More troops?

America is now begging the U.N. to supply more troops for the sequel to Vietnam....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-04-iraq-troops_x.htm

Top U.S. commander in Iraq says he needs more troops
BAGHDAD (AP) — The top U.S. commander in Iraq said Thursday he needs more international forces to deal with potential security threats — but he and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld both emphasized that they do not see a need for more U.S. troops.

Top U.S. commander in Iraq, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, says more international troops would be welcome.
By Ahmad Al-Rubaye, AFP

Their comments came a day after Washington began pushing a new U.N. resolution aimed at persuading more nations to contribute troops. On Thursday, Russia gave its first signal that it could send peacekeepers to Iraq, and Britain said it was considering whether to increase its force levels.


France and Germany have already indicated that they are not interested.

Why is the U.S. military not sending their own troops to finish what it started?Perhaps they are finally realising that what they want to achieve is a fantasy.

Word has it that Bush wants out so he looks a bit more PC before his up-coming election campaign. Apparently we are sending more troops soon also.

Why is the U.S. military not sending their own troops to finish what it started?Perhaps they are finally realising that what they want to achieve is a fantasy.

Probably because they would rather see other countrie's troops dying (sp) needlessly instead of keeping sending their own troops to the slaughter for something they dreamt up in the first place.

New Iraq Funds Request Tests Lawmakers



By ALAN FRAM
Associated Press Writer

September 4, 2003, 11:28 PM EDT


WASHINGTON -- Louder cries to seek foreign help, bigger federal deficits at home and the approach of next year's elections could complicate Congress' work on President Bush's next request for billions for U.S. activities in Iraq.

The Bush administration is considering asking lawmakers for $60 billion to $70 billion for the costs of U.S. military operations in Iraq and for rebuilding the shattered country, lawmakers and congressional aides said this week.

Final decisions have not been made and the figures could change, but Bush could formally request the funds next week, said officials speaking on condition of anonymity.

"I have not yet decided on a number because I have yet to hear" from the Office of Management and Budget, Iraqi administrator Paul Bremer or the Pentagon, Bush said Thursday evening on CNBC.

Ultimately, everyone expects Bush to get most of what he seeks from the Republican-run House and Senate. Most members of both parties will be eager to show voters their backing for American troops and efforts to thwart terrorism.

Seeking to nail down such support, Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois and Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas used a weekly closed-door meeting of rank-and-file House Republicans on Thursday to stress that they will strongly back whatever money is needed, several Republicans said.

Both men likened the war on terrorism to World War II -- a battle that must be won -- and told fellow GOP lawmakers it was no time to be worried about the cost.

"We're committed to support him (Bush) in whatever has to be done to secure Iraq and Afghanistan, and to do everything possible to protect us against terrorism," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla.

But with U.S. soldiers getting killed and wounded every week and record federal deficits approaching $500 billion, a vote in favor of the president's request won't necessarily be a painless one for lawmakers.

That will be increasingly true as the November 2004 elections draw nearer.

"It's like your building is half built, and the contractor comes in and says that to finish the building and put the roof on, it's going to cost a lot more," said Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., a stalwart Bush supporter. "What's your choice? You've got to put the roof on."

Underscoring the issue's sensitivity, Republican sources said congressional GOP leaders urged Bush at the White House on Wednesday to seek enough money to cover military and rebuilding costs for several months -- rather than breaking the request into pieces and forcing Congress to confront the matter repeatedly.

The political landscape has changed since last March, when -- just days after the first bombs blasted Baghdad -- Bush asked for $75 billion for U.S. operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. With few major changes, Congress had a near-$80 billion version of that bill on Bush's desk in less than three weeks.

The most intensive phase of combat is now long over. But a near-daily diet of American casualties has disquieted lawmakers and the public and fed a growing call for increased help from other countries.

Bush recently began seeking approval for a U.N. resolution that would call on other nations to contribute troops and money for reconstruction of Iraq. The administration will also try to rally other countries in two meetings next month in Spain to contribute to the reconstruction.

"We feel it is an international responsibility and we are going to work very hard to get contributions, said Undersecretary of State Alan Larson.

But the administration's wooing of the United Nations and allied countries is still a work in progress. That could sow uncertainty among lawmakers over how many taxpayers' dollars need to be committed anew in Iraq.

In addition, federal deficits look far worse today than they did last spring. While in March the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected next year's shortfall at $200 billion, it estimated last week that the red ink would hit $480 billion -- excluding any added spending in Iraq.

Related to that is lingering bipartisan resentment over repeated remarks by Bush that to control deficits, Congress must stop overspending. Members of both parties find it inconsistent for Bush to call for spending restraint, and then request extra spending totaling tens of billions of dollars.

"Let's not on the one hand bemoan the deficits, then on the other hand demand more spending," House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, told his panel Thursday, without mentioning names. "Let's all try and control ourselves. Let's all acknowledge that we're not going to have any extra money for a while."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Good to see that Mr Bush is prepared to spend money as well as lives on getting himself re-elected.The smarter move would be to hand over the money and the command structure to the U.N.,AND PULL OUT.The Iraqis clearly want nothing to do with Georges intrusion,and the U.N. couldn't possibly foul it up any further than crusadin' Bush has done already.

It's time to admit that America is losing the war.

Good to see that Mr Bush is prepared to spend money as well as lives on getting himself re-elected.The smarter move would be to hand over the money and the command structure to the U.N.,AND PULL OUT.The Iraqis clearly want nothing to do with Georges intrusion,and the U.N. couldn't possibly foul it up any further than crusadin' Bush has done already.

It's time to admit that America is losing the war.

C'mon now Naki, you know Bush will never pull the troops out of Iraq, that would be admitting defeat wouldn't it, America would never admit defeat nor making a mistake

Most of the people I work with still won't admit that America lost the fight in Vietnam, to them it was a 'strategic withdrawel' :screwy:

It's all fine and dandy to criticize Amercia but who is Germany and France really hurting when they decide not to send troops. Think about, a few American soliders die every couple weeks but the people really getting terrorized are the innocent Iraqi citizens. Hundreds, maybe even thousands of Iraqis are dying and France and Germany are too stubborn to lend a helping hand. But then again, France wouldn't be much of help considering they drop dead at the slightest hint of heat.

WTF is the guy above me talking about?

I'm only going to say two things, thank God I live in Canada, and we don't look so pussy/spineless/what-have-you now do we?

We look pretty damn smart, and not to forget our dollar keeps going up. :D Sorry, I had to get that out, I knew Bush was talking out of his ass the whole time.

BTW the aniversary of Sept. 11th is coming up so don't bother watching American television for about a month, cause you know they won't let that go. :eek: Make sure you buy your t-shirt and hat too, because you know someone will be selling them. :2cents:

BTW the aniversary of Sept. 11th is coming up so don't bother watching American television for about a month, cause you know they won't let that go.


Im not sure, but are you poking fun at the anniversary of an event killed thousands of people? Because if you are, that's not cool whatsoever. We wont let it go because it's something that shouldnt be forgotten. "yeah, 2500 or more people died, but DAMN it was 2 YEARS ago, JEEZ, they should let it go, I mean COME ON, they just flew planes into towers that represent trade and prosperity, why on EARTH would anyone want to keep that in their head?!" :nono:

EDIT: For whoever read this and sent me a little message saying (and I quote) "how can you live with yourself you piece of shit!" WHat I said above was mocking what someone else said, Not mocking the anniversary of the event, just thought I would point that out in case someone doesnt read the entire post. :banghead:

I'm only going to say two things, thank God I live in Canada, and we don't look so pussy/spineless/what-have-you now do we?

Buddy, you live in Canada. Nuff said. The only reason you are a successful country is because of America. Now don't bite the hand that feeds you. :loser:

Oh God. Read up on Canada too, will you blindside.

Oh God. Read up on Canada too, will you blindside.

Please explain. I don't understand.

Please explain. I don't understand.

Of course you don't.Anyone who still believes that the world revolves around the White House must have a very limited understanding of world history and current affairs.

France and Germany are not hurting their own men,or innocent Iraqis,by poking their noses into a war based on lies.Bush is single-handedly trying to prolong the conflict ,while trying to drag more and more countries into his failed crusade in order to give it some legitimacy.Perhaps if you look at the costs,both in dollar and in human terms,and see how little has been achieved,you might just wake up to the fact that your leader is screwing you.

Of course you don't.Anyone who still believes that the world revolves around the White House must have a very limited understanding of world history and current affairs.

France and Germany are not hurting their own men,or innocent Iraqis,by poking their noses into a war based on lies.Bush is single-handedly trying to prolong the conflict ,while trying to drag more and more countries into his failed crusade in order to give it some legitimacy.Perhaps if you look at the costs,both in dollar and in human terms,and see how little has been achieved,you might just wake up to the fact that your leader is screwing you.

I guess you're right. Saddam Hussein should have control of the Middle East. :disappoin

I guess you're right. Saddam Hussein should have control of the Middle East. :disappoin

Yep,and he'd get it really easily with all of those WMD's just laying around,full of poison gas ansd nuclear warheads.... :rolleyes:

Face facts.George fucked about with something that had absolutely nothing to do with him,and you and every other American will be seriously out of pocket for years to come,achieving nothing except a humilliating withdrawal.Saddam?You can't find him.Bin Laden?Can't find him either.WMD's....nope,can't find them either.Way to run a war,guys,can't wait for the next round of bullshit claims under the banner of fighting terrorism..........

Yep,and he'd get it really easily with all of those WMD's just laying around,full of poison gas ansd nuclear warheads.... :rolleyes:

Face facts.George fucked about with something that had absolutely nothing to do with him,and you and every other American will be seriously out of pocket for years to come,achieving nothing except a humilliating withdrawal.Saddam?You can't find him.Bin Laden?Can't find him either.WMD's....nope,can't find them either.Way to run a war,guys,can't wait for the next round of bullshit claims under the banner of fighting terrorism..........

Very easy to say when your country doesn't really give a shit!!!

Very easy to say when your country doesn't really give a shit!!!

Well it would be,but for the fact that our forces are currently in Iraq,clearing mines,repairing bridges,working to restore essential services,and taking part in anti-terrorist patrols in the Gulf..

Please,bring some informed comment to the debate,or shut the fuck up.

Well it would be,but for the fact that our forces are currently in Iraq,clearing mines,repairing bridges,working to restore essential services,and taking part in anti-terrorist patrols in the Gulf..

Please,bring some informed comment to the debate,or shut the fuck up.

Well, my local new paper doesn't say anything about New Zealand troops being in Iraq. So what do we believe? Your newspaper? Or mine?

Hold up I think we're being a little unfair to the rest of us yanks....especially the troops(I being one myself). Look I don't think His Bushness maid the right choice, Lots of people were doubting the whole WMD (weapons of mass...). But when you see an entire Mig intact and fueled, being dug up out of the ground in the middle of nowhere you begin to think. Yes it was a pipe dream. Re-building a country after war is not easy....Right France and Germany!!?? Oh and by-the-way are we still harping on them about the last two world wars. And do you think France would have cared if someone went into Germany and took out Hitler before he Invaded? I think its real cute how they're holding hands and making a stand together. AWWWH!! Look Is this the first time a country has biffed a litle cough*cough* Crusades 8 Cough*
Do I run up and punch every Nihonjin I see, because of pearl harbor. If these other countries are so pissed about whats going on then grow a freakin spine and a set of nuts and get out there and do something. If you think you can do it better than do it! Quit complaining because its just like arguing on the internet right??

One more thing How come no one cares about the conflict in the Philippines just cause its not a full blown war doesn't mean its still not a problem nobody has said squat about the US sending us troops over there....ah I see the World only gives a damn about what's on CNN huh??

Hold up I think we're being a little unfair to the rest of us yanks....especially the troops(I being one myself). Look I don't think His Bushness maid the right choice, Lots of people were doubting the whole WMD (weapons of mass...). But when you see an entire Mig intact and fueled, being dug up out of the ground in the middle of nowhere you begin to think. Yes it was a pipe dream. Re-building a country after war is not easy....Right France and Germany!!?? Oh and by-the-way are we still harping on them about the last two world wars. And do you think France would have cared if someone went into Germany and took out Hitler before he Invaded? I think its real cute how they're holding hands and making a stand together. AWWWH!! Look Is this the first time a country has biffed a litle cough*cough* Crusades 8 Cough*
Do I run up and punch every Nihonjin I see, because of pearl harbor. If these other countries are so pissed about whats going on then grow a freakin spine and a set of nuts and get out there and do something. If you think you can do it better than do it! Quit complaining because its just like arguing on the internet right??

One more thing How come no one cares about the conflict in the Philippines just cause its not a full blown war doesn't mean its still not a problem nobody has said squat about the US sending us troops over there....ah I see the World only gives a damn about what's on CNN huh??

That's the point I was trying to get across. Just worded better. Also funny how the UN doesn't give a shit about the North Korean problem. But I guess they're holding true to their "not sticking noises in anyone elses business" attitude. Maybe they'll wake up when Paris gets blown up with a nuclear bomb. Maybe........

Well, my local new paper doesn't say anything about New Zealand troops being in Iraq. So what do we believe? Your newspaper? Or mine?

What makes you so convinced your newspaper would be telling any more truthful stories than Taranaki's?
Remember, newspapers are there to sell copies, if embelishing on the truth will sell them more copies, they will do so.
Try reading internet news sites, they are a lot more likely to be current, not to mention a lot closer to the truth than your local paper.


Think about, a few American soliders die every couple weeks but the people really getting terrorized are the innocent Iraqi citizens.

'A few American soldiers die every couple weeks' is a far cry from the truth, American soldiers are getting injured or dieing daily in Iraq right now - for what?
You're right though, the Iraqi citizens are getting terrorised, you just to mention by whom.


One more thing How come no one cares about the conflict in the Philippines just cause its not a full blown war doesn't mean its still not a problem nobody has said squat about the US sending us troops over there....ah I see the World only gives a damn about what's on CNN huh??

Personally, I am aware of what is going on in the Philipines, another place I don't know why the US has troops, it's a civil conflict isn't it?
American trying to police the world again?
Another situation where US lives are being put at risk unecessarily in my opinion.

There is a big difference between 'what's on CNN' and needless invasions, I don't pay attention to a lot of what is on CNN for the simple fact of the style of reporting, I do pay attention when a 'super-power' invades a third world country under false pretences.

A bit of little known information, I grew up in a third world country, one a lot better off than Iraq and have seen how unstable the infrastructure can be, the damage the USA has done in Iraq is not as easily undone as they would have you believe.
It will take years to rebuild what infrastructure there was in place, and even longer for them to start moving forward again in their development.

Personally, I am aware of what is going on in the Philipines, another place I don't know why the US has troops, it's a civil conflict isn't it?
American trying to police the world again?
Another situation where US lives are being put at risk unecessarily in my opinion.

There is a big difference between 'what's on CNN' and needless invasions, I don't pay attention to a lot of what is on CNN for the simple fact of the style of reporting, I do pay attention when a 'super-power' invades a third world country under false pretences.

A bit of little known information, I grew up in a third world country, one a lot better off than Iraq and have seen how unstable the infrastructure can be, the damage the USA has done in Iraq is not as easily undone as they would have you believe.
It will take years to rebuild what infrastructure there was in place, and even longer for them to start moving forward again in their development.[/QUOTE]


First off If you don't know why the US has gotten involved with a "civil" conflict....which it is not. Try asking the people of Basilan. Not to mention with all the donations of equipment, money and man hours the US has put into the PI, its a shame that people like you pass it off as policing the world. I think it would be nice if other countries got involved more with global issues and "conflicts" Instead of crying about the whales or global warming. And if helping another country out is considered false pretences then what do you call doing nothing at all.....Heroic??? It must be nice to just be able to stick your head in the dirt and watch the world. One more note if someone came by and rebuilt your house after rebels burned it to the ground would you tell them to piss off and stop policing the world. Look I dont care what newspaper you read or if you get your info on line.....I don't think you have the right to say anything unless you've seen what's happened first hand.....Thank you.

First off If you don't know why the US has gotten involved with a "civil" conflict....which it is not. Try asking the people of Basilan. Not to mention with all the donations of equipment, money and man hours the US has put into the PI, its a shame that people like you pass it off as policing the world. I think it would be nice if other countries got involved more with global issues and "conflicts" Instead of crying about the whales or global warming. And if helping another country out is considered false pretences then what do you call doing nothing at all.....Heroic??? It must be nice to just be able to stick your head in the dirt and watch the world. One more note if someone came by and rebuilt your house after rebels burned it to the ground would you tell them to piss off and stop policing the world. Look I dont care what newspaper you read or if you get your info on line.....I don't think you have the right to say anything unless you've seen what's happened first hand.....Thank you.

I find it amusing that you take to personally attacking me even though you know nothing about me.
You may be in the Philipines helping rebuild, but you already admitted you are there because you're in the armed forces, seems to me you didn't volunteer to be there, you were sent there under orders.
Stop patting yourself on your back so hard before you wind yourself.

I already mentioned I lived in a third world country, I didn't realise I had to send you my full biography and resume to meet with your approval.
So, since it must be so, here you go:
I have spent time working with volunteer youth groups working in poverty stricken areas and rural areas, we spent time repairing schools, digging pit toilets and helping develop infrastructure for better living conditions. Note, it was voluntary, we were not sent there and we were not paid to be there, we supplied what we needed to get the job done!
There was no foreign aide involved, it was community based.

I have seen a lot more first hand than you probably care to know, until you know a LOT more about me, I think you should desist with the personal attacks, I did not attack you and have only defended myself, please show some dignity, respect and restraint instead of being ruled by emotion.

Thank you.

More troups does not equal the answer says the UN.
I don't see why they should help the UK and the US its their mess but on another hand if they start calling people up all i can say is I will not fight for some stupid air heads that want to be remembered as hero's because they're desperate to get into the history books or become president of the EU. Screw Tony Blair and screw George Bush.

Vietnam II is an appropriate title.

Well, my local new paper doesn't say anything about New Zealand troops being in Iraq. So what do we believe? Your newspaper? Or mine?

Well, from what I've heard from other AFers living in the states, US newspapers don't know or give a fuck about what happens outside the borders of the US Empire....

Well, my local new paper doesn't say anything about New Zealand troops being in Iraq. So what do we believe? Your newspaper? Or mine?

If you get all your information on world affairs from one newspaper,it's little wonder that you are so poorly informed.Suggest you pull your head out of your ass and take a good look at the big wide world instead of just swallowing the first news report that you see as the absolute gospel.

If you get all your information on world affairs from one newspaper,it's little wonder that you are so poorly informed.Suggest you pull your head out of your ass and take a good look at the big wide world instead of just swallowing the first news report that you see as the absolute gospel.

Well, ok. Point taken. Where do you get your world news from? I would love some web pages to look at so I can become informed.

Well, ok. Point taken. Where do you get your world news from? I would love some web pages to look at so I can become informed.

Always a good place to start:

http://news.google.com/

Or you could just use google.com itself to find other news sites, there are plenty out there that are worth scrutinising.

Im not sure, but are you poking fun at the anniversary of an event killed thousands of people? Because if you are, that's not cool whatsoever. We wont let it go because it's something that shouldnt be forgotten. "yeah, 2500 or more people died, but DAMN it was 2 YEARS ago, JEEZ, they should let it go, I mean COME ON, they just flew planes into towers that represent trade and prosperity, why on EARTH would anyone want to keep that in their head?!" :nono:

No, all I'm saying is that the American media only portrays fear in anything they do.

Killer Bees anyone???? Watch "Bowling for Columbine". And see the differences between American life/media, and Canadian.

Yes I know it was a tragedy what happened but I also know that the only reason WHY the US media runs this is because it attracts numbers, nothing else.

BTW I'm sorry if you were offended by that as it was not my intention, I should have worded it differently as I know it is a touchy subject.

Killer Bees anyone???? Watch "Bowling for Columbine". And see the differences between American life/media, and Canadian.

If you want me to take you seriously and then run around using "bowling for Columbine" as an 'example' of real life in America, you must be joking.

That's like me saying 'Danger Bay' is what life in Canada is like :screwy:

Danger Bay IS what Canada is like though........you see all of those green things in the background? Those are trees! :) And we have tons of them.

But SERIOUSLY, do a test then, watch CNN for one night, and then the next night watch CBC. Notice the differences. It's not like it isn't true about the whole "fear" ideal put out by the Us media. What do I see when I look at American news? Either a robbery, burglary, theft, arson, you name it, and that's usually commited by a black male, six foot tall.

What do I see when I watch Canadian news? Peter Mansbridge talking about peace treaties, the Kyoto accord, the Softwood lumber trade, and more shit like that. Also we can usually report all the murders for the day on the news........why you ask? Because there was maybe FIVE! :)

Well, ok. Point taken. Where do you get your world news from? I would love some web pages to look at so I can become informed.


http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/
www.cnn.com
http://news.google.co.nz/

my local news...
http://stuff.co.nz/stuff/dailynews/0,2106,0a6002,00.html

:smile:

Why is the U.S. military not sending their own troops to finish what it started?Perhaps they are finally realising that what they want to achieve is a fantasy.

Much of the problem is the previous administration effectively dismantled the CIA which has caused severe breakdown in intell, as demonstrated by putting faith in the falsely doctored British dossier. Clinton believed in a make believe world where everyone will just make nice with one another. It mattered not to him how many Embassy's were blown up or naval ships got bombed. The minute he took office terrorist new he was soft on defense and would never take any prudent action upon such attacks.

He cut government employment by 13%, and guess what, that wasn't in State Dept., it wasn't the Postal Service or any other civilian type department, it was all military. So that's where we are today, trying to make up for 8 years of geopolitical denial. In spite of that we have made a lot of progress in Iraq in light of terrorist streaming across boarders to keep things unsettled, the Iraqi people going mad after the fall of Sadam's regime, which we have captured 60% of, and tearing electrical wiring out of buildings to sell so they could eat, because that bastard starved everyone. That further damaged an infrastructure that had been neglected for 30 years of his reign. Who knew they would do that?

In light of that, and who knows what else has gone on, a government is being formed there of their people, legal courts have been opened, commerce is free flowing and a police force has been trained. There is still a long way to go, no counrty has gotten organised in 6 months or a year. The people do want us there, the soldiers that report back to thier families etc. are very positive and are happy to work with the Iraqi's because they also want to help themselves. Yet, all you hear on the 'news' is how many are dying and any other negative thing they can dredge up.

If we have to relinquish any power to the UN, we should just continue to go it alone, we have the troops for this but not if another conflict arises simulationously, thanks to Clinton. To back out and let the UN handle it would be equal to it's buddy Saddam back in power and continue to let the crazies run the asylum. They have never handled any conflict with success. Kofi himself talked of a multinational force after the Iraqi building got bombed, I think he realizes now that whoever is involved with bringing any kind of democracy and legitimacy to that region is going to get their ass blown up, including the UN.

So France who are desperately trying, and desperately failing, to be a country of importance, and Germany who's capitol is apparently Paris, France, think they have leverage now to sway the UN to let them have some control. I hope Bush doesn't bend to that, the pressure needs to be kept on the thug organisations once and for all because what we're dealing with can't be negotiated with, only exterminated. Look back at history, it can't be changed.

Bush doesn't need to stick his finger in the air to see which way the world opinion, or the opinion of his own country is blowing. If you are leading, you are making your decisions in the face of opposition and staying your course and goals. He said he would chase and not relent, so if he is a real leader, he will keep as much control of the situation as possible.

If the UN took over, I shutter to think of the chaos that would ensue, the corruption and chrime would explode exponentially in Iraq and the whole region, we must stay there to keep things in check. The UN, France and Germany violated all sanctions leading up to this with underhanded deals with their buddy Saddam, they don't deserve a vote in what happens there now.

The countries that are most willing to help NATO efforts are the ones who still well remember living under tyrrants like Saddam, it isn't the old members like France, Germany, Belgium etc. anyway.

Summary as they appear in veyron's post.

Blame the Clinton Administration,the Brits,the terrorists,the Iraqi people,Saddam,the UN,France,Germany,and Belgium for good measure.

As long as George can coninue to kill his own troops without taking any blame.


Veyrons reply is typical of the head-up-his-own ass Republican,when faced with a fact that he can't handle,viz,that George Bush is actively seeking support for his failed crusade from the U.N.,he tries to twist the facts to belittle the very countries that Chicken George is now begging to bail him out of the mess that he has worsened by invading Iraq in the face of UN advice.

I'd personally say,fuck off Bush,it's your shitpile,you sit in it.But then the people of Iraq deserve better than the oil-driven priorites of a failing Republican puppet President,bought and paid for by the business community.

Still,he won't be President for much longer.His ratings are falling so fast that if Gary Coleman misses out on California,he could still have a shot at the White House.

I'd personally say,fuck off Bush,it's your shitpile,you sit in it.But then the people of Iraq deserve better than the oil-driven priorites of a failing Republican puppet President,bought and paid for by the business community.

Now that's something I pretty much agree with. Bush is embarassing every American by doing exactly what he stated we didn't need to do: ask for help from the UN. However that simply means the Iraqi people have to deal with half hearted efforts to really improve their lives, so at this point whoever can lend help has a bit of a moral dillema to deal with. Ultimately the plight of the people should weigh in much more heavily than throwing mud in America's face, even though Bush basically just came out and asked for it.

I find it amusing that you take to personally attacking me even though you know nothing about me.
You may be in the Philipines helping rebuild, but you already admitted you are there because you're in the armed forces, seems to me you didn't volunteer to be there, you were sent there under orders.
Stop patting yourself on your back so hard before you wind yourself.


First off I'll start by saying I'm sorry If you took that as a personal attack. I wasn't trying to single you out in any way. In no way was I trying to glorify what I have been doing or what any member of the armed forces have been doing. But do try to keep in mind that we 'did' volunteer for this reguardless of when we did. I myself did so twice. It is a choice all of those in the military make for what ever reason. There is no draft,...thank god. Its just that there are some good things happening and they often go un noticed. The one thing I've seen, is that everyone posting here seems to disagree with the next guy. Can't change that, there's no need to. Thats the best part of having an opinion, is not having to change it. The only point that I did want to make is that I do agree with many of the others in that you can't just believe one source of news. Where ever it comes from. I still believe the best way to get the real story is to see it first hand. I'm still gonna stand by my own, regardless of how stupid we must look. Ever country gets bashed for something every now and then I guess its just our turn.
Perhaps we need a flame the yanks forum!?? :cwm27:

I've been gone for a few days so I'll work my way into this conversation one step at a time.

First of all - going to the UN with anything is a mistake. They are the most fucked up organization that the world has ever seen. Whatever they do is doomed to failure. I've always asked for someone to provide a list of success stories that they have had. It amounts to a few words at best of dubious quality.

I see nothing wrong with asking other countries to take part in Iraq. I don’t think it should the through the UN (unlimited numbskulls).

As a follow up summary to T’s “Blame the Clinton Administration,the Brits,the terrorists,the Iraqi people,Saddam,the UN,France,Germany,and Belgium for good measure. As long as George can coninue to kill his own troops without taking any blame.”

Blah blah fuck Bush. blah blah Satan. blah blah killing babies and drinking their blood. blah blah. blah blah the UN is so wonderful and France, Germany and Belgium can do no wrong. Same shit – different day.

Summary as they appear in veyron's post.

Blame the Clinton Administration,the Brits,the terrorists,the Iraqi people,Saddam,the UN,France,Germany,and Belgium for good measure.

As long as George can coninue to kill his own troops without taking any blame.


Veyrons reply is typical of the head-up-his-own ass Republican,when faced with a fact that he can't handle,viz,that George Bush is actively seeking support for his failed crusade from the U.N.,he tries to twist the facts to belittle the very countries that Chicken George is now begging to bail him out of the mess that he has worsened by invading Iraq in the face of UN advice.

I'd personally say,fuck off Bush,it's your shitpile,you sit in it.But then the people of Iraq deserve better than the oil-driven priorites of a failing Republican puppet President,bought and paid for by the business community.

Still,he won't be President for much longer.His ratings are falling so fast that if Gary Coleman misses out on California,he could still have a shot at the White House.

Mostly I blame Bin Ladin for building and putting into action a terrorist army which prime purpose was to lead to no good, and destined to be extinguished. How could that be Bush's fault.

Saddam has no one but himself to blame, it wasn't our fault he was defiant to the end. And now that sympathetic murdering terrorists are streaming across the boarders to kill coalition troops in Iraq, only proves Saddam's connection to the said terrorist.

I Blame Clinton for weakening our defense system and showing weakness by not seriously responding to several attacks. If you don't think these thugs are perceptive enough to realize that we became an easy target, watch a tape of 9/11, they were practically invited.

Bush isn't begging for anything, we had to go in without a full UN blessing on the back end after 12 years of stagnation, although one of the earliest resolutions gave us full authority to use force. And we had plenty of countries participating in the coalition from the beginning, now that we're in the midst of the mission and making much progress, other nations see our resolve and the good in it. In light of this, there is no harm in asking for more participation because in the end, everyone will benefit.

By the way, check the crankcase of your car, I bet it has OIL in it. Also check into what is lubricating the machinery at the cheese factory, I bet it's a petroleum product too! The plastic that the keyboard is made of, in which you type your venomous words on, is also a CRUDE OIL byproduct. Well I'll be damned, we're not the only country that uses OIL!

Maybe if Gary doesn't make it to the White House, he can come down and drive the tractor for your leader.

Bush isn't begging for anything, we had to go in without a full UN blessing on the back end after 12 years of stagnation, although one of the earliest resolutions gave us full authority to use force. And we had plenty of countries participating in the coalition from the beginning, now that we're in the midst of the mission and making much progress, other nations see our resolve and the good in it. In light of this, there is no harm in asking for more participation because in the end, everyone will benefit.

By the way, check the crankcase of your car, I bet it has OIL in it. Also check into what is lubricating the machinery at the cheese factory, I bet it's a petroleum product too! The plastic that the keyboard is made of, in which you type your venomous words on, is also a CRUDE OIL byproduct. Well I'll be damned, we're not the only country that uses OIL!

Maybe if Gary doesn't make it to the White House, he can come down and drive the tractor for your leader.

LOL...nice idea with Gary Colman....but our leader doesn't drive the tractor,that's my local rep,a retarded cow-shagger from the NZ equivalent of the Republicans.

Your point on oil....we buy it at market rates,we don't invade counties and set up our mates in business with a tame government.

France and Germany didn't take part in your land grab because they saw it as totally reprehensible to fly in the face of international law and democracy.Bush had no authority to act unilaterally,and the fact that the Poms and the Aussies lacked the spine to refuse says more about their reliance on trade deals than their sense of justice.Now that Bush is finding the going tougher than expected,he's putting himself up on national T.V. trying to cover his own ass on what was an idealist but ridiculous crusade.If he was half a politician,he would have learn that you cannot suppress religious fanatics single handed.

Bush has kicked a hornets' nest,now he wants us all to get stung?Yeah right,no thanks George.

Good to see you back Yogs,got anything to say that might be construed as an argument?

LOL...nice idea with Gary Colman....but our leader doesn't drive the tractor,that's my local rep,a retarded cow-shagger from the NZ equivalent of the Republicans.

Your point on oil....we buy it at market rates,we don't invade counties and set up our mates in business with a tame government.

France and Germany didn't take part in your land grab because they saw it as totally reprehensible to fly in the face of international law and democracy.

Hmm Well as pure and selfless as France and Germany are I think there might have been other motives out there. Notice in the past five years or so France has been slowly backing out against the embargo on Iraq.
But why? Perhaps to allow Iraq to prosper? Considering one of the terms would be that their funds raised through the sales of oil and other products(sand?) would be monitored through an outside bank...it seems safe. What about the millions owed to France and Russia for past arms deals to Iraq....wha?? Even in '98 you might remember that a few Frenchie firms were intersted in developing Iraqi oil fields.. ahhh I C. Some of the terms in a desolved imbargo might be to allow Paris to come in and exploit some untapped resources in order to reduce Iraqs debt. Really why bother doing it by way of force when you can con your way into some black gold? France even stated years ago that the production of chem and bio weapons weren't an issue...why well they could be so easily mass produced and hidden with out a trace. Also the embargo was out dated any ways...Lets make a deal! But of course they want to preserve world peace!! Also before when I mentioned activities in asia, PI korea blah blah...Now no one seems to care about just yet.... They will and guess why... OIL there it is again. I'm sorry but the US is the only country out there interested in the good stuff.
Have you heard of the Spratly islands in southeast asia near by Malaysia? One of the largest untapped oil resourses in the world. Currently owned by Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Interesting huh? Do you think China might be interested in that? What about N. Korea? Just some Crued Food for thought.

This one about sums it up.....

http://a799.g.akamai.net/3/799/388/31452ad08fd665/www.msnbc.com/comics/editorial/tmwha030905.gif

Sometimes others say it best.


"France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by prostitutes."
—Mark Twain

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me."
—General George S. Patton

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."
—Norman Schwartzkopf

"We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it."
—Marge Simpson

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure"
—Jacques Chirac, President of France

:nono: Easy there racingbreed - remember that the French cannot be wrong. Its been proven time and time again in these threads. So don't be insulting them or proving that they are as selfish and arrogant as anyone. Thats MY job :iceslolan

sorry but the french president does have a point but i think he meant that War only brings losers,

I'm looking at it a different way.

We let US and the UK go in and do their thing because we believed (which was stupid) that Iraq had WMD's
Second they killed alot of innocent people.
Third they got quite a few of themselves killed including killing each other in accidents
They keep getting attacked
The Iraqi dossier has been proved to be a UK Government bunch of shit to scare people to go into war.
Bush may blame England but he probably knew how much a bunch of shit it was and would've gone along with it if he knew anyway.

Pack of Lies + Death of innocent people and our soldiers + no WMD's = FAILURE oops Jacques was right.

We let US and the UK go in and do their thing because we believed (which was stupid) that Iraq had WMD's


We believed? Maybe YOU believed but I sure as hell didn't.

I maintained since the first day that it was make believe, everyone is on about how terrible Saddam was and what an evil tyrant he was, but surely had he had WMD's he would have used them?
I mean, if he was as evil as everyone says then he would have gotten great joy out of launching a few WMD's on coalition troops?

WeI maintained since the first day that it was make believe, everyone is on about how terrible Saddam was and what an evil tyrant he was, but surely had he had WMD's he would have used them?
I mean, if he was as evil as everyone says then he would have gotten great joy out of launching a few WMD's on coalition troops?


1) He almost certainly didn't break out the WMD's the first go around, why not? He's thus far only shown the willingness to use WMD's against his own people and his neighbors, but we KNOW he had lots of them back during Desert Storm.

2) If everyone was so sure he didn't have WMD's, why in the hell didn't any one of the many nations that've served on the security council since 1991 ever put to a vote lifting the sanctions invoked against Iraq? If this is so cut and dry, how come nobody ever did anything about it?

3) So how non-evil is this guy again freakray? Could you please outline all the good things he's done for Iraq or anyone else over his tenure as "president"?

1) He almost certainly didn't break out the WMD's the first go around, why not? He's thus far only shown the willingness to use WMD's against his own people and his neighbors, but we KNOW he had lots of them back during Desert Storm.

2) If everyone was so sure he didn't have WMD's, why in the hell didn't any one of the many nations that've served on the security council since 1991 ever put to a vote lifting the sanctions invoked against Iraq? If this is so cut and dry, how come nobody ever did anything about it?

3) So how non-evil is this guy again freakray? Could you please outline all the good things he's done for Iraq or anyone else over his tenure as "president"?

I never said he is non-evil (is than an Americanism?) nor did I say he did anything good for Iraq (much like Mad Bob Mugabe hasn't done anything good for Zimbabwe which does bear relevance in this case).

Seriously, look at this in perspective, you say he had WMD's, we all know he didn't love America and was even declared a threat to America, so when America sent troops over there, why wouldn't he use WMD's against the country he disliked?

Security council? You mean that UN sanctioned body?
Were'nt the French part of that council too?
Come on, do you think they were about to do anything about him?

And if you're going to quote me, don't edit the quote to change what I said :disappoin

:nono: Easy there racingbreed - remember that the French cannot be wrong. Its been proven time and time again in these threads. So don't be insulting them or proving that they are as selfish and arrogant as anyone. Thats MY job :iceslolan

We're not asking France for anything now anyway, no troops nor do we have a tin cup out, we just want them to sign on so troops from countries like India can be despatched. In effect they holding up any additional multinational participation at this point.

We're not asking France for anything now anyway, no troops nor do we have a tin cup out, we just want them to sign on so troops from countries like India can be despatched. In effect they holding up any additional multinational participation at this point.

What they are doing are looking out for their own interests. I see nothing wrong with that, but I find it amusing how people think they are doing it under some pretext of actually caring about what happens to the Iraqis.

But I do agree with you for the most part.

I never said he is non-evil (is than an Americanism?) nor did I say he did anything good for Iraq (much like Mad Bob Mugabe hasn't done anything good for Zimbabwe which does bear relevance in this case).

Seriously, look at this in perspective, you say he had WMD's, we all know he didn't love America and was even declared a threat to America, so when America sent troops over there, why wouldn't he use WMD's against the country he disliked?

Security council? You mean that UN sanctioned body?
Were'nt the French part of that council too?
Come on, do you think they were about to do anything about him?


First off I didn't edit what you said, I removed a useless part of the post as it pertained only to your response to someone else, JUST LIKE YOU DID IN THE POST IMMEDIATELY BEFORE MINE. Goddamn, sometimes I feel like I need to put on the hipwaders before venturing into the depths of hypocrisy people show in this forum :screwy:.

Look, I already stated the WMD argument is bunk in another thread. It's not the avenue anyone should have approached Iraq with, my statements to you were to show the situation is not as cut and dry as you'd like. This is not a case of the super evil Hussein having WMD's he wants to use to destroy the world, nor is it that the super greedy western world just invents any excuse possible to drill for Iraqi oil or shoot up some Arabs. The WMD case is not cut and dry, which is why none of the 30 or more countries seem to have ever put lifting the sanctions to a vote. Ignore every other council member past and present other than France in your example if you like, but you are not facing the truth of what's occured. Nobody stepped up for poor little unarmed Iraq because nobody was sure Iraq had disarmed.

Lastly though, why do you think you can understand someone like Hussein? Are you someone who also sees any logic in invading two of your neihboring countries when you know that you probably can't win the first war and will certainly be booted out of the second by a multitude of world forces? Do you see the logic in using WMD's on your own citizens, or filling up mass graves now and again? Do you see any logic in not being forthright with the UN the first go-around and telling them about all the WMD's you posess and destroying them as they ask, rather than suffer 12 years of sanctions? If you can't apply much logic to his decision making concerning the rest of this situation, why then is it so easy to assume he'd have uses something he may or may not have had against us?

Ps- That last paragraph is rhetorical questioning, don't bother responding. I don't care about the WMD situation insofar as it pertains to Iraq's rebuilding effort, but it is interesting how people seem to champion Hussein as a logical or reasonable person when they know the opposite is true.

We was a generalisation i didn't mean to offend you since you seem to take great offense in the fact that other people believed in the government. I mean isn't that what you're supposed to do?

Well my attitude has since changed and since seeing his palaces with gold bathrooms and lavish furnishings. I believe that Sadamn probably sold any WMD's and its in his best interest not to launch them against the UK or US.

Sure he hated the US but that doesn't mean he'd launch a pointless crusade against them. It seems highly irrational and illogical. Not to mention the US were the Aggressors.

The US invaded Iraq for what? Just to get rid of Sadamn? Bush Senior could have done that along time ago. The US were responsible for him being in power in the first place.

Going to War was the wrong course of action and the French were probably right.

First off I didn't edit what you said, I removed a useless part of the post as it pertained only to your response to someone else, JUST LIKE YOU DID IN THE POST IMMEDIATELY BEFORE MINE. Goddamn, sometimes I feel like I need to put on the hipwaders before venturing into the depths of hypocrisy people show in this forum :screwy:.

I don't care about the WMD situation insofar as it pertains to Iraq's rebuilding effort, but it is interesting how people seem to champion Hussein as a logical or reasonable person when they know the opposite is true.


See, I edited too. :biggrin: Only because I will respond to the first and last part of your post.

Actually, my reference to your editing my post was about how you managed to change it from 'I' to 'We', this may have been inadvertant and I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that. That is also the reason I made only a passing reference to it as opposed to making a huge noise about it.

As for Hussein being logical and reasonable, about as much so as Mad-Bob Mugabe which I already made reference to.

Forgive me if it seemed like I was defending Saddam, that was not my intention at all, I was trying to pose the argument from a different perspective which I evidently failed hopelessly at and instead got myself called a hypocrit.

All-in-all my stance remains on this current situation, as badly as Hussein needed disposing of as soon as was possible for the sake of the Iraqi people and possibly the rest of the World, I think it is wrong that young American men are losing their lives for this.

Either way, sorry if I offended.


We was a generalisation i didn't mean to offend you since you seem to take great offense in the fact that other people believed in the government. I mean isn't that what you're supposed to do?

Yes you should believe in the government.
Should you follow them blindly down any road they choose to take?
Definitely not!
I don't know if it is a case of offended or just disappointed, I like to think people can think for themselves but I see so many being led around blindly it is sad.

We are all individuals and we all have the ability to think and formulate opinions, we should not allow ourselves to be mislead.

If the government says you must sell all your possessions and give the money to the government, won't you ask why?

Right you are! We should be able to form our own opinion.

What I was wondering though is that there are a lot of people who think the US did this whole thing wrong, right?
Many are Flaming bush for what is going on now.......

So if everybody can point out what has gone wrong if you could can you tell me what should have happened.....what should the UN and or the US have done??

Many are Flaming bush for what is going on now.......

So if everybody can point out what has gone wrong if you could can you tell me what should have happened.....what should the UN and or the US have done??


What has gone wrong,is going wrong,and will continue to go wrong is that innocent civilians are being killed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


by HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer

FALLUJAH, Iraq - Angry mourners swarmed this central Iraqi city Saturday, firing into the air, attacking journalists and cursing the American occupation as they followed the flag-draped coffins of eight Iraqi police killed in a friendly fire incident involving U.S. troops.

The U.S. military apologized Saturday for the shooting that killed nine people — the eight Iraqis and a Jordanian guard — and badly damaged a hospital. U.S. troops only opened fire after they were attacked "by unknown forces," the military said.


But the explanation did not defuse the anger washing over Fallujah, a city of 200,000 in Iraq (news - web sites)'s most troubled region. The shooting was the worst case of friendly fire since major hostilities in Iraq were declared over May 1, and it served to intensify talk here of the heavy-handedness of American troops.


"We have had enough of the Americans killing us and then just saying 'Oh, sorry!'" said Salam Mohammed, 60, a Fallujah resident and a relative of some of the victims.


"We want the Americans to leave our country because they have brought us only death," said Taleb Hameed, a 30-year-old schoolteacher. "We are fed up with their apologies. We will continue our resistance."


On Saturday afternoon, the eight coffins were carried into a mosque for religious rites before they were given to family members for burial. Outside, gunshots erupted throughout Fallujah as mourners fired into the air. Some in the crowd chanted: "There is no God but Allah, and America is the enemy of Allah."


In an ominous message, Fawzi Namiq, the mosque's imam, said through loudspeakers: "Save your bullets for the chests of the enemy."


In the streets, angry residents roughed up reporters who came to witness the ceremony. A clergyman grabbed one armed man and prevented him from shooting at a departing Associated Press Television News car as it sped from the city. A CNN cameraman was beaten and an Associated Press photographer was hit in the face.


The U.S. military issued an apology for the shooting and said an investigation had begun. However, military spokesman Lt. Col. George Krivo said the Americans only fired after they were "attacked from a truck by unknown forces."


"Coalition forces," he said, "immediately returned fire and the subsequent engagement lasted approximately three hours. Regrettably during the incident extensive damage was done to the (Jordanian) hospital and several security personnel were killed, including eight Iraqis and one Jordanian national."


The military, he said, wished "to express our deepest regret for this incident to the families who have lost loved ones and express our sincerest condolences."


Meanwhile, Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) arrived in Kuwait early Sunday, ahead of a trip to Iraq, where he will become the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit the country since the war.


Powell has said the huge U.S. investment in Iraq in lives and money would be at risk if a transfer of authority from American control to Iraqi control took place too soon.


"You have to have a government that is not only there with the doors open, but has to be functioning. ... in a way that people will have confidence in it. The worst thing one can do is to set them up for failure," Powell said earlier.


The shootout began in the early-morning hours Friday as several Iraqi police vehicles approached a U.S. checkpoint near the Jordanian military hospital here.


Iraqi policemen who survived recounted from their hospital beds Saturday how they begged the American soldiers to stop shooting, screaming in Arabic and English that they were police. The Americans kept firing volley after volley, they said. The fusillade raged for a half hour as more men died and others groaned in pain from their wounds, they said.




At the Fallujah General Hospital, policeman Alaa Hashem, 22, recounted how the bodies of two colleagues fell on him, something he said may have saved his life.





Hashem was in a pickup truck with 10 other policemen when their headquarters radioed them. They were ordered to provide backup to policemen traveling in another pickup and a sedan. The two vehicles were pursuing a white BMW suspected of involvement in robberies on the road between Baghdad and the Jordanian border.

"The BMW got away before we could join the chase," said Hashem, who sustained injuries to his left thigh and back. "When the two cars turned around to head back to Fallujah, we joined them and we led the way back when we suddenly came under fire."

Hashem said he heard the Americans shout "stop!" but his car veered off the road. For the next 30 minutes, he said, the Americans kept firing at the total of 25 policemen in the three vehicles.

"We shouted and shouted that we are from the police, but they kept firing from all directions. It was like an ambush," he said.

Another injured policeman, Assem Mohammed, 23, gave an account that corroborated Hashem's story except he did not recall hearing the Americans shout "stop."

"We carry out our duty and that's what we get?" said Mohammed, who was shot in his right leg.

Relations between Fallujah's residents and U.S. forces in the area have been on a knife's edge since shortly after the city was captured in April. Friday's killings were certain to inflame smoldering hatred of the American occupation.

For the rest of Iraq, the incident was likely to stoke resentment of U.S. troops already seen by some as trigger-happy.

Fallujah is part of the so-called Sunni triangle — a vast swath of land astride the Tigris and the Euphrates west and north of Baghdad — where the mainly Sunni Muslim population gave deposed dictator Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) his strongest base of support during his 23-year rule.

U.S. troops in the city came under almost daily attack for two months after a late April incident when soldiers opened fire on protesters, killing 18 and wounding 78. The Americans said they were fired at first.

The Americans pulled out of their permanent positions in the city in mid-July, leaving the local police in charge of security. The move dramatically reduced the number of attacks inside the city, but resentment of the Americans continued to simmer.

U.S. troops who had been directing reconstruction and other projects from the Fallujah mayor's office in the heart of the city were not there Saturday. Police at the mayor's office said the Americans' absence was understandable given Friday's events.

Nearby, a black banner was strung across the front of the one-story headquarters of the Fallujah Protection Force, a 100-man, U.S.-trained force to which the eight dead policemen belonged. The banner carried the names of the eight and declared: "The Fallujah Protection Force mourns the martyrdom of its members who have been killed at the hands of American forces."


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is impossible for American troops to win the trust and respect of the Iraqi people all the time that they treat every person in Iraq as a terrorist.So called 'friendly fire' incidents are,in fact,MURDERS.The people responsible for this kind of fuck-up should be court-martialled.If a Marine were to open fire with a heavy callibre machine gun in Times Square,and later argue,"hey,I thought someone was shooting at me...",would that be any less acceptable than if he did so in Tikrit?


Or is it o.k. to shoot civilians,as long as they are 'sand niggers'?

Yes you should believe in the government.
Should you follow them blindly down any road they choose to take?
Definitely not!
I don't know if it is a case of offended or just disappointed, I like to think people can think for themselves but I see so many being led around blindly it is sad.

We are all individuals and we all have the ability to think and formulate opinions, we should not allow ourselves to be mislead.

If the government says you must sell all your possessions and give the money to the government, won't you ask why?

I'm sorry but the iraqi dossier was the answer to the question why. And now that its been proved complete and utter horse shit. Then why should i believe in the government at all?

The labour government in England and done nothing to benefit anyone. More Taxes more spin more rubbish.

The whole cabinet is comprised of hate and war mongers.

It is impossible for American troops to win the trust and respect of the Iraqi people all the time that they treat every person in Iraq as a terrorist.So called 'friendly fire' incidents are,in fact,MURDERS.The people responsible for this kind of fuck-up should be court-martialled.If a Marine were to open fire with a heavy callibre machine gun in Times Square,and later argue,"hey,I thought someone was shooting at me...",would that be any less acceptable than if he did so in Tikrit?


Or is it o.k. to shoot civilians,as long as they are 'sand niggers'?

In my opinion, this is the kind of post that doesn't belong in this forum. It's unsubstantiated and inflammatory, and does nothing to further healthy discussion on the matter at hand. All this does is create argument and posturing among people with differing opinions; it gets us nowhere.

I'd like to hear how you could support the claim that the American military is treating everyone in Iraq as a terrorist. 200,000+ American troops could lay waste to a city like Fallujah and it's people, yet you supply the killing of 9 people in an as yet unsorted situation as evidence of this? Please.

I'd like to hear how you support that friendly fire accidents are in fact murder. Murder (noun): The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. The whole concept of friendly fire is that two groups of people who are in fact fighting on the same side come to believe the other is the enemy, and as such do exactly what they are supposed to. This is certainly tragic, unfortunate and in a perfect world would never happen, but to call it murder is simply untrue. In fact the Iraqi accounts presented in your article do not even substantiate this as a "friendly fire" accident, but as an execution. If this is the case, it doesn't support your conclusion. If not, it still doesn't support your conclusion. Either way, let us all hope reason prevails and if anyone is found guilty for causing this loss of life, they be brought swiftly to justice.

And of course it's not OK to shoot civilians, I dare say nobody in this forum would condone the murder of innocents. It's terrorists who specifically target civilians. What kind of question is that if not to simply entice argument?


Ps- You are a very intelligent person and a good debater, and you've changed my opinion more than once on subjects we've both weighed in on. I value getting an alternative point of view from someone like you, so why resort to this style of argument?

And of course it's not OK to shoot civilians, I dare say nobody in this forum would condone the murder of innocents. It's terrorists who specifically target civilians. What kind of question is that if not to simply entice argument?


Ps- You are a very intelligent person and a good debater, and you've changed my opinion more than once on subjects we've both weighed in on. I value getting an alternative point of view from someone like you, so why resort to this style of argument?

I'm more than happy for anyone to step forward and argue the case for continued American presence in Iraq.So far,this invasion has failed to meet its objectives at every level.Saddam is still at large,Osama is still at large,the WMD's were never going to be found and the idea that Uncle Sam could impose democracy is a sick joke.Bush has breached every international standard during his term in office,and achieved nothing.Except a lot of dead civilians,and a few unfortunate 'detainees'.

I read in this mornings Daily Mail (cough) that the US has had plenty of opportunities to catch Osama Bin Laden but just when the green berets were about to get him. HQ wouldn't give the go ahead. They also said that its better for everyone to thing that Osama is still alive so that they can continue on the war on terrorism campaign.

Seems like horse shit to me because the cells would probably start acting independently if he was dead and we'd see more attacks.

I'm more than happy for anyone to step forward and argue the case for continued American presence in Iraq.So far,this invasion has failed to meet its objectives at every level.Saddam is still at large,Osama is still at large,the WMD's were never going to be found and the idea that Uncle Sam could impose democracy is a sick joke.Bush has breached every international standard during his term in office,and achieved nothing.Except a lot of dead civilians,and a few unfortunate 'detainees'.

Here's s couple of reasons, from the Iraqi's, not me.



* Iraqis are optimistic. Seven out of ten say they expect both their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32 percent say things will become MUCH better.

* Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on, after being offered five possibilities—neighbor and fellow Baathist republic Syria, neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia, neighbor and Islamist republic Iran, Arab lodestar Egypt, or the U.S.—the most popular model by far was the U.S. The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37 percent of Iraqis selecting from those five—more than neighboring Syria plus neighboring Iran plus Egypt, all put together. Saudi Arabia was in second place at 28 percent.

Again, there were important demographic splits. Younger adults are especially favorable toward the U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis. Interestingly, Iraqi Shiites, who are co-religionists with Iranians, do not admire Iran’s Islamist government; the U.S. is six times more popular with them as a model for governance.

* And, finally, you can write off the possibility of a Baath revival. We asked “Should Baath Party leaders who committed crimes in the past be punished, or should past actions be put behind us?” A thoroughly disgusted and unforgiving Iraqi public stated by 74% to 18% that Saddam’s henchmen should be punished.

Evidence of the comparative gentleness of this war can be seen in our poll. Less than 30 percent of our sample of Iraqis knew or heard of anyone killed in the spring fighting. Meanwhile, fully HALF knew some family member, neighbor, or friend who had been killed by Iraqi security forces during the years Saddam held power.

Perhaps the ultimate indication of how comfortable Iraqis are with America’s aims in their region came when we asked how long they would like to see American and British forces remain in their country: Six months? One year? Two years or more? Two thirds of those with an opinion urged that the coalition troops should stick around for at least another year or more.

Evidence of the comparative gentleness of this war can be seen in our poll. Less than 30 percent of our sample of Iraqis knew or heard of anyone killed in the spring fighting. Meanwhile, fully HALF knew some family member, neighbor, or friend who had been killed by Iraqi security forces during the years Saddam held power.



You are comparing years of Saddam's rule to weeks of the American occupation.I'd be very disturbed if George Bush and co had achieved as much damage in a few short weeks as Saddam did during his term as leader.If America is to achieve its stated objective of Westernising Iraq and eliminating all potential terror groups,,US troops will be in Iraq permanently.If you truly believe that the US treats foreign nationals in an open,democratic and just manner,I challenge you to argue the case for detaining foregners without trial indefinitely,in breach of the Geneva Convention,at Guantanamo bay.I've posted a link to comments made by Rumsfeld in this forum,but curiously,not one single Bush supporter has posted in the thread yet.Are they perhaps all ashamed of this outrageous behaviour in the name of peace?They should be.

I'm not comparing, Iraqi's are comparing, what they think trumps anything I think.

Rumsfeld may not be right in ordering this to be done, but this war is unlike any other, so adjustments will have to be made across the board in geopolitics IMO. I may be wrong too, still studying as this thing progresses, with that said, we should consult NATO or who ever needs to have a say in this matter, if he hasn't already.