|
Post by m on May 15, 2003 8:20:26 GMT -5
Yes, but OBR seems to think that Saudi civilians dont have a right to voice their opinions jsut because they disagree with American policies.Hmmm. Nope, didn't say that. Heck we disagree. You lot best deal with it. The US cant take criticism... And you try to run the world ha!Oh we can take the critisism, but if no other solutions are offered, we will take action. Millions of your own countrymen live in poverty. Heck we casestudy parts of Los Angeles for geography all the time. It is one of the most deprived parts of the world. Oh wow, you got the technology and the resources.Of course parts of Los Angeles are going to be slums. every big city in the world is going to have bad areas. So about those mass graves being found in Iraq. This is what happens when you let a dicatator have his way. Oh I forgot, Saddam didn't do anything wrong. And because we supported him 20 years ago and should have read his twisted mind, we should have let him continually abuse his people and turn Iraq into a smaller version of Hell. We should have let Hitler have his way too. Yeah, I think we should stay home and let the world nuke itself. "You Americans never do anything when there's trouble in the world." One or the other, take your pick. Chirac had direct ties with Saddam, no wonder he didn't want to go to war, he would be against his best buddy. In fact a great deal of Iraq's oil fields are financed and owned by French oil companies. "No blood for oil!" Yeah right, what a bunch of hypocrites. Only until we cleared the way was it all right for the French gov't to come along side the US and Britain and glom onto trying to "help."
|
|
|
Post by -*- Little Miss Strawberry -*- on May 19, 2003 3:01:10 GMT -5
So about those mass graves being found in Iraq. This is what happens when you let a dicatator have his way. Oh I forgot, Saddam didn't do anything wrong.
I don't like the way the US went into war, I never ever said that Saddam was a good man. I just think the methods the US used have severe implications for general international peace and relations.
And because we supported him 20 years ago ...
You gotta admit, it's kinda ironical.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on May 19, 2003 13:31:26 GMT -5
<<You gotta admit, it's kinda ironical. >>
Is it really that ironic? We supported the Soviet Union all throughout WWII, and hardly two years after is was over we were embroiled in the Cold War. Sadaam turned his back on the US and on the West when he invaded Kuwait.
|
|
|
Post by Medley on May 24, 2003 2:24:45 GMT -5
I know I just joined, but this topic is one I'm quite passionate about. First of all, I was against the war. But the war's over, so...what do you think of what's going on now? Last I heard we were allowing looting and destruction of Iraq's antiquities and many people still don't have water or electricity. Oh, and we're shooting people protesting against us. Sounds like democracy to me. Many Iraqis seem to think that, brutal and nasty as Hussein was, he was perhaps a bit better than US occupation. And what do you think the chances are that the Iraqis will ever get to vote for their government, and what's up with the constantly changing viceroys? First Garner and now Bremer. Also, what do you think about the contracts given to Bechtel and Halliburton and all that? Personally I think the war was more about liberating Iraqi oil and making profits from rebuilding what we destroyed than freeing the Iraqi people. Oh, and by the way, where are the much vaunted WMDs? But then considering the information we gave to the UN about the WMDs was proven to be forged....
Was thinking about it and had to add...why is the subject of this thread the war on terrorism? Iraq has nothing to do with that. As far as I know the only link Iraq has with terrorism is that Hussein would give money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. And that issue is all gray with no black and white, so I feel a bit uncomfortable calling those people terrorists. Can you name the country most of the 9/11 hijackers came from? Hint: It's not Iraq or Afghanistan. None of the hijackers came from either of those nations. And bin Laden and Hussein hate each other. Hussein is far too secular for bin Laden's liking. But I bet bin Laden is pretty happy with Iraq right now. It might not have had much to do with terrorism before, but now it's a breeding ground for new recruits and donors. You know, people who lost children or parents or spouses or siblings or whole families and are now enraged and want revenge. And then in Afghanistan the Taliban are staging a comeback. It's complete anarchy there and people think order is better than no order, even when that order is repressive. I can see the same happening with Iraq if we don't step up.
|
|
|
Post by 80s Child on May 24, 2003 11:32:15 GMT -5
^^I don't understand why you can't call Palestinian suicide bombers, or for that matter suicide bombers of any nationality, terrorists. Newsflash: They ARE terrorists. Just because you disagree with the so-called occupation, does not change that fact. Death is death no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on May 24, 2003 20:50:58 GMT -5
<<Last I heard we were allowing looting and destruction >>
Most of the looting subsided weeks ago, and things are beginning to get back to normal.
<<Oh, and we're shooting people protesting against us. Sounds like democracy to me.>>
Sounds like youre mistaken, we have shot at protestors who became violent and started shooting at us, if thats what you mean. We are allowing there to be open and peaceful protests, something that hasnt happened in that country for a long time.
<<and what's up with the constantly changing viceroys? First Garner and now Bremer.>>
I wouldnt consider one change to be "constantly changing." I believe the logic to the change was that they wanted someone with more of a civilian backround to be the administrator.
<<Also, what do you think about the contracts given to Bechtel and Halliburton and all that?>>
What about them? They are some of the most advanced companies in their fields, why not get the job done right?
<< Personally I think the war was more about liberating Iraqi oil and making profits from rebuilding what we destroyed >>
Bechtel and Halliburton are hardly turning a profit for their work, we succeeded in stopping Sadaam from setting a large portion of his oil fields on fire and thwarting an environmental disaster. Using your logic, it would have been in our interest to let the oil fields be set on fire so we could pay one of Bush's campaign donors to put them out. And as for the oil, it is not likely to turn a profit for as long as 10 years.
<<Oh, and by the way, where are the much vaunted WMDs?>>
Im sure with time the weapons program will be found, people were giving the inspectors as long as they needed to find weapons, weve been there for six weeks.
<<Was thinking about it and had to add...why is the subject of this thread the war on terrorism? Iraq has nothing to do with that.>>
Sadaam was a terrorist, he tried to assasinate George H. W. Bush, he payed the families of suicide bombers, and we are finding documents that suggest he had relations with al Qeada. This war with Iraq is part of the broader war against terrorism.
<<I feel a bit uncomfortable calling those people terrorists.>>
Hmmm why? They blow themselves up with the intent to kill innocents, if thats not terrorism, Im not sure what is.
<<And bin Laden and Hussein hate each other>>
Although they hold a common hatred for the Saudi royal family and America.
<<And then in Afghanistan the Taliban are staging a comeback. It's complete anarchy there and people think order is better than no order, even when that order is repressive.>>
Either way, almost anything is better than the Tailban regime.
|
|
|
Post by 80s Child on Jun 10, 2003 20:51:26 GMT -5
AP Tallies 3,240 Civilian Deaths in Iraqnews.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=world&cat=iraqAP) - At least 3,240 civilians died across Iraq during a month of war, including 1,896 in Baghdad, according to a five-week Associated Press investigation. The count is still fragmentary, and the complete toll — if it is ever tallied — is sure to be significantly higher. Several surveys have looked at civilian casualties within Baghdad, but the AP tally is the first attempt to gauge the scale of such deaths from one end of the country to the other, from Mosul in the north to Basra in the south. That's more than how many died on 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by m on Jun 11, 2003 6:16:48 GMT -5
That's more than how many died on 9/1Not quite. Did they count the piles of bodies, courtesy of Saddam, that have been found in mass graves? A few tens of thousands so far and sure to be more. Sorry about the deaths of civilians, but when Saddam puts people in the way of bombs, there will be deaths. But I realize how much people loved him, and he should have been allowed to keep on killing, looting, and torturing his people.
|
|
|
Post by 80s Child on Jun 11, 2003 11:11:58 GMT -5
*I* don't love Saddam, and find his actions disgusting and shameful. That does not, however, excuse the actions of the U.S. government in this so-called "war on terrorism".
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Jun 11, 2003 11:47:57 GMT -5
^^How many do you figure would have died under Sadaam?
Its very sad that these people died, but I wouldnt be surprised if this is the least amount of civilians to die in modern warfare.
|
|
|
Post by -*- Little Miss Strawberry -*- on Jul 21, 2003 2:37:19 GMT -5
Whats happening now? All this uproar over whether any evidence about WMDs was ever reputable?
|
|
|
Post by m on Jul 21, 2003 6:39:02 GMT -5
Saddam is not leaving piles of bodies everywhere, that should be a good thing. Maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by -*- Little Miss Strawberry -*- on Jul 23, 2003 11:34:05 GMT -5
Yeah, I guess it's a good thing but... Iraq appears to be in a worse state now (though time is essential). And yeah it might be good but that doesn't mean there aren't negatives involved too.
What I personally find concerning is the current uproar in the UK, I don't understand it all, but the thing is the way Blair appears to be leaving us all with suffering health, schools, you name a problem, and is touring the world trying to fight his cause. He's not listening to his people, he's not doing what we want and feel in majority, and he's failing to provide evidence for a war not many supported, or were roped into supporting because of the 'evidence'. It angers me actually, that a politician could be so stupid and indifferent and so... fighting and coveting power. I hope that he loses his support in the next election, evidence is showing that possibility... yeah, just a rant.
|
|
|
Post by YourCapnSpeaking on Jul 24, 2003 21:34:01 GMT -5
I personally think that Iraq is better off now than they were before. After all, now that Saddam's sons are dead, Iraq has two less people they have to fear. Now all they need is 100% confirmation that Saddam himself is dead. And as for my confirmation, I want photos. That, or video showing Saddam being struck by munitions fire. Or him being driven up to the White House front lawn in hand cuffs. Any of those would work.
BTW, USS Bataan LHD-5 rulez!!
|
|
|
Post by -*- Little Miss Strawberry -*- on Jul 28, 2003 3:27:01 GMT -5
Yeah, but do the Iraqi people feel better for it? Ultimately, it's about them, not about America.
|
|