In the News: Brutal Deaths of Iraqii Civilians

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

When was the last time U.S. forces drove a suicide truck bomb into a mass of civilians eating dinner in a restaurant?

nah that is a waste of time.
get a heap of loaded b52's and carpet bomb the whole joint and try to get praise for rebuilding it to you own liking later. thats the way to do it.

Civilian populations were not carpet-bombed in Iraq.

There is no lie too big for you to disbelieve, as long as it is anti-American. That doesn't do much for your credibility.

P.S. It would help to understand you if you quoted replies properly, so as to not include your own response as part of the back-quote. As it is, it's hard to tell who is saying what. All you have to do is hit "quote", and then add your own comments below the back-quote.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Civilian populations were not carpet-bombed in Iraq.

i saw carpet bombing live on television. how can you tell there are no civilians involved?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

• Quote

[rhys 0]

Quote

And if you can find that the US went to war for OIL, please by all means provide PROOF. So far all you have is retoric


this was printed before the war!


THE REAL REASONS FOR THE UPCOMING WAR IN IRAQ

Although completely suppressed in the U.S. media, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking - it's an oil currency war.

The real reason for this upcoming war is the Bush administration's goal of preventing further OPEC members moving to the 'Euro' as an oil transaction currency standard.

The dreadful events of 9/11 delivered (like a godsend) to the Bush Administration, the wonderfully perfect and timely excuse for hunting down OPEC and it's move towards the euro.

Under the guise of "rooting out all terrorist organisations and weapons of mass destruction", Bush hopes to keep the US dollar the dominant world currency -and, as a neat by-product, boost the flagging US global military/industrial machine.

In order to pre-empt OPEC, the US needs to gain strategic control of Iraq's oil reserves (2nd largest in the world).
As the US prepares for war with Iraq, the US seems unable to answer even the most basic questions about this war.

If Iraq's "Weapons of Mass Destruction" program truly possessed the threat that Bush has repeatedly purported, why is there no international coalition to militarily disarm Saddam?

Secondly, despite over 300 unfettered UN inspections to date, there has been no evidence reported of a reconstituted Iraqi WMD program.

Third, (and despite Bush's rhetoric), the CIA has not found any links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. In fact, Saddam and Bin Laden are mortal enemies.]

Moreover, North Korea is processing uranium in order to produce nuclear weapons this year, yet Bush has not provided a rational answer as to why Saddam's seemingly dormant WMD program is a more imminent threat than North Korea's active program?

The core driving force for toppling Saddam is actually the euro currency!

The US Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard.

Iraq actually made this switch in November 2000 when the euro was worth around 80 cents. It was this move that sealed Saddam's fate, -and another manufactured Gulf War become inevitable under Bush II.

The Bush administration and the corporate/military/ industrial conglomerate needs a puppet government in Iraq - so that Iraq will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way. (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports).

This information about Iraq's oil currency is censored by the US media as well as the Bush administration & Federal Reserve, as the truth could potentially curtail both investor and consumer confidence.
This quasi "state secret" can be found on a Radio Free Europe article discussing Saddam's switch for his oil sales from dollars to the euros on November 6, 2000.
The United States dominates other countries through its currency, noting that given the superiority of the dollar against most other hard currencies, the US monopolizes global trade.

After toppling Saddam, the US may decide that Iran is the next target in the "war on terror." Iran's interest in switching to the euro as their standard transaction currency for oil exports is well documented.

Even more alarming, and completely unreported in the US media, are some monetary shifts in the reserve funds of foreign governments away from the dollar towards the euro (China, Venezuela, some OPEC
producers, and last week Russia flushed some of their dollars for euros).

The American people are largely oblivious to the economic risks regarding Bush's upcoming war.
Not only is Japan's economy at grave risk from a spike in oil prices, but additional risks relate to Iran and Venezuela as well, either of whom could move to the euros, thus providing further momentum for OPEC to switch to the euro as the fiat currency for oil.

The Bush administration believes that by toppling Saddam they will remove the juggernaut, thus allowing the US to control Iraq's huge oil reserves, and finally break up and dissolve the 10 remaining countries in OPEC.

Regardless of whatever Dr. Blix finds or doesn't find in Iraq regarding
WMD, it appears that President Bush is determined to pursue his
"pre-emptive" war to secure a large portion of the earth's remaining oil reserves, and then use Iraq's underutilized oil to destroy
the OPEC cartel.

Will this gamble work? Undeniably may nations may suffer not only from economic retribution, but also from increased Al-Qaeda sponsored terrorism. Will we stand idle and watch CNN, as our governments become international pariahs by discarding International Law, as it wages a unilateral war in Iraq?

Is it morally defensible to deploy brave but naive young soldiers
around the globe to enforce US dollar hegemony for global oil transactions?

Will we allow imperialist conquest in the Middle East to feed the West's excessive energy consumption, while ignoring the duplicitous overthrowing of a democratically elected government in Latin America?

Shall we accept the grave price of an unjust war over the currency of oil that will only benefit the US?

Remaining silent is not an option. Make a small difference.



Forward this to all you know.




now you provide proof the war is about anything other than oil/economics it is all so transparent

freedom has nothing to do with it.

if it were about freedom then that just proves your forces are stupid. killing all these people and destroying all that infrastucture to get 1 man. stupid

just because many people disagree with the ways of your govornment. that doesn't mean we think america as a whole are wankers. don't be so offended when people appose your govornments actions. it's o.k. man i think you are a good person , you are just in denial of a very serious subject which involves you being lied to, just as much as i have been lied to.

to be perfectly honest, i feel sorry for you man

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

• Quote

[dorbie 0]

I doubt you know enough to recognize carpet bombing if you saw it, it would be a sustained and prolonged effort rolling over a LARGE area and I've only I seen some images of the aftermath from Gulf War I. Whenever it's been used it's been on troop and armor concentrations in the middle of nowhere and away from our troops and cameras. To my knowledge the only thing similar we're using and that you've probably seen is longstick, and it's a carefully targeted single load of munitions from a single bomber and it's NOTHING like carpet bombing. The airheads on the news called it carpet bombing but it isn't. Carped bombing is indescriminate if there's something there you want to descriminate against hitting you just don't use it. It is absolutely appropriate to bomb the shit out of our enemies when we find them in concentrations and your speculation of who or what MIGHT have been under those bombs when they hit enemy troop concentrations is irrelevant.

It's quite disgraceful the way people abuse these emotive terms and imply indescriminate bombing on the part of the allies. It just ain't done.

You should save your displeasure for the enemies that hide in civilian clothes, hide in civilian areas, bomb civilians and attack our troops after disguising themselves as civilians. Those are the guys that really put civilians at risk.

[rhys 0]

Quote

To my knowledge the only thing similar we're using and that you've probably seen is longstick, and it's a carefully targeted single load of munitions from a single bomber and it's NOTHING like carpet bombing.


i can't remember exactly how many but i was watching wayyyyy more than one aircraft smother an area because they though it might be where bin ladin was hiding!?!?!? that is exactly what the military said.

but that was probably lies and images from the previous war anyway. i couldn't believe the reasononing. but weather it was the current war or the previous. it was indescriminate bombing os an area the was very likely to have had many civilians.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

• Quote

[freeryde13 0]

oh thats how you do it?
***

_________________________________________

people see me as a challenge to their balance

[dorbie 0]

I'd liked to have seen that video.
Sounds like it may have been Tora Bora.

You sound conflicted, you want to cite it but you're reluctant to admit that any part of it is true for example OBL being there. He was in Tora Bora.

I have no problem carpet bombing some mountain area where OBL & his cohorts are hiding, but it doesn't seem like an effective tactic with caves there.

The Pentagon denies carpet bombing civilians there, but that's meaningless to you, you're only interested in making the accusation.

You only need to be discriminate when there is something you must discriminate against hitting.

[freeryde13 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

When was the last time U.S. forces drove a suicide truck bomb into a mass of civilians eating dinner in a restaurant?

nah that is a waste of time.
get a heap of loaded b52's and carpet bomb the whole joint and try to get praise for rebuilding it to you own liking later. thats the way to do it.

Civilian populations were not carpet-bombed in Iraq.

There is no lie too big for you to disbelieve, as long as it is anti-American. That doesn't do much for your credibility.

P.S. It would help to understand you if you quoted replies properly, so as to not include your own response as part of the back-quote. As it is, it's hard to tell who is saying what. All you have to do is hit "quote", and then add your own comments below the back-quote.[/like this?reply]

_________________________________________

people see me as a challenge to their balance

• Quote

[diverborg 0]

Quote

Will we allow imperialist conquest in the Middle East to feed the West's excessive energy consumption, while ignoring the duplicitous overthrowing of a democratically elected government in Latin America?

Shall we accept the grave price of an unjust war over the currency of oil that will only benefit the US?

Remaining silent is not an option. Make a small difference.



Forward this to all you know.

The world would be a better place if we all made judgements based on information we receive in chainmail letters.

[Gravitymaster 0]

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/2813601

Just a quick search - not verified - but does show you might be mistaken

"Iraqi officials said about two-thirds of the Iraqi deaths were caused by multinational forces and police; the remaining third died from insurgent attacks. The ministry began sorting attacks June 10"

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/babc.htm

"They show coalition troops and Iraqi security forces were responsible for 60% of Iraqi civilian deaths in conflict-related violence in a six month period.

A total of 2,041 civilians were killed and a further 8,542 are believed to have been wounded by them between July 2004 and January 2005.

This compares with 1,233 killed and 4,115 wounded by insurgents.

The data comes from conflict-related civilian deaths and injuries recorded by Iraqi public hospitals."

It really is hard to tell from the assorted sources what the true numbers are.

So we both are debating without real numbers

[slug 1]

Dudes

He got you again with the JR sucker punch

R.I.P.

[rhys 0]

Quote

There is no lie too big for you to disbelieve, as long as it is anti-American. That doesn't do much for your credibility.



i believe what i see more than i believe what i hear.

i was glued to the television while the war was being televised and i saw a formation of aircraft bombing a dusty mountainous area while the commentary explained they were trying to get bin laden who 'might be' hiding there. i thought and discussed with my 'neutral' friends about how would they know if they got him by getting him this way. i remember it vividly.

now where is your proof that they didn't do this? i'm not closed minded as you might think.but i wouldn't believe anything your govornment says though, because they have proved themselves unreliable too many times. media i believe to a certain extent.

i would like to believe that the world is better off now because of this 'war against terror'. there is nothing i want more. but i can't because all it is, is more terror making for more terror. for finacial gain. it is sooooooooooo obvious.

prove me wrong please.

i don't want to know figures.

mediation is better that fighting.

i'm stoked i know how to get that line thingy in there now cheers bro.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

• Quote

[Ron 7]

Ah since you pulled out a chain mail...I cannot see a possible defense

Quote

now you provide proof the war is about anything other than oil/economics it is all so transparent

Ah, if I have to dreg up all the reports of intel....You need to get out more.

Yes, they were proven false, but only AFTER the invasion. If we could have proven they were false before, or if Saddam had complied, or the UN done its job nothing would have happened.

But here are some cool quotes for you

Quote

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" --Gore, September 23,2003

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."--Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued decit and his consistant grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" --John F. Kerry, Jan 23, 2003.

Incase you don't like those:

Charles Duelfer:

Quote

In early August, Saddam's son-in-law Hussein Kamel had defected to Jordan, and had then spoken publicly about Iraq's offensive biological, chemical, and nuclear capabilities. (Kamel later returned to Iraq and was killed almost immediately, on his father-in-law's orders.) The regime's credibility was badly damaged by Kamel's revelations, and during these meetings the Iraqi representatives decided to tell Duelfer and his team more than they had ever revealed before. "This was the first time Iraq actually agreed to discuss the Presidential origins of these programs," Duelfer recalled. Among the most startling admissions made by the Iraqi scientists was that they had weaponized the biological agent aflatoxin.

Saddam maneuvered UNSCOM out of his country in 1998.

So you can say all you want. The intel did say he had them. It was wrong, but THAT was the reason for the war, not any crazy chain mail letter...I just got an offer for herbal Viagra....I guess that true as well

So, Charles Duelfer, the deputy executive chairman of the United Nations Special Commission. vs a chain mail letter? Gee, thats a tough one to say who I should listen too.

Quote

freedom has nothing to do with it.

Did I ever say it was? Nope. I said it was a nice BY PRODUCT. The reason was Saddam, his WMD programs and his failure to comply for over 12 years with the UN resolutions. And the failure of the UN to do what it was tasked to do.

Quote

if it were about freedom then that just proves your forces are stupid. killing all these people and destroying all that infrastucture to get 1 man. stupid

I don't think it was about freedom...It was about WMD programs.

Quote

just because many people disagree with the ways of your govornment. that doesn't mean we think america as a whole are wankers. don't be so offended when people appose your govornments actions. it's o.k. man i think you are a good person , you are just in denial of a very serious subject which involves you being lied to, just as much as i have been lied to.

You are believing a chain mail letter....Ah...I see.
You wish to believe anything that makes the US look bad....

I feel sorry for you that you buy into any Anti-US retoric. Anyone can see Saddam never complied, and that the UN did not do its job.

Anyone can see the intel said he had WMD...The fact that he used some on the Kurds should be a big clue right there.

But if you choose to believe the anti-US rhetoric chain mails as "Proof" Vs the UNSOCM reports from 6 years after the war that he was still making WMD's....Well, I have some great email letters I can send you about male enhancement, and how to get rich by helping some disposed King get his 23 Billion dollars (US) out of his country.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[crozby 0]

Quote

Car bombs struck two Shiite Muslim areas Monday in Iraq, killing at least 12 people and wounding more than 130 at a Baghdad restaurant and a mosque south of the capital."

May 24th:

A car bomb exploded Tuesday near an Iraqi police convoy in eastern Baghdad, killing two civilians and wounding eight others in the Karrada neighborhood around a corner from a girls' school, police said.

In northeastern Mosul on Tuesday, a member of Iraqi civil defense died after a bomb he was trying to defuse detonated, a spokesman for the region's Joint Coordination Center said. Four others were wounded in the blast.

Gunmen Tuesday kidnapped Nassir Sa'ed Al-Sayfi, an employee of Oman's embassy in Baghdad, the Iraqi Interior Ministry said Tuesday. "He was kidnapped from his house by unknown gunmen in a black BMW," the ministry said.

I can only assume you are trying to highlight what a complete monkeys rectum the security situation is in Iraq.

This is the direct result of the policy after the invasion to dispand the armed forces, the police and other important government departments and to allow looting and trashing of government buildings and public utilities.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Ah since you pulled out a chain mail...I cannot see a possible defense

***you are assuming that the above mentioned was a chain mail letter because it says to forward it at the end arent you?

actually it is an article published by the indepedant news source 'indymedia' unobstucted by corporate propoganda. copied and pasted into the dropzone forums proir to the invasion of iraq. i copied and pasted to this thread with the final words of the last copy and paster so you assumed it is a chain mail letter.

wrong. assumption is the mother of all fuck ups.

so i guess you wasted alot of time typing all that other stuff huh. and you obviously give a shit about it coz you took the time to do it

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

• Quote

[Ron 7]

Quote

you are assuming that the above mentioned was a chain mail letter because it says to forward it at the end arent you?

actually it is an article published in australia. copied and pasted into the dropzone forums proir to the attack. i copied and pasted to this thread with the final words of the last copy and paster so you assume it is a chain mail letter.

wrong.

Well your "Artical" is wrong as well.

I'll just pick a few things:

Quote

If Iraq's "Weapons of Mass Destruction" program truly possessed the threat that Bush has repeatedly purported, why is there no international coalition to militarily disarm Saddam?

If Saddam was not reported to have WMD's, why did the UN pass resolution 1441 on Nov 8th 2002?

Quote

Secondly, despite over 300 unfettered UN inspections to date, there has been no evidence reported of a reconstituted Iraqi WMD program.

If we had "unfettered" inspections...Why did the UN resolution 1441 say:

Quote

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

OR:

Quote

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

That does not sound like "unfettered"....Is there another definition of that word I need to read?

Quote

Third, (and despite Bush's rhetoric), the CIA has not found any links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. In fact, Saddam and Bin Laden are mortal enemies.]

OK how about this:
UN resolution 1441 again

Quote

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Or maybe the "new" news:

Quote

Baghdad, 23 May (AKI) - The number two of the al-Qaeda network, Ayman al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to take part in the ninth Popular Islamic Congress, former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi has revealed to pan-Arab daily al-Hayat. In an interview, Allawi made public information discovered by the Iraqi secret service in the archives of the Saddam Hussein regime, which sheds light on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and the Islamic terrorist network. He also said that both al-Zawahiri and Jordanian militant al-Zarqawi probably entered Iraq in the same period.

How about some "old" news?:

Quote

Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith. It was forwarded to the intelligence panel last month in response to bipartisan questions put to him by the Committee’s top Republican and Democratic members, Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, respectively. The memo’s contents reflected years of reporting compiled by U.S. intelligence agencies from various sources.

According to Hayes, fifty individual items (which he infers must be just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, since the bulk of materials seized from Iraqi files have yet to be analyzed) establish that Saddam Hussein collaborated extensively with bin Laden and his ilk in, for example, the following ways:

• Top Iraqi intelligence officials and other trusted representatives of Saddam Hussein met repeatedly with bin Laden and his subordinates. Since Saddam personally insisted that the relationship between the two be kept secret, the contents of their conversations have apparently not yet been discovered. It is a safe bet, though, that operational cooperation was among the topics discussed.

• According to the memo, U.S. intelligence received reports that Iraq provided safe havens, money, weapons and fraudulent Iraqi and Syrian passports to al Qaeda. It also provided training in the manufacture and use of sophisticated explosives. In that connection, bin Laden reportedly specifically requested that “[Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed,] Iraqi intelligence's premier explosives maker – especially skilled in making car bombs – remain with him in Sudan. The Iraqi intelligence chief instructed Salim to remain in Sudan with bin Laden as long as required.”

• A Malaysia-based Iraqi national, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, reportedly secured a job at the airport in Kuala Lumpur thanks to help from Iraq’s embassy in Malasia. He subsequently facilitated the movement of two of the September 11 hijackers, Khalid al Midhar and Nawaq al Hamzi, through passport control and customs en route to an operational meeting in Kuala Lumpur on January 5, 2000. The memo notes that “One of the men at that al Qaeda operational meeting in the Kuala Lumpur Hotel was Tawfiz al Atash, a top bin Laden lieutenant later identified as the mastermind of the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole.”

• “Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi [a senior al Qaeda operative] said he was told by an al Qaeda associate that he was tasked to travel to Iraq (1998) to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence to obtain poisons and gases training. After the USS Cole bombing in 2000, two al Qaeda operatives were sent to Iraq for [Chemical and Biological Weapons] CBW-related training beginning in December 2000. Iraqi intelligence was ‘encouraged’ after the embassy and USS Cole bombings to provide this training.”

• The memo indicates that there were as many as four meetings between the alleged mastermind of the September 11th hijackings, Mohamed Atta, and the former Iraqi intelligence chief in Prague, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani. “During one of these meetings, al Ani ordered the Iraqi Intelligence Service [IIS] finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office.”

In short, thanks to a much-maligned Pentagon effort to perform an independent review of existing intelligence on Iraq — undertaken at Secretary Feith’s initiative — it is simply not possible any longer to claim that there is “no evidence” of links between Saddam and al Qaeda. It behooves most especially those who have access to the full classified memo, like Intelligence Committee member Carl Levin, to stop misleading the public on this point for transparently partisan purposes.

So while Saddam may not have been involved with 9/11...It sure seems he had contact with Al Qaeda, or at least members of his government did.

Quote

Moreover, North Korea is processing uranium in order to produce nuclear weapons this year, yet Bush has not provided a rational answer as to why Saddam's seemingly dormant WMD program is a more imminent threat than North Korea's active program?

Sure, while NK may have the bomb....He will not use it. Can you name the countries that have used the bomb? Notice there is only one, yet many have gotten them since then. The use of a Nuke is a sure way to sign your countries death warrent. Also the number of total nukes is pretty much known. A country missing one would have some serious explaining to do. Not so with BC materials.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Alias 0]

Quote

Quote

And Sudanese, Cambodians, Rawandans on and on and on would disagree also, yep, you're right about that one.

What is our troop count in Darfur? Oh that's right - we don't have any interests there pertaining to energy (OIL) or global economics ($)

So I guess us rushing into "save" a population only pertains to certain "populations"

Ya gotta love this particular line of thought, if you can't help them all you shouldn't help any.

-
Jim

Nope, you're mistaken by my point. It was that we are not only in Iraq to save the people. We have other interests there that drives us to the goal. The others provided as an example DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING THERE FOR THE US - so it is not only about the liberation of Iraqi people - believe that if it makes you feel more comfortable with whhat is going on.

As Ron said, it is a good by product. But THAT was one of the reasons, the last and final, given by this administration to justify the war.

To rest on the logic that we are there to rescue the population, and we have no other interests (oil & $) is incorrect and a bit naive in my opinion. The motives are clear whether the Bush Admin admits it or not. OIL/$ - It's like some people feel like traitors if they admit that oil was a large part of this.

Why did we go in during Desert Shield? To only liberate Kuwait? No, to protect the Saudi's. Why?

So I hope you now better understand "this line of thought" We are not only there to liberate the Iraqi's WE HAVE OTHER INTERESTS ALSO!

WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE IN THE COUNTRIES I GAVE AS AN EXAMPLE. THUS IS WHY WE ARE NOT THERE "LIBERATING" THEM.

SO yes, The US will liberate populations of countries that have dictators, only when there is a US interest involved.

Face it. It is the UN's job to do these things, yes we are the major portion of the resources, but they should be dictating it, not the US. And when the UN says NO, and we GO anyway, what does that tell you?

WE HAVE OTHER INTERESTS OTHER THEN U.N. INTERESTS

Carpe Diem

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

i don't want to know figures.

Yea rhys, I don't want to know "figures" either. Those things are nasty, right along with "facts".

LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA

. . =(_8^(1)

[markd_nscr986 0]

***THE REAL REASONS FOR THE UPCOMING WAR IN IRAQ




What a pile of shite!

I cant believe that people would fall for any of that

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[Alias 0]

Quote

Quote

mmmmmm - so your position is that since the "insurgents" revolt against occupiers, all is fair against civilians?

Quote

Did I say that? No. I said that if the insurgents didn't open fire then there would be no bloodshed. Simple fact really. The US is not going to go down the street just shooting civilians.

So using your logic, if he US wasn't there at all, the insurgents would not be shooting at the US, which causes the US to fire at them.

I know it seems I'm being sympathetic to the insurgents, I'm not. The "insurgents" seem to be made up of many factions that represent many separate goals other then removing US forces from Iraq. The connection between that and our revolution was the discussion with my Super Lib Bud that led to my comments. I like trying to hear the other side.

Quote

You clearly don't know US ROE.

I understand that US GI's operate under rules of engagement (ROE) that give them the authority to open fire whenever they have reason to believe that they or any others in their unit may be at risk of suicide bombings or other insurgent attacks. Clearly understandable too me. I can't fault a G.I. at a checkpoint who fires on a vehicle which refuses to stop, because the insurgency has constantly targeted checkpoints . In addition to being located in residential populations intentionally. The ROE is understandable, but broad and subjective. This is why the "collateral damage" is so high.

The US has killed more then the insurgents, according to many reports. Although the numbers and sources vary? the US still leads. That was the point I thought

My point

Quote

or oil or can upset the dollar

Quote

No, try again.

Explain why?

Quote

Wow Ron, that really leaves the door open for Korea, Iran and on and on, doesnt it?

"Sorry, we cannot be certain you are following our rules, unless we invade, occupy and see that you are" What have we turned into at this point? Something close to what the rest of the world views us as - strong arming, our way is better, we have a bigger army, and will use it even though the UN and many allies say NO....because we're the US DAMN IT!

Quote

If the UN had done its job...No war. Simple really. If Saddam had complied, no war, again simple.

So from the above statement, it's fine to go to war under "enforcement" of UN resolutions, even though the UN did not santion our invasion, occupation, and liberation. That again is where we differ in opinions.

Too me? Invading and occupying another country is a HUGE deal! And better be for valid defense reasons. The WMD, even if we found them, could not reach the mass of America. Not good enough for me.

Quote

The US fucked up by using bad intel.

They were told it was bad before the invasion. That's why I have a problem with the motives provided by the Bush Admin. The US seems to have fucked up in every major issue so far. That again is why I have a problem with this war.

Quote

Darfur also has no WMD programs or anti-US governments

And because Iraq did, it was ok to invade? I disagree. There seems to be a few more anti American Tyrants that might have WMD programs. Shall we now attempt tp invade and occupy each one? Even after what we have learned?

The American cost is too great unless we are directly threatened.

Quote

Please don't claim to know what I think.

Sorry. I assumed

Quote

A little research and an open mind might enlighten people that after the 9/11 commission stated no Bin laden connection and the US found no WMD - thus striking the first two reasons, it only leaves "rescue". Two out of three proved wrong - not a good record. Oil and the dollar certainly had nothing to do with it

Quote

Again you assume you know me...

Oh calm down I merely generalized. I did not say you. Did I? Although you seem to fit all but one of those generalizations. I can see where it seemed insinuated.

Quote

And if you can find that the US went to war for OIL, please by all means provide PROOF. So far all you have is retoric

So now you need proof? Did you see proof with our shitty intel. What proof did you see?

This book certainly offers no more proof then the US citizens were offered. But a good case for the oil logic.

Let's keep our minds open for other motives also.
Until you can make a case (proof) that those motives are incorrect?

- Crossing the Rubicon -

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865715408/102-6831785-0246539?v=glance

Not that I believe everything written in this book, but there are many good points. All used in debate against me while defending the same position you have. This guy is a Bush hater - no doubt. But I cannot disregard all of his information just because of that.

Carpe Diem

• Quote

[Ron 7]

Quote

So using your logic, if he US wasn't there at all, the insurgents would not be shooting at the US, which causes the US to fire at them.

Well yeah. If they were not firing at us, we would not fire back...you could also say that if we were not there they could not fire at us.....Oh well we are there. If they *really* wanted us to leave, they should quit fighting us. The longer they shoot, the longer we stay.

Quote

The US has killed more then the insurgents, according to many reports. Although the numbers and sources vary? the US still leads. That was the point I thought

Some sources do not agree with that.

Quote

So from the above statement, it's fine to go to war under "enforcement" of UN resolutions, even though the UN did not santion our invasion, occupation, and liberation. That again is where we differ in opinions.

Well it is perfectly fine to go to war to protect yourself. We thought that Saddam had WMD. We had proof of that (which it seems was crap, but we do know he HAD them, he used them). We knew he didn't like us (Trying to off Bush 1 is a pretty good clue). We knew he would use WMD's if he thought he could get away with it (Kurds).

So we had a guy that didn't like us, with intel that said he had WMD, and we had other intel that said he supported terrorists (Notice I didn't say 'connected to 9/11'?), and he has USED them before. So he was seen as a threat to THE US. The UN does not give a rats ass about the US security in the long haul.

So the US acted mostly alone on the intel it had to protect itself...Thats a countries right. The UN believed Saddam had WMD, that is clear, but they didn't want to invade....They were not at risk of having a Nuke used in a major city. In fact the French and some members of the UN were making money off of Iraq.

The UN failed on so many levels....The fact that they failed to act does not mean that there was no issue...I mention Darfur here...There is a problem, but the UN does nothing about it. The US does not do anything about it since we get yelled at no matter what we do, and Darfur is not a physical threat to us.

So, is it OK to go to war based on the UN even though the UN does not want to use force? Yes, if you feel you are threatend. If the US did something in Darfur....even with the UN doing nothing, would you agree of say, "Well the UN didn't want to do anything, you should have stayed out?"

Quote

Too me? Invading and occupying another country is a HUGE deal! And better be for valid defense reasons. The WMD, even if we found them, could not reach the mass of America. Not good enough for me.

I agree an invasion is a big deal....The WMD would be a threat...Hey, who would have thought that jets could take down the WTC?

Our borders are not protected enough, as evidenced by the drug trade and illegal immigration. Do you really think that we could keep a nuke the size of a VW bug out? Or a few barrels of poision gas if they really wanted to get them in here? I don't. So the idea is to limit the amount of bad things, in the hands of bad people, who would do bad things.

Quote

They were told it was bad before the invasion. That's why I have a problem with the motives provided by the Bush Admin. The US seems to have fucked up in every major issue so far. That again is why I have a problem with this war.

They were also told it was good.

Guess what? Michael Jackson....Is he quilty or innocent? There is evidence that points both ways. So which are you gonna choose?

You can assume your intel that Saddam has WMDs to be good and try to get the UN to do its job...Eventually you have to do what they will not for threats without action is worthless...Or you can assume that he does not have them...And maybe one of your cities blows up in a mushroom cloud killing millions.

What would you do?

Quote

And because Iraq did, it was ok to invade? I disagree. There seems to be a few more anti American Tyrants that might have WMD programs. Shall we now attempt tp invade and occupy each one? Even after what we have learned?

How many have UN resloutions against them? How many have actually USED a WMD before?

We should not attempt to occupy each one....But how long do you wait for them to comply and prove they don't have them? 13 years seems long enough.

NK is not a real threat. They are not suicidal. They want food. Does NK having nukes cause a problem? Yes, but with the tracking and controls nukes have....It would be very hard for one to become lost. And any country that lost one to a terrorist would have some serious problems.

Quote

So now you need proof? Did you see proof with our shitty intel. What proof did you see?

This book certainly offers no more proof then the US citizens were offered. But a good case for the oil logic.

Let's keep our minds open for other motives also.
Until you can make a case (proof) that those motives are incorrect

Here you have to prove someone is a criminal before you punish them.

I have said time after time PROVE that Bush knew that Saddam had no WMD and that he lied..And I will join you asking for him to be punished.

But some book written with the intent to make money, or some political opponant trying to get power is not PROOF.

Our intel sucked. Well I hope people are held accountable.

But the simple fact remains...If Saddam had complied, or the UN had done its job, none of this would have happend.

If you want to claim that the US used the WMD's as ana excuse....OK, but it would have been easy to blow that to pieces since all Saddam had to do was actually let the inspectors do the job.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Alias 0]

nice post -I'm outta energy on this and gotta hit the hills

It's was a pleasure

Carpe Diem

[Alias 0]

Quote

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/2813601

Just a quick search - not verified - but does show you might be mistaken

"Iraqi officials said about two-thirds of the Iraqi deaths were caused by multinational forces and police; the remaining third died from insurgent attacks. The ministry began sorting attacks June 10"

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/babc.htm

"They show coalition troops and Iraqi security forces were responsible for 60% of Iraqi civilian deaths in conflict-related violence in a six month period.

A total of 2,041 civilians were killed and a further 8,542 are believed to have been wounded by them between July 2004 and January 2005.

This compares with 1,233 killed and 4,115 wounded by insurgents.

The data comes from conflict-related civilian deaths and injuries recorded by Iraqi public hospitals."

It really is hard to tell from the assorted sources what the true numbers are.

So we both are debating without real numbers

From your own source:

Quote

Sat Jan 29, 2005 11:07 PM ET


LONDON (Reuters) - The BBC has apologised for erroneously reporting that U.S.-led and Iraqi forces may be responsible for the deaths of 60 percent of Iraqi civilians killed in conflict over the last six months.

The broadcaster said on Friday in broadcasts and a news statement that its Panorama investigative show would air a report on Sunday citing "confidential" records from Iraq's health ministry to support the contention.

Iraq's health minister said the BBC misinterpreted the statistics it had received and had ignored statements from the ministry clarifying the figures.

"Today, the Iraqi Ministry of Health has issued a statement clarifying matters that were the subject of several conversations with the BBC before the report was published, and denying that this conclusion can be drawn from the figures relating to 'military operations'," the BBC said in a news statement on Saturday.

"The BBC regrets mistakes in its published and broadcast reports yesterday."

A BBC spokesman said the statistics would not feature in the Panorama show on Sunday.

© Reuters 2005. All rights reserved

So the 60% figure is bogus. I wonder if they got their information from Newsweek. Like to try again?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Civilian populations were not carpet-bombed in Iraq.

i saw carpet bombing live on television. how can you tell there are no civilians involved?

That was done against Sadam's troops on the front lines in the desert, to whittle them down and demoralize them before U.S. troops attacked. If you're referring to Tora Bora, that is an isolated and remote mountain region, and there were no civilain villages in the crosshairs.

It was not done against civilian populations. Why do you assume it was?

Answer: Because you love to believe anything bad about America, no matter how ridiculous.

Just keep on spewing this kind of stuff - everyone is seeing just how little credibility your comments have.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So I this debate is mute. Youre right

It's been anything but mute. But I digress, my position on this is a moot point anyway.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants