More war crimes in Iraq

[Cbass]

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

By fellow Iraqis under the banner of a murderous cleric who justifies near genocide in the name of a peaceful religion.

I see some glaring mistakes in what you have said... First of all, justifying near genocide? He's fighting a war against a numerically superior and better armed occupying power, how does that count as genocide?

Also, he is fighting the war in the name of Iraq, and removing the US from HIS country.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

You seem to have the fundamental misconception that you can talk to these people. They have no political agenda, they tossed that when they tossed grenades into aid stations. Sadrs militia and Islamic terrorists as a whole will keep on killing until they are killed because they have no other purpose.

I think it's quite clear they have a political agenda, you'd have to be blind not to see it... Getting the US Army out of their country, and removing the American installed and backed puppet gov't.

It's funny that you say that though, because they weren't killing under Husseins reign, or even for the first few months of US occupation... It looks to me like they only started killing when it became apparent that the US is there to stay.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

Whatever your opinion, there is war going on. That means people are going to die. On both sides. If you think for one second that the standard operating procedure is to flyby and drop a 2000 pounder where ever the hell it feels like landing then you must be the happiest person in the world, atleast if you believe ingnorance is bliss.

Oh, so when the US kills Iraqi civilians, it's collateral damage, shit happens, ya know... But when the resistance sets off a bomb which kills civilians in an attempt to attack the US Army or the American installed and supported puppet gov't, it's murder... That's a rather vicious double standard.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

More to the point, modern bombs are ridiculously accurate. How do we know this? Because out of thousands of bombs dropped, the entire world hears about the two that went too far to left. Accuracy: North of 99%. Now how else would you engage an enemy in a populated area? These terrorist have to be stopped, that means they have to be killed, that means it has to happen somehow. Perhaps you would like to go in yourself and flush them out on foot. I'm sure you'll have a nice funeral.

However accurate the guidance systems may be, and they are not THAT accurate, and they are only as accurate as the intel that determines the target. We've already seen how shocking inaccurate US intel is these days, so I'd stop touting the virtues of "precision weapons". Also, when those same "precision weapons" are used to target water and power infrastructure, pharmaceutical plants, hell, even a red cross building, as they were all throughout the 90s, the effects are horrendous. Lack of clean water, lack of power, lack of medicine, all due to the US under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Don't go touting the virtues of "precision weapons" when they're already responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, indirectly.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

Schools and oil depots are really such great threats to Islam, aren't they? Well maybe the school is a threat to this form of Islam, these clerics thrive on the ignorance of the uneducated public.

Just like how the US gov't thrives upon the ignorance of many of it's citizens to drum up support for it's foreign policy decisions. Muslims place a much stronger emphasis on faith than most Christians do. I don't mean to offend anyone, but their religion demands it, and it is often the most important thing in their lives.

You'll note under Hussein, until the sanctions were enforced, Iraq had an excellent education system, a model for the region... Turns out that a lot of those oil dollars were reinvested in the people of Iraqm in the form of social spending, as they are in other oil rich Arab nations.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

And yet you miss the fact that those people usually are saying something along the lines of: Lets kill all these people over here because I want to make sure my new chemical weapons will work.

I think you're having a hard time keeping your rhetoric and propaganda sorted out... Allegedly it was Hussein who used chemical weapons, although there is increasing support for the theory that it was in fact Iran. Sadr is not Hussein, as much as you would like him to be. Like Hussein however, he had nothing to do with September 11th.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

Well this is just moronic. Length of time the world has been witness to Islamic attacks on just about everyone? Decades. It took September 11th to finally convince enough people that these groups presented a threat to the world and America specifically. Trying to elminate this threat really does consitute the next Crusade doesn't it?

Islamic attacks? What the hell are you talking about? You'll find that the vast majority of these terrorist actions have political and military roots, not religious ones, with the exception of course of in Israel, where the IDF has been practicing terrorism with religious cause for decades.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

If anyone who can not see the difference between a measured and restrained campaign targeting those who would kill for no reason and a guy walking into a market place with a bomb and an AK, please have them turn in there genitals, they have no need to procreate

If you can't see the reason why these people do what they do, you should turn in yours as well.

Terrorism the last act of a desperate oppressed people, when they have no other way of fighting back. The way to fight terrorism, as was learned in South Africa, and Ireland, is to deal with the root cause. Killing people and creating a police state does nothing but gather support for the terrorists from among the population.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

You know whats a fact? Thousands of Kurds gassed to death because Saddam wanted to make sure his new toys worked before using them on Iran. How is being yellow by the way?

Actually, that's not a fact, that's a claim, and it's disputed. By the way, those innocent Kurds were actually well organized terrorists, using terrorist tactics to try to gain autonomy. Just ask the Turks about them, or the Iranians.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

Don't let Bushes jumpsuit act throw you off, its the pilot with his thumb on the trigger. And that pilot is very good at what he does. If there were bombs landing in housing developements causing huge casualties, there is too many people in Iraq that the world would not hear of it. I can safely say that the Iraq war is probably has had the least number of friendly fire and civilian deaths of any war ever. You can't lose sight of the fact that in war people will die, deserving or not. The US takes extreme measures to prevent unneeded deaths.

Oh, like randomly opening fire on cars at checkpoints, bombing weddings, using multi ton bunker busters on public air raid shelters, need I go on?

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

Right after you explain how wanting to be free translates into using a religious shrine as a bunker and strapping bombs on kids to go blow themselves up when ever they see something that doesn't have "Death to Everyone" written on it, i.e.: Red Cross tents, UN jeeps, Iraqi police stations, market places, you know the really dangerous things in life. All the while doing it in the name of a peaceful religion.

Actually, in the name of Iraq, a sovereign nation which has been stolen by a foreign imperial power.

Show me an instance of insurgents rigging children with bombs, please. This is exactly the short of bullshit the Israelis use to justify what they do, and it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. "Death to everyone"? Do you actually believe this shit?

It's common sense to use a revered shrine as a bunker, because no matter what happens, the US is going to lose face in the deal. If they back off, they'll be shown as weak, the insurgents will gain morale, and recruits. If the US attacks, then they infuriate the entire Arab world, not just Iraqis. The best they can hope for is to force a standoff and wait them out.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

And perhaps you would like to talk with the intelligence members of the rest of the the world that had come to the same conclusion. Even the Germans aggreed that Iraq had WMD. And let us not forget that Saddam had been hiding them and destroying them before they could be found for over a decade. Not to mention the fact that Iraq is almost entirely a giant desert, into which just about anything can dissappear. And thats before you take into account the months of dicking around with red tape that had to be overcome before the obviously impending war got started.

Actually, the intel AT THE TIME OF THE WAR was that there were accounting errors and inconsistencies regarding the biological and chemical weapons stockpiles of Iraq. The inspectors were there to sort it out. Besides the fact, those weapons have a limited shelf life, and all of those that were unaccounted for would have long since expired and become ineffective. The Germans never agreed that Iraq had WMD at the time of the war, they agreed that Iraq had them more than a decade previously. So why don't you find something that says Schroeder said that Iraq had WMD?

Again the desert theory. Interesting thing is, the US possesses the most sophisticated surveillance and geographical survey satellites in the word. Using ground penetrating radar, they can find a steel 5 gallon bucket under 50 feet of sand. So if there really are any chemical and biological weapons buried somewhere in the desert, they would have found them in a matter of days, if not hours. The US invested considerable time and money in sending teams combing all over Iraq, and turned up NOTHING. The leader of the team publicly stated that there are NO WMD in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

Yes, lets thrust about blindly in the dark, as you accuse Bush of doing. Pretty much this is how is works: Iraq will determine US policy and world policy for the next 10-15 years. Bush has to make Iraq work. Just about everything he is and his is administration is depends on it. But this takes time.

It will most likely cost him the election this time around. If it doesn't, and he somehow wins, or postpones the election, god help us all... If the American public lets him get away with this, what the hell is he going to pull with another 4 years in office?

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

And despite what you want hear, things are getting better in most of the country. What, did anyone actually think that this was going to be nice and clean and done when the actually ground war ended? Did anyone actually think that any amount of anything could convince all some 6 billion people to agree that Saddam and the Taliban were a threat the world? Does anyone actually think there is some perfect happy sernario to any situation like this?

Things are getting better in some ways, but they are in no way anything close to living conditions prior to the Gulf War, and they likely never will be. The profits which should be going to the Iraqi people will mostly find their way into the pockets of American oil companies.

Nobody thought this would be nice and clean, in fact it's turned out better than many expected, myself included. That being said, it's a clusterfuck. That's why many, myself included, thought this war was a bad idea. You'll note however, if you pay attention to my posts about a year and half ago, I more than once stated I supported the war for economic reasons. The US economy needed this war badly. Of course, the US economy didn't need a $130 billion and climbing bill for the war, but that's what you get when you let LBJ mkII take the country to war.

The reason why it is impossible to convince the world Iraq was a threat would be that noboby in the world would take that claim seriously. Everyone knew that Iraq would not invade it's neighbours, because there would be severe repercussions. The only issue, aside from the countless absolute bullshit claims that Georgie made for the cameras, such as trans-atlantic UAV attack drones armed with chemical weapons , were the WMD. When it became apparent none were going to show up to justify the action, the US and Britain invaded.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

Did Bush lie. Undoubtly, to what degree is arguable. Does every politican, and human for that matter, lie. Wow, same answer. I don't really like Bush, I don't like how many mistakes hes made.

You get my respect for admitting that, although now you'll have ticked off the republicans as well as the anti-war guys here.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

I do like that someone finally said, Enough of this shit, we're going to stop these people. Because, frankly, Iraq and Afghanistan were long over due. For too long these groups and dictators around the world have been allowed to do whatever the hell they please just because it wouldn't be politically correct to get involved or civilians would get hurt. You know how many mass graves they are finding in Iraq? If genocide doesn't justify war, what will?

Iraq and Afghanistan are two very distinctly different countries. Afghanistan was a mistake, there is nothing that can be done in that country, IMO. Clusterfuck. Every imperial power has tried their hand there, and every one has been beaten and sent packing.

As dictators go, Hussein was not that bad. He supressed a couple of rebellions, which were encouraged, supported and even funded by the US, and he spat in Americas face. Allegedly he gassed the Kurds. Even if he did, it was in response to Kurdish terrorism employed in their uprising. Ask a few Americans if how they feel about gassing terrorists, especially if there is no other effective way to get at them.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

And removing Saddam from power is obviously such a huge step back in terms of human rights. God forbid someone starts removing these blemishes of humanity. Positive result from unpure movitvation = negative result? I hardly think so.

Well, when you consider that the guy they replaced him with is by many accounts just as brutal...

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

As for the ridiculous assumption that Saddam would have used WMD against US troops, now you're taking Bush's side. Break it down:

Saddam launches 100 scuds at US forces loaded with some funky shit.
\/
95 Scuds are intercepted and destroyed
\/
Minimal casualties among the highly prepared US forces (and you bet your ass they were).
\/
Massive civilian casualties among the Iraqi populace
\/
Bush is utterly vindicated and the US defeats Saddams military anyway. The world rejoices and Bush goes to DisneyLand.

Nice bit of speculation there, but you're forgetting a few things. For one, what are they going to stop those missiles with, Patriots? Not likely. You would have a bolstered Iraqi army, confident that their weapons would destroy the Americans. Then you have a very demoralized US Army, having to live in chemical hazard suits day in and day out. No matter how well trained you are, the threat of chemical and biological weapons being deployed against you will SCARE you. This is probably why Bush kept claiming Iraq was going to attack America. It would have significantly affected the ground war.

The US retaliates with MOABs, nukes, etc... And provokes massive international outrage. This could very well lead to an international boycott of the US, among prominent powers in the UN, Russia, China, etc.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

Or

Saddam didn't have/got rid of/sold on Ebay all of his funky shit.
\/
US finds nothing after defeating Saddams military anyway.
\/
Bush looks stupid

Saddam didn't stay alive for decades as a murderous dictator (which brings many job hazards) because he was stupid.

Or maybe, the US came up with a bullshit excuse to go to war, and no longer has any international credibility.

Either way, it's all academic, we can sit around and discuss "what could have happened", but it won't change anything we'd just be blowing a lot of hot air.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

So hes a genocidial, depraved religion-warping cleric with experience. Thats much better. I'm sure that looks good on a resume.

Point out an instance of genocide please, or perhaps explain how he is depraved?

I'll point out an instance of genocide... A few of them actually, there's the use of depleted uranium, leading to horrific birth defects, increasing the instance of cancer by 2000%...

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml

Or how about the systematic destruction of Iraqs water purification infrastructure, and pharmaceutical industry? That alone is responsible for deaths in the hundreds of thousands. THAT is genocide.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

Makes me wonder if you have any grasp on the real world. And if being used means making billions off oil revenues, then I'm sure there is many countries willing to sign up for that. And lets see...that would be since the Iraqi government took power a few months ago. A government made up of the Iraqi people with the interests of the Iraqi people in mind. A government made possible and setup by the US. The way you tell it, it would seem the Iraqis did it all themselves and US is just there target shooting.

Oh really, why don't you throw some hard numbers and me, about where those dollars are actually getting. How much are major US oil companies paying per barrel crude? IIRC, the going rate is $48, but I'm confident that they're somehow paying less than that. I'm also confident that the lions share of that profit is going to end up in American, not in Iraq.

A government made up of the Iraqi people? Please, you have got to be kidding me. The Iraqi Governing Council is made up of rich Iraqi dissidents with corporate and political connections in the US. That's why they were selected, they weren't chosen from within Iraq. They represent the interests of the US, not of the Iraqi people.

Are you aware of how democracy comes about? It's not forced down your throat with a gun, it takes popular support. The people have to move for democracy, the people have to want democracy, and in almost every instance, the people have to rise up and overcome oppression to win their freedom. If you've been paying attention, that's exactly what the insurgents are doing. The Iraqi people are not going to swallow a government handed to them by the US, with candidates hand picked by the US. To believe their will is just naive.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

Ah yes of course, why not just leave. Probably because Iraq would dive into a smoldering pit of anarchy the likes of which the world rarely sees. How many innocents would be dead right now if Saddam was still in power?

In case you haven't noticed, Iraq is a smoldering pit of anarchy already, and it's just going to intensify. Why don't you quantify exactly how many people died because of Hussein, where, when, and why? From what you're saying, he was a butcher who killed indiscriminately, so I'd like to see your sources.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

Or the Taliban in Afghanistan? How many more would die if no one did a damn thing about these people who believe the surest way to setup your afterlife retirement palace is to take everyone in a 30 yard radius with you?

I'm not sure what your point is... The Taliban are just the same warlords who have always ruled Afghanistan, they're just getting progressively more extreme. In case you haven't heard lately, they're back, and the US has been for all intensive purposes run out of the country.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

War is war, people will die, innocent and guilty. But this problem has been allowed to grow to the point of having no other choice. No longer can terrorist groups using mass murder as a political tool be allowed to exist. "US bomb kills two in Najaf. Good lord, world tragedy. Iran executes another 200 students. Well atleast they weren't killed by us." That what you getting at?

Now your claims are becoming outrageous. Please, Iran does not execute students, and certainly not hundreds of innocents. Iran executes criminals, particularly smugglers who use Iran as a route to smuggle heroin and hashish to the coast. Iran may have some very hardcore fundamentalist laws, which I do not agree with, but they're nowhere as bad as you claim. I work with an Iranian, he is a dissident who left the country because he does not agree with the current theocracy, as he is a moderate muslim. He is one of the kindest and most friendly people I have ever met, so please don't go spouting off bullshit anti-muslim propaganda.

When a USAF bomb kills innocent people, it should damn well spark outrage, as the US is occupying the country, and any civilians that die because of it are the direct responsibility of the administration and congress.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

You seem to think there is a way this could have been settled without anyone dying. If so I'd like to hear it. As far as "unjust", this war has fought and defeated a legacy of tyranny, oppression and murder. If you wouldn't stand against that what would you stand for? If you won't fight genocide, what will you fight? Where will you finally intervene? What does the body count have to be at for you to do anything? A 1000? 100,000? 1,000,000? Or do you just not give a damn?

Considering the death toll of Iraqi civilians from US and British actions between 1990 and 2004 in Iraq is easily a hundred times than what Husseins regime was responsible for, your repeated claims of genocide pale in comparison.

I think a way to resolve this issue without more people dying would have been to let the inspectors verify the WMD issue, at which point the economic restrictions could have been lifted, and Iraq could have resumed trade, and could have afforded to elevate the standard of living for it's people... Maybe investing a couple billion in cleaning up the radioactive wastelands left from the Gulf War? We already know the US military won't go that far, since they won't even admit there is a problem, as it would cost too much face.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

Yes, blowing up an Iraqi police station or the UN HQ is truly furthering their cause. Beheading people and posting it on the internet really is just good publicity isn't it? The interm goverment of Iraq is inviting these people to be a part of their system. Sadr's followers have refused. Why? Because they have no political motivation, they just want to kill. Their power to create change would be in the Iraqi government, a government they are trying to tear down.

Wow, you sure demonstrate a firm grasp of the political situation in Iraq! Of course blowing up a police station or any symbol of foreign power furthers their cause, they are attempting to get foreign powers out of their country, and the includes the government they have now, which is to all intensive purposes, an American government.

Sadr refuses to join the interim gov't because he doesn't recognize it as a legitimate gov't. Neither do I. Neither do a great deal of Iraqis. Your claim that they simply want to kill is outlandish. Don't you think that perhaps they would have been killing all along, during the Hussein years?

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

And how many have been saved by close air support just in these two campaigns? Hundreds? Perhaps thousands? You like most people seem to have no sense of proportion, viewing absolutely nothing but the immediate result. People die in war. All sides from all causes. The US campaign in the last few years has certainly been one of the easiest on friendly fire and civilian deaths.

The Canadian soldiers in question were engaged in a training exercise in the desert, hundreds of kilometers from any action. An Air National Guard fighter/bomber saw the training exercise, and decided to attack. The pilot contacted his base for permission, they refused, as they wanted to know who was in the area first. The pilot, who was wired up at the time on fucking amphetamines, didn't wait for confirmation, instead he dropped a large general purpose bomb, I believe it was 230kilos, and killed four Canadians, wounding 8 others. We sent out best soldiers to Iraq at a time when the US needed it's allies the most, and this is what happens. On top of that, the pilot in question got a slap on the wrist, namely a fine and being stripped of his wings. Four Canadians are dead, and three others are permanantly crippled, an additional five sustained non permanent injuries, and this guy walks. It's widely speculated that this decision, which came shortly after Canada refused to support the Iraq war was a decision made at the highest levels of the US gov't to snub Canada. I'm not well enough informed to say whether that is true or not, but I wouldn't doubt it.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

How many times has the Coalition delayed entering a city or postponed an objective because the civilian body count would be unacceptable?

So do you believe that's out of genuine concern for the civilians, or do you consider that there are strategic implications to that to, such as the reaction of the Iraqi people to having their cities stormed by foreigners?

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

How many weeks have Sadrs followers been asked to leave their bunker of a shrine peacefully and even invited to be a part of Iraqs future?

I'm sure the US Army is going to let them safely disperse into the population. That seems likely. I'm sure those insurgents have heard all about Abu Ghraib by now, everyone else has.

Originally Posted by driftu

here is a little site for you to look at
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

Thats a joke. X amount dead. And I'm sure that all of them were killed by US bombs and bullets. The terrorists using civilians as human shields, denotating bombs in market places and spraying bullets from the back of a car had absolutely nothing to do with that. Here's a question: How many of that number died with a smoking AK-47 in their hands? The lack of uniforms does not make these who would hide among innocent any less of a threat or any less of terrorists.

It's no joke, and not one of them would be dead if the US wasn't in the country right now, fighting an insurgency of Iraqis who have taken up arms against the occupation.

Terrorists using civilians as human shields? I haven't heard any instances of that in Iraq, although I have seen photos of US soldiers using civilians as human shields. They must just be photo shopped though of course, the Americans are the good guys, they wouldn't do that!

What the lack of uniforms does do is make it much easier for the US to kill someone, and say "that was a terrorist!".

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

And heres a site for you: http://www.aljazeera.net It has many helpful links. Get a translation, follow some links and read up on how the US is planning genocide in Iraq. Why not read the outline for a brave new Islamic world where people are stoned, women are worthless and power mad clerics keep an world in ingnorance?

What are you getting at here?

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

Oh wait thats not new, thats the way it was 2000 years ago. Or just 2 years ago in Iraq and many other places in the world. Hey, wait a minute, there is still plenty of countries like this! Who needs history books! Experience brutal religious opression first hand!

Obviously you need history books, maybe then you'd know that 2000 years ago there was no Islam. I don't think you're qualified to make any comments on the religion when you don't even know the basic history and principles.

Islam has always embraced learning and science, unlike Christianity. True, there are certain extremists, like those in Iran or Afghanistan who believe that if it contradicts their interpretation of Islam, then it has no place in their culture, but go to Saudi Arabia, visit a university, Syria, Kuwait, etc... These are cultures that embrace knowledge, not ignorance.

I will point out right now, there are members who have been banned from this forum for offensive comments regarding Islam. If you want to keep making slights and libel against one of the worlds most prominent and proud religion, you could end up as one of them. If you want to discuss Islam, go read a book on the subject, and then discuss Islam. Do not come in here and start throwing around whatever you have heard about the religion from your buddies as if it's fact.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

That would be great. Except thats not whats happening. Here you bring up your perfect world. How about all those people that just wanted to live their lives peacefully in New York?

9/11 has nothing to do with this. There is a big difference between a perfect world and what has been outlined here. You can't argue that the situation with Iraq could have been prevented in many ways, and countless lives could have been saved, had it not been for the policies and actions of the US, the UK and Husseins regime.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

How about all those who wanted to live peacefully in all the 3rd world dictatorships around the world that are lying in big holes in the ground with dozens if not hundreds more like them?

That's what the UN is for, to bring sanctions to bear against people who would commit such acts. <waits for Yog's predictable railing on the UN. Let's see if I can get it word for word this time>

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

And no one seems to remember that when America occupies a country they bring food, band aids and fruit punch for everyone. The US occupation of Japan and west Germany after world war two certainly has destroyed those countries hasn't it?

There is a world of difference between Germany and Japan and Iraq. For one, Germany is a western nation, and after 6 years of war, the German people were exhausted and overrun. In Japan, an eastern nation, the situation was much the same.

In Iraq, you have a nation of people who have been held hostage for more than a decade by an unseen power that bombs them, prevents them from getting medicine, selling their only natural resource, destroys their civilian infrastructure, and poisons their country. After more than a decade of this, they finally have a chance to fight back. Are they going to fight back? You can bet on it.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

This will take years before it levels out. And don't forget that this is the "Interim" government, set in place to establish political parties and set up a system. Then the true Iraqi government will emerge. But that takes time, you can't demand instant results with this many people involved.

And tomorrow, I'm going to win the lottery

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

US helps Iraq against Iran. That worked great didn't it? US helps Afghanistan against the then USSR. Didn't hurt anyone else a bit down the road now did it? This course of action has never worked. Why you think it would have been a good idea is certainly a good question.

Hey, I agree with you on this one, the less foreign powers interfere in the middle east, the better off everyone is.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

As for being against all war, it doesn't matter if you don't believe in it, the people driving the bomb cars do. The world problem of terrorism is a fact and no amount of "Please Stop" diplomacy is going to remove them. Finding and destroying these groups will.

Great reasoning, why don't you find me an instance of where finding and destroying terrorist groups has ever worked? You won't, because it doesn't work. Terrorism is politically motivated, you have to tackle the driving issues of it to stop it. So yes actually, diplomacy can remove them. When was the last bombing in Northern Ireland or England?

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

You think all these problems in Iraq would just go away if the US left? Look at Bosnia, there was an on going genocide there. With world and US involvement, you don't hear about it too much anymore. Why? Because its becoming its own stable country again.

Apples and Oranges.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

As for votes in their favor: Are you joking? Do you not know how large the Shiite population is in Iraq ? And really, are you encouraging the promotion of radical, terroristic Islam? Because thats what Sadr stands for.

Indeed, and doesn't it seem likely that given an election, the theocrats in Iraq are better poised to win than any other group?

[thegladhatter]

Originally Posted by driftu

read and learn
http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_intr.htm

No,YOU need to read and learn, dude! THAT site is nothing more than a religious propaganda site designed soley to persuade Christians to be lulled into a feeling of safety around the incoming masses of infidel hating Muslims. It only skims the material and shows the nice shiny clean parts of Islam.

[zebrathree]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

Its FLATRATER maybe you need some glasses so you can read!

And why is it stupid? Tell me about about Hager if you dare! Yes that is were I got the info I posted. I would of given you the site but it was more fun watching the reaction I got while you were trying to figure out where I got it from.

What is stupid is the link provided in the first post here! WTF has it got to do with war crimes, nothing. You have 2 groups shooting at each other yet one is holed up in a holy site because they know the American soliders won't enter. Yet they take aim from inside shooting at people! I have tear in my eyes over those innocent bastards inside that shrine holding up RPG's and rifles killing people. What they don't expect to be shot back at? Their is no innocent people inside that building so no war crime can be committed!

Also I tire of the other BS that is getting tossed around here. The one about 13,000 innoicent people getting killed by the big old nasty mean Americans. Truth be told most of them have been killed by their own kind and not the Americans. All those innocent people with the RPG and rifles on their arms, poor bastards with the bomb strapped to his chest, he was innocent and only decided to run around the neighborhood with a bomb on his chest, he wasn't going to hurt a soul with that bomb it was all in play. Must be a new game kids play in Iraq!

Prove to me all 13,000 Iraq citizens were killed by the Americans and that they were inocent. And don't use a BS site like you accused me of doing.

I don't care about any of this shit you've just posted. I was specificly referring to the info on New Zealand you posted. It's mostly crap.

[Flatrater]

Originally Posted by zebrathree

I don't care about any of this shit you've just posted. I was specificly referring to the info on New Zealand you posted. It's mostly crap.

And why is it crap? What's wrong with the post on New Zealand? Is it because New Zealand is portrayed no better than the Americans? Its your turn to defend your country, afterall you have been pretty critical of my country!

Don't give me no "CRAP" posts give me some proof that this is BS, tell me why it is BS!

I have more Hager stuff if you want I can post it! Hager sounds like someone that knows New Zealand government.

[zebrathree]

Since when have I given you crap about America?

I will post everything else later.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

And why is it crap? What's wrong with the post on New Zealand? Is it because New Zealand is portrayed no better than the Americans? Its your turn to defend your country, afterall you have been pretty critical of my country!

Don't give me no "CRAP" posts give me some proof that this is BS, tell me why it is BS!

I have more Hager stuff if you want I can post it! Hager sounds like someone that knows New Zealand government.

Nicky Hager.Peace activist,anti-globalisation activist,anti genetic engineering activist, green party menace,greenpeace whiner and conspiracy theorist.

Born to Austrian immigrant parents,whose successful clothing factory assured him of a comfortable ride through youth and university,Mr Hager has spent his entire adult life railing against whatever authority he can find.He has written several books ,all along the same theme,The Government Is Out To Get You, but I can find no record of him ever having had a real job,or for for that matter the support of any mainstream political group.Mr Hager seems to be pathologically attracted to wackos and smelly hippies,the ultimate in champions for lost and worthless causes,the kind of loser whose presence at a demonstration actually dilutes its message.The sole purpose of his protests seems to be to promote Nicky Hager.

[Broke_as_****]

Originally Posted by Cbass

I see some glaring mistakes in what you have said... First of all, justifying near genocide? He's fighting a war against a numerically superior and better armed occupying power, how does that count as genocide?

First off, he is promoting the random bombings of civilian targets. If you want to paint him as the next hero of the people fighting bravely for freedom then perhaps you should take up writing fiction. Second, Sadr has called for the lives of all those supporting the US as well as any international personal in the country. That would include millions of people. Last time I checked, millions of people dead counts as genocide.

Also, he is fighting the war in the name of Iraq, and removing the US from HIS country.

He does not have his own personal regulation free zone of Iraq, something the interim government has been keen on. He is not above the law.

I think it's quite clear they have a political agenda, you'd have to be blind not to see it... Getting the US Army out of their country, and removing the American installed and backed puppet gov't.

Politics are absent when a bomb explodes in a market place. If they had a decisive political agenda they would not be attacking fellow Iraqis, something that turns the entire world against them. Your comment on the "puppet government" is laughable. Do people not understand that this is the "interim" government? Designed to setup and organize the major political parties and governmental system of the next government. As for being setup by the US...well dur. What, you think governments just pop up after a dictator falls? Did you think this was all going to materialize out of nothing as soon as the official war was over?

It's funny that you say that though, because they weren't killing under Husseins reign, or even for the first few months of US occupation... It looks to me like they only started killing when it became apparent that the US is there to stay.

Then you must have taken a nice long vacation after the ground war officially ended since all outside forces in Iraq have been under attack since day one. Not as intense at first then it got more organized.

Oh, so when the US kills Iraqi civilians, it's collateral damage, shit happens, ya know... But when the resistance sets off a bomb which kills civilians in an attempt to attack the US Army or the American installed and supported puppet gov't, it's murder... That's a rather vicious double standard.

What is vicious is your utter lack of ablity to determine between planned and targeted civilian deaths by terrorists and the accidental deaths of some people watching the fireworks around a Sadr stronghold.

However accurate the guidance systems may be, and they are not THAT accurate, and they are only as accurate as the intel that determines the target. We've already seen how shocking inaccurate US intel is these days, so I'd stop touting the virtues of "precision weapons". Also, when those same "precision weapons" are used to target water and power infrastructure, pharmaceutical plants, hell, even a red cross building, as they were all throughout the 90s, the effects are horrendous. Lack of clean water, lack of power, lack of medicine, all due to the US under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Don't go touting the virtues of "precision weapons" when they're already responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, indirectly.

First off the percision weapons were brought up under the context of US weapons being off target, which 99% of the time, is a bloated, stinking lie.
Second, you refer to the US bombing anything it felt like throughout the 90s. That is blatantly false. The few instances where US bombed anything but military radar sites were almost all in response to Saddams move against the Kurds in northern Iraq.
Third, I'd really like to hear how you came up with the oh so precise number an "indirect hundreds of thousands".

Just like how the US gov't thrives upon the ignorance of many of it's citizens to drum up support for it's foreign policy decisions. Muslims place a much stronger emphasis on faith than most Christians do. I don't mean to offend anyone, but their religion demands it, and it is often the most important thing in their lives.

No denying that Americans can be swayed by less than the truth but you can't tell me that some Iraqis having this same discussion would be any better. America is one of the better informed and educated countries in the world.

You'll note under Hussein, until the sanctions were enforced, Iraq had an excellent education system, a model for the region... Turns out that a lot of those oil dollars were reinvested in the people of Iraqm in the form of social spending, as they are in other oil rich Arab nations.

And you should note that it doesn't matter how good a school is if it teaches the tyrannical views of a dictator. But then maybe whatever odd ball school you subscribe to teaches its alright to kill tens of thousands as long as the rest have water and electricity, even if they fear for their lives because of the same people providing these services.

I think you're having a hard time keeping your rhetoric and propaganda sorted out... Allegedly it was Hussein who used chemical weapons, although there is increasing support for the theory that it was in fact Iran. Sadr is not Hussein, as much as you would like him to be. Like Hussein however, he had nothing to do with September 11th.

And not helping with one particular attack will automatically vindicate Sadr? Not taking part in one event negates fostering radical terrorism? And really, I would like to see the evidence in support of this outlandish theory. Sadr is not Ghandi, as much as you would try to have us believe. And just like Saddam, hes a murdererous SOB.

Islamic attacks? What the hell are you talking about? You'll find that the vast majority of these terrorist actions have political and military roots, not religious ones, with the exception of course of in Israel, where the IDF has been practicing terrorism with religious cause for decades.

Are you denying that they are using a bastardized and perverted version of Islam to recruit and promote their bombings and murders? They use this as their tool to foster hate and violence and that is a fact no matter what the roots of the movement were. And Israel is a seperate matter, where they match gunship attack for car bomb on a weekly basis and just like everywhere else the only solution is to raise the quality of life for the Palestinians which can only happen after suicide bombers become murders instead of martyrs.

If you can't see the reason why these people do what they do, you should turn in yours as well.

And if you can't see the difference between trying to rebuild a country and trying create maximum body counts then you should be right in line with the rest of us.

Terrorism the last act of a desperate oppressed people, when they have no other way of fighting back. The way to fight terrorism, as was learned in South Africa, and Ireland, is to deal with the root cause. Killing people and creating a police state does nothing but gather support for the terrorists from among the population.

How about this: YOU take your happy ass to Iraq and build a water treatment plant while being shot at and then watch it go up in smoke one night because some people chanting "Death to the Americans" decided your project was the work of the infidels. The US is dealing with the root causes. You think you can rebuild the infastructure of a country overnight? Especially with rampant sabotage and terrrorism hindering your every move?

Actually, that's not a fact, that's a claim, and it's disputed. By the way, those innocent Kurds were actually well organized terrorists, using terrorist tactics to try to gain autonomy. Just ask the Turks about them, or the Iranians.

And why don't look at date or two and find that those attacks, very limited in number and in scope, were executed after tens of thousands of Kurds were gassed to death.

Oh, like randomly opening fire on cars at checkpoints, bombing weddings, using multi ton bunker busters on public air raid shelters, need I go on?

No you don't because you're already making things up. If you think American troops are trigger happy cowboys then its dead obvious that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. SOP regarding the rules of engagement is even if you see a group of men running down the street at you with RPGS and AKs in hand, you would still have to wait as they fired at you to engage them and in many cases would have to get confirmation even before you could. As stated, if you think the Americans their are randomly opening up on anyone they feel like, hey, guess what, you're an idiot.

Actually, in the name of Iraq, a sovereign nation which has been stolen by a foreign imperial power.

Yes we walked right in and declared that we claimed this land for Bush. Can you not see past the present? Are you capable of any type of foresight? Can you not see the interim government working to restore Iraqs infastructure and laying the ground work for the truly Iraqi made government to follow?

Show me an instance of insurgents rigging children with bombs, please. This is exactly the short of bullshit the Israelis use to justify what they do, and it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. "Death to everyone"? Do you actually believe this shit?

Do you actually believe the shit that flows forth from Sadr and men of his kind as they sit in a bunker calling on all loyal citizens of Iraq to kill as many Americans as possible?

It's common sense to use a revered shrine as a bunker, because no matter what happens, the US is going to lose face in the deal. If they back off, they'll be shown as weak, the insurgents will gain morale, and recruits. If the US attacks, then they infuriate the entire Arab world, not just Iraqis. The best they can hope for is to force a standoff and wait them out.

Oh, perfect, as long as it makes good tactical sense to do something its alright. To hell with the Geneva conventions! Who needs them pesky things anyway.

Actually, the intel AT THE TIME OF THE WAR was that there were accounting errors and inconsistencies regarding the biological and chemical weapons stockpiles of Iraq. The inspectors were there to sort it out. Besides the fact, those weapons have a limited shelf life, and all of those that were unaccounted for would have long since expired and become ineffective. The Germans never agreed that Iraq had WMD at the time of the war, they agreed that Iraq had them more than a decade previously. So why don't you find something that says Schroeder said that Iraq had WMD?

How about he ignored what his own intelligence people were telling him? http://www.usefulwork.com/shark/archives/000497.html Which incidently was the same thing the entire worlds intelligence services were saying. Not to mentition the fact that many common chemicals can be combined to create crude gas and chemical weapons such as Mustard gas, which was used against the Kurds. But I'm sure Saddam wouldn't have used these to make weapons. Not at all.

[/quote]Again the desert theory. Interesting thing is, the US possesses the most sophisticated surveillance and geographical survey satellites in the word. Using ground penetrating radar, they can find a steel 5 gallon bucket under 50 feet of sand. So if there really are any chemical and biological weapons buried somewhere in the desert, they would have found them in a matter of days, if not hours. The US invested considerable time and money in sending teams combing all over Iraq, and turned up NOTHING. The leader of the team publicly stated that there are NO WMD in Iraq.[/quote]

Why don't you read through those reports and find all the instances where those teams were blocked at the gates of military bases and could literally watch the trucks leaving out the back. Read about how overwhelmingly helpful the Iraqis were. And you talk of Iraq as if it was a sandbox. There is an ass load of sand out there. Given the months of clear warning up to the begining of the ground war it wouldn't have been too hard to destroy or hide what they kept out of sight.

It will most likely cost him the election this time around. If it doesn't, and he somehow wins, or postpones the election, god help us all... If the American public lets him get away with this, what the hell is he going to pull with another 4 years in office?

Probably write a book.

Things are getting better in some ways, but they are in no way anything close to living conditions prior to the Gulf War, and they likely never will be. The profits which should be going to the Iraqi people will mostly find their way into the pockets of American oil companies.

Likely they never will be, right...I can see how once an Iraqi created and led government takes place in a few years it will kind of hard for these terrorists to justify themselves. The quality of basic services is already back up to a pre-March 2003 level in most of the country (you know, like the parts that aren't under attack by insurgents) and getting better with each passing day. And why don't you provide some numbers on those oil companies, and good lord, who couldn't condem them for the billions they are investing in rebuilding Iraqs oil trade or the billions they left in the middle east all those years ago when radical governments swept the region.

Nobody thought this would be nice and clean, in fact it's turned out better than many expected, myself included. That being said, it's a clusterfuck. That's why many, myself included, thought this war was a bad idea. You'll note however, if you pay attention to my posts about a year and half ago, I more than once stated I supported the war for economic reasons. The US economy needed this war badly. Of course, the US economy didn't need a $130 billion and climbing bill for the war, but that's what you get when you let LBJ mkII take the country to war.

Well you seem to expect it to be. And let me get this straight, you are now condeming people left and right about the deaths of innocents in a war sold on false WMD info and yet you supported the war, in which you knew there would be civilian casualties, because you thought it might bring gas prices down some. What the hell is the matter with you?

The reason why it is impossible to convince the world Iraq was a threat would be that noboby in the world would take that claim seriously. Everyone knew that Iraq would not invade it's neighbours, because there would be severe repercussions. The only issue, aside from the countless absolute bullshit claims that Georgie made for the cameras, such as trans-atlantic UAV attack drones armed with chemical weapons, were the WMD. When it became apparent none were going to show up to justify the action, the US and Britain invaded.

And again you consistently ignore that fact that most of the world was in agreement that Iraq had WMD.

You get my respect for admitting that, although now you'll have ticked off the republicans as well as the anti-war guys here.

Well whoop-dee-shit. I really don't give a rats ass what they think of me. Despite what I think of Bush, he has to get Iraq to the point of being a functional country. If anyone has any interest in doing it, its him. The rest of the world seems keen on not giving a shit.

Iraq and Afghanistan are two very distinctly different countries. Afghanistan was a mistake, there is nothing that can be done in that country, IMO. Clusterfuck. Every imperial power has tried their hand there, and every one has been beaten and sent packing.

Here you seem to confuse an attempt to control a country, as others tried in Afghanistan in the past, with an attempt to bring a country into its own. But hey since you don't see any reason for those people to live worth while lives, fuck em.

As dictators go, Hussein was not that bad. He supressed a couple of rebellions, which were encouraged, supported and even funded by the US, and he spat in Americas face. Allegedly he gassed the Kurds. Even if he did, it was in response to Kurdish terrorism employed in their uprising. Ask a few Americans if how they feel about gassing terrorists, especially if there is no other effective way to get at them.

Well shit, as long as he was alright guy and a good banjo player it he doesn't have to be held to anything hes done now does he? Read down some to see the full horror of the guy you apparently admire as a dictator for other dictators to look up to.

Well, when you consider that the guy they replaced him with is by many accounts just as brutal...

Actions speak louder then assumptions, I say we watch over the next few years before condeming the new PM. At least he is trying to bring in all sides on this new government they are creating.

Nice bit of speculation there, but you're forgetting a few things. For one, what are they going to stop those missiles with, Patriots? Not likely. You would have a bolstered Iraqi army, confident that their weapons would destroy the Americans. Then you have a very demoralized US Army, having to live in chemical hazard suits day in and day out. No matter how well trained you are, the threat of chemical and biological weapons being deployed against you will SCARE you. This is probably why Bush kept claiming Iraq was going to attack America. It would have significantly affected the ground war.

After reading your speculation you forget that the new Patriot PAC3 (especially given their multiplied use in each sitiuation) systems are about ten times better then the PAC2s and that the US air cover could destroy launching sites within minutes of being detected. Saddam would get off a few shots at most.

The US retaliates with MOABs, nukes, etc... And provokes massive international outrage. This could very well lead to an international boycott of the US, among prominent powers in the UN, Russia, China, etc.

Right and the US is so nuke happy isn't it? Them nukes just flying everywhere these days aren't they? You called what I said speculation, what you have written here is just outright fabrication.

Or maybe, the US came up with a bullshit excuse to go to war, and no longer has any international credibility.

Maybe someone finally started taking the fight to places where terror is bred. As stated, the only way to stop this entirely is to work on the root causes of the problem. The only way to do that is to have a safe environment for reconstruction. Having random people shooting at construction workers from a crowd is not anything that can be defined as "safe". And as stated, does unpure motivation turn a positive thing into a negative?

Point out an instance of genocide please, or perhaps explain how he is depraved?

Is it not depraved to order those loyal to a peaceful religion to kill in your name while you sit in a bunker?

I'll point out an instance of genocide... A few of them actually, there's the use of depleted uranium, leading to horrific birth defects, increasing the instance of cancer by 2000%...

Hey how about you point out which site pointed you on to your wildly inflated 2000%? 603 Cancer deaths in 2001 is hardly the tens of thousands lying dead of DU that you are trying to paint a picture of.
As for DU itself, I condem its use as I do landmines. The only upside to DU is that its is perhaps the most effective weapon ever created against hardened targets, the quick destruction of which can bring a war to a much quicker close.

Or how about the systematic destruction of Iraqs water purification infrastructure, and pharmaceutical industry? That alone is responsible for deaths in the hundreds of thousands. THAT is genocide.

I would really like to know where you are getting those hundreds of thousands. And preferably not in the from at site with the world "blog" in it, as seems so popular around here.

Oh really, why don't you throw some hard numbers and me, about where those dollars are actually getting. How much are major US oil companies paying per barrel crude? IIRC, the going rate is $48, but I'm confident that they're somehow paying less than that. I'm also confident that the lions share of that profit is going to end up in American, not in Iraq.

And I'm confident that the oil fields and refineries wouldn't even exist without the US oil companies. They dumped an ass load of money into finding those oil wells back in the mid 1930s and then were kicked out and forced to leave all that behind when radical Islamic governments pretty much declared it all in their name. That sounds alot like the outright theft that you accuse them of today.

A government made up of the Iraqi people? Please, you have got to be kidding me. The Iraqi Governing Council is made up of rich Iraqi dissidents with corporate and political connections in the US. That's why they were selected, they weren't chosen from within Iraq. They represent the interests of the US, not of the Iraqi people.

Coming soon: The New Iraqi government, brought to you by
The Interim Iraqi government

Are you aware of how democracy comes about? It's not forced down your throat with a gun, it takes popular support. The people have to move for democracy, the people have to want democracy, and in almost every instance, the people have to rise up and overcome oppression to win their freedom. If you've been paying attention, that's exactly what the insurgents are doing. The Iraqi people are not going to swallow a government handed to them by the US, with candidates hand picked by the US. To believe their will is just naive.

Are you aware that you can't just walk up to the local dictator or el presidente and ask politely for them to leave while you setup your own government? They have the opportunity now to work with each other and create their own country rather then destoy it before they even get started

In case you haven't noticed, Iraq is a smoldering pit of anarchy already, and it's just going to intensify. Why don't you quantify exactly how many people died because of Hussein, where, when, and why? From what you're saying, he was a butcher who killed indiscriminately, so I'd like to see your sources.

In case your fuzzy on details, most of the fighting is centered in a few cities where as other regions are mostly peaceful. If thats a smoldering pit of anarchy then apparently the definition thereof has changed about 179 degrees. And I'd like to know whats your source for your wild claims of US caused civilian casualties.

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102568,00.html
http://massgraves.info/


Why don't you take a good look at Saddams handy work. Or some of the many other mass graves that the man you called "not so bad as dictators go" created. And even though I'm sure that those numbers are hyped, that sounds alot like genocide to me. Then again maybe I was right: you don't give a shit about these people, as long as they weren't killed by the US.

I'm not sure what your point is... The Taliban are just the same warlords who have always ruled Afghanistan, they're just getting progressively more extreme. In case you haven't heard lately, they're back, and the US has been for all intensive purposes run out of the country.

Actually they are more likely than not in Pakistan, another wonderful corner of the world. You can go there yourself to watch the Taliban loyalists running back accross the border into Pakistan after opening fire on whoever they think has bad taste in aftershave.

Now your claims are becoming outrageous. Please, Iran does not execute students, and certainly not hundreds of innocents. Iran executes criminals, particularly smugglers who use Iran as a route to smuggle heroin and hashish to the coast. Iran may have some very hardcore fundamentalist laws, which I do not agree with, but they're nowhere as bad as you claim. I work with an Iranian, he is a dissident who left the country because he does not agree with the current theocracy, as he is a moderate muslim. He is one of the kindest and most friendly people I have ever met, so please don't go spouting off bullshit anti-muslim propaganda.

So now you are using the example of one person to vindicate an entire country. Does it not strike you as odd that all the people that want a better future leave Iran?

When a USAF bomb kills innocent people, it should damn well spark outrage, as the US is occupying the country, and any civilians that die because of it are the direct responsibility of the administration and congress.

And have absolutely nothing to do with unrestrained acts of terror by organized bands of murderers. Not a single Iraqi has died by the hands of another Iraqi, nope, none at all, US all the way on that.

Considering the death toll of Iraqi civilians from US and British actions between 1990 and 2004 in Iraq is easily a hundred times than what Husseins regime was responsible for, your repeated claims of genocide pale in comparison.

Really, well why don't you scroll up a bit and do some math. Subtract your wildly inflated and outright fraudulent "civilian" body count of 13,000 from 300,000. The lowest, most denial ridden estimate of Iraqis killed by Saddam is 4,000. You can't possibly tell me that the war in Iraq has "easily" caused 400,000 deaths. Inflated numbers on both sides or not, now your just pulling stuff out of the air. Or perhaps someplace darker.

I think a way to resolve this issue without more people dying would have been to let the inspectors verify the WMD issue, at which point the economic restrictions could have been lifted, and Iraq could have resumed trade, and could have afforded to elevate the standard of living for it's people... Maybe investing a couple billion in cleaning up the radioactive wastelands left from the Gulf War? We already know the US military won't go that far, since they won't even admit there is a problem, as it would cost too much face.

A resolve to the WMD issue perhaps while you still leave a tyrannical and murderous government in charge. I'm sure that Saddam would have been more than gracious enough to let everyone and their cousin in to his country to clean up the mess DU left. You seem to have some mythical picture of Saddam as a good guy with a temper. I suggest you take whatever it is your smoking and start selling it, I'm sure it will fetch a good price.

Wow, you sure demonstrate a firm grasp of the political situation in Iraq! Of course blowing up a police station or any symbol of foreign power furthers their cause, they are attempting to get foreign powers out of their country, and the includes the government they have now, which is to all intensive purposes, an American government.

And blowing up fellow Iraqis furthers their cause by turning world opinion against them. Wait...that doesn't work. Oh yeah, because they dont' give a shit who they kill. And a few thousand radical terrorist in a country of 26 million is an insignificant minority. Saying they in anyway represent the entire populace is like saying the KKK represents America.

Sadr refuses to join the interim gov't because he doesn't recognize it as a legitimate gov't. Neither do I. Neither do a great deal of Iraqis. Your claim that they simply want to kill is outlandish. Don't you think that perhaps they would have been killing all along, during the Hussein years?

In Husseins years, Husseins men killed. Now its more of a free for all as long as its in the name of fighting the Americans.

The Canadian soldiers in question were engaged in a training exercise in the desert, hundreds of kilometers from any action. An Air National Guard fighter/bomber saw the training exercise, and decided to attack. The pilot contacted his base for permission, they refused, as they wanted to know who was in the area first. The pilot, who was wired up at the time on fucking amphetamines, didn't wait for confirmation, instead he dropped a large general purpose bomb, I believe it was 230kilos, and killed four Canadians, wounding 8 others. We sent out best soldiers to Iraq at a time when the US needed it's allies the most, and this is what happens. On top of that, the pilot in question got a slap on the wrist, namely a fine and being stripped of his wings. Four Canadians are dead, and three others are permanantly crippled, an additional five sustained non permanent injuries, and this guy walks. It's widely speculated that this decision, which came shortly after Canada refused to support the Iraq war was a decision made at the highest levels of the US gov't to snub Canada. I'm not well enough informed to say whether that is true or not, but I wouldn't doubt it.

And the big issue with that always was that they had dissregarded confirmation proceedures regarding deployment of aerial weaponry. Which is in place to prevent this. Which is why on the rare occasion when it does happen, you hear about it. Tragic, yes, does it happen in war, yes. Would it be nice if war wasn't necessary? Damn right. Convince the guy holding an RPG of that and you might have something.

So do you believe that's out of genuine concern for the civilians, or do you consider that there are strategic implications to that to, such as the reaction of the Iraqi people to having their cities stormed by foreigners?

Or perhaps the reaction of the Iraqi people watching Sadr promote the killing of fellow countrymen? Perhaps not everyone is bloodthirsty as you seem to be, like perhaps the commanders of those units who waited for weeks outside the shrine or many other cities in Iraq even while their soliders we're being killed.

I'm sure the US Army is going to let them safely disperse into the population. That seems likely. I'm sure those insurgents have heard all about Abu Ghraib by now, everyone else has.

They made their choice when they started firing from a religious shrine, in utter contempt for any rules of engagement.

Of the much hyped Abu Ghraib pictures: Was it improper abuse? Definately. Was it torture? Well if getting your picture taken with a bag over your head while your strapped to a bed is torture, then we can safely chock up torture in the column of lost arts.

It's no joke, and not one of them would be dead if the US wasn't in the country right now, fighting an insurgency of Iraqis who have taken up arms against the occupation.

Maybe none of those people would be dead. Maybe some of them would. Maybe alot of other people would. Now you are suggesting the world would be better off if no one did a damn thing. Good luck with that.

[quote]Terrorists using civilians as human shields? I haven't heard any instances of that in Iraq, although I have seen photos of US soldiers using civilians as human shields. They must just be photo shopped though of course, the Americans are the good guys, they wouldn't do that!

What the lack of uniforms does do is make it much easier for the US to kill someone, and say "that was a terrorist!".

What it does do is make it really easy to open fire from a group of people then run away. Here we go back to your belief that if its tactically sound, morality can be put a side.

What are you getting at here?

That the other side is no more unbiased nor unrational than you accuse Bush of being. Far less so if anything.

Islam has always embraced learning and science, unlike Christianity. True, there are certain extremists, like those in Iran or Afghanistan who believe that if it contradicts their interpretation of Islam, then it has no place in their culture, but go to Saudi Arabia, visit a university, Syria, Kuwait, etc... These are cultures that embrace knowledge, not ignorance.

And it is these extremists that the world sees and that we talk of here. If you wish to observe Muslims and Islam in general as terrorists, thats your problem.

9/11 has nothing to do with this. There is a big difference between a perfect world and what has been outlined here. You can't argue that the situation with Iraq could have been prevented in many ways, and countless lives could have been saved, had it not been for the policies and actions of the US, the UK and Husseins regime.

9/11 has everything to do with this. So do the bombings in Madrid. These types of attacks finally showed to the world that the commonly held belief that these "fringe" groups don't pose a threat to anyone outside Israel is false. The world can't let groups like Al Qaida, Hamas or anyone else get away with whatever they please any longer. This problem mostly has been fostered by the utter lack of response from the international community to countless acts of terrorism around the world.

That's what the UN is for, to bring sanctions to bear against people who would commit such acts. <waits for Yog's predictable railing on the UN. Let's see if I can get it word for word this time>

The UN is mostly impotent. China sits on the human rights council. There is some much needed changes there that have to be addressed before much of anything can be done. And last time I checked, UN sanctions have little effect. How long was South Africa condemned by the UN? 20+ years? How many died in that time? They need more power in the world to enforce what needs to be done and until that happens, nothing else will.

There is a world of difference between Germany and Japan and Iraq. For one, Germany is a western nation, and after 6 years of war, the German people were exhausted and overrun. In Japan, an eastern nation, the situation was much the same.

And you make reference to how the exhausted and tyrannically overrun people of Iraq are different

In Iraq, you have a nation of people who have been held hostage for more than a decade by an unseen power that bombs them, prevents them from getting medicine, selling their only natural resource, destroys their civilian infrastructure, and poisons their country. After more than a decade of this, they finally have a chance to fight back. Are they going to fight back? You can bet on it.

All the while forgeting billions in aid they have recieved that have essentially kept the country going. Forgetting the internatioal scrutiny in the later years that kept some of Saddams more murdererous tendencies in check. Not that it did them much good.

And tomorrow, I'm going to win the lottery

So you're not even going to give this a chance? With all that has happened and all that have died so Iraq can stand on its own, you just want to say "Fuck it, bad idea" and leave them to it?

Hey, I agree with you on this one, the less foreign powers interfere in the middle east, the better off everyone is.

The problem with that its that its pretty damn hard to get everyone together one day and just put up a working government. The US for the most part is doing a good job of helping, the Iraqis have to do more and more themselves from this point on. How they act now will determine their future.

Great reasoning, why don't you find me an instance of where finding and destroying terrorist groups has ever worked? You won't, because it doesn't work. Terrorism is politically motivated, you have to tackle the driving issues of it to stop it. So yes actually, diplomacy can remove them. When was the last bombing in Northern Ireland or England?

Stopping terrorism heavily hinges on improving the quality of life and you can't improve anything while being shot at. Especially since you have to rebuild most of what you do several times over. Until reconstruction can go on in peace, nothing will improve. And I believe the last explosion in England was a few months ago protesting the Spice Girls new album. That may have been an unrelated matter.

Apples and Oranges.

Lets see, all historical examples offered in support of all the good the US can do for a country don't count, gotch ya. I'll refrain from using any in the future.

Indeed, and doesn't it seem likely that given an election, the theocrats in Iraq are better poised to win than any other group?

Exactly, they are in a good position to influence the future of Iraq, they are being invited to join by the interim government and they refuse.

Originally farther up the page
Either way, it's all academic, we can sit around and discuss "what could have happened", but it won't change anything we'd just be blowing a lot of hot air.

I'm using this quote somewhat out of context, just FYI. This kind of negates this entire thread and most political discussion in general. But it is true and that brings up this point:

Whatever your feelings going into the war, during, after, in regards to or whatever else, the US and the world in general now has the opportunity help Iraq become its own nation. For the most part, that is being done. In 10-15 years the world will observe these days in hindsight and accept them as necessary evils to bring about the freedom of a country that has been cloaked in bloodshed and opression for thousands of years. Hopefully, this is the start of a new era for the Middle East, one where the rest of the world doesn't have to be afraid of it.

Now, given the fact that these posts are getting into counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter replies and becoming ridiculously long at the same time, this is going to be my last on this subject here. I've done that on other message boards and it just turns it into something that pisses you off. I come to AF to talk about cars. Whatever needed to be brought up has been brought up by either side, any further comments can be directed to my PM.

Also, I have for sale a pair of stock Z32 turbos with exhaust manifolds, all coolant tubing and pre-cats still hooked up. Good condition, shaft play well with in factory specs, only have 15k on them.

[Flatrater]

He's fighting a war against a numerically superior and better armed occupying power, how does that count as genocide?

Also, he is fighting the war in the name of Iraq, and removing the US from HIS country.

Now let me see if I have this right! Sadr is killing innocent Iraq citizens that is ok with you and you fell he is a hero. Yet its genocide if the US soldiers kill the QUOTE innocent UNQUOTE members of Sadr's militia, you know the ones with the RPG's on their shoulders, the Russian made riflrs under their arms.

Sadr's militia doesn't fight in the name of Iraq, the government wants nothing to do with him. Its not just Sadr's country but its a country of millions of people to which only a small precentage is fighting. His army is not backed by the government and therefore illegaL I bet if Sadr was made president of Iraq he would have no problem and wouldn't be fighting Americans. Its all about power and the lack of power Sadr has.


Your hatred towards the American government is clouding your logic.

I think it's quite clear they have a political agenda, you'd have to be blind not to see it... Getting the US Army out of their country, and removing the American installed and backed puppet gov't.

It's funny that you say that though, because they weren't killing under Husseins reign, or even for the first few months of US occupation... It looks to me like they only started killing when it became apparent that the US is there to stay.

And since you have so much knowledge on this matter what would you have done about the puppet government? I am not arguing about the government but tell me in your wise wisdom what America should of done. America defeated Iraq so its our right to do as we please with the country and since we are returning that government and country to its people and to a democratic government. Should we have ran that country till free elections are held and then handed over the country? Ameriica installed a free democratic government in Iraq its America's right to pick the government remember its an interm government and not the final government. Let's see if this makes sense to you the America's pick the interm government by picking friends of America instead of enminies of America. If you were to pick who would you pick?

Oh, so when the US kills Iraqi civilians, it's collateral damage, shit happens, ya know... But when the resistance sets off a bomb which kills civilians in an attempt to attack the US Army or the American installed and supported puppet gov't, it's murder... That's a rather vicious double standard.

And you should know about double standards as atested by your quote on the top of my post.

However accurate the guidance systems may be, and they are not THAT accurate, and they are only as accurate as the intel that determines the target. We've already seen how shocking inaccurate US intel is these days, so I'd stop touting the virtues of "precision weapons". Also, when those same "precision weapons" are used to target water and power infrastructure, pharmaceutical plants, hell, even a red cross building, as they were all throughout the 90s, the effects are horrendous. Lack of clean water, lack of power, lack of medicine, all due to the US under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Don't go touting the virtues of "precision weapons" when they're already responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, indirectly.

Again you are clouded Broke was referring to the guidance of the bombs after the target has been picked. Now if you were going to pick targets I guess you would of bombed the desert so no one would get hurt!

You'll note under Hussein, until the sanctions were enforced, Iraq had an excellent education system, a model for the region... Turns out that a lot of those oil dollars were reinvested in the people of Iraqm in the form of social spending, as they are in other oil rich Arab nations.

Along with their education system they also had a good soccer team until one by one Saddamn's son had them toutored and killed.

I think you're having a hard time keeping your rhetoric and propaganda sorted out... Allegedly it was Hussein who used chemical weapons, although there is increasing support for the theory that it was in fact Iran. Sadr is not Hussein, as much as you would like him to be. Like Hussein however, he had nothing to do with September 11th.

I think you have your intell skewed! It was Iraq and Iran that used chemical weapons on the kurds.

Islamic attacks? What the hell are you talking about? You'll find that the vast majority of these terrorist actions have political and military roots, not religious ones, with the exception of course of in Israel, where the IDF has been practicing terrorism with religious cause for decades.

I could see where you were going with this. Poor Iraq and those evil bastards in Isreal!

Terrorism the last act of a desperate oppressed people, when they have no other way of fighting back. The way to fight terrorism, as was learned in South Africa, and Ireland, is to deal with the root cause. Killing people and creating a police state does nothing but gather support for the terrorists from among the population.

Using your logic then we should of had no terrorism before we bombed Iraq! AND THEN UNDER SADDAMS RULE WE SHOULD OF HAD TONS OF TERRORISM becuse he was a brutal and oppressive dicator. Don't think so, your logic fails.

Actually, that's not a fact, that's a claim, and it's disputed. By the way, those innocent Kurds were actually well organized terrorists, using terrorist tactics to try to gain autonomy. Just ask the Turks about them, or the Iranians.

You flip flop more than Kerry. You condemn America killing Sadr's militia yet you condone Sadr's militia killing innocent Iraq citizens. You condemn Isreal and yet you condone Sadr. You condemn the Kurds freedom fighters and condone Sadr's illegal militia.

Here are 2 links supporting that Saddamn used poison gas. His intent may not of been to kill the Kurds but to kill Iran's soliders. The Kurds may of been caught in the middle of a WMD battle, but neverless Kurds died from Iraq and Irans WMD programs.

http://hnn.us/articles/1242.html
http://www.krg.org/docs/articles/nyt...abja-sep03.asp

Oh, like randomly opening fire on cars at checkpoints, bombing weddings, using multi ton bunker busters on public air raid shelters, need I go on?

So you think we should let sadr shoot at us first before we return fire? We should let the car bombs close enough and let it blow up then we can shot back. Its normal to shot before you are shot. If a car approaches a check point and fails to stop or obey commands then you have to treat it as a hostile attack.

Actually, in the name of Iraq, a sovereign nation which has been stolen by a foreign imperial power.

It's common sense to use a revered shrine as a bunker, because no matter what happens, the US is going to lose face in the deal. If they back off, they'll be shown as weak, the insurgents will gain morale, and recruits. If the US attacks, then they infuriate the entire Arab world, not just Iraqis. The best they can hope for is to force a standoff and wait them out.

Stolen how so? Iraq was defeated.

Now onto the shrine. The shrine does not belong to Sadr it belongs to the muslim people. If I had my way I would just level the shrine. The uNited states according to you is at an all-time low so it couldn't possibly make us look worse. I see the Iraq government storming the shrine and removing Sadr's terrorists from it and not the US. Some army you protray as freedom fighter kidnapping people and threateing to excute them! Does that sound like a freedom army whose goal is to rid the US from Iraq? People who kidnapp are terrorists not freedom fighters.

Actually, the intel AT THE TIME OF THE WAR was that there were accounting errors and inconsistencies regarding the biological and chemical weapons stockpiles of Iraq. The inspectors were there to sort it out. Besides the fact, those weapons have a limited shelf life

And how would you know this are you a terrorist? Now prove this to me!

Again the desert theory. Interesting thing is, the US possesses the most sophisticated surveillance and geographical survey satellites in the word. Using ground penetrating radar, they can find a steel 5 gallon bucket under 50 feet of sand. So if there really are any chemical and biological weapons buried somewhere in the desert, they would have found them in a matter of days, if not hours. The US invested considerable time and money in sending teams combing all over Iraq, and turned up NOTHING. The leader of the team publicly stated that there are NO WMD in Iraq.

Again prove it!

The profits which should be going to the Iraqi people will mostly find their way into the pockets of American oil companies.

What profits are you talking about?

The reason why it is impossible to convince the world Iraq was a threat would be that noboby in the world would take that claim seriously. Everyone knew that Iraq would not invade it's neighbours, because there would be severe repercussions.

Yup the UN wouldn't allow Saddam to invade another country they would of passed 50 new resoultions on Iraq. They would of killed Saddamn thru the use of worthless papers. The resoultions didn't work the first time how could they stop Saddam? Or are you saying the sanctions would of stopped Saddam? Either way both failed to work.

You get my respect for admitting that, although now you'll have ticked off the republicans as well as the anti-war guys here.

Again you are wrong! I am not ticked of in the slightest. Because we all know everyone lies including you and I!

As dictators go, Hussein was not that bad.

Are you freaking nuts, thats like saying Hitler wasn't all that bad. Saddamn killed innocent people, killed innocent Kurds. Saddam's sons killed and toutured people but you think he wasn't that bad! But the US kills some sadr soliders and you are ranting and raving about how Bush sucks, and how Bush needs to be reomoved from office. Living that double standard again aren't you?

The US retaliates with MOABs, nukes, etc... And provokes massive international outrage. This could very well lead to an international boycott of the US, among prominent powers in the UN, Russia, China, etc.

Nice bit of speculation on your part! Just think if we used nukes the UN would resoultion us to death!

Point out an instance of genocide please, or perhaps explain how he is depraved?

I'll point out an instance of genocide... A few of them actually, there's the use of depleted uranium, leading to horrific birth defects, increasing the instance of cancer by 2000%...

Lets see car bombs, murdering of Iraq's citizens namely the interm government and those working a job to support their families at the green zone.

Or how about the systematic destruction of Iraqs water purification infrastructure, and pharmaceutical industry? That alone is responsible for deaths in the hundreds of thousands. THAT is genocide.

How about blowing up the oil pipelines. I bet you will just condone that and attribute that to those crazy freedom fighters trying to get rid of the mean nasty Americans! Maybe if Sadr didn't spend so much time blowing up things like the pipelines and forcing the US to fix it the US could do more to improve Iraq instead of spending time and money fixing what Sadr ruined.

Oh really, why don't you throw some hard numbers and me, about where those dollars are actually getting. How much are major US oil companies paying per barrel crude? IIRC, the going rate is $48, but I'm confident that they're somehow paying less than that. I'm also confident that the lions share of that profit is going to end up in American, not in Iraq.

Throw some hard numbers at me proving your point! Considering that the Iraq oil production is down we are not buying oil from Iraq so that would mean the rest of the oil producing countries are lieing and under charging the US! You show some blind confidence!

Now your claims are becoming outrageous. Please, Iran does not execute students, and certainly not hundreds of innocents. Iran executes criminals, particularly smugglers who use Iran as a route to smuggle heroin and hashish to the coast. Iran may have some very hardcore fundamentalist laws, which I do not agree with, but they're nowhere as bad as you claim. I work with an Iranian, he is a dissident who left the country because he does not agree with the current theocracy, as he is a moderate muslim. He is one of the kindest and most friendly people I have ever met, so please don't go spouting off bullshit anti-muslim propaganda.

When a USAF bomb kills innocent people, it should damn well spark outrage, as the US is occupying the country, and any civilians that die because of it are the direct responsibility of the administration and congress.

I am going to use a popular line I have seen used here before.
Hello pot this is kettle!

http://www.iran-press-service.com/ip...ort_7604.shtml
http://ncwdi.igc.org/html/about.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...951EST0547.DTL
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/RoyaJohnson40612.htm
http://www.iran-press-service.com/ip...ort_7604.shtml
http://ncwdi.igc.org/html/about.html

Do you need more?

Considering the death toll of Iraqi civilians from US and British actions between 1990 and 2004 in Iraq is easily a hundred times than what Husseins regime was responsible for, your repeated claims of genocide pale in comparison.

Again you spout a lie! Try using Sadr instead of the US and the UK. How many people would be killed if Sadr would stop setting off car bombs?

Wow, you sure demonstrate a firm grasp of the political situation in Iraq! Of course blowing up a police station or any symbol of foreign power furthers their cause, they are attempting to get foreign powers out of their country, and the includes the government they have now, which is to all intensive purposes, an American government.

Here you go again condoning the killing of inncoents!

Sadr refuses to join the interim gov't because he doesn't recognize it as a legitimate gov't. Neither do I. Neither do a great deal of Iraqis. Your claim that they simply want to kill is outlandish. Don't you think that perhaps they would have been killing all along, during the Hussein years?

Maybe because he isn't a part of the government! And I am glad to be able to speak with the vocie of Iraq! Are you a Canadian or the spokeman of Iraq?

So do you believe that's out of genuine concern for the civilians, or do you consider that there are strategic implications to that to, such as the reaction of the Iraqi people to having their cities stormed by foreigners?

As an American I can say yes the shrine is still standing and thousands of citizens aren't dead because we don't want it to be that way. Only ones protesting the US is the Sadr militia, the rest of Iraq is fine with it! Prove to me that besides Sadr people are complaining about the US!

I'm sure the US Army is going to let them safely disperse into the population. That seems likely. I'm sure those insurgents have heard all about Abu Ghraib by now, everyone else has.

I hope not they need to be killed or imprisoned for their acts upon their own countrymen.

It's no joke, and not one of them would be dead if the US wasn't in the country right now, fighting an insurgency of Iraqis who have taken up arms against the occupation.

How many would be dead if Sadr's militia wasn't killing them!

Obviously you need history books, maybe then you'd know that 2000 years ago there was no Islam. I don't think you're qualified to make any comments on the religion when you don't even know the basic history and principles.

Islam has always embraced learning and science, unlike Christianity. True, there are certain extremists, like those in Iran or Afghanistan who believe that if it contradicts their interpretation of Islam, then it has no place in their culture, but go to Saudi Arabia, visit a university, Syria, Kuwait, etc... These are cultures that embrace knowledge, not ignorance.

Last night I read the whole history of Islam from a supplied link on this forum. And I can say Islam is the new religion on the block.

But what caught my attention here is your use as Iran being one of the extremists. Now you say that thye use oppression to force their version of Islam on its people yet earlier you stated that Iran isn't oppresive.

I will point out right now, there are members who have been banned from this forum for offensive comments regarding Islam. If you want to keep making slights and libel against one of the worlds most prominent and proud religion, you could end up as one of them. If you want to discuss Islam, go read a book on the subject, and then discuss Islam. Do not come in here and start throwing around whatever you have heard about the religion from your buddies as if it's fact.

I see nothing here to condone a ban. Your quote shows no offensive comments except that fact he is debating the opposite side of you. Afterall you admitted that Iran is oppressive and extreme.

There is a big difference between a perfect world and what has been outlined here. You can't argue that the situation with Iraq could have been prevented in many ways, and countless lives could have been saved, had it not been for the policies and actions of the US, the UK and Husseins regime.

Try the policies of Hussein! BTW what about the rest of the countries that are in Iraq say like Canada, NZ they also have the same blood on their hands as the US and UK.

[Flatrater]

That's what the UN is for, to bring sanctions to bear against people who would commit such acts.

Show me how 10 years of UN sanctions stopped Saddam.


In Iraq, you have a nation of people who have been held hostage for more than a decade by an unseen power that bombs them, prevents them from getting medicine, selling their only natural resource, destroys their civilian infrastructure, and poisons their country. After more than a decade of this, they finally have a chance to fight back. Are they going to fight back? You can bet on it.


Saddam stopped the medicine. The food for oilwent thru your beloved UN not the US so show me how the US sold their only resource.


And tomorrow, I'm going to win the lottery

If you do are you willing to share? Or how about the biggest server they sell for use on AF?