# OT: Iraqi wedding massacre



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Nightmare.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/05/19/international1522EDT0670.DTL

STOMP


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

oh man. that's horrible.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> "This was a wedding and the (U.S.) planes came and attacked the people at a house. Is this the democracy and freedom that (President) Bush has brought us?" said a man on the videotape, Dahham Harraj. "There was no reason."


I'm sure the Iraqis are appreciating the wonderful benefits of US occupation more and more each day.

Pretty soon, it'll be an open question who's more tender to the Iraqi people, US forces or Saddam Hussein.

This is almost like a satire written about the US "spreading freedom and democracy." Tragically, the mounting dead Iraqis (which is now swelling over 11,000) are all too real.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Maybe this is true, maybe it's not. 

The insurgents in Iraq will do anything to defeat us, including lying about a supposed wedding party in the middle of the desert at 2:45 in the morning. They know we're taking a hit from the prison abuse scandal, and they would love to depict us as savage murderers who enjoy killing innocent civilians. 

But if this story is true, what in the heck were these people doing firing weapons into the air with U.S. helicopters flying around the area? Talk about asking for trouble! Don't they know there's a war going on? It's a tragedy, yes, but one that could have been avoided with a little common sense.


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

Not sure I'm buying that story.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Interesting that decapitation was specifically pointed out.

I don't know their traditions of marriage and what not, but the 2:45 AM thing is odd IMO and when did firing weopns become a tradition of the Koran?


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I usually don't respond to these type of posts, but that is blatantly out of line Minstrel...try and contain your partisanship just a little. If you don't like Bush fine, don't vote for the guy, but if parts of this story don't seem fishy to you then you are letting your personal dislike for our president and the IRaq war seriously cloud your judgement.



> The attack on the wedding party occurred about 2:45 a.m. in a desert region near the border with Syria and Jorda


Now seriously, what wedding party occurs at 2:45 AM?



> The area, a desolate region populated only by shepherds, is popular with smugglers, including weapons smugglers, and the U.S. military suspects militants use it as a route to slip in from Syria to fight the Americans. It is under constant surveillance by American forces


So there IS a justified reason for the US military to be there and to be suspicious.



> Iraqis interviewed on the videotape said revelers had fired volleys of gunfire into the air in a traditional wedding celebration before the attack took place. American troops have sometimes mistaken celebratory gunfire for hostile fire.


So a mistake COULD have reasonably been made, and apparently has before...IF it was no more than an accident, it is definitely tragic, but a reasonable person could understand WHY it happened.



> One military officer at the Pentagon, speaking on condition of anonymity, said a U.S. military operation was carried out at about 3 a.m. Wednesday against a "foreign fighter safehouse" in the desert about 15 miles from the Syrian border.


So there was some suspicion on the nature of activities taking place there, and the insurgents are WELL known for hiding behind civilians (women and children) and using holy sites as cover for their attacks. It doesn't justify killing women and children, and I am sure you would agree that our troops don't intentionall try to kill woman and children and that tragic events like this DO occur in war, as much as we would prefer they not.



> The U.S. troops came under hostile fire and called in close-air support....The U.S. troops recovered weapons, Iraqi and Syrian currency, some passports and some satellite communications gear


Just a wedding? Nothing else going on there? Were they fired on? or was there really a wedding party occuring at 2:45am? What is that theory called? Hakim's Razor? What looks like the most likely thing ocuring to you?

Look you can say you disagree with this war, you disagree with our president, but to compare the US government to Saddam Hussein's regime is 100% out of line, and you should know that.

post edit - And I agree Wanker, this is the type of thing that cannot help US troops no matter how good the intentions may have been. You will always lose when women and children die, even if the insurgents use them as shields, that is the way it is.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> A U.S. helicopter fired on a wedding party in the remote desert near the border with Syria, killing more than 40 people, most of them women and children, Iraqi officials said. The U.S. military said it attacked a safehouse for foreign fighters near Syria


I honestly hope it was a rebel safe house and note merely Iraqi civilians having the temerity to celebrate a wedding in the time and manner of their own choosing in their own country.

but even IF it is all a lie and it was indeed a safehouse and not a wedding, the fact that most of those dead are women and children is far more depressing and disillusioning to me than even the prison abuse scandal. killing children NEVER wins the hearts and minds of anyone, regardless of the circumstance.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

by the way, my wedding reception two years ago ended around 3 am. I've got some hard core partier friends, I guess.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "I'm sure the Iraqis are appreciating the wonderful benefits of US occupation more and more each day."


What an ignorant statement. The fact is, many millions of Iraqis have been helped enormously by our occupation. But the media chooses to play up the occasional tragedies like this, rather than talk about the improvements we have made in roads, bridges, railroads, and working conditions. Doctors now make 8 times more than they did before Saddam, and teachers make 12 times more. Hospitals are running, electricity has been restored, the oil wells are pumping, trade is resuming, new businesses are starting up. Polls show the Iraqis are now filled with a sense of hope, thanks to our liberation of the country. But you, my friend, can see only the worst of the picture. 



> "Pretty soon, it'll be an open question who's more tender to the Iraqi people, US forces or Saddam Hussein."


Despicable. You should be ashamed of yourself. Even if this accident is true as reported, it was an "accident." Saddam deliberately and with malice executed, tortured and raped thousands and thousands of people. We are involved in fighting a war, my friend, and in war sometimes terrible accidents like this happen. But they are not intentional.



> "This is almost like a satire written about the US "spreading freedom and democracy." Tragically, the mounting dead Iraqis (which is now swelling over 11,000) are all too real."


Also "all too real" is your ignorance of the facts. How many of those 11,000 were Iraqi soldiers, or terrorists, or someone getting ready to shoot a U.S. soldier? The fact is, we have saved far more innocent Iraqis than we have killed. Saddam's death squads were killing about 200 people a week before the war. That has all stopped, thanks to us, so you do the math.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> I usually don't respond to these type of posts, but that is blatantly out of line Minstrel...try and contain your partisanship just a little.


Blatently out of line? Give me a break. Far more virulent things have been said on this board, especially about liberals. What I said was relatively mild, considering that I think this loss of life that the US is inflicting is one of the biggest, recent atrocities.



> If you don't like Bush fine, don't vote for the guy


It's less about Bush and more about dislike for the invasion and the amount of death caused.



> but if parts of this story don't seem fishy to you then you are letting your personal dislike for our president and the IRaq war seriously cloud your judgement.


Or I can call you an apologist for any massacre the US perpetrates. Or we can just leave off labelling the other based on our own, partisan beliefs. If you think you're being objective, that's fairly laughable.



> Now seriously, what wedding party occurs at 2:45 AM?


How many wedding parties go into late into the night, even into the early hours of the next day? Many.



> Look you can say you disagree with this war, you disagree with our president, but to compare the US government to Saddam Hussein's regime is 100% out of line, and you should know that.


Thanks for the permission to be against the war and our President. But I don't think it's 100% out of line to question whether 11,000 dead Iraqis are better off under Saddam Hussein or US occupation.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> I don't know their traditions of marriage and what not, but the 2:45 AM thing is odd IMO and when did firing weopns become a tradition of the Koran?


 come on Shilly, no where does it say or imply that firing weapons is from the Koran. It's probably just a cultural noisemaking tradition in celebration of an event. The article speaks to the US running into this same tradition/behavior in earlier incidents.

As far as 2:45 AM... thats not when the guns were fired, but when the massacre started *after* US forces reportedly investigated the earlier gunfire in this remote site. I'm sure we'll become privy to a more accurate timeline, but it's likely that quite a bit of time passed between the "celebratory" gunfire, the investigation, and the massacre.

STOMP


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> by the way, my wedding reception two years ago ended around 3 am. I've got some hard core partier friends, I guess


Yeah and there were how many little kids there? 

Also I bet you wern't firing machine guns into the air either...or were you? :laugh:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> Despicable. You should be ashamed of yourself.


I'm totally ashamed, TalkHard. After implying that they maybe deserved it for firing guns into the air as part of their celebration, which is their custom, I'm very ready for moral judgements from you.



> We are involved in fighting a war, my friend, and in war sometimes terrible accidents like this happen. But they are not intentional.


Yes. "Accidents" that wipe out wedding parties are nothing that we take blame for. Accidents will happen, right? We don't have any responsibility to be careful about who we kill in a country we invaded.



> Also "all too real" is your ignorance about the facts.


*TalkHard* is lecturing me about ignorance? I need to lie down.



> We have saved far more Iraqis than we have killed. Saddam's death squads were killing about 200 people a week before the war. That has all stopped, so you do the math.


Doing the math: 11,000 people we've killed, divided by the 200 a week that Saddam was killing...we've killed the amount of people Saddam killed in 55 weeks. 

55 weeks is a little over a year. How long has Saddam been out of power? A little over a year?

Wow, you sure "educated" me. :uhoh:


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Yeah and there were how many little kids there?
> 
> Also I bet you wern't firing machine guns into the air either...or were you?


Kids staying in that hotel of my wedding recption? probably a couple dozen. I sure wouldn't have wanted to see it pummeled by Apache helicoptors. 

my wedding was in England, so firing guns in the air wasn't really an option. broke several pint glasses though. (the wife claimed it was a british custom, but I suspect it was just a couple of her mates relishing the idea of sticking me with the bill. you never can tell what fishy story those foreigner types will concoct.)


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Or I can call you an apologist for any massacre the US perpetrates


Yeah that makes me an apologist...dude...try to contain your anti- war, anti-Bush zeal just a little. It makes for a much more civil and level headed converstaion. You aren't thinking clearly. Surely there are parts of this story that don't add up.



> Thanks for the permission to be against the war and our President. But I don't think it's 100% out of line to question whether 11,000 dead Iraqis are better off under Saddam Hussein or US occupation.


:laugh: Permission granted... I don't recall giving you permission to believe or not believe what you do. I could care less, actually. I just stated that comparing BUSH to Hussein is 100% out of line and smacks of partisanship, which it does.

And if you are really going to try and sell that Bush is as bad as Hussein or that US forces in Iraq (or as you reference "occupation" I guess it is a brutal occupation too right?) are as bad or worse than the Hussein regime was, then one has to seriously question your sanity.

If we live under such a cruel and psychopathic dictator then by all means leave the country...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> 
> Yeah and there were how many little kids there?
> 
> Also I bet you wern't firing machine guns into the air either...or were you? :laugh:


according to the article, US forces opened fire on two houses... it's likely that these kids were in bed sleeping at close to 3 in the morning don't you think?

I can't believe you're laughing in this thread.

STOMP


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> I can't believe you're laughing in this thread.
> 
> STOMP


I have to agree. this whole subject just makes me ill.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> I can't believe you're laughing in this thread


Spare me you self rightousness and political correctiveness.

I am not laughing at the event AT ALL, I am laughing at some of the truly bizarre conclusions and reasons that some of you use to justify your positions.

What happened there, whether it was an accident or not, was horrific. There was nothing funny about THAT event at all.

Try and seperate the two, if you can


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Where's the reasoning that you use to justify your positions?

I haven't seen it yet...

Easy to attack someone elses arguments when you make none yourself.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

> How many of those 11,000 were Iraqi soldiers, or terrorists, or someone getting ready to shoot a U.S. soldier?


If people are going to throw out the number of 11,000 iraqi's killed by the US, it's relavant to know how many of those were soldiers, terrorists, etc. before saying those are ALL innocent by standers..


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

Well-I am sure not going to take that report at face value.

Already alternate reports are coming in. 

LINK 



> He added, "We had actionable intelligence to go after a foreign fighters' safe house. It is not our belief that there was a wedding party in the open desert."


----------



## ill subliminal (Apr 3, 2003)

So I guess the movie of this will be called Kill Bush.



yeah feel free to give me 1 star ratings...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

My position is that this is a tragedy, and grasping at straws as to why we aren't at fault and making fun of anything related to this is bizzare behavior and completely inappropriate. Lets let some time pass by and some more facts come out before we figure out exactly whats what. 

PC??? Self rightousness??? Unbelievable.

STOMP


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

There is a more in dpth article here...
msnbc 

There are some interesting tidbits there. The story that the Iraqis is telling is morphing and changing. In addition the US aknolwedges that they dude fir upon ground forces with a aircraft, but they were in a C130 gunship, not a helicopter. There is also question on the behalf of the Pentagon as to weather or not the C130 attack is even connected to the reports from the Iraqis.

I have a few questions. If US soldiers ivnvestigated the firing of weopons and left after determining it was a celebaration, which is what the article claims, why then did 15 minutes later a couple of helicopters blow the heck outa the area?


BTW I was out of line earlier with my comment about the Koran and firing weopons.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

Moral of the story: End celebratory gunfire, especially when there is a war going on.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> My position is that this is a tragedy, and grasping at straws as to why we aren't at fault and making fun of anything related to this is bizzare behavior and unbelievably inappropriate. PC??? Self rightousness??? Unbelievable


Stomp...grow up....Seriously, get over yourself. 

Grasping at straws? How about conflicting reports? Or is there only one side to this story. 



> Where's the reasoning that you use to justify your positions?


Did you even bother to read the entire article? I think there is more than enough information to lead one to think that maybe this wasn't a "blatant" US attack on an Iraqi wedding party. My position was that it could have been a tragic accident, but is also looks like there may have been more going on there than a simple wedding. 



> Easy to attack someone elses arguments when you make none yourself


Ok then...if you say so  

I guess this means I should come up with proof why Hussein and his regime were worse than Bush and the current US forces there? Like there hasn't been enough proof out there anyway? Whatever....

Frankly, I can't believe how anyone could even REMOTELY compare the two...

This is why I don't post in threads like these...people can't even look at a situation objectively FROM ALL SIDES. Should have known better :yes:


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

:hurl:



> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> 
> Stomp...grow up....Seriously, get over yourself.


STOMP


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

human shields?


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> *TalkHard*
> ...


Actually, the original figure is out of whack. Taking the Saddam-killed dead, and dividing by years-in-power yields *200 per day*. 

No comparison.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> Moral of the story: End celebratory gunfire, especially when there is a war going on.


The sad thing is, this has happened before. IIRC it was about a year ago, outside of Kabul. Apparently, the gunfire thing is an old tradition in the arab world.

In other words, this story may well be accurate and the military may have made a tragic mistake.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

I will buy this story.

I have no real knowledge of the Iraqi area in respect to their cultural customs involving events like Weddings. I can believe that if an attack happened at 2:45 in the morning, that a wedding celebration could have been feasibly happening a little earlier in the night.

Obviously this attack was a huge mistake...and its made worse by the dead women and children (from a PR standpoint). 

It is easy to see how firing the weapons could be a custom. I agree that in this time of war it was not the smartest thing to be doing; however, I don't know how important doing such things are to them. Additionally, who knows if people had been drinking....because I can imagine drunk people doing such things. 

This is just another mistake that happened during this war. I agree that these sort of things are unavoidable. 

However, the comments about human shields isn't quite up to snuff. You would think that since we have so many troops over there that we could check out the gunfire a bit before we shoot at buildings. Then we could have perhaps gone in on foot and not had this tragedy happen. 

Regardless, that is what it is....a tragedy. Things like this are bound to happen. 

I'm not going to use this story to attack the war in Iraq, because in all fairness we shouldn't have been there in the first place [by ourselves], regardless of what terrible things Saddam did to his people. 


Anyways, this was obviously a mistake, and a costly one at that. It is just extremely unfortunate that it occured as now America looks worse in the eyes of Iraqis. But in the end, it was just a mistake...the fact that we shouldn't be in the war is a different subject.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Apparently US troops did check it out.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

If they had really checked it out, then I would think they would have perhaps seen some of the women and children that were at the party...

However, regardless, I can also imagine a situation such as there being reports of gunfire. Troops check it out. All they see are a few guys firing up into the sky (its late and the women and children are out of sight by now). 

They go, yeah, this is the terrorist hideout we've talked about. Now we hit. 

You'd think that they could have gone in on foot....or perhaps setup some better surveliance and waited until the day to go in. 

It seems oftly hasteful to attack that quickly when it could have been checked out....I mean it was in the middle of a rurual area, so its easy to stop people that try to leave by stopping them then. 


Whatever....it was just a very bad mistake. I've (unfortunately) grown to expect these sort of things.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> The U.S.-led coalition in Baghdad issued a statement indicating that an attack occured in the same general area — about 50 miles southwest of Husaybah, and 15 miles from the Syrian border.
> 
> But it described the attack as part of "a military operation against a suspected foreign fighter safe house in the open desert."
> 
> "During the operation, coalition forces came under hostile fire and close air support was provided," it said. "(Afterward), coalition forces on the ground recovered numerous weapons, 2 million Iraqi and Syrian dinar, foreign passports and a SATCOM radio."


From MSNBC

Also



> Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told NBC News that coalition forces in the vicinity saw no signs of a wedding when they called in the air attack.


Heres a witness account



> "The U.S. planes dropped more than 100 bombs on us," an unidentified man who said he was from the village told Al Arabiya. "They hit two homes where the wedding was being held and then they leveled the whole village. No bullets were fired by us, nothing was happening."


Hmm interesting.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Hmmm...

My guess is that it falls somewhere in between these accounts. 

The question is, on what side of the spectrum?


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>:
> Moral of the story: End celebratory gunfire, especially when there is a war going on.


So I guess the moral of 9/11 was "end working in tall buildings when there are terrorists in the world"?


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Why are we in this country?

If we want to rid the world of "horrible" dictators, then lets go into Africa. Their are a number of absolutley HORRIBLE dictators in Africa. They kill many many more people than Sadam, and make him look like a girl scout. 

Wanna know why we are not in Africa. Their is no oil in the savanna. Their are no wealthy companies in the african rainforest's. 

If we you try and justify the invasion of Iraq as a move to remove a dictator and make the world a better place, then why do we stop there. If we wanted to change the world, lets liberate a poor African nation and build it up. 

Instead we go into Iraq.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> 
> 
> So I guess the moral of 9/11 was "end working in tall buildings when there are terrorists in the world"?


Um....I think that is a little harsh.

You have to realize that there will always be "terrorists".

The "war on terror" is one that can never be truely won, as there will always be people who feel they are mistreated and decide to take out their problems or beliefs at the harm of others. 


I'm not sure what a moral of 9/11 would be. I do have speculate, as to why would these terrorists attack without some sort of justification... (whether its based on the truth or not is a different story).


Maybe 9/11 is telling us to stop supporting the nation of Islam in their problems against the Muslim world. We are effectively sticking ourselves into a place and situation where we don't belong...especially considering Israel did things such as build that wall. I personally think that the Muslim world hates us because of our support against their biblical rivals for the holy land. 

If we did as the forefathers wanted, and took more of an isolationism approach to the situaiton, we wouldn't be there, just as we wouldn't be in Iraq. 


Additionally, this thread is about Iraq. Not 9/11...

Here's a big note: THEY ARE NOT RELATED. Sure the timing of everything makes it convenient, but the terrorist acts have been traced back to Osama and Afghanistan, which have been dealt with. Regarldess, we went into IRAQ for the intent of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, all by ourselves. 

They are totally unrelated, and you cannot cite going to war with Iraq as a part of retaliation for the 9/11 attacks. 

However, I would like to note that as far as going into Iraq is concerned, we shouldn't do it. Now, if other countries, such as superpowers Germany, China, Russia and France, which we totally dismissed, had wanted to go with us...effectively making it an international effort, I most likely would have been for the war. It would make the justifiability of WMD better and also, the idea of going to free the opressed people of Iraq would be a better sell. However, this is not the case. We went all by ourselves, and because of this our credibility concerning our intent is questioned. If there wasn't a pressing problem then why wouldn't other countries agree and go with it (and these are countries who are also permanent members of the UN security council). 

Overall, the credibility of the war is in obvious question. It was for WMD, then for Iraqi freedom, and then for our freedom (or rather security...). 

ThatBlazerGuy has a point, that if our real intent was to free the other people, why wouldn't we also be making efforts (or even plans) for places such as Cuba or some places in Africa. Additionally, why would other countries avoid this noble cause?

Please do not confuse/mix 9/11 and Iraq, as they are completely different topics.


----------



## RW#30 (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ThatBlazerGuy</b>!
> Why are we in this country?
> 
> If we want to rid the world of "horrible" dictators, then lets go into Africa. Their are a number of absolutley HORRIBLE dictators in Africa. They kill many many more people than Sadam, and make him look like a girl scout.
> ...


Africa has more natural resources than Iraq. Including oil in Nigeria.
Mo African dictator has shown any treat to the US or US interest. Why would we go there?

Where is the UN for Africa? Where is France? Last year the legion killed about 3000 ppl in Ivory Coast. Your lefty media sad nothing about that. 

I grew up under communist dictatorship and laugh all this libs how you defend and talk like you seen and now everything. It is easy for you when your liberal collage professor tell you things how the world is , but you haven't even been out of your neighborhood. (or if you have you went to Canada or backpacked in France) What a joke.

Learn history and you will never vote for a democrat again. Our costliest programs and biggest social failures were started by Democrats. (Soc. Sec., Cold war)

Also or worst human right violation (interment camps of Japanese Americans) 

People who argue the economy of the 90's and now have no idea how it works so it is waste of time to argue about it.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

P - 

I'm pretty sure Meru was being ironical...


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> P -
> 
> I'm pretty sure Meru was being ironical...



OK, but regardless, many people do confuse and cross-reference Iraq and 9/11 which shouldn't be done. Just thought I'd make a point to differentiate the two so that perhaps the confusion happens less.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Democrats are idealist's. 

We want to change the world and we believe we can make it a great place for everyone. Yes, it is futile and quite sad that we even attempt to do this. But, without the hope that this world can be changed to help everyone, i would have no hope at all.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

Yeah, a great place for everyone that shares your point of view. But then the first liar doesn't stand a chance does he?

As bad as it sounds and as terrible as it is, I'd say the Iraqi's have basically two choices. 

1. Get used to seeing dead babies and moms if their holy warriors continue to use them as cover.

2. Kick their ***'s out.

It's pretty damn simple.



OH...and BTW. Living in ******* Oregon, we had celebratory gunfire at our reception but we sure as hell wouldn't have been stupid enough to do it if we had known people would shoot back!


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Ridiculously simplistic and insensitive...


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Perfection</b>!
> 
> OK, but regardless, many people do confuse and cross-reference Iraq and 9/11 which shouldn't be done. Just thought I'd make a point to differentiate the two so that perhaps the confusion happens less.


It's no confusion. 

I have no doubt that Iraq under Sadaam Hussein sanctioned the World Trade Center attack by intent if not by material means. There are films of him celebrating it. He praised the attack instead of either saying 'no comment' or condemnation. 

You sure would like to believe that people feel there is no connection wouldn't you? That would be ideal to justify your point of view wouldn't it? Reality is that a large number of people worldwide understand that connection by innuendo is real and dangerous and not a just a point of view.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> Ridiculously simplistic and insensitive...


Perhaps too much for a bleeding heart? Maybe you have room for a couple of those guys in your household? 

It's not so ridiculous if you understand how wars are fought and won. 

The question is. Do we have the resolve to finish the job despite people like you who would rather see us fail?


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

What a load of crap... 

Let's see how excited you get about your family being murdered because of some ******* neighbors.

I wouldn't tell you to get used to that, nor should you tell them.

Maybe you can teach me about how wars are fought and won, Mr. Patton. Did we win yet? Or do we still need to kill some more children? I can't wait until we emerge victorious like the true winners we are...

You were right about your viewpoint "sounding bad" and being "terrible". You were also right about it being simplistic. 

If caring whether innocent people live or die makes me a "bleeding heart", what does not caring make you?


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> 
> 
> Perhaps too much for a bleeding heart? Maybe you have room for a couple of those guys in your household?
> ...



Why yes, I think I can make room for some non-dead women and children in my household. 

Also, I do not want to see America fail. Now that we went into Iraq it is our mess and we have to clean it up very good to keep our reputation as such a great nation. 

Additionally, I'll bet my father knows how hard wars are fought and won. I mean he is only a retired Lt. Col. in the Army who was a Green Beret in Vietnam, taught Army Ranger training, and served in the Pentagon for many years. Maybe I'll go take a lesson from him to see how "hard wars" are won....like Vietnam.


Regardless, I belive that 




> Ridiculously simplistic and insensitive...


was in response to your comment about how you and your friends shot off gun fire at your wedding in ******* [your word, not mine] Oregon. Hmm....yeah. Because I'm sure that those people who fired the guns KNEW that the Army was around to shoot back. Perhaps it is a large custom over there, and much more important/common then it is here. Maybe they were drunk or something. Of course I wouldn't fire off a gun if I thought people would fire back. But, given the cirumstances its hard to assume, without the shadow of a reasonable doubt, that these people are innocent victims of a fatal mistake.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Actually, that was in reference to the idea that the Iraqi people should force out the insurgents themselves or get used to seeing their loved ones murdered.

Sure, just tell the local school teacher that he needs to drive all of the terrorists out of his country or we'll murder his daughter.

I mean why should he expect to be able to live his life or to not be killed if he's not fighting our war for us? What a jerk.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> Actually, that was in reference to the idea that the Iraqi people should force out the insurgents themselves or get used to seeing their loved ones murdered.
> 
> Sure, just tell the local school teacher that he needs to drive all of the terrorists out of his country or we'll murder his daughter.
> ...



Oh, that's because your either for us or against us....what a great idea. I guess Switzerland is screwed. 

Anyways,

its just like your either 

1.) For the War
2.) or Against the Troops

However, I tend to thing that I "support the troops" by wanting my friends to come home and out of harms way...

Whatever....


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Maybe 9/11 is telling us to stop supporting the nation of Islam in their problems against the Muslim world."


We're not supporting the nation of Islam; we're supporting the nation of Israel. And while I also have my doubts about why we are doing that, at the least you can admit that Israel is the only democracy in that part of the world. We have been a strong ally of Israel ever since it was founded. I don't think we should stop doing so just because we were attacked on 9/11.



> "We are effectively sticking ourselves into a place and situation where we don't belong."


Did we "belong" in Europe when we fought Hitler? Did we belong in Korea? Kosovo? Haiti? Somalia? We have sent our troops all over the world to help keep the peace and defend freedom. Most Iraqis are glad we kicked Saddam out. Many were disappointed that we didn't do it during the Gulf War of '91.



> "You cannot cite going to war with Iraq as a part of retaliation for the 9/11 attacks."


Of course you can. Saddam was one of the biggest supporters of terrorism in the world. He gave money to families of suicide bombers. He allowed Al Queda to build terrorist training camps in northern Iraq. He had communication with representatives of Al Queda several times. He exterminated millions of his own people with chemical weapons. He defied the U.N. and the world by refusing to allow weapons inspections. John Kerry himself said that Saddam was a grave threat, that he possessed WMD, and that he had to be dealt with. President Clinton and most of Congress believed the same thing. And don't forget, Congress overwhelmingly passed a resolution granting President Bush the power to use military action against Saddam. Our Congress had access to the same intelligence that the President did, and they ALL believed that Saddam was a dangerous threat. 



> "We went into IRAQ for the intent of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, all by ourselves."


You can tell a lie a million times, but that doesn't make it the truth. We had 46 different countries on our side when we liberated Iraq. That's hardly going "all by ourselves."



> "If other countries, such as superpowers Germany, China, Russia and France, which we totally dismissed, had wanted to go with us...effectively making it an international effort, I most likely would have been for the war."


Germany, China, Russia, and France are NOT superpowers. The U.S. is a superpower, and the only one in the world right now. France couldn't tie its own shoestrings if somebody else weren't helping them. Russia is a shadow of its former self, and much smaller than the former U.S.S.R. Germany has 10% unemployment and is desperately hoping we don't pull our military bases out of their country, thus making things even worse.



> "If there wasn't a pressing problem then why wouldn't other countries agree and go with it?"


That's easy. Mexico and Canada have not been targeted by terrorists. (Al Queda didn't fly those planes into some fancy hotel in Acapulco or Toronto.) France and Germany were doing big business with Saddam, and didn't want their flow of cash interrupted. As for the nations of the U.N. Security Council, they are all virulently anti-American, or haven't you noticed?



> "If our real intent was to free the other people, why wouldn't we also be making efforts (or even plans) for places such as Cuba or some places in Africa."


This is a specious argument. It intentionally oversimplifies the issue. We went to Iraq for a number of reasons. First, we felt that Saddam was a dangerous threat to us and to our allies. Second, Saddam ran a country in the heart of the Islamic world, which has taken a vow to destroy the United States. It only makes sense that we would focus on him, rather than, say, Fidel Castro, who wouldn't dare think of attacking us. Third, Saddam had been defying the world (i.e. the U.N.) for years. Fourth, he was a threat to Israel, as you have pointed out. Fifth, Saddam had massacred millions of his own people and destroyed much of the natural resources of Iraq. And so on. 

For a supposedly smart guy, you sure have trouble seeing the big picture.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Perfection</b>!
> Additionally, I'll bet my father knows how hard wars are fought and won. I mean he is only a retired Lt. Col. in the Army who was a Green Beret in Vietnam, taught Army Ranger training, and served in the Pentagon for many years. Maybe I'll go take a lesson from him to see how "hard wars" are won....like Vietnam.


Ok, get him on here and lets ask him what our chances are of obtaining our objective if we are more concerned for the life of innocent Iraqi's than we are for the life of our own troops. 

I think Talkhard covered the legitimacy of our objective.

Maybe you should go take a lesson from your father to see how "hard wars" are WON...unlike Vietnam where people like John Kerry worked to subvert the mission by formenting public opinion back home. 

I find it odd in these discussions that include posts about the death of innocent Iraqi's that strategic bombing in WWII never comes up. The allies flattened and burned cities at will in Germany and Japan with no regard for the toll of non-combatants. Does the Japanese hate the US for destroying two of their cities in a split second? Do Germans hate the British or us Americans for firebombing Dresden? 

What makes Iraq any different? 

Is it because the Nazi's had factories built too close to civilians? And we were more justified?

Is it that our current enemy fights a guerrilla style of warfare, hiding behind their own people, where as the supposedly much worse Nazi regime didn't because they cared for their own population more than the valiant freedom fighters in Iraq do? 

Maybe.

Or is it because we have people like Perfection and Ringbearer who try to make it different. Liberal attitudes in the Pentagon have given them an opportunity to see the graphic images and hear the stories nearly instantly. The internet and media allows them to network with people that feel the same way. People that think like them get press now. In WWII they got dismissed as anti-american crackpots.

There it is...that's the difference isn't it?

If the non-combatants allow the combatants to live amongst them they are allied and they endanger our troops. That's the bottom line. 

IMO your actions also ally you with them. For it's not a question of:

1.) Being for the war or
2.) against the troops.

It's a question of 

1.) Being for the troops or
2.) disseminating atitudes that endanger them.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Regardless...the latest response from the US forces there is QUITE strong 



> “How many people go to the middle of the desert 10 miles from the Syrian border to hold a wedding 80 miles from the nearest civilization?” Maj. Gen. James Mattis, commander of the 1st Marine Division, told reporters in Fallujah. “These were more than two dozen military-age males. Let’s not be naive.”


That is quite a strong response IMO from a US commander. Which leads one to believe that they were pretty confident insurgents were there. But like someone else stated awhile back in this thread, you cannot win against pictures of dead women and children.

The insurgents are using woman and children and holy sites for defensive cover. I think it is naive to believe that insurgents are not already doing this, they are well aware of it and actively doing it and to what SHOULD be equal dismay amongst americans and other people of the world, fully embrace it. It is sick and wrong, but understandable. 

Does anyone else find it ironic that a holy CLERIC, would use the countries most holy sites as a defensive cover for HIS OWN militia? and then blame the US for ANY damage to it? It is quite simple....use the media to inflame more Iraqi tempers against the US, it is really all they have left. A sign of desperation if I ever saw one. The problem is, it is working....



> Asked about witness testimony and footage of children killed or wounded, Mattis said: “I have not seen the pictures but bad things happen in wars. I don’t have to apologize for the conduct of my men.”


Wow...kind of a harsh response, maybe too much so IMO. He should have been a little more diplomatic about it. IF it was a tragic mistake then the US absolutely should admit fault & show contrition...but obviously he is very confident it was not...



> “During the operation, coalition forces came under hostile fire and close air support was provided,” it said. Afterward, “coalition forces on the ground recovered numerous weapons, 2 million Iraqi and Syrian dinar, foreign passports and a (satellite communications) radio.”


Not your typical "wedding gear"....But then again it is hard to know who is who in a country when seemingly EVERYONE has a gun.

Anyway, Whether or not the US was justified or made a mistake, the results are tragic. Either way, the US is on the losing end of this one.


----------



## RW#30 (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Perfection</b>!
> 
> Perhaps it is a large custom over there, and much more important/common then it is here. Maybe they were drunk or something. Of course I wouldn't fire off a gun if I thought people would fire back.


Oh yes, Holy Muslims. Drunken?
Stop feed us your BS to take your point of view. Also, There is a freakin war out there. They didn't know someone may shoot back. Give me a break. It is proven and documented this people use every trick in the book to kill or destroy everyone and everything if you do not share their view. (mixing with civilians,hospitals,religious building or holy places are not off limit. First ask yourself-Who are you defending? 

Any of them would do the samething to you as they did to Berg in a second giving the chance.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

It's really interesting. Check your local listings, the History channel and the discovery channel have been rerunning documentaries about Sadaam and his regime this week. 

On Tuesday night I watched a show titled "The Horrors of Hussein". Last night was a show titled "We Got him: The capture od Sadaam Hussein". After watching these shows there is no doubt in my mind that what the US is doing was appropriate and long overdue. I'll site a few examples.

Sadaam came into power as Iraqi President in 1979. At his election speech he read a list of his supporters and welcomed them to join him in the act of assasinating those who opposed his rule, the traitors he called them.

In the late 1980s (88 or 89) he issued a formal order (documented) to kill more than 100,000 Kurdish villagers. The action was carried out by dropping bombs loaded with mustard gas into civilian villages.

In the south of Iraq in the delta where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers meet there is the largest marshland in the World. Within that marshland is a "lost civilization" basically Iraqi peopl whose lifestyles have not changed in well over 1000 years, yes 1000. In the mid 1990s Sadaam issued a decree and had those marshes drained. Drained wetlands in a dessert region. He forced these people to become basically medern day peasants. In addition to destroying a natural environment, 40,000 people died as a resutl of this action.

Also he made a strong effort to eliminate Shiite Muslims in the south of Iraq. Any Kurd found was rounded up and assasinated. All of this stuff is true and there are official Iraqi Government documets detailing these orders and that they were carried out. The sad thing here is this is just the tip of the iceberg.

One of his methods of torture was to have the family of a man who was in question tortured raped and even killed in front of that man. In one incident that was mentioned a mans infant son was thrown headfirst into a stone wall cruchsing his head completely...an infant, a child who had no opinion.

Psychological proflilers and other people who are historians and studiers of social behavior, place Sadaam in the same category of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Sadaam has been hellbent on genocide but his genocide isn't limited to one group but any group that opposed him. He has zero concience whatsoever. He though he was the most powerful man in the world and felt he was above prosecution of his heinous war crimes.

The 2nd show also touched on the resistence by France, Germany and Russia to the invasion. All three countries had contracts with Iraq for Oil. In addidtion France and Russia had contracts wiht Iraq providing weapons and other military technology. France and Germany were owed a total of 40 billion dollars by Iraq. Of which they have now agreed to waive in order to help Iraq back on it's feet.

Now this is all stuff that was stated in both shows. None of it is my opinion, but it all has hard cold evidence to support it.

Here is my Opinion. Somebody was gonna have to be the fall guy and actually address the issue of Sadaam at some point. The list of attrocities he has commited as being a person of power date back to 1969. SOmeone was going to have to go in there and drag him out by force, anyone internalkly who even mentioned disdain for him was tortured or assasinated by the government. If Bush is not re-elected (I have little feel for this now) I will say that he has done the world a huge favor. Massive favor, he was willing to take the fall. Yes so far we have lost 700 troops, how many thousands of Iraqis will be saved now? 

I ask how can we as "humanitarians" sit here and argue about Social securty and welfare when people are being killed...no slaughtered by their own ruler? The same people who ask us to sponser a child for the cost of a cup of coffee a day ask us to ignore Iraq and let it be, it's not our problem. Tyrants like Sadaam can not be ignored, period.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "The same people who ask us to sponser a child for the cost of a cup of coffee a day ask us to ignore Iraq and let it be, it's not our problem."


Priceless! Great post, Schilly. 

In the same vein, have you noticed that none of the leading American feminists (Gloria Steinem, Patricia Ireland, etc.) have commented on the remarkable fact that George Bush essentially liberated some 25 million women in Afghanistan and Iraq? These women can now vote, work outside the home, and go to college. In one fell swoop, Dubya has done more for women's rights in the world than any of his recent predecessors.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Schilly-

You won't hear any argument from me that Saddam had to go. however, given all of our other priorities, most especially building a viable democracy in Afghanistan, I just don't think it was worth alienating most of the rest of the world in invading Iraq. 

Clinton-era sanctions really did eliminate the global threat Saddam presented. I just think it's a shame we didn't use economic pressure longer while simultaneously building a more international invasion coalition. 

As for those who point to the 46 nations in the coalition of the willing, only 6 of these nations have sent more than a hundred of their own soldiers. and that's counting Spain. Do a Google on the word "Coalition of the Willing" and it isn't pretty once you get beyond the White House press release.. 

Here's a good description of our coalition.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> Schilly-
> 
> You won't hear any argument from me that Saddam had to go. however, given all of our other priorities, most especially building a viable democracy in Afghanistan, I just don't think it was worth alienating most of the rest of the world in invading Iraq.
> ...


I agree with what you are saying Wank. I also think that too many of the countries had vested interest in Iraqs money to really commit. One thing I found interesting on one of the Documetnaires, was a group of attornies had compiled a massive list of War crimes commited by Sadaam. They have been trying since just after his movement in Kuwait to get the UN and individual countries including the U.S. to seek justice for those crimes. All countries ignored those charges including the United States. Why? Oil and Money for the most part.

I think the US doing something about Sadaam is late, but it was premature for Bush, from a poliotical standpoint. 

IMO 20 years from now we will all look back on Bush with a completely different perspective on what he has done.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "You won't hear any argument from me that Saddam had to go. however, given all of our other priorities, most especially building a viable democracy in Afghanistan, I just don't think it was worth alienating most of the rest of the world in invading Iraq."


The rest of the world has NOT been alienated from the U.S. I travelled through Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic in September of last year, and I heard nothing but positive remarks about America. When people learned I was from the U.S., they were very eager to talk about 9/11, New York, and the terrorist problem. A friend of mine was in Spain at the same time, and he also was greeted very warmly by people there. Most Europeans understand what we are up against, and why we are responding the way we are. This idea that the world is "alienated" from us is a fiction fabricated by the media that hates Bush and wants us to fail in Iraq. 

Even if some nations were alienated from us, big freaking deal. Do you actually think anyone will stop buying our goods and services, or letting their citizens visit the U.S.? No, business and tourism will go on as usual. People around the world respect and admire U.S. military might and economic prowess. We will always be looked to for leadership. Not to mention the fact that we lead the world in humanitarian relief during natural disasters around the world, and have helped many other countries with our troops, civil engineers, dieticians, scientists, and consultants. 

People who worry about our "reputation" around the world remind me of old ladies sitting on their front porch and wringing their hands about nothing.



> "Clinton-era sanctions really did eliminate the global threat Saddam presented."


Maybe, or maybe not. But that wasn't Schilly's point. All the atrocities he mentioned were committed against the Iraqi people, not foreign powers.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> 
> 
> If the non-combatants allow the combatants to live amongst them they are allied and they endanger our troops. That's the bottom line.


You have got to be the please don't go there. One of us mods might have missed an earlier post that had a comment like this (mainly because I'm not reading through all this crap) but that doesn't signify you can do it now.  most (deleted) I have seen posting. You remember this quote everytime one of your loved ones walk into a federal building because they know we are at war with terrorist and if they get blown up it their own fault.

People who try to rationalize our troops in Iraq are doing it out just to keep from admitting it was a mistake. Iraq's democracy is never going to work because the majority of the freaking country hates America's democratic ideals. A person as 'travelled' as you suggest you are would know this. Also it is not just in places like Cuba, North Korea and Iraq that America's policies are objected to...go to Italy, Germany, France and others of our supposed allies.

Also, if you think we are in Iraq because they supported terrorist financially, ask yourself why we are still allied with Saudia Arabia the biggest financial backers of terrorism in the world. I think you need to do some historical referencing on what alienating yourself from the rest of the world while at the same time becoming increasingly dependent upon others for resources will lead to...


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

TalkHard--

It's been about two year since I've been outside the US, but whenever I talk to my English in-laws they seem to say they and most of their friends have nothing but contempt for Blair and Bush. (their words, not mine). 

I remember reading a story about a mexican soccer game that seemed to get a little anti-american. of course, having lived in Mexicao for 5 months, I know how intense they can get when it comes to futbol....

I'm very curious to see how the Olympics go this summer. our basketball team has seemed pretty unpopular since the magical Dream Team of '92. It could wind up being a barometer for world opinion in a few months.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> 
> 
> You have got to be the I have seen posting. You remember this quote everytime one of your loved ones walk into a federal building because they know we are at war with terrorist and if they get blown up it their own fault.
> ...


Just out of curriosity what are you using as justification that it is a mistake?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> Most Europeans understand what we are up against, and why we are responding the way we are. This idea that the world is "alienated" from us is a fiction fabricated by the media that hates Bush and wants us to fail in Iraq.


Really? What polling info are you siting to gauge how most Europeans view our actions? How did the Spainish gov't that supported Bush's crusade do in their recent election? Was that landslide result a media fabrication?

Just to stir the pot further, here's a demo senator who _does't like_ George (btw... I'm not using the word hate because you and others have objected to it being attached to your feelings... curious that you use it in your projections of how others feel) 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/05/20/MNGK36OR7L1.DTL

STOMP


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> "It's a dangerous situation,'' Kerry said on his campaign plane earlier in the week. "You have to give the president some room to get things done, but if he doesn't do what he has to do ..."
> 
> Kerry did not finish the sentence.


This is my big problem with Kerry-he has no answers for anything.

It's easy and fahionable and even PC to be critical of Bush or anything...but when you can't come up with your own solutions-it is useless babble.

Kerry="talking horoscope"


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Unfortunately for the Iraqi People this whole operation is gonna get caught in American politics.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> It's easy and fahionable and even PC to be critical of Bush or anything...but when you can't come up with your own solutions-it is useless babble.


I'm sure Kerry (like just about every American) has his view of how the situation over there should be handled, but he's specifically not weighing in as he doesn't seem to feel it would help matters in the short term. I agree with him that if they were expressed now they wouldn't help our efforts to work towards solutions. A politician mastering the art of saying nothing is pretty much a job requirement and certainly not limited to him.

I'd guess he'll let his plans/ideas be known when it's closer to the election, and I'm sure that we'll weigh in on the merits of his ideas then... don't you think thats the more appropriate time?

STOMP


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> I'd guess he'll let his plans/ideas be known when it's closer to the election, and I'm sure that we'll weigh in on the merits of his ideas then... don't you think thats the more appropriate time?
> 
> STOMP


No-I do not . If he or anyone has CONSTRUCTIVE answers and they give a hoot about the Iraqi people as they say-then their political agendas should be damned and a solution sought.

My guess is that he is clueless. To me he is afraid to speak his mind (a merit I credit to President Bush). I don't always agree with him but he has the guts to say what he thinks. 

I can appreciate the art of politics but I appreciate more those that choose not to "play". I understand it goes both ways and politicians on all sides will do/say what they see fit to get themselves elected. 

My problem is that people are dying, OUR COUNTRY (you and me), OUR FUTURE is in danger and everyone is fussing instead of offerring solutions. My belief is that if Kerry, Pelosi, or anyone REALLY cared about what is happening in Iraq they would put their personal agendas aside and SPEAK the answers-what are they afraid of-someone else getting creidt for their ideas? Are they not public servants?

I believe Bush is trying. There is no way we can EVER know if we would have gone to Iraq under another president or not. There is no way we will ever know where we would be today had another person been in office. Hind sight is 20/20-looking back and guessing is USELESS. It is possible we would be in much worse shape now than we are. It is possible that Afghanistan and Iraq and more would be blown off the map. It is possible WE would be blown off the map. How can any of us ever know that?

We can not.

All we can do is go from here. I want to hear these men and women tell me how it can be handled better. Tell me why I should vote for you. Don't just sit there and complain about everything to me and expect me to think you can do any better. I can't know that unless you TELL ME! Convince me you can do better Mr. Kerry (or anyone)-so far you are blowing hot air.

*I should have added: in guessing how things would be if another person was president on 9/11-it is also possible that we would be living as "peacefully" as we were before. Again-we just can't know.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Hey ya'll, I just stopped by and say this thread and wanted to pitch my two cents in.

I've always been against the war. I think it was a foolish way to get us involved in basically another "cold war". We will never successfully defeat terrorism, so we created a war with no end.

Anyhow, what happened was tragic. It was awful. But, these things can and do happen in war times. Can you say that every civilian life was sacrosanct during WWII? Not a chance. We just didn't have news/media up our butts 24/7.

Civilian casualties happen and happen often. Women and children die. What's worse is that I think the only real way to end this war permanently is through reeducation camps ... like our "forefathers" did to the Indian children. We almost have to rip the children from their parents. We have to tear down their religious institutions, for they have the same power the European churches once had ... and they don't want to relinquish it. 

If that makes you squeemish ... it should. 

When the "pictures" from the prison emerged, I said that it would probably be some sort of order from high up. I said it would be some sort of a way to break the prisoners down. So far, it seems I might be right. And that doesn't make it bad! These things can and do happen ... and for good reason.

Comparing the real world to a war torn country is an attept in futility. That is why soldiers come home with real issues. They quite often can't adapt to normal society. It is a skewed existence. It is a mistake to hold the same candle we would use to investigate a SWAT accident.

For the record, I hate Bush as much now as I hated him when the war started. Would I vote for him? Yes, if only to keep the economy functioning. 

Play.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> 
> No-I do not . If he or anyone has CONSTRUCTIVE answers and they give a hoot about the Iraqi people as they say-then their political agendas should be damned and a solution sought.
> 
> ...


http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/

Here's Kerry's plan for success in Iraq. It's all there. No waffling. No hot air. No complaints. Just a solid plan on how he would do things differently and better.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/
> ...


But on the Bush Ad's they say Kerry doesn't have a plan and he just flip flops, he's also stinkin liberal along with 1/2 the population who are wrong on every issue. No wonder our country has so many problems damn liberals spreading their "ideas" and "plans". Bet thats not even a plan just what he says today to get elected tomorrow he'll say NO to Nato just like how he flip flopped on Vietnam.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> Here's Kerry's plan for success in Iraq. It's all there. No waffling. No hot air. No complaints. Just a solid plan on how he would do things differently and better.


How is this so different than the ideas and plans in place now? Especially in regards to Brahimi? He has been appointed by Bush to help with Iraq. Is he not being supported? 

Not arguing-asking.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

I think a big difference is the focus on getting the help of other world leaders in reforming Iraq...

Bush got himself into trouble by essentially putting the burden on the American people alone. He has burned a lot of bridges in the process.

It seems that maybe the only way for us to get ourselves out of this quagmire is to elect a new president who has a clean slate and can work with other foreign leaders to resolve the issue.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> I think a big difference is the focus on getting the help of other world leaders in reforming Iraq...
> 
> Bush got himself into trouble by essentially putting the burden on the American people alone. He has burned a lot of bridges in the process.


What other world leaders do we WANT helping us?

We've got Britain, and Japan is helping fund it.

The US, Britain, and Japan amounted to just about 50% of the total UN assessment for 2003-04, so if the UN is called in, those three countries will be paying for 50% of the bill, anyway.

As it is, the US is taking a PR hit and we're paying a price in human costs. Overall, though, I think continued US-led action is the best way to ensure that our goals are met and that we control what we pay for.

A lot of the countries and internationalists who were decrying the preference for reconstruction done by US firms are now calling for the US to hand over the whole country to the world. I'm not sure that their positions at either time are entirely valid, but they seem at minimum to be inconsistent.

Ed O.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> The US, Britain, and Japan amounted to just about 50% of the total UN assessment for 2003-04, so if the UN is called in, those three countries will be paying for 50% of the bill, anyway.


has the US paid their debts to the UN yet?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>el_Diablo</b>!
> 
> has the US paid their debts to the UN yet?


Yes. See this google-cached page:

http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cach...rg/priorities/Arrears.htm+UN+funding+US&hl=en[/url]



> On 30 September 2002, President Bush signed into law the Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, H.R. 1646. Since 1994 no such State Department Authorization Bill has been able to pass Congress, yet this year was different. In the words of Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), the U.S. took “a huge step toward normalizing our relationship with the United Nations” with the recent signing into law of H.R. 1646, because with its passage the United States has made the last of its U.N. arrears payments. With the release of this $244 million sum, representing the third and final arrears payment, the U.S. absolved its debt to the U.N.


Ed O.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

good.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>
> You remember this quote everytime one of your loved ones walk into a federal building because they know we are at war with terrorist and if they get blown up it their own fault.


Damn right I'll remember it Memphis X. You see our enemy doesn't have the same restrictions that we place on our soldiers. 

It's true they might be labeled terrorist and the majority of the world may denounce their actions but they don't face investigation, court martial or censure by their commanders for hitting civilian targets accidental or not. 

Nope...they get praise for killing civilians, in fact they would rather hit a civilian target than a military one. And it's for the same reason they would like the world to think we are attacking wedding parties. 

Besides...you took my post out of context. There is a major difference between walking into a federal building and going home to lay down with Johnny Jihad. Can you think of the difference? No? Here...let me help. 

THE PEOPLE OUR SOLDIERS ARE FIGHTING TAKE THEIR GUNS HOME TO THEIR FAMILIES, THEY BUILD BOMBS THERE, THEY SHOOT AT OUR SOLDIERS FROM THEIR HOMES AND/OR GO HIDE THERE AND THEN DENY WHO THEY ARE. THEIR FAMILIES KNOW WHO THEY ARE AND HIDE THEIR EXISTANCE.

It's quite a large difference. Or am I just all those things you said I was. Too bad for you I missed them.



> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>
> ask yourself why we are still allied with Saudia Arabia the biggest financial backers of terrorism in the world.


I can't support that at all. I also can't say I know how you stand...but ever notice the same people complaining about the war and say 'it's all about the oil' are the same people that pitch a big fit about new drilling and exploration? I'd like nothing more than to make the Saudi's water wells worth more than their oil wells again. That would be the ideal. 

I saw the posts about hybrids and electric cars and I applaud those people. You are pioneers. 



> I think you need to do some historical referencing on what alienating yourself from the rest of the world while at the same time becoming increasingly dependent upon others for resources will lead to...


 al·ien·ate
To cause to become unfriendly or hostile; estrange: alienate a friend; alienate potential supporters by taking extreme positions.

Is your 'historical reference' to Nazi Germany and WWII era Japan? Is that really how you see the US mission in Iraq? 

Any other 'historical reference' you can think of?


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

As far as alienating our friends go, consider all of the nations in the UN and NATO who we pretty much gave the middle finger to by going into Iraq without their support. And these aren't the small nations (like the ones that do support the war....by sending 25 troops). Rather, it is the likes of France, Germany, China, and Russia, who I belive are all permanent members of the UN Security Council. 

Just becasue America is the one current world superpower doesn't mean we should abuse hte fact.


However, regardless, I must say, that in reference to the stuff I talked about with hydrogen/electric power, I agree that one of the best ways of controling the middle east is to cut off their stranglehold of power. As long as the world depends on their oil output, which at this point it does, then they will continue to have a large amount of power in the world for no reason other then this. By taking this power away we make them play a bit more fair without doing the whole invading thing....or getting into the "special interest" arguements that could be made. 

So, yeah, I think it would have been good to get support of the UN for the war in Iraq. I would have supported it then. Also, the cost of the war would be distributed...and we would have more money in the budget for (take your pick) tax cuts, social security, medicare, and working on technologies such as the hydrogen fuel. 

So, I must say that I am against how we went about hte war in Iraq. I'm not saying that I liked Saddam in power (as Bush Sr. should have taken care of that), but at the same time I think we went about the whole situation inappropriatly. We did alienate our allied nations, and I think in thirty years from now the outcome of this war will be seen as causing more bad then necessary (assuming other actions had been made). 



Also, about America + Britain + Japan providing the funding for the war, it is easy to see that America has many (over 10x) as many troops in Iraq alone, then any other nation. Japan has 3,000 and Britain has 12,000. America is 130,000, without considering the support staff in Afghanistan, other neighboring countries, and on naval ships. The fact is that America is supporting the vast majority of the cost of this war....unnecessarily. 

Regardless, I'll stop now because I think everyone is polticized out by now...not to mention that this and a few other threads have all gotten OT and are essentially the same thing....Besides, this is a Blazer forum lol... and the lottery is in about 5 (ish) days.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

There is one angle to this that just needs to be said...

Russia, France, China, and Germany were/are against the invasion of Iraq...NOT due to their supposed "no-war" cries...a nice smoke screen...

They don't want to lose their business contracts with Sadaam. They have supplied Hussein with weapons/parts. Let's not forget that.

The US/Britain are being blamed for going into Iraq for oil....let's not forget why these others were against the removal of Sadaam.

I won't deny that money is a factor here-but it is not as simple as saying we are there for the oil. Simplified answers like this just don't cut it.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*AP: Video Shows Iraq Wedding Celebration*



> AP: Video Shows Iraq Wedding Celebration
> By SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI
> Associated Press Writer
> RAMADI, Iraq
> ...


http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/apmethods/apstory?urlfeed=D82P2SR80.xml


----------

