Bush's Toll - 3200 and counting

[Acriku]

Ice_Cube, Iraq is the size of California. Do you really think they could have searched every part of that country in this amount of time? Get real. Instead of arguing against the existence of WMD's, which is the most unfounded argument, argue something like if these weapons were so hidden in the country - how would they be an immediate threat to the country of US. Use your heads.

[GhostHunter]

No, use YOUR head, where are the WMD? Oh yes we found them, of I mean we found those pesticides...Right...

[Acriku]

We. Are. Still. Looking. Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouf?

[GhostHunter]

Do you believe every bit of pointless propaganda thrown at you? I gaurentee the only way we'll find WMD is if the USA plants them there, records it and frames Saddam.

[Acriku]

And what led you to that conclusion? Seriously, what gave you this great knowledge of the nonexistence of WMDs in Iraq?

[Dante]

He may have been a murderer, but at least he never said it was for their own good.

What the devil are you talking about? Of COURSE he said things like that! Any one of his political opposers was suddenly an "infidel, enemy of Iraq, a traitor"

Yes. But what he did not say is "I'm killing these people for a greater good for all the world. They are a threat to international security, not just my own. These people have links with terrorists, they have nuclear and chemical weapons." You see, he killed them yes. But he didn't try to make out that they were anything worse than minor threats. Not as far as I can see anyway.

[Acriku]

Oh please DustScout, your position is falling short. It's scary that you seem to think that what the person says is worse than how many people he killed.

[Dunenewt]

Ice_Cube, Iraq is the size of California. Do you really think they could have searched every part of that country in this amount of time? Get real. Instead of arguing against the existence of WMD's, which is the most unfounded argument, argue something like if these weapons were so hidden in the country - how would they be an immediate threat to the country of US. Use your heads.

Iraq is the size of France...hmm...

[Acriku]

Yeah that seems more accurate, I had to look at the map again :P

[Dante]

I'm an autocrat, Acriku. I support any actions that a leader will undertake provided that they supply me with adequate reasons for doing so. Saddam may or may not have been telling the truth (I see no proof either way); but Bush, by all the evidence that has (or to be accurate has NOT) come to light, lied his way into Iraq and is just about to lie about something else.

I have nothing against lies either, If I ruled the most powerful nation on earth, I'd lie too. But he's so bad at it. If he's going to lie he might at least do it well.

[Acriku]

Ok, so you think he lied. How does this justify Saddam's killings, or make Bush's war casualties worse?

[Dante]

Did I say it justified them?

And Bush's are worse because his lies are transparent. With Saddam there was no proof to show that the accused was guilty, but then again there was none to show innocence. Bush, on the other hand, must cope with the fact that there is direct (lack of ;) ) evidence that he lied.

Bush's actions are worse because he was not justified. Whereas Saddam probably wasn't justified. Even if he wasn't, it was his country. None of our business.

That's "The Divine Right of Kings," by the way. You will have heard of it, there are few who haven't...

[SurlyPIG]

Yes. But what he did not say is "I'm killing these people for a greater good for all the world. They are a threat to international security, not just my own. These people have links with terrorists, they have nuclear and chemical weapons." You see, he killed them yes. But he didn't try to make out that they were anything worse than minor threats. Not as far as I can see anyway.

You don't think Saddam was an international security threat? He invaded another country! And when did the coalition claim that the war would be good for the whole world? There are several nations that will come out losers. The US has spent billions on this and lost billions in economic stature, France and Russia have lost their contracts with Saddam, Saudi Arabia will have greater regional competition.

They DO have links with terrorism, and that has been proven; both Al-Qaeda, and the Palestinian terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. He gave money to the families of anyone who would be a suicide bomber. I think I made a thread about the Al-Qaeda link a little while ago, maybe a post in the Iraq thread but it was there.

[DukeLeto]

He invaded another country!

Like we haven't ever invaded another country for our own good? Even without counting Iraq: Afghanistan. Grenada. Panama. Vietnam. N. Korea. Possibly soon Syria, Iran, and Korea (again). Any of these ring a bell? ::)

[SurlyPIG]

North Korea? Don't tell me you're talking about the Korean war...surely even you aren't that stupid...

[Dante]

Prove the links with terrorism.

And I wasn't saying that Saddam was harmless, I was saying that the people he killed might have been harmful.

[Anathema]

Ice_Cube, Iraq is the size of California. Do you really think they could have searched every part of that country in this amount of time? Get real. Instead of arguing against the existence of WMD's, which is the most unfounded argument, argue something like if these weapons were so hidden in the country - how would they be an immediate threat to the country of US. Use your heads.

They shouldn't even be searching for them, because they should already know where they are. They claimed about a million times to have evidence of Iraqi MDW even before the war started. Only a real jackass would still believe what they said back then.

[Ice_Cube]

Do you believe every bit of pointless propaganda thrown at you? I gaurentee the only way we'll find WMD is if the USA plants them there, records it and frames Saddam.

I totally agree with vilgent.

Two iraqies were killed today by AMERICAN troops in cold blood. They were demonstrating about the lack of wages and so they openned fire on them. Where is the logic in that! This is terrible. The war has ended and the killing of the people of Iraq has not stopped (Bush has failed again) only this time, America is dealing out the punishment. The only thing Bush did right was using the SMART bombs which did lower the casualties, but then he had a "brain wave" (dangerous or what?) to drop cluster bombs instead. This inflicted massive dammage on civillians. It may not of killed all of them, but it ripped legs off, dammaged them permanantly. I still do not see why they did this. Even if war was the only option (which it certainly wasn't) then for gods sake, keep Bush out of it and put him in a play pen for a few days.

[Dante]

I think he'd be better off in a zoo...

Only one that was individual to him. We wouldn't want to go upsetting all the other animals.

[Acriku]

Ice_Cube, you do not know the entire situation. They were previous Iraqi soldiers and having lost the war, they don't have a job. And, one of them (the one you are talking about) pulled out a gun. Then, and only then, was he shot in self-defense.

[Ice_Cube]

Like you said, EX-iraqui soldiers and there were TWO people shot dead.

[Acriku]

Your point? When they pull out guns in the demonstration, who knows if they are Saddam loyalists or just really really pissed off. US soldiers are getting killed from guerrilla and hit-and-run attacks almost 50 of them, so I don't think they would hesitate to rid of the threat. And neither would I.

[Ice_Cube]

Your point? When they pull out guns in the demonstration,

Where did you get the THEY from, you said ONE person pulled out a gun. Are you changing facts? Do America get the feeling that they are not wanted in Iraq? I think so! Why don't they give Iraq what they want? For aa religious leader to be instated and for American troops to piss off. They do not want America to profit off their misiry with their impending Economical onslaught? Why does America have to police the world, since when were they always right? Never.

[Acriku]

Oh please Ice_Cube. I didn't say "they pulled out guns" I said "when" which means I am telling you what will happen when something happens. I could just as well have said "if", it is just to tell you what would happen. And it's easy for you to put words in their mouths, but instead of telling me what you want, tell me what will work for the efficiency and stability of Iraq as a country. A religious leader will never work. There are distinct factions of religions that will go into uproar if a religious leader of a different faction is represented and not themselves. A secular leader is the only way. And it will take time before American troops will leave (and not all of them will leave) to instill stability in the country, so they won't likely "piss-off" soon.

[nemafakei]

I WILL get this posted!

I would like to know how this figure (3200) compares with the number of American casualties.

Because I reckon the US figure is far less.

This strikes me as rather... rude or callous behaviour.