change at all.

[Digital Guerrilla]

What is Emprworm trying to say? ???

[Acriku]

That the white man is the devil. Silly gringos ::)

[emprworm]

What is Emprworm trying to say? ???

simple. iraqi citizens live in slavery and servitude. 30,000 refugees managed to escape to the US in the last 10 years. most of them leaving behind family in Iraq. they escaped to freedom....they support the war because they know it is not a war against Iraq, but against Hussein. Funny how there are no Iraqi refugee war protesters isn't it? They testify that they live a life of oppression. there is no freedom in Iraq. They are slaves.

White man has a history of oppressing people. We see what white man did to blacks 200 years ago.

Now, in 2003 white man is up to his usual tricks. NOT ALL white men, not even most white men....but many white men are doing the same thing to Iraqi's that white men did to blacks.

The Coalition wants to free the slaves in Iraq. But white man wants to stop it. White man protests the war and does everything he can to keep the iraqi's under slavery and oppression. George Bush wants to free slaves. White European descendents wants them to stay as slaves.

Again, not all white men, of course....many white men (like Tony Blair) want to set the slaves free. This is what the IRAQI's want. You would think that people would have some compassion for Iraqi slaves and Iraqi refugess. Nope. They dont. they want them to stay in slavery and protest Bush because they think they know whats best for the Iraqi slaves. THey want the Iraqi slaves to stay as slaves because.....?

Well I wish I knew. But then again, I never knew why white man wanted to keep blacks as slaves either. But I know that it is sad indeed.

[Miles]

That's the good-case scenario. The bad-case scenario is US military occupation, and I think everyone agrees that such a blatant attack against democracy and a nation's right to self-determination would prove once and for all that the US government doesn't really give a damn about the Iraqi people.

Man, you really don't know what you are talking about do you? There is already a host of representatives ready to assume democratic leadership in Iraq. I saw this on a show called the Economic forum, in which about 10-15 high ranking representatives from the different ethnic and political parties were represented. All of which accepted the fact that U.S. military occupation (hopefully for about 2 years) would probably be needed in order to protect against resurgent pro-Saddam forces until democracy got on it's feet. This would empower the people of Iraq to institute democracy. This is the same model we are using for Afghanistan.

[Acriku]

You do know that Saddam is not white Empr?

[Miles]

You do know that Saddam is not white Empr?

Huh?

[Acriku]

I am talking to emprworm, and to further explain my post he says the white men are back to their old tricks (oppression) and since Saddam is the one oppressing, I was pointing out that Saddam is not white.

[Miles]

I am talking to emprworm, and to further explain my post he says the white men are back to their old tricks (oppression) and since Saddam is the one oppressing, I was pointing out that Saddam is not white.

That's fine, I actually agree with you here, but I really wish emprworm would get off the whitey topic, because otherwise he makes some very good points.

[emprworm]

I am talking to emprworm, and to further explain my post he says the white men are back to their old tricks (oppression) and since Saddam is the one oppressing, I was pointing out that Saddam is not white.

but it is the (mostly) white protestors that want to prevent the oppressed from being free. kind of sad isn't it? so they are by all means contributing to the oppression.

[Miles]

I am talking to emprworm, and to further explain my post he says the white men are back to their old tricks (oppression) and since Saddam is the one oppressing, I was pointing out that Saddam is not white.

but it is the (mostly) white protestors that want to prevent the oppressed from being free. kind of sad isn't it? so they are by all means contributing to the oppression.

Contributing yes, but certainly not the only race protesting the war.

[emprworm]

i say mostly. and i say that it is what I observe.

they are my observations merely.

[Miles]

i say mostly. and i say that it is what I observe.

they are my observations merely.

Yes, but when you factor in other countries, whites become at best a slim majority. Consider the African, Arab, and Asian countries opposed to the war. The only reason they aren't visible is they don't get the airtime. This really has nothing to do with race.

[SurlyPIG]

Iraq is already at war. Civillians are already dying. The innocent are being killed and are starving as we speak. Iraq is at war as we speak. But not a war with smart bombs or air strikes, but with a government that "manages" it's people with efficiency that would make the KGB nervous.

The opinion of any Iraqi living in Iraq is mislead. Firstly, due to filtration and propaganda, it is almost impossible for them to get truthful information about what their government does and how the world thinks. Secondly, if by some miracle they are aware of the truth around them, almost all would be scared shitless BECAUSE of their knowledge. You will never, ever see anti-Saddam testimony coming from an Iraqi. Well, a live one that is. If you happen to see or hear of someone who spoke out against Hussein in Iraq, they are dead now. I guarantee it. These people have existed, but they are no more. They have "mysteriously disappeared" for unknown reasons (you can guess what happened to them).

The sanctions are starving the Iraqi people, but they are necessary. Saddam will steal as much from his people as possible while still keeping their loyalty. We can either have starving Iraqis or a Hussein armed to the teeth if, for whatever reason, we want to avoid war, which are forced to because of misguided pacifism founded blindly without awareness of the situation.

Edric, you're pulling at straws with that trash from the BBC. First, you took it completely out of context, and second, it's the BBC. 'Nuff said. History is the truest journalist, and look what happened in recent history, particularly Afghanistan. They now have their own UN established government following a US-lead war. Sound familiar? It'll happen again despite what the BBC says. Just you wait. I have a feeling we'll see soon enough.

[Miles]

Iraq is already at war. Civillians are already dying. The innocent are being killed and are starving as we speak. Iraq is at war as we speak. But not a war with smart bombs or air strikes, but with a government that "manages" it's people with efficiency that would make the KGB nervous.

The opinion of any Iraqi living in Iraq is mislead. Firstly, due to filtration and propaganda, it is almost impossible for them to get truthful information about what their government does and how the world thinks. Secondly, if by some miracle they are aware of the truth around them, almost all would be scared shitless BECAUSE of their knowledge. You will never, ever see anti-Saddam testimony coming from an Iraqi. Well, a live one that is. If you happen to see or hear of someone who spoke out against Hussein in Iraq, they are dead now. I guarantee it. These people have existed, but they are no more. They have "mysteriously disappeared" for unknown reasons (you can guess what happened to them).

The sanctions are starving the Iraqi people, but they are necessary. Saddam will steal as much from his people as possible while still keeping their loyalty. We can either have starving Iraqis or a Hussein armed to the teeth if, for whatever reason, we want to avoid war, which are forced to because of misguided pacifism founded blindly without awareness of the situation.

Edric, you're pulling at straws with that trash from the BBC. First, you took it completely out of context, and second, it's the BBC. 'Nuff said. History is the truest journalist, and look what happened in recent history, particularly Afghanistan. They now have their own UN established government following a US-lead war. Sound familiar? It'll happen again despite what the BBC says. Just you wait. I have a feeling we'll see soon enough.

Very good points. I agree completely. Francogermrussio will eat their words after the war.

[Edric O]

Very good points. I agree completely. Francogermrussio will eat their words after the war.

And what if what we predicted really does happen? Will YOU eat your words then?

The opinion of any Iraqi living in Iraq is mislead. Firstly, due to filtration and propaganda, it is almost impossible for them to get truthful information about what their government does and how the world thinks. Secondly, if by some miracle they are aware of the truth around them, almost all would be scared shitless BECAUSE of their knowledge. You will never, ever see anti-Saddam testimony coming from an Iraqi. Well, a live one that is. If you happen to see or hear of someone who spoke out against Hussein in Iraq, they are dead now. I guarantee it. These people have existed, but they are no more. They have "mysteriously disappeared" for unknown reasons (you can guess what happened to them).

In other words, you're saying that by default any Iraqi who supports Saddam (and thus had no reason to leave Iraq) is "mislead" and his opinion should not be taken into consideration... ::)

There are 23 million Iraqis in Iraq, and only 30,000 outside their country. You refuse to listen to anything those 23 million say, in favour of the 30 thousand. In other words, you're letting a tiny minority decide the future of the vast majority. Democracy at its finest... ::)

Edric, you're pulling at straws with that trash from the BBC. First, you took it completely out of context, and second, it's the BBC.

This is pathetic. So now you're saying that anyone who says something against the war is not a credible source? ::)

The BBC is the most trustworthy and unbiased TV channel in existence today. That is because they are not on anyone's payroll, unlike commercial channels.

[emprworm]

The opinion of any Iraqi living in Iraq is mislead. Firstly, due to filtration and propaganda, it is almost impossible for them to get truthful information about what their government does and how the world thinks. Secondly, if by some miracle they are aware of the truth around them, almost all would be scared shitless BECAUSE of their knowledge. You will never, ever see anti-Saddam testimony coming from an Iraqi. Well, a live one that is. If you happen to see or hear of someone who spoke out against Hussein in Iraq, they are dead now. I guarantee it. These people have existed, but they are no more. They have "mysteriously disappeared" for unknown reasons (you can guess what happened to them).

great points. it should also be pointed out that every person outside of Iraq testifies to oppression under Hussein. Women and children who have fled have told us what goes on in there. Are we going to call them all liars? No one can actually interview annyone in Iraq. If they express discontent with Hussein....they die. Remember his "election?" The ballots simply said "yes" or "no". 99.999% of the population voted YES for Hussein.

LOL! If anyone in here actually BELIEVES that is a true representation of what the people want, they left their brain at the doorstep. No human leader ever....ever could get 99.999% of 25 million people voting in favor of him freely. Especially given the refugees (30,000 in the US, more overseas) testimony that just cannot be dismissed.

To think that people actually WANT a dictator oppressing them is naieve and actually barbaric.

we are trying to free slaves. people want to prevent that from happening.

why?

I wish I knew, probably because they hate Bush. They would rather toss out in the trash 25 million people then have to utter with their lips "Bush is doing the right thing". That is what it is all about to them, in my opinion.

[SurlyPIG]

In other words, you're saying that by default any Iraqi who supports Saddam (and thus had no reason to leave Iraq) is "mislead" and his opinion should not be taken into consideration... ::)

If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to vote for Bush, if you do, does it mean that it is your truthful opinion that you support him? This is what happens in Iraq. People who do not support Hussein are systematically eliminated. The only reason pople would actually support Hussein is for their own gain. Perhaps they have a job underneath him or something. They perform his atrocities, he rewards them. These people are as almost as bad as he is, IMO. The opinions of Iraq absolutely matter. You know why? Because there IS no anti-Hussein concensus in Iraq. He won his last "election" (farce) with 100% of the votes. 100%. In a nation of millions. In a true democracy, that is literally absolutely impossible. I do not exaggerate when I say that. Even in strongly uniform cultures people who are not opressed have freedom of opinion, and difference of opinion. You will never, ever see an anti-Hussein Iraqi. To anyone with a bit of observational tact, that screams opression. Sure, there have been activists inside Iraq before. But they're ALL dead now. All of them. Every last one. Gone. Wiped off the face of the planet.

There are 23 million Iraqis in Iraq, and only 30,000 outside their country. You refuse to listen to anything those 23 million say, in favour of the 30 thousand. In other words, you're letting a tiny minority decide the future of the vast majority. Democracy at its finest... ::)

I saw a video in social studies of Hussein's "party" meeting once. There was a slew of well-dressed men in what looked sort of like a press room, and Saddam and a few guards were on the stage. To open up he said, "There are traitors among us." Two of the guards pick someone out of the room, randomly it seemed. They drag him out. A loud bang is heard. The guards return to the room alone. Hussein says, "There are still traitors among us." The guards pick another guy, drag him out, a loud bang is heard, they return. This happens several more times. I lost count because I was so disgusted. By now, the roomful of eager and well dressed men was sweating, vometing, crying, and pleading. Finally, one guy gets it. He stands up, starts clapping and shouts praise for Hussein. Hussein leaves with a sadistic-looking smile on his face. No more are killed.

How the hell can you count the opinions of people in these situations? They fear for their lives FFS. Of course they'll support Hussein. Some will stand up and take the bullet. You never hear from them, of course, because they're dead.

Top level Iraqi scientists have negotiated defection with the US for years. Their terms always include asylum for them and their families. What does that tell you? These are the people who have seen their comrades and their families disappear. To me that says that Hussein is so sick that he would actually slaughter the families of people who defect and leave Iraq.

I'm reminded of a parody of an Iraqi election ballot I saw in the newspaper's opinion section. It had two options

1) Saddam Hussein

2) Please torture me and kill my family

Though it is satire it is sadly close to reality.

This is pathetic. So now you're saying that anyone who says something against the war is not a credible source? ::)

Absolutely. As with any source that is pro-war is not a credible source. It is not the media's job to have an opinion. It is their job to accurately report on events and the opinions of others. And they absolutely MUST seek the opinions of both sides. I saw no indication in that report that they even bothered to speak with the applicable US official for that ridiculous sweeping claim. The BBC is crap. That story is just one example. They didn't quote anyone, they didn't refer to a document or event, they just said "reports claim..." Nonsense. What if I reported that Tony Blair was an alien from the planet Zorg? Would they print that? They run little more than rumours and mumbo-jumbo. They're a terrible media source. And they only pick one side of the story to run. That's bad journalism. Good journalism gets both sides of the story. For example, a few months back the local newspaper ran a story about an anti-abortion rally. They reported that the group claimed there were over 5000 abortions performed in my city every year, they covered the protest and got some commentary, but they also saught out the opposite side. They contacted a pro-choice group and asked for their opinion on the claims of the anti-abortion group. They quoted one of the officials saying that claim was ridiculous and unbased because of medical confidence, and at least a twentyfold exaggeration considering the city is less than one million in population. Good journalists must report both sides of the story and let the viewer/reader decide what is and isn't true. Anything else, IMO, is garbage.

The BBC is the most trustworthy and unbiased TV channel in existence today. That is because they are not on anyone's payroll, unlike commercial channels.

ROFL. ;D :D Read through those stories you posted again. Count the number of times it says "Reports say..." without so much as a consultation or a reference.

[zamboe]

Funny how there are no Iraqi refugee war protesters isn't it? They testify that they live a life of oppression.

Funny because you only see US protected media.

Funny you base your conclussions only on the media you like.

Funny you are wrong.

Their slavery will begin as soon as US forces enter Bagdad.

Of course some media will make up some people being happy, but of course we know that's a lie.

[zamboe]

Edric, you're pulling at straws with that trash from the BBC. First, you took it completely out of context, and second, it's the BBC. 'Nuff said. History is the truest journalist, and look what happened in recent history, particularly Afghanistan. They now have their own UN established government following a US-lead war. Sound familiar? It'll happen again despite what the BBC says. Just you wait. I have a feeling we'll see soon enough.

Someone dont like what BBC writes, therefore it's trash. Pathetic.

BBC actually good media.

On the contrary there is BS like Washington Post, New York Times or CNN, need to name more?