25,000 civilians killed since Iraq invasion, says report

I can not agree that this is a bad quote. It is actually a pretty good one. You might consider reading the whole Tao Te Jing - it is a great piece of philosophy(and poetry).

As to patriotism, it is indeed wrong. Even in the way you are explaining it. patriotism is just one step behind nationalism. And it is in contradiction with the idea of globalism where the world is supposedly trying to go. So at least it is an obsolete idea. Don't you think the terrorists which you probably hate so much, do not consider themselves patriotic?It is a state of mind which has lead a whole race to think that they are the chosen people and the rest should be under them.I am guessing you know which race I am talking about... Yes, the one that is causing all the trouble now. And still I am not against any nation. And I do not have any patriotic feelings about my nationlity, homeland, race or whatsoever. People are people. And that is the way it should.be. I am sorry if I could not make myslelf clear.

In his article "Is patriotism a virtue?" (1984), the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre addresses this question in a particularly subtle way. He first notes that most contemporary conceptions of morality insist on a kind of impartial blindness to accidental traits like national origin in the just treatment of our fellow humans—and therefore, that patriotism is inevitably not moral under these conceptions. MacIntyre goes on, however, to construct a sophisticated alternative conception of morality that would be compatible with patriotism.

[edit]
Patriotism for other countries?
History includes many cases of individuals who acted with impassioned selflessness on behalf of countries not their own. For example, the Marquis de Lafayette was a Frenchman who fought for the independence of the thirteen British colonies in America. The "Philhellenes," western Europeans who fought in the Greek War of Independence, are another example; as are the Americans who fought on the Allied side before the entry of their country into the First World War. Such cases call into question what we mean by "patriotism": for instance, was Lafayette an American patriot, or the Philhellenes Greek patriots?

Alasdair MacIntyre would claim that they were not; that these and similar cases are instances of idealism, but not of patriotism. Under this view, Lafayette was only devoted to the ideals of political liberty that underlay the American Revolution, but was not specifically patriotic for America. For MacIntyre, patriotism by definition can only be a preference for one's own country, not a preference for the ideals that a country is believed to stand for.

The opposite view is also widely held: for instance, many Americans who profess to be patriots would claim that their patriotism is not an arbitrary preference for America, but is rather is based on special virtues (for instance, "freedom"), that are specially, perhaps uniquely, possessed by America. Presumably, for such individuals, it would be quite coherent to claim that Lafayette was an American patriot, since he fought on behalf of (what are held to be) American virtues.

im sure u are a patriot in yer idea of something. freedom, peace or somthing else. u may try to deny u are a patriot, but patriot can be the same for watever it is u believe in.

Are we talking philospohy now? Here is a quote for you:

Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

And some more from Tao Te Jing. I find this passage very concurrent:

For governing a country well
there is nothing better than moderation.
The mark of a moderate man
Is freedom from his own ideas.

When a country obtains great power,
it becomes like the sea:
all streams run downward into it.
The more powerful it grows,
the greater the need for humility.

And since we were talking about patriotism:

"When stupidity is considered patriotism, it is unsafe to be intelligent."

-- Isaac Asimov

SomewhereinBetween

I venture to say that you spend your time in the rabbit hole. It has been stated by numerous people through various means of communication that Hussein was in fact responsible for a 7 digit count of killings.

You talk a good game, but how about back it up, k?
I asked you for links and sources, you have provided not one.
Provide or walk away.

But let us take your hundreds of thousands. I demand from you the same proof that you now demand. You do not have it, and you cannot find it! You will have to rely on propaganda put out by your state department and every other organization, for no person or organization had access to Iraq or Iraq’s files to know this.

I certainly will provide some sources. Can't find them you say? Sit tight, big talker. Let me provide for you that which you have yet to provide for me.
... could be 200,000
Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 people were killed under the rule of Saddam Hussein.
Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shi'ites and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000

And more can be provided.
Btw, your ludicrous assertion for millions only counts when you add in the Iran-Iraq War. I'm talking strictly those deaths attributed to Saddam that did not require being at war status.

You should be sorry, for the only pissing you did was in your own corn flakes.

See, I said it and knew it. vvvvvvv

as posted by seekerof
Pay attention.

While there was a groundswell of international outrage and support for the US public after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the link between the war on terrorism, the 2003 Iraq War and US patriotism has been difficult for some outside the US. Modern Western Europeans, particularly in the United Kingdom (perhaps due to its imperial history) and Germany have tended to view any ostentatious display of flags and national symbols as small-minded, jingoistic or, what is worse, racist—they have also been associated with Football Hooliganism (see Nationalism for more discussion on this topic). While patriotic statements appear to have played well to the US domestic audience, they necessarily exclude foreigners. Further, many abroad feel that the attributes described as typically or exclusively American—such as freedom and democracy—are not only found in the United States, and to claim so is inflammatory.

en.wikipedia.org...

You will Ask Yourselves One Question from this Passage:

What the Heck is JINGOISTIC?

Here is a Song that Displays the Basic Meaning:

We don't want to fight
But, by Jingo, if we do,
We've got the ships,
We've got the men,
We've got the money, too

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by cjf
'Probably' my foot.…..one such article commenting on this very topic:

By AlissaJ. Rubin, Los Angeles Times

….according to a detailed compilation and analysis of news reports released Tuesday by a pair of British-based groups opposed to the war….

Outside experts cautioned that because of the difficulty of gathering reliable information in Iraq and inevitable political biases, the information was almost certainly incomplete. But the high casualty figures indicate the stubbornness of the anti-coalition forces, said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank…..
…..He said reports on numbers of "killed" and "wounded" often blur together and that it is difficult to know "how many were really civilians."
(emph. added)

Link to Full Article (free site)

Even the posters article/link contains the proverbial ‘small print’:

“…but conceded that the data on which the projections were based was of ‘limited precision’”

Thank you for confirming my suspicions of this report and how it gathered its numbers. Much appreciated.




seekerof

[edit on 20-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Souljah
What the Heck is JINGOISTIC?

Here is a Song that Displays the Basic Meaning:

We don't want to fight
But, by Jingo, if we do,
We've got the ships,
We've got the men,
We've got the money, too

en.wikipedia.org...

During the 19th century in the United States, journalists called this attitude "spread-eagleism". This patriotic belligerence was intensified by the (apparently accidental) sinking of the Maine in Havana harbor that led to the Spanish-American War. "Jingoism" did not enter the U.S. vernacular until the 20th century.

Jingoism is a term describing chauvinistic patriotism, especially with regard to a hawkish political stance.

The term originated in Britain, introduced by Irish music-hall singer G. H. MacDermott at the London Pavilion during the diplomatic crisis of 1878, when Britain's Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli convinced the Tsar to retreat from Bulgaria, restoring it and Macedonia to Ottoman rule. The chorus of a song by MacDermott and G. W. Hunt commonly sung in pubs at the time gave birth to the term. The bloodthirsty lyrics had the chorus:

We don't want to fight
But, by Jingo, if we do,
We've got the ships,
We've got the men,
We've got the money, too.

The expression "by Jingo" is apparently a minced oath that appeared rarely in print, as far back as the 17th century, a transparent euphemism for "by Jesus", but it has also been given origins in languages which would not have been very familiar in the British pub: a corrupted borrowed word from the Basque "Jianko", meaning "God".

pretty good drawing and meaning to show they are willing to fight to defend and to defeat the Spanish. but i think u should look more into the definition of it.

[edit on 20-7-2005 by deltaboy]

Originally posted by Frosty
318 killed by terrorist attack?!

Where did this come from. I've counted 150 within the past week(though not counted), that number is laughable. The 100,000 by lancet is bogus. Wasn't this the same group that was counting all casualties as kills?

Bingo! Good point(s).
Its quite obvious that this report has not included those suicide attacks in the past few months or so. Oh wait, they probably did and simply tallied them under these:

1. US-led forces alone 9,270 - 37.3%
6. Predominantly criminal killings 8,935 - 35.9%
7. Unknown agents 2,731 - 11.0%

seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
Its quite obvious that this report has not included those suicide attacks in the past few months or so.

Well if You would actually Read the Article....

The figures up to March 2005 do not include the period since the elected Shia-led government of Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the Iraqi prime minister, took office and the insurgency has worked at an increasing rate to kill Iraqi civilians and police officers.

Well then, how about *you* consider amending this reports findings and give us some up-to-date corrections to this reports number assertions.

Btw, I did read the report, I just didn't pay much mind to those fine print disclaimers.




seekerof

[edit on 20-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Well then, how about *you* consider amending this reports findings and give us some up-to-date corrections to this reports number assertions.

With ALL DUE RESPECT, SIR

I Did not Write this Report - I have just provided you all with a Link for all of you to read it and explore it.

Why is that suddenly a Bad Thing?

What do you want from me?

Some realism and sense when placing your condemnations while spreading your world revolution message.





seekerof

[edit on 20-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by deltaboy
The term originated in Britain, introduced by Irish music-hall singer G. H. MacDermott at the London Pavilion during the diplomatic crisis of 1878, when Britain's Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli convinced the Tsar to retreat from Bulgaria, restoring it and Macedonia to Ottoman rule. The chorus of a song by MacDermott and G. W. Hunt commonly sung in pubs at the time gave birth to the term. The bloodthirsty lyrics had the chorus:

pretty good drawing and meaning to show they are willing to fight to defend and to defeat the Spanish.

but i think u should look more into the definition of it.

Pay Attention to the "BLOODTHIRSTY" Part of the Explanation....

Originally posted by Seekerof
Some realism and sense when placing your condemnations while spreading your world revolution message.

Oh...

OK - I will Keep that in Mind the next time I post a Message for World Revolution.

Originally posted by Souljah

Pay Attention to the "BLOODTHIRSTY" Part of the Explanation....

well gee u think the patriotic Americans are thirsty for blood from the Spanish for the sinkin of Maine. aniways they call it Bloodthirsty in their view.

Originally posted by deltaboy
well gee u think the patriotic Americans are thirsty for blood from the Spanish for the sinkin of Maine. aniways they call it Bloodthirsty in their view.

Although not as well known as the American Revolution and the Vietnam War, the Spanish-American War presents a venue to compare American culture at the end of the nineteenth century with American society at the close of the twentieth century. The sinking of the USS Maine, the direct cause of the war, has been the subject of considerable speculation. Was the explosion the work of the Spanish or of the Cubans? Could the explosion have been attributable to mechanical failure? Playing on the American fascination with intrigue, a teacher could use the Internet to examine the conspiracy theories about the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996 and compare the two incidents. Perhaps students will discover that scientific and historical inquiries are superior to the irrational mumblings of conspiracy theorists.

www.questia.com...

Ok, let me get something stright
A further 36% were blamed on criminal violence

so 25,000 x .36 = 9000

thats a lot of criminal violence espically when there is a military force there.

Wow. I think this thread is now sooo big and with soo many subplots that I don't know where to start.


OK, Patriotism is Pride. You can stuff your definitions and all. Patriotism is simply defined as Pride in one's nation by every steelworker, postman, farmer, and McDonalds worker here in the US. That DOES NOT mean that we're donning jackboots and marching down Main Street screaming "U.S. uber alles". Patriotism is not inherently evil, though it can be misguided. Jingoism is the errored max of patriotism, belief in the US over all else; the whole "We're right and you're wrong thing, because!". Now, that doesn't mean that if we believe we're right we're jingoistic, sometimes the U.S. AND THE OPINION OF THE U.S. PEOPLE CAN BE RIGHT!?!

If you dwell in the greys of the world, without taking a stand with black or white, you live in a very drab world. Nothing is more annoying to be in real life than someone who cannot make a decision or take a stand. That shows a lack of confidence, and lack of...oh yeah....PRIDE?

I'm not a big fan of government, and I'm not a big fan of the way the whole Iraq invasion and occupation was handled. Frankly, I think we went to war without many of our allies for more sinister reasons than were public. I frankly think that many levels of old world Europe were being compensated to maintain the Oil for Food program and keep the status quo. I don't think we've adequetely embarrassed those that are guilty of this. I think the war was botched in its implementation by dissolving the Iraqi military and starting from scratch. And I think it's appalling the lack of border security Iraq has right now, with waves of new insuregents crossing the border every day.

I also think big government is here to stay, as much because the Republicans as the Democrats. To be honest, both sides are inextricably linked to corporations by money, donations, influence, pandering, and favorism.

That being said, I still owe allegience to the IDEAL of this country, is not its implementation. When I cheer for the Fourth of July parade, I cheer for everything and everyone we've been, not neccesarily our President or our policies.

Getting back on topic a bit, I think this report is much like any other myriad reports that come out every day. ANYONE can put out a report, and anyone that has read " How to lie with Statisitcs" know that statistics can be twisted to say whatever you want, depending on the criteria and implementation of the numbers.

Here is what I suggest. Go to www.iraqibodycount.org, download the PDF and read it. You'll then see what we all mean, and your opinion with be likely solidified by it, regardless of what side you're on. This shows the report is partisan, if nothing else.

Originally posted by SeekerofYou talk a good game, but how about back it up, k?
I asked you for links and sources, you have provided not one.
Provide or walk away

For someone who claims to be an old-timer on here it is quite obvious that either your head is purposefully kept well lodged in muck and mire or you love wearing blinders. Now what exactly what be your reaction to my showing you claims of millions? I doubt you will even acknowledge same, for you that would prove too embarrassing for your frail ego. Secondly, this is not about me providing proof, this is about you and your dismissal of the Iraqi dead and your flagrant skirting around my direct challenge to you to prove even the hundreds of thousands claim you made about Hussein. You have thus far failed to support your mundane arguments and spewed nothing but propaganda in an effort to adjudicate your own defenseless posturing.


Once more on your sources, and just because I well understand with every post that you make you invoke deliberate myopia: SomewhereinBetween:- do not have it, and you cannot find it! You will have to rely on propaganda put out by your state department and every other organization, for no person or organization had access to Iraq or Iraq’s files to know this.

When was Human Rights watch in Iraq during Hussein’s reign? Hmm? Haven’t you learned by now that you need more than rhetoric when engaging with me in debate? If you are going to source and quote from a site at least make the feeblest of attempts at discerning its strengths and weaknesses:

Testimony of Andrew Whitley (HRW) 12/1991- Middle East Watch has not received permission to conduct a human rights mission in either Iraq or Kuwait. (Indeed, Iraq has not allowed any humanitarian organizations into Kuwait.

HRW report 2000:- In March, the opposition Iraqi Communist Party's Center for Human Rights submitted to the U.N. special rapporteur on Iraq details on 223 executions that it said were carried out between October 12, 1999, and March 9, 2000.”… Press freedom and the right to information remained severely restricted. The government maintained tight control on all media outlets, including television, radio, and newspapers, most of which were state-owned.

More sources for HRW 1999 report
-In November 1998 the Centre for Human Rights, a London-based affiliate of the opposition Iraqi Communist Party, reported that on October 1, 1998…

-According to Iraqi opposition sources,…

-Following the murder of Ayatollah al-Sadr there were widespread reports of at least four days of heavy clashes between protesters and security forces in heavily Shi`a neighborhoods of Baghdad such as Medinat al-Thawra and in majority Shi`a cities such as Karbala, Nasriyya, Najaf, and Basra in which scores were killed and hundreds arrested. The government denied these accounts but refused to allow reporters to visit the areas in question….

-There were also opposition reports…

The Iraqi National Accord, an opposition group, reported in late April that the government had expelled into the autonomous region 400 Kurdish and Turkoman families from the Kirkuk neighborhoods…

And what exactly are these two named sources you would not think of researching yourself? Well I will let these sources provide those answers for you:

www.fas.org...
The Iraqi National Accord (INA), headed by Iyad Alawi, consisted primarily of military and security officers who had defected from Iraq and who were perceived to have residual influence over military and security elites around Saddam. The INA's prospects for success appeared to brighten in August 1995 when Saddam's son- in-law Husayn Kamil al-Majid-architect of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs -defected to Jordan.

-The fall of Saddam Hussein saw the Iraqi Communist Party (ICP) re-emerge after being banned for 35 years.
it operated underground and from the Kurdish enclave in the north of Iraq during the rule of Saddam Hussein.
news.bbc.co.uk...

Neither of them operating in Baghdad and both of them with their own agendas contributed to the piles of manure from which Bush and Blair made their claims against Iraq. Not good enough for you?

HRW 1999 Report- The government allowed no independent human rights organizations to operate in the governorates under its control and prevented foreign journalists or diplomats and persons working with humanitarian relief programs from traveling outside of Baghdad without escort or reporting on human rights abuses.

When this reputable organization itself cannot attest to the charges as made, and makes this disclaimer, then you offer nothing but propaganda to perpetrate your deceit and bolster your already decimated case.

Do you know of any other organization that is not affiliated with any government that has satellites that took pictures of those terrorist camps in Iraq, since your not buying that the CIA took them, documented them, and that people captured inside Iraq and at Gitmo have substantiated that indeed there were terrorist camps in Iraq and that indeed terrorists were being trained in them? If you do, provide them or keeping rambling.

Can I expect any time say within the next 5 posts of you’re your proof that this was in fact accepted as truth?

Stay focused here, your rambling.

My you certainly are easy to unnerve, so much so that you have to resort to borrowed responses.

And when can I expect your demand that Guantanamo Bay be bombed and overtaken?

Of course not. Personally, it should continue to be filled to the brim.

Of course you do, because you have no problems with the kidnapping of others by your own government, you just have a problem with others doing the kidnapping. And that is why your dgobblygook bites you in the hiney, for it displays arrogant hubris, hegemony and a decidedly unapologetic hate and hypocritical stance.

You might want to heed what you are so claiming that I am doing there, mate. Assertions and claims are made within ATS every single day, and could be thought to be in violation of those "terms of service" you so decided to pull into this discussion.

Stop with the flatulence already! And don’t be shy, if you want to warn me publicly then do so, and do so by stating what it is that you are masking in that response of yours. Your veiled threat is just another defensive posturing for your position being chewed up and spit out, and supported only by any trumped up charge you can concoct. Now I will repeat; you have made three wrongful claims as to me which violates the terms of service of this board. Now be a good moderator and publicly apologize for publicly breaking the very rules you are supposed to be enforcing, for I see nothing in that TOS which states that moderators are exempt from the laws.

Ready to stop spreading your unfounded propaganda yet?



[edit on 7/21/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

Originally posted by Souljah
Why CANT I pledge Allegiance to Myself?
I also Pledge to RESIST!

well, you can do as you please but that jsut shows your values doesnt it ?
Yeah Resist, that adolecent trend doesnt seem to die early does it? The anti-coalition hippies and the anti-Iraq lobby is more interested in resisting capitalism, institution, rules and such, a renaissance of 70's hippie culure if you will! Their is no thought about what the implications are, what are the governments really doing and how their message is going to be interpreted, no! The just rant on regardless
Your main aim is to Resist, to satisfy that adolecent urge of defiance independence etc, it is sad! Your kind dont know what they resist against, each one has his own concotion of "what the govt is doing!" and "how the corporations are becomming richer", all this is just mass paranoia that has manifested itself on these people who havent yet grown out of their brash adolesence!
Why dont you and your " Terrorist-loving" buddies find out what you are really against! Even if the govt did exactly as you people say you will still have a problem, it is psychological! These people propose no real solutions or present any feasible alternatives but only capable of carring out smear campaign after smear campaing!
It is your delusions that you should make an effort to resist.

Originally posted by Souljah
Well Its the ONLY Report about the Civilan Casualties.
Is there any other "Official Report" so we can Compare?
Does the US Army make an Official Report? I belive they just care about the dead US Soldiers, and they even LIE About those!

It isnt possible to conduct a survey like that in the present situation because of all the fighiting and danger! Cant you understand that?
Also the report has never made any attempts to verify with the coalition command about what their statistics show, they have independently carried out an adhawk survey based on "news reports". Are we supposed to believe that?

Originally posted by Souljah
Speldid Job!
Saddam is Out and a new Terror is IN!

Yes it is isnt it!
Well the coalition didnt invite these terrorists in did it? The fundamentalists are to blame for that, not the coalition!

Originally posted by Souljah
The "Process of Eliminating Terrorists" is basicly Creating Terrorists, just like the alleged War on Terror. So, I am sorry to report to you, but everytime an Iraqi Civilan Dies and everytime an US Soldier Dies the Corporations makes More Money. Nice huh?

The "war on terror" has made it much more difficult today for terrorists to operate that it ever was. Also the war on terror is not only the military action that you see but it is a multi pronged attack that targets all the various facets of fundamentalism and seeks to destroy their main excuse of American conspiracy. Unforutnately, it is wrong people who are being brainwashed, it is the gullible liberals that are falling prey to the brainwashing done by those "pseudo-greenpeace junkies" and the traditional demogogery by the fundamentalistic muslim world.
The process of eliminating terrorists is responding to terrorists effectively so that they may not harm Iraqi citizens, this is working that is why most of these fighters are foreginers, the iraqis themselves have come to realize that the coalition just wants them safe and if their is no violence or terrorist activites then their is no need for the continued presence of coalition military in IRAQ but it is these terrorists from neighbouring countries that are busy carring out bombings and the like, they want to see that Iraq doesnt last a democracy they want to see Iraq fail. That will strengthen their cause, then they can recruit more convinvingly form the ignorant arab masses. But both the iraqi people and the coaliton is intent on not letting this come to pass and fianlly through the greatness of human spirit Iraqis will show that arab world fundamentalism and extreemism are not the way and only through freedom, tolerance and democracy can any true people live with respect

Originally posted by Souljah
The Iraqi Police consists of ONLY two members of Religious/Ethnic Groups in Iraq - the Insurgents consist of the remaining one. That is like arming the two opposing sides and waiting for them to start killing each other.

That is another fantasy of yours! Their is no restriction on entry to the Iraqi army or police based on ethnicity, thats just liberal propaganda. The system in Iraq takes after teh western model where it is not your origin that matters but your principles and virtues that matter.
These fundamentalists are trying every trick in the book and no ones buying it! This is yet another example of their desperation.

Originally posted by Souljah
But sooner or later these 3 involved Sides will start to pull to their own side and start to tear the country apart. Kurds want an independant state of Kurdistan. And I belive both other Parties have same Ideas about their "Independant State".

That is the greatness of democracy, it encourages diverity of thought, of origin yet unites them under a common ideal, the ideal of democracy, of peace, of tolerance and of a better future for their people!
If it is possible in Afganistan then it is possible anywhere else in the muslim world, even the fanatical Ayotullah in Iran have succumbed to the request of their people! I will say it again, Democracy is the only way a people can live with dingnity and be assured of prosperity anything else is just a cop-out to human values.

Originally posted by Souljah
What about when "Smart Bombs" kill Innocent Women and Children?
Is that any Better?
Or in that case you just call it "Collateral Damage" and the Debate is OVER?

The destruction due to smart bombs is regrettable, but that was WAR and in War people die, sometimes they have to be regretably civilians, that is the trade off. Every great movement has its losses, sadly in this case it had to be civilians.
The very fact that the coalition used "smart bombs" demonstrates the fact that our intention is to cause as little collateral damage as possible, that is why the coalition spends so much on a "smart bomb" compared to just carpet bombing the entire area! Also you dont see these smart weapons going off every day do you? No! these were used only during the war when it was NECESSARY. Now as the war against Saddam has ended these suicide bombings are NOT NECESSARY, they are not called for at all. They are merely the desperate acts of fanatics and extreemists that resort to demonic and merciless acts of vilence in the pursuit of their misguided demonic goals.dn:

Originally posted by Souljah
If you dont know the Abyss between Shia and Sunni Islam goes way, way, WAY Back before Saddam even Existed and before a US Marines was Standing on Iraqi Sand.

Well, they do have great propensity towards violence but that is a fallacy in their social structure, their way of life, their society. Along with a physical revemp of the muslim world, a mental and spiritual revamp is in order.

Originally posted by Souljah
OH, and what Higher Moral Ground is that?
To Follow the current Presidents Lies and Deceptions in this War on Terror?

Again you seem incapable of looking past your misguided notions about America and the global War against terrorism.
The higher moral ground being- Respect for all life, a code of war, compassion for the weak and the wounded, a sense of fairness and an overwhelming urge to destroy extreemism and promote the values of democracy, tolerance and justice!!

Originally posted by Souljah
Are you saying that the People of Iraq are not Civilized?

It is the fanatics who are not civilised and it is those ignorant masses that fall prey to the demagogery of fanatics! It is they who lack civilisation, it is they who need to be infomed about the human values of compassion,freedom, tolerance and justice that all of humanity the world over expects from a civilised race.

Originally posted by Souljah
And there is ALOT of Mindless Fanaticism in the Ranks of current US Goverment and in the War Profiteers that has "Bought" it in order to make Profit out of Wars and make Money from Killing.

That is not fanticism, their is a difference between dedication and mindless fanaticism. The current US government and the soldeirs that fight overseas have a strong determination to bring these merchants of death to justice, to punish these inhuman beasts for the pain they casus millions worldwide and to reform the regions that these villans of humanity consider "safe havens".

Originally posted by Souljah
You think the War Profiteers give a Damn about Mercy and Compassion for the Suffering Iraqi People?
Hallliburton Wins New $4.9Billion Iraq Contract

Warprofiters? what profit is their in exposing your employees to untold dangers, suffer extreem loses and face heavy opposition from anti-war groups? Just so that they can break even at the end of the day?
I dont think so, these corporations merely help in rebuilding Iraq, mind you with American tax payers mony that even the Congress and the President pays! If they really wanted to siphon money they could have allocated various bogus deals in the US itself so that they didnt have the trouble of travelling all the way to Iraq and face death threats from terrorists and watch beheadings of their people on tapes!
Granted that the corporations are all American but what harm is their in that if it Americans who are paying the corporations in the first place! After all, we pay our taxes and this way both the Iraqis and Americans can benefit, with Americans by generating new jobs by these corporations and Iraq getting infrastructure.
Its profitable both ways, I dont see anythign wrong with that.