Perspective on Civilian deaths in Iraq

DrHoracid you never answered my question, do you work for the government? Are you Barbara Bush? By ignoring me I am just going to assume the answer is yes. May I call you Babs? LOL

Originally posted by livinlife
>Iraq is a modern war with sophisticated weaponry as appose to the "hit or miss" weaponry of WW2.

>No comparison

Maybe iyo, but to me much of it seems like such a waste of civilian life.

All wars are a waste of human life. My point was , that you cannot compare WWII technology with the state of the art weaponry we have today.

WWII bombs were hit or miss affairs, Thats why they dropped so many. To make sure they got the target. Nowadays, we can put a missile through you letter box.

[edit on 03/12/04 by Bikereddie]

Originally posted by Jakomo

Jako-wacko-1
The US gave Saddam the okay to invade Kuwait then pulled back afterwards.

Jako-wacko-2
The United States ALLOWED Saddam the use of helicopter gunships to quell the uprising, so your own country is complicit in the slaughter.

Jako-wacko-3
Hey, get your country to sign the Kyoto Protocols and maybe, just MAYBE, this would be a valid reason. Your country pollutes the planet more than any other country does and refuses to do anything about it.

Jako-wacko-4
Watch who you accuse of having a mental disease when your points are so lame as to be laughable.

Jako-wacko-5
Your country invaded a country illegally, used the lamest excuses to justify it (which the UN and pretty much the rest of the world recognized as lies and refused to go along with), and brought about the deaths of 100,000 civilians.

Jako-wacko-6
Or stay ignorant. Just let me know you choose to stay ignorant and clueless and I'll happily block you.

Jako-wacko-7
p.s. I am not a Saddam-lover. The world is not black and white despite what your semi-retarded President says.

Wacko statement 1
If you truely believe the US gave Saddam "permission" to invade Kuwait then please seek professional help before you hurt yourself or others, your prozac isn't working for you

Wacky number 2
The UN gave Saddam permission to use helicopters.

Wackyisim 3
The kyoto protojoke is perhaps the stupidist idea of all time. It seeks to penalize the US while exempting the fastest growing and largest poluting countries on the planet, India and China.

Wackness 4
Liberal insanity is a self fulfilling delusion of arrogance and self importance.

Wackoff prize winner -5
The UN made 17 resolutions that Saddam ignored over 12 years, then purchased the security councile with oil-for-food money. Illegal war? The UN is illegal after taking bribes from a mass murderer. Koffi Anan should be on trial right next to Saddam for crimes against humanity.

Wacky dream -6
Block away, please, facts obviously have an negative effect on you.

Wacko jako all timer - 7
Our "semi-retarded" president is currently making Europe and those who fear "liberty" pretty "retarded" at the moment. The Iraqi and Afgan elections have gone pretty well. No bad for a president who's semi-retarded. Oh, by the way, why on earth would anyone "choose" to live in the french speaking insanity that you live in?

Originally posted by goose
DrHoracid you never answered my question, do you work for the government? Are you Barbara Bush? By ignoring me I am just going to assume the answer is yes. May I call you Babs? LOL

No you may not call me "Babs".............You may call me "Sir", if you can't respect your elders then respect your "betters".

You guys really think this war is just against Iraq and Saddam? Isn't it kind of a secret world war of sorts? I'm sure the US did have a good understanding of how Germany, France, China, Russia and others were cheating the oil for food program and getting oil vouchers and what not. The US is letting these countries know that they will not be able to get away with their greed and hunger for oil. This greed for oil is not only ours, maybe to those who are blind. It is a problem that some other countries had in this specific case. The US wasn't about to let such a major crime go unchecked. These countries were breaking international law and sanctions. Shouldn't the UN have made sure this didn't happen? Just another job the US has to do for them since the UN is more corrupt than the United States. If you all think the rest of the world was against our invasion because they are so concerned for others and the US isn't then that's just crazy. They had vested interest, just like the US and all other world powers do.

Maybe the blame for this war could go to the countries who were theiving oil and the UN for letting them get away with it. Nah, it's so much more fun for people to just balme the US because they are unable to put the pieces together.

Another point, you guys can keep crying over spilled milk but the war is on no matter if it was the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do. I would like ti end with minimal life loss as well but when do you draw the line when countries are messing with the world's economy and resources? Something has to be done eventually.

The bonus with this war is we get to knock a nut out of power while showing Europe and others what happens when they steal billions of dollars worth of oil. Maybe Saddam had some help when getting into power but isn't it a great thing when a country can admit to its own mistake and fix the problem they created?

It's like with life, if you mess up you can always let the mistake stay unfixed or you can fix it and admit you made a mistake by doing so. No individual or country is perfect.

One should not dwell on the past when they can improve the present and future. Maybe choices made now will not lead us to where we want to go but at least some choices are being made. We can not stay stagnant because I think we can all agree that humanity has a long way to go.

[edit on 12-3-2005 by Mandalorianwarrior]

Originally posted by DrHoracid

Originally posted by goose
DrHoracid you never answered my question, do you work for the government? Are you Barbara Bush? By ignoring me I am just going to assume the answer is yes. May I call you Babs? LOL

No you may not call me "Babs".............You may call me "Sir", if you can't respect your elders then respect your "betters". [/quote)

I find it hard to respect someone who can only answer with insults. As to whether you are older or better, I seriously doubt it. And you still have not answered the question of whether you work for the government. I am beginning to think you do since you refuse to answer.

Jakomo, I totally agree with your post.

And now...I am going to blow the lid off this whole thing and blow your minds!

The war in Iraq isn't totally our fault (e.g., the US). This war was perpetrated on the orders of the Bilderberg Group. Laugh if you want, you won't be laughing in a few years.

The Bilderbergers decided to postpone the war in Iraq until early 2003. Look it up if you don't believe me. When Clinton was governor of Arkansas, he went to the meeting in '91, next year he's president. Hmmm...

Hey, don't believe that a select group of people run the world, be stupid. This has been happening all throughout history. Again, don't believe me, I really don't give a $hit.

You people who don't care about the civilian deaths are focked up. I bet if Japan had dropped bombs on us or if Iraq had invaded us and had killed over 100,000, you would feel differently. Of course, this hasn't happened, and you sit in your la la land supporting this $hit. Disgusting. You people are the only thing that conforts me knowing that America will be torn apart in the next few years...

Originally posted by goose

I find it hard to respect someone who can only answer with insults. As to whether you are older or better, I seriously doubt it. And you still have not answered the question of whether you work for the government. I am beginning to think you do since you refuse to answer.

Yo "duck" guy.......my "repect your betters" rant is from a John Wayne movie called "big jake", and very funny movie. Please first tell me who you work for and I will answer you "inquiry". Do you make "pillows"? or mattresses? how about "jacket" liners.

The point of this thread has already been made. Even in something so vile as WAR, amreica spends billion to develop weapons to kill the enemy and not civilians becuase it is the right thing to do. A "warmongering" nation wouldn't care about civilians just "victory" at all cost, any cost.

It would be so much easier to just trun Iran into "glass" just to be safe. America spends it most precious treasure (the blood of soldiers) rather than just "blaze" the entire region. It would be so mush cheaper, safer, faster, to "superheat" the desert.........



[edit on 13-3-2005 by DrHoracid]

A goose is not a duck, lol very funny on the pillow and mattess thing, I got it. I used to work in the health field area, currently I am retired. I think what you seem to be missing on your perspective is that Bush intended to go into Iraq before he was ever elected in 2000. It was always his intention to go into Iraq, the WMD's were just a manufactured reason, any reason he could use would have been good enough. As for us using restraint you are right we could have nuked them but then again we have used illegal weapons against them and lets not forget the abuse of the prisoners, (currently it is reported that children as young as 8 years of age are being held as POW's) and we all know that was ordered from the top. Recently a report came out about the navy investigating and finding the abuse not to have come from the top, what a joke. An agency within an agency investigating itself and surprise at the conclusion no one is guilty except for the few scapegoats. Over 100,000 Iraqie civilians dead as a result of this war, and you think we have used restraint. You talk about the precious blood of the soldiers I agree it is precious and should never have been spilled unless there was no other choice. The problem is Bush made that choice way before he became President, way before the so called WMD that they had pinpointed but never materialized. Check out the link below and this interview. I only took a small excerpt of the interview, you might want to read the whole thing. You might start checking this website on a daily basis for some real news. BTW I told you what I do now lets hear what you do. Do you work for the government? You sure have avoided the question long enough.


www.democracynow.org.../03/11/1449249
AMY GOODMAN: You met with the President of the United States?

OSAMA SIBLANI: Yes, when he was running for election in May of 2000 when he was a governor. He told me just straight to my face, among 12 or maybe 13 republicans at that time here in Michigan at the hotel. I think it was on May 17, 2000, even before he became the nominee for the Republicans. He told me that he was going to take him out, when we talked about Saddam Hussein in Iraq. And I said, ‘Well, you know, I totally disagree with you. You just can’t go around taking leaders out of their countries, you know. Let the Iraqi people do it. They can't do it on empty stomachs. Lift sanctions. Keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein, but lift the sanctions on the Iraqi people. People can't make moves on an empty stomach. Once they start establishing, you know, a connection with the United States and helping democracy inside, they will overthrow him.’ And then he said, ‘We have to talk about it later.’ But at that time he was not privy to any intelligence, and the democrats had occupied the White House for the previous eight years. So, he was not privy to any intelligence whatsoever. He was not the official nominee of the Republican Party, so he didn't know what kind of situation the weapons of mass destruction was at that time

Any son would have the internal anger to "get" the filth that tried to "kill" his father. So I would say that taking out Saddam had crossed GW's mind. So What? Saddam was a menace to the planet and bush 41 should have taken him out after Gulf War -1. Unfortuantely he had a real piece of garbage in charge of his military......Powell.

There we many, many resons to take out Saddam besides the WMD issue. The entire planet new Iraq had WMD's. The "bought" UN stalled long enough for Russia to move WMD's out before the war began.

And NO I do not work for this admistration. Nor do I work for the RNC. Both are too liberal.

As for your liberal bias new site...well there it is..........liberal and bias.

So your solution would be to just bomb everyone that disagrees with us! And since Russis is supposedly holding the WMD's and they were worth going to war over in the first place, should we now go after Russia? I guess it is safe to say you don't subscribe to the, can't we all just get along idea. LOL As for the website while it might sound like a very liberal website given the current administration, it is not really, check the archives for the interview with President Bill Clinton when he called in to get support for Gore in 2000. You would not have called that interview as being liberal at all.

[edit on 15-3-2005 by goose]

Yeah Blame the filthy Frogs & Krauts it's all their fault. And the UN's a bunch of war-stoking pinko's too?? Obviously it's all a conspiracy to get you to (reluctantly) invade and occupy (sorry liberate) a country you had no strategic interest in.

Only one reason for creating the myth about Iraq - an invasion to grab the oil (OK so war's good for KBR too). Don't blame anyone else for your foreign policy - it's just about keeping your gas prices down.

Prediction - the USA recently stated it was planning to draw 15% (?) of its oil imports from West Africa within ten years. Set your watches now there'll be mini wars (maybe a couple of big ones) in that region soon. Not the little tribal wars - big ones where all your toys will be used.

Dr Horacid: Okay if this makes you cry, it's not my intent.

Wacko statement 1
If you truely believe the US gave Saddam "permission" to invade Kuwait then please seek professional help before you hurt yourself or others, your prozac isn't working for you

July 25: In a meeting between Saddam Hussein and US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie, Glaspie tells Hussein, "I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. ...We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your other threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship -- not confrontation -- regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?" Hussein answers that he intends to try to negotiate a peaceful settlement with Kuwait; Glaspie asks what solutions Hussein would find acceptable. Hussein wants to keep the entire Shatt al Arab [a strategically important waterway] under Iraqi control, and if given that, he is willing to make concessions to Kuwait. However, if he has to give up some control of the Shatt, he will renounce all control in favor of bringing Kuwait back under Iraqi dominion. Glaspie replies, "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America." Reportedly Hussein takes this as a green light from the US to proceed with the invasion. A month later, Glaspie is confronted by British journalists with the transcripts of the meeting, and is asked, "You encouraged this aggression -- his invasion. What were you thinking?" She lamely replies, "Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait," to which the astounded journalist asks, "You thought he was just going to take some of it? But how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed, he would give up his Iran [Shatt al Arab] goal for the "whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be." You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country!" When Glaspie refuses to answer, the journalist continues, "America green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signalling Saddam that some aggression was okay -- that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumalya oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands [including Bubiyan] -- territories claimed by Iraq?" Again, Glaspie refuses to respond, and is driven away in a limousine before she can refuse to answer further questions.

www.chss.montclair.edu...

www.consortiumnews.com...

home.achilles.net...

www.politicalclothing.com...

Wacky number 2
The UN gave Saddam permission to use helicopters.

www.fas.org...

But the declassified Safwan transcript shows that as the ceasefire
meeting ended, Schwarzkopf emphasized the points he wanted the Iraqis to
remember, beginning: From our side, we will not attack any helicopters
inside Iraq."
Although the transcript and the interchange with Frost make clear
Schwarzkopf was intent upon the terms of Iraqi helicopter operations.
White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater in a press briefing put a very
different character on the exchange. He described it as "a side, oral
discussion, nothing in writing." When a reporter sought some
clarification, Fitzwater responded inaccurately.
Reporter: Schwarzkopf says, okay, you can use [helicopters] for
transportation, but that's it?
Fitzwater: Right.
Was this a White House attempt to mischaracterize the Safwan talks
because Schwarrkopf had been pursuing a secret agenda that failed?
Analysis of the Safwan talks raises these questions:
* When Schwarrkopf said he preferred that gunships not fly over
allied positions, he was also saying that they could fly anywhere else.
Why did he make that concession?
* Why did Schwarzkopf only 'prefer' that gunships not fly over
coalition positions? Why not forbid them to do so to insure that allied
troops were protected, as Schwarzkopf claimed on the Frost show to have
done?
* When Ahmad asked if even armed helicopters could fly, why didn't
Schwarzkopf say no?

Schwarzkopf said go for it, we won't shoot down your copters. Did Schwarkopf work for the UN?

Wackyisim 3
The kyoto protojoke is perhaps the stupidist idea of all time. It seeks to penalize the US while exempting the fastest growing and largest poluting countries on the planet, India and China.

Yeah wow, what a bunch of crazies to propose cleaner air and water. Your children will understand, right? I didn't realize China and India are exempt. Oh right, that's because they're not. Try again.

Wackness 4
Liberal isanity is a self fulfilling delusion of arrogance and self importance.

See, in my country, LIBERAL is a good word. Liberalism, as in, freedom to choose what you want without governmental control. Maybe we're just more mature than y'all, and our government trusts us to make good decisions.

Wackoff prize winner -5
The UN made 17 resolutions that Saddam ignored over 12 years, then purchased the security councile with oil-for-food money. Illegal war? The UN is illegal after taking bribes from a mass murderer. Koffi Anan should be on trial right next to Saddam for crimes against humanity.

Haha, roll another one. ISRAEL has ignored over 90 Resolutions, North Korea about 40. The war is ILLEGAL because the US went in with no UN support. That's the bottom line. I-L-L-E-G-A-L under International Law.

Wacky dream -6
Block away, please, facts obviously have an negative effect on you.

Have someone read the links that I posted above to you, since you seem to have some blockage. They are facts. You, on the other hand, have not one single fact in your post to me, but then again maybe you're like 12 years old so I'll let that one slide.

Wacko jako all timer - 7
Our "semi-retarded" president is currently making Europe and those who fear "liberty" pretty "retarded" at the moment. The Iraqi and Afgan elections have gone pretty well. No bad for a president who's semi-retarded. Oh, by the way, why on earth would anyone "choose" to live in the french speaking insanity that you live in?

? What does French have to do with anything? Do you speak any other language than English?

Yeah Iraq is like a huge amusement park, except for, oh, the daily suicide bombings, the 100,000 dead civilians, the 2 hours of electricity they get every day, the huge lineups for gas, the kidnappings, the beheadings, etc.

If you occupy a country you become responsible for their people. The USA is responsible for all of it because they took it upon themselves to invade without proper support. And they fooked it up.


Hey, why don't you use some of these "facts" you keep squawking about and defend your side of the argument?


jako


P.s. What does "Our "semi-retarded" president is currently making Europe and those who fear "liberty" pretty "retarded" at the moment. "? Who fears Liberty more than your own government? Look to the Patriot Act I and II and see the erosion of your liberties. Or just turn a blind eye and then wonder 10 years from now what happened. Look up the word Gulag.


jako



[edit on 16-3-2005 by Jakomo]