The war against the Iraqi people

[zamboe]

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.

I didn't leave my brain anywhere. No need of sarcasm.

You believe opinion of less than 1% of Irak refugees (most of them that never been in Irak) and ignore the rest, specially the military forces that will die for his own country defending from the US invasion.

[SurlyPIG]

Have you ever even met an Iraqi zamboe?

Funny because you only see US protected media.

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

Funny you are wrong.

No.

No.

How??? Have YOU ever seen or heard of a single refugee Iraqi with all his/her family outside of Iraq hold an anti-war opinion? I don't doubt they exist but have you ever, ever heard of one?

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.

Wow you really hate Americans don't you. The same thing that happened in Afghanistan will happen in Iraq, a UN-established democracy. A few years after the war when Iraq is 100 times better off you shal see.

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?

ROFL!

"The BBC isn't trash. Anyone who doesn't like it and says its trash is pathetic. But CNN, Washington Post and the NYT are trash"

So, according to you, anyone who calls a media network trash because they don't like it is pathetic. Considering you just did the same thing the very sentence after, you have now called yourself pathetic.

As a general rule I don't like network media. I prefer local correspondence. CNN pulls the same stuff as BBC as well as NBC, CNBC, CBC, you name it.

Of course to you anything and anyone American is a pile of BS. Where does your hate for Americans stem from, exactly? Jealousy perhaps? Look at your own last 10 posts. Virtually all of them consist only of nationalistic anti-Americanism. Then you go around calling anyone who disagrees with you a KKK member...

[zamboe]

Have you ever even met an Iraqi zamboe?

Funny because you only see US protected media.

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

Funny you are wrong.

No.

No.

How??? Have YOU ever seen or heard of a single refugee Iraqi with all his/her family outside of Iraq hold an anti-war opinion? I don't doubt they exist but have you ever, ever heard of one?

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.

Wow you really hate Americans don't you. The same thing that happened in Afghanistan will happen in Iraq, a UN-established democracy. A few years after the war when Iraq is 100 times better off you shal see.

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?

ROFL!

"The BBC isn't trash. Anyone who doesn't like it and says its trash is pathetic. But CNN, Washington Post and the NYT are trash"

So, according to you, anyone who calls a media network trash because they don't like it is pathetic. Considering you just did the same thing the very sentence after, you have now called yourself pathetic.

As a general rule I don't like network media. I prefer local correspondence. CNN pulls the same stuff as BBC as well as NBC, CNBC, CBC, you name it.

Of course to you anything and anyone American is a pile of BS. Where does your hate for Americans stem from, exactly? Jealousy perhaps? Look at your own last 10 posts. Virtually all of them consist only of nationalistic anti-Americanism. Then you go around calling anyone who disagrees with you a KKK member...

Very easy to answer this post, since you have ignored my prior replies.

1. About me meeting someone from Iraq. See this post :

http://www.dune2k.com/forum/?board=2;action=display;threadid=8527;start=30

look for the reply # 37. That's the longest reply I've ever written, that's why I remember. So far you dodge to answer that.

2. About me hating US citizens. Take a look at the same post, and don't dodge it.

3. About KKK. You are the only one that I called and I call that way. I am an insignificant foreigner (in your opinion remember) and also a arrogant swine (in your view also). I mentioned that some remarks that emprworm made sounded like KKK expressions. I didn't call him that way.

If you cannot understand the difference, I can't to much more.

[nemafakei]

"I don't doubt they exist but have you ever, ever heard of one?"

As I recall, I have seen a few interviewed by the beeb about which there seems to be unwarranted criticism.

"and second, it's the BBC. 'Nuff said"

Could you, by the way, tell us what's wrong with the BBC? I'm sorry, but I can't quite find the one with "reports claim... " in. Besides which, the BBC is the storehouse of many, many articles, some giving a good impression of war, some bad, and I've not found one yet which is in of itself a pro-war document, or an anti-war one, or a pro- or anti- anything one.

In fact, if you don't just look at isolated stories within the BBC, you find almost nothing to fault concerning bias.

"As with any source that is pro-war is not a credible source. It is not the media's job to have an opinion"

Any opinionated source is less reliable, but may still be credible and truthful.

Second, what reason have you to beleive that the BBC is biased? Because it has published things which happen to correlate with a case for war?

[emprworm]

it all comes down to the basics:

Iraqi people are slaves. those who have escaped have testified as such.

the Coalition wants to free slaves

while others want them to stay oppressed.

people who protest the freeing of slaves share in the responsibility of opressing them. they are oppressors.

[nemafakei]

"others want them to stay oppressed"

I doubt this is the case fot 99% of the anti-war world.

They may believe the world in the case of war will turn out worse than one in which, granted people are oppressed, but are not dead.

[Acriku]

What you don't realize it that the protestors just don't want the war option of freeing the Iraqi, they are naive but hey that's them, but they are not trying to keep the Iraqi the same.

[emprworm]

"others want them to stay oppressed"

I doubt this is the case fot 99% of the anti-war world.

They may believe the world in the case of war will turn out worse than one in which, granted people are oppressed, but are not dead.

huh? i doubt that any reasonable person would actually think that they would be dead. Afghanistan is a good example. given that the Iraqi refugees testify that the people would support it...given that historically freedom is worth the price of blood....given the fact of the oppression....i see war protesters as people who would sacrifice 25 million Iraqi people just for their hatred of Bush.

Given the choice:

#1. To verbally say with your lips "George W. Bush did the right thing"

#2. Toss out 25 million people into a trash heap and cast them over into a life of servitude and slavery.

Many war protesters would choose option #2 over option #1. THis is how I see it.

Like they really give a rats #$#$ about the people of Iraq. C'mon. All the really care about is hating Bush and American "imperialism". I see it this way, I believe my perception is correct. :)

[Edric O]

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?

Maybe. Maybe not. Just because you force someone to have an opinion doesn't necessarely mean he wouldn't have that opinion anyway. The fact is, you can't possibly know.

Listen, my point is this: Obviously the Iraqis are being opressed by the current regime. But a US invasion would only make things WORSE for them, by de-stabilizing the country, destroying infrastructure, causing famine... etc.

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.

Nice propaganda... The guy who played Hussein did some great acting.

But it's just not realistic. You'd have to be brain dead to kill your own cronies like that. Now, if it was about civilians, I'd believe it. But Hussein did not stay in power for 20 years by being stupid.

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.

The credibility of a source only rests on the accuracy of the FACTS they present. Whether or not they have their own opinion is irrelevant.

Funny, I don't remember you criticizing any of Emprworm's blatantly pro-war articles...

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.

And that makes them biased how?

[SurlyPIG]

Very easy to answer this post, since you have ignored my prior replies.

Inored??? The topic died long before I returned from out of town. It's against forum rules to revive old topics. I havn't even seen that before. It's so full of garbage I almost wish I hadn't. But I wont bring that up, I'll let it die.

1. About me meeting someone from Iraq. See this post :

http://www.dune2k.com/forum/?board=2;action=display;threadid=8527;start=30

look for the reply # 37. That's the longest reply I've ever written, that's why I remember. So far you dodge to answer that.

So no then. You have never met an Iraqi, yet you make unfounded sweeping claims of what they believe. Might I remind you to check the rules. Particularly the parts that say "Do not revive old topics for no reason" and "Speak English".

2. About me hating US citizens. Take a look at the same post, and don't dodge it.

3. About KKK. You are the only one that I called and I call that way. I am an insignificant foreigner (in your opinion remember) and also a arrogant swine (in your view also). I mentioned that some remarks that emprworm made sounded like KKK expressions. I didn't call him that way.

If you cannot understand the difference, I can't to much more.

Most of us are insignificant foreigners in this issue. Myself included. Believing anything different is unrealistic. The swine comment was uncalled for. I apologise. I was infuriated by your KKK comment. You are, however, extremely arrogant. If you think me calling you an insignificant foreigner is justification for a KKK label, consider that I call MYSELF an insignificant foreigner. I have no real connection to this issue. All I know is what I can hear from others. And the others are screaming almost unanimously.

"I don't doubt they exist but have you ever, ever heard of one?"

As I recall, I have seen a few interviewed by the beeb about which there seems to be unwarranted criticism.

I would want to know two things about these people; First, are they part of Hussein's regime? In other words, are they a mouthpiece sent elsewhere to spew Hussein's propaganda to all-inclusive media. Though this would be near impossible to verify, if found negative, do they have family in Iraq? If so, the family will be killed if they speak out.

Could you, by the way, tell us what's wrong with the BBC? I'm sorry, but I can't quite find the one with "reports claim... " in. Besides which, the BBC is the storehouse of many, many articles, some giving a good impression of war, some bad, and I've not found one yet which is in of itself a pro-war document, or an anti-war one, or a pro- or anti- anything one.

The trouble is it's networked. World news is rarely interesting to people. They can't run local news, because that's only interesting to the people it effects. So they often exaggerate things, report claims to readilly and give un-just time to either scandal stories or human trajedy stories. Would you be very interested in hearing the election results for a province in Australia? No. So instead, they run a big story meant to shock people into watching consisting of "Look at this, all these people suffering" or something of the like. I am told the BBC is publicly funded, no? If so, that is a problem. There is an obvious conflict of interest there. The media has to be independant from the government. And this is the one with "Reports claim..." which was completely inappropreate for the event it recorded.

I'm not trying to pick on the BBC in particular. As I said I really don't like any network news. I always go for a local scope on the world. The CBC is worse in my opinion. Same with CNN.

"As with any source that is pro-war is not a credible source. It is not the media's job to have an opinion"

Any opinionated source is less reliable, but may still be credible and truthful.

Second, what reason have you to beleive that the BBC is biased? Because it has published things which happen to correlate with a case for war?

"others want them to stay oppressed"

I doubt this is the case fot 99% of the anti-war world.

They may believe the world in the case of war will turn out worse than one in which, granted people are oppressed, but are not dead.

Well the trouble with this is that the two are consequences of each other. No war = no change = people still opressed. And they ARE dead. They're systematically killed every single day by Hussein's government. Iraq is NOT at peace. An official US-lead war would only escalate the current war in Iraq. But the ends would justify the means. The ends would be peace and freedom in Iraq.

[zamboe]

It's so full of garbage I almost wish I hadn't. But I wont bring that up, I'll let it die.

Aka, you can't answer that then is garbage. Let it die then.

So no then. You have never met an Iraqi, yet you make unfounded sweeping claims of what they believe. Might I remind you to check the rules. Particularly the parts that say "Do not revive old topics for no reason" and "Speak English".

I've never met anyone. But I explained why it does not make any difference, it looks that you have probably met one of those Iraq refugees and now you think you know all the situation of Iraq. Pathetic.

And you asked me AGAIN, the same thing, "Did you ever met and Iraqi ?", "Do you hate americans?", since I had answered that before, I am not writing it again, THAT IS THE REASON for posting a link to answer the same questions you ask again, again and again, and dodge to answer until now.

I don't speak/write perfect English. So what ?. This is the very first time someone complains about my english skills in this website.

My german is as bad as my english, but I at least try to learn other languages and not stay in my own mother language.

Most of us are insignificant foreigners in this issue. Myself included. Believing anything different is unrealistic.

WOW. speak for yourself not for others.

[Caid Ivik]

Sorry that I'm so late, but on Sunday I don't post ;)

Caid, a nationalist is someone who holds his own country in high regard and thinks it is better than any other, or who thinks his own nation has some inherent qualities above the rest of the world.

I am a radical anti-nationalist and I would support a unified world government. I support a world UNION, not an EMPIRE.

You are an imperialist. Your idea of unifying the world is conquest...

Now about Iraq: Of course it's already a dictatorship, but if the US (which is a democracy) would invade and KEEP Iraq a dictatorship, that would prove that they are NOT the champions of democracy they pretend to be, and they do NOT wish to liberate the Iraqis.

However, comparing the Iraq crisis with WW2 is utterly ridiculous and shows only ignorance. For one thing, Hitler had the support of the German people (which he got mostly by brainwashing, but still), which means that the Germans brought the war upon themselves. They asked for it.

But the Iraqis DID NOT bring the war upon themselves. They WERE NOT the ones who put Saddam into power (like the Germans did with Hitler).

The main difference is this:

In Hitler's case, more innocents died if we did nothing than if we went to war. In Hussein's case, more innocents die if we go to war than if we do nothing.

You don't know what imperialism is. Even the marxist definition, which is usable also only on corporations, not really on states. The world state, if it's called or controlled like an empire or union, can be created only by a conquest. It doesn't mean we need a world war to do so - someones tried this already. There must be a central country, or block of countries, which create a thought of world government. Best would be, if UN creates it, because there are nearly all countries. Then this group have to show, that the unified way is the best. It is long time process, but with todays diplomacy and economy there is a huge possibility it would be bloodless. Slovakia joined EU and NATO because our governments found it a best way to stay in one row with other Europe. That is EU's imperialism.

Look at Japan 1945. USA installed general MacArthur with godlike powers. We all know he wasn't best leader, on battlefield and even worst as judge-ruler (caid in arabic ;D ). Process of restoration begun with US investments, which started lobbing into US government to create a democratic system in Japan. And now you see the result. Same was with all by US invaded countries. There was a jewish anecdote about this politics: how israeli presidents solves financial crisis? He will fall into the war with US, because they leave the country in better status than as it was before.

In Iraq there already were bloody slaughteries. With about 100 000 dead. Yes, it would be best if USA have attacked when they were done, just UN was too pacifistic then. God's mills are slow, but always finish their work. If Hitler didn't come to war, there wouldn't be 20 million dead Russians. That's a fact. Same if Saddam haven't gassed Kurdis...

[Miles]

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?

Since I am 100% sure that our intentions are to set up an Iraqi democracy, I will eat my words if the opposite happens. Will you be willing to eat your words WHEN a democracy is set up?

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 they are supporting Saddam under threat, then yes, one must be skeptical of the truth of their statements.

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... ::)

We don't get to here directly from the 23 million inside the country because of the opression of Saddam Hussein. However, we can listen to those who defect and see what they have to say.

[SurlyPIG]

Aka, you can't answer that then is garbage. Let it die then.

No, AKA you told so many lies in that enormous post and that pointing them out to you would be such a futile exercise, not to mention AGAINST FORUM RULES, and a complete waste of time.

I've never met anyone. But I explained why it does not make any difference, it looks that you have probably met one of those Iraq refugees and now you think you know all the situation of Iraq. Pathetic.

Of course it makes a difference. My opinion of life in Iraq is irrelevant. That's why we have to ask Iraqis! Is that such a hard concept for you to grasp? And the freed Iraqis are almost unanimous in their desire to oust Hussein by force. Do you honestly think that your government-controlled media would ever print something remotely in favour of the US, of whom they use as a mule to bear the blame of your problems? Of course not. It's all about the facts, not the propaganda, not the allegories.

And you asked me AGAIN, the same thing, "Did you ever met and Iraqi ?", "Do you hate americans?", since I had answered that before, I am not writing it again, THAT IS THE REASON for posting a link to answer the same questions you ask again, again and again, and dodge to answer until now.

I don't have to ask at all whether or not you hate Americants. It's self-explanatory through your actions. Of course you won't say it aloud. But look at your own last 10 posts...and the last topics you've created. Nearly all of them involve slandering the US in some form.

Most of us are insignificant foreigners in this issue. Myself included. Believing anything different is unrealistic.

WOW. speak for yourself not for others.

Interesting advice coming from someone that speaks for all of Iraq.

I don't see any Iraq tacks on the member map. Perhaps someone on this forum is from Iraq, I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Certainly few though. Hence the "Most of us are insignificant foreigners to this situation." is completely accurate

[Anathema]

First: can anybody else see the sheer hypocricy of this war? The US is acting all high and mighty as the Messiah of the world who is going to send Sadam to bed without supper and liberate the Iraqi people. I don't recall Bush mentioning how his fathers administration sold weapons (including chemical weapons) to Sadam so they could attack Iran with it- I suppose it's just not interesting enough.

Furthermore, anybody who talks of a "clean" war is a lying asshole. The last Gulf War was relatively clean, granted, but they didn't carry that fight to Baghdad. It's mostly Pentagon pen pushers and conservative freaks who suffer from such ridiculous optimism.

And, anybody who thinks the US motives of this war are peace loving and sheer kindness, get a clue. They said the same thing of the Vietnam war and Panama, and I don't think anybody of you believes those were clean wars, or for the sake of flowers and butterflies.

In 1991, the US retreated pretty quickly to celebrate their grand victory in the streets of New York. Meanwhile, the Iraqi Sjiietes (forgive spelling) and Kurds, who were encouraged by the US to take up arms against Sadam, were left as targets for Sadams fury. Sadam mainly used choppers to carry out raids on their settlements, and tehcnickly the US commander Norman Schwarzkopf could easily have those choppers blown to crisps by the US airforce with no risk at all, but they just weren't interested in doing so.

[sneezer3]

First: can anybody else see the sheer hypocricy of this war? The US is acting all high and mighty as the Messiah of the world who is going to send Sadam to bed without supper and liberate the Iraqi people. I don't recall Bush mentioning how his fathers administration sold weapons (including chemical weapons) to Sadam so they could attack Iran with it- I suppose it's just not interesting enough.

lol there isn't any evidence of that. and if i recall correctly that wasn't with Sadam. there wasn't any evidence he had any ties with the guy who sold it to them and it wasn't chemical. if he did i don't blame him because they both were are enemys at the time. and it was better to have them duke it out with some weapons then us.

[zamboe]

Aka, you can't answer that then is garbage. Let it die then.

No, AKA you told so many lies in that enormous post and that pointing them out to you would be such a futile exercise, not to mention AGAINST FORUM RULES, and a complete waste of time.

I've never met anyone. But I explained why it does not make any difference, it looks that you have probably met one of those Iraq refugees and now you think you know all the situation of Iraq. Pathetic.

Of course it makes a difference. My opinion of life in Iraq is irrelevant. That's why we have to ask Iraqis! Is that such a hard concept for you to grasp? And the freed Iraqis are almost unanimous in their desire to oust Hussein by force. Do you honestly think that your government-controlled media would ever print something remotely in favour of the US, of whom they use as a mule to bear the blame of your problems? Of course not. It's all about the facts, not the propaganda, not the allegories.

And you asked me AGAIN, the same thing, "Did you ever met and Iraqi ?", "Do you hate americans?", since I had answered that before, I am not writing it again, THAT IS THE REASON for posting a link to answer the same questions you ask again, again and again, and dodge to answer until now.

I don't have to ask at all whether or not you hate Americants. It's self-explanatory through your actions. Of course you won't say it aloud. But look at your own last 10 posts...and the last topics you've created. Nearly all of them involve slandering the US in some form.

Most of us are insignificant foreigners in this issue. Myself included. Believing anything different is unrealistic.

WOW. speak for yourself not for others.

Interesting advice coming from someone that speaks for all of Iraq.

I don't see any Iraq tacks on the member map. Perhaps someone on this forum is from Iraq, I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Certainly few though. Hence the "Most of us are insignificant foreigners to this situation." is completely accurate

BS.

You don't know the difference between DISAGREEMENT and heat.

I don't hate Americans.

I agree with the 53% of US citizens that don't want a war at any cost (Gallup last report). I disagree with the rest that support an inmediate war.

Your conclusions that I hate America, are worthless, you can't provide a single quote where I said that. You imagen things based on your interpretation. Pathetic.

[emprworm]

First: can anybody else see the sheer hypocricy of this war?

Yes. Germany and France, of all countries, trying to dictate to the free world that we should stop the liberation of oppressed people. SHould France have been left conquered? Also, it is of note that there is great hypocrisy in a world where "civilized" people talk against things like slavery yet so many of them want to keep people enslaved and couldn't care less about helping them. It is also hypocrisy when these same people claim they are "caring" for the Iraqi people. HA!!! What a lie. How many of them actually CONSIDER what the Iraqi people say? How many Iraqi refugee testimonies have you read, Earthnuker? I would guess ZERO but then I'd be accused of putting words in your mouth so I wont say it.

The US is acting all high and mighty as the Messiah of the world

the US is acting like it did when France was liberated, along with Germany, and then Afghanistan most recently.

who is going to send Sadam to bed without supper and liberate the Iraqi people. I don't recall Bush mentioning how his fathers administration sold weapons (including chemical weapons) to Sadam so they could attack Iran with it- I suppose it's just not interesting enough.

i dont recall that either, because it is a total farce...a piece of propoganda that is flat out false. again I ask you: provide evidence that the US government provided Chemical weapons to Iraq. That is just plain absurd.

Furthermore, anybody who talks of a "clean" war is a lying asshole. The last Gulf War was relatively clean, granted, but they didn't carry that fight to Baghdad.

here you go again about this "caring for the iraqi people". Cmon, please. Don't pretend like you speak for them. I've heard them. yes, I have heard their physical voices in time and space...not in my head, but through actual physical sound waves. What do you know about what they want? Just last night, I heard two Iraqi's testify on Fox News about the utter ignorance of the European/American populace regarding conditions in Iraq- which they called (and I quote) "A PRISON STATE"

[Miles]

First: can anybody else see the sheer hypocricy of this war? The US is acting all high and mighty as the Messiah of the world who is going to send Sadam to bed without supper and liberate the Iraqi people. I don't recall Bush mentioning how his fathers administration sold weapons (including chemical weapons) to Sadam so they could attack Iran with it- I suppose it's just not interesting enough.

So, by your logic, we did the right thing in turning a blind eye in Chile since we supported him in overthrowing the democratic Chilean government? We are doing in Iraq what we should have done in Chile. That is your hypocracy.

Furthermore, anybody who talks of a "clean" war is a lying asshole. The last Gulf War was relatively clean, granted, but they didn't carry that fight to Baghdad. It's mostly Pentagon pen pushers and conservative freaks who suffer from such ridiculous optimism.

I don't think you will find ANYONE in the Pentagon who claims that any war is "clean" at least I hope not. You are putting words in their mouths, then beating them down for it. Goes to show how far you will go in your anti-American sentiment.

And, anybody who thinks the US motives of this war are peace loving and sheer kindness, get a clue. They said the same thing of the Vietnam war and Panama, and I don't think anybody of you believes those were clean wars, or for the sake of flowers and butterflies.

I don't think our motives are peace loving and sheer kindness, I think they are for the security of the U.S. and the world. The motives in Vietnam were to stop communism, plain and simple, I don't think anyone said otherwise.

War is a nasty, dirty mess in which all sides lose, but sometimes it is totally necessary. This is what the peace mongers don't understand, sometimes you have to fight to preserve peace.

In 1991, the US retreated pretty quickly to celebrate their grand victory in the streets of New York. Meanwhile, the Iraqi Sjiietes (forgive spelling) and Kurds, who were encouraged by the US to take up arms against Sadam, were left as targets for Sadams fury. Sadam mainly used choppers to carry out raids on their settlements, and tehcnickly the US commander Norman Schwarzkopf could easily have those choppers blown to crisps by the US airforce with no risk at all, but they just weren't interested in doing so.

Because the U.N. resolution would not support us going further. We stopped to keep from pissing off the international community. If we had gone further, Edric and those like him would have been ranting and raving about American barbarism. Lot of good that did us. Fact is, that more Americans will die because of the international communities reluctance to support the removal of Saddam the first time. We get to pay the price for their cowardice, so I say screw 'em. That's not arrogance, it's the truth.

[emprworm]

this whole thread is wrong anyway. there is no war against the Iraqi people, except for the war that Hussein and his grunts have launched against them.

THe US and UN will not be going to war with the Iraqi people. That is simply false leftist propoganda. We will go to war with Hussein and his army (the ones that don't surrender, anyway).

[Edric O]

Because the U.N. resolution would not support us going further. We stopped to keep from pissing off the international community. If we had gone further, Edric and those like him would have been ranting and raving about American barbarism. Lot of good that did us. Fact is, that more Americans will die because of the international communities reluctance to support the removal of Saddam the first time. We get to pay the price for their cowardice, so I say screw 'em. That's not arrogance, it's the truth.

YOUR government is the one sending more Americans to die, not the international community. The international community is telling you to stop your imperialism and interference in other countries' internal matters. You INSIST on sending your soldiers to die in an unprovoked attack against a sovereign country. Their blood is on your hands.

[Acriku]

Edric, soldiers today do not die as much as in the mid 1900s, superior technology, armor, and camouflage allows superb fighting. So they do not die enough to say "they are being sent to die," they are being sent to risk their lives by helping others. I'd be damn grateful if I was on the other end.

[Edric O]

And what about the soldiers fighting on the other side? There are humans too, you know. They don't have the benefit of your superior technology. If your soldiers don't die, the ones on the other side will. And vice versa.

And I'm not even mentioning the civilians... or the "collateral damage" as they will most likely be called.

[SurlyPIG]

BS.

You don't know the difference between DISAGREEMENT and heat.

I don't hate Americans.

I agree with the 53% of US citizens that don't want a war at any cost (Gallup last report). I disagree with the rest that support an inmediate war.

Your conclusions that I hate America, are worthless, you can't provide a single quote where I said that. You imagen things based on your interpretation. Pathetic.

ROFL. Actually 60% support war WITHOUT UN approval, 80% with. The vast majority of the US dislikes the enslavement of Iraq and is supportive of any action that will end it.

I've never seen you post a single positive thing about the US, the US government, US citizens, and for that matter, anyone from the US on this board. Hate, extreme resentment, call it what you want but you post the most anti-American on this site.

[Miles]

YOUR government is the one sending more Americans to die, not the international community. The international community is telling you to stop your imperialism and interference in other countries' internal matters. You INSIST on sending your soldiers to die in an unprovoked attack against a sovereign country. Their blood is on your hands.

The peace deal with Iraq was pretty clear, disarm all biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. He has violated this agreement, and in doing so is the aggressor. Their sovereignty was only given to them under the peace agreement. Saddam has not lived up to it, so they are no longer sovereign.

For twelve years Saddam has mocked the U.N. and the U.S. Kicking out weapons inspectors. This should have been grounds for war each and every time, yet the UN backed off while he has stockpiled his chemical and biological weapons, as well as at least attempting to build nuclear weapons, unless you are honestly trying to say that while the inspectors were ousted, he carried out the destruction of his WMD.

We could have finished this twelve years ago, but gave in to UN pressure to back off. If we are responsible for the higher death toll, it is because we listened to the likes of YOU, the weak and ineffectual peace mongers. Now, we realize that time is not on our side. That the more time that passes, the more Americans will be killed. So I say, To hell with you and your fellow US haters, we will continue to do the right thing even in the face of stupidity. We will pay the price for the rights that you enjoy as we have always done, then get spat on by the very people we liberate.