It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

655,000 Iraqis killed since start of war

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   
We give a crap now because its our troops on the ground invovled.
Had we not of entered that country, the bombs owuldnt be going off, the beheadings wouldnt be happening, the secretarian violence wouldnt be happening.

We're not piping up about sudan, south africa or china are we?
we not liberating them.
why?

Because its not beneficial to our economy to be occupying them.

They are trading partners, who contribute to our economic bottom line.
Saddam, he was withholding oil, and he wasnt prepared to help us out any time soon.

Murdering people and butchering citizens sucks.. im glad everyone can agree.
But look at the people he's controlling?
They are quite content with decapitating people.

You need a vicous man to control vicous people seeker.

We execute the people here we dont like, Sadda mexecute people who stood against him

But us going in there and messing up the euqilibrium that existed between ethic factions.. is going to have a lot more people killed, tortured, maimed than saddam would of done.
the USA completely stuffed up, when are you going to realise this.




posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
But us going in there and messing up the euqilibrium that existed between ethic factions.. is going to have a lot more people killed, tortured, maimed than saddam would of done.
the USA completely stuffed up, when are you going to realise this.


Not to mention the tens of thousands or more Iraqi civilians killed directly by US & Co.'s weapons.

Welcome to Freedom, Iraq! *Looks at Avatar*

[edit on 13-10-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Bagh, whats a few thousand dead.
Halliburtons making record profits.
The bush family friends are making $$$ of there friends companies whom supply the army..
Just keep on putting enough ' positive ' reports on the news, and deny everything them pesky research type people put out..

quite a basic principle really.

As long as you keep denying everything people put in front of you, you will perscribe to the unfortaunate whom cant comprehend the reality around them..

Iraq and Wmd's... WHAT wmd's?
Freedom and liberty.. what.. behind abu grahib cells?
security and infrastucture... before or after the IEDs and missles?
But oil n money.. well thats just fortunate we happened to wrongfully invade a country full of the stuff...

yep.. pretty damn unlucky we were wrong about Iraq.. think of the tonne of money we almost missed out on.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 06:13 AM
link   
So Nygdan you finally admit that Bush and the goverment was lying, that Irqa 2 was not about WMD'S or 9/11 (just to remind you I dont know how many time's I heard Bush saying Saddam was responsible) it was about spreading democracy. Well I'm sure the Iraqi's will be queing up to thank you, I mean Saddam was a murdering despot but thats small compensation to the innocent men, women and children that have died because of our actions.

And yes Saddam did have chemical weapons but he did not have the delivery systems did he, so again no real threat. And personally you have lost all credibility as an inteligent human being to state that its better for thousands of people to die as long as its not Americans. And you wonder why people want to kill Americans. You should be ashamed of yourself, there is nothing to be proud of and such sentiments doom the human race to complete failure.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   
So Nygdan you finally admit that Bush and the goverment was lying, that Irqa 2 was not about WMD'S or 9/11 (just to remind you I dont know how many time's I heard Bush saying Saddam was responsible) it was about spreading democracy.

When did Bush say Saddam was responsible for 9/11.. Show me anything that he said that. Or did you make that up. Where did you hear it, in your dreams. Stop making stuff up to support your ideas. He never said it.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Was it genocidal when we destroyed Dresden?

Yep - Dresden bombing calssifes as Genocide by Geneva Convetions.



Its well worth it, for the americans.

And I thought YOU wanted to liberate the people of Iraq.



Where did I say I was proud of it? Its not a thing to be proud of. But I'd sure as heck rather see chaos and death throughout Iraq than within America, just like the iraqis would rather see it in american than their home.

So, by Liberating the people of Iraq, you actually mean bringing Chaos and Death to them? How noble.



If anything, it provides them with an excuse to accept peace with us. "Attack, and untold thousands of you will die, leave us alone, even if we are arrogant occidentals, and nobody gets hurt".

Who are THEY? Were the people of Iraq and Saddam behind 9-11 attacks? Did they attack America? OR are you just putting all Muslims in this Chaos and Death wishes you have?



I'm not saying I am smart. If anything its a 'simple' policy, "attack us, and you will be worse off than before".

Pakistan did not attack America either, and they got a nice threat, saying that the mighty Imperium Americana will carpet bomb them to stone age, if they do not cooperate. Well that is kind of a threat.



911 was one attack within a series of attacks the al-qaida has made upon America, from the embassy bombings to the Cole bombing and beyond. Americans did not commit 911, and the government failed to realize that there was that much of a threat.

So, that's why the Imperium Americana has to Liberate Iraq and cause death of 655,000 Iraqi civilians and call that Democracy? And let me remind you again, that Saddam is NOT Al-Qaeda and that everything about 9-11 is Fishy and that it smells to the Heavens. But ofcourse that does not matter anyway. They attacked You, and You have to kill Them.



They broke the treaties, because they want to aggressively use their nuclear weapons. Beacuse of this, they will be annihilated.

Gee I wonder how many Treaties, Conventions, Laws and other Law stuff Imperium Americana broke by invading foreign countries.

I have a gut feeling your answer is going to be - Irrelevant.



Who is lying? Bush has said that Iran and N.K will not be permited to have nuke weapons. That means 'we will kill them if they won't cooperate'.

Well that is a very interesting answer - 'we will kill them if they won't cooperate'. Sounds kind of like talking to a Borg;

"Cooperate or you shall be Eliminated.

Our Weapons are Superior.

Our Lies we tell are Irrelevant.

Your Lives are Irrelevant.

You shall be assimiliated within the Empire.




Irrelevant. Who cares if the war is just. They attacked us, so we will destroy them.

Your Lives are Irrelevant - you shall be Asimilated.



Who the hell cares if 'the world' forgives America?

Are you aware that you do live on this Planet called Earth, which is hosting many Nations, Nationalities, Religious groups which are NOT America? And do you know, that Americans only count 300 million souls. Wanna make enemies out of the other 6,255,924,000 CITIZIENS of this PLANET?



Those 600k deaths are by iraqis killing other iraqis, not people rounded up and killed by the Americans.

Wrong - as the report says, 31% of this 650,000 Iraqi's killed IS done by US&Coalition troops, which makes a pretty high number.

OH let me guess you reply - Irrelevant.



America is responsible in large part because we've removed the 'iron fisted rule' that was keeping the sunnis, shia, islamists, etc, at bay. This is precisely like what happened with Yugoslavia, pull the communists out, and the people in the society start destroying one another.

I see you are also an Expert on Yugoslavia - how nice. Were you here when the # happened? Was anybody you know here? Oh, I guess I am talking to an All-Seeing-Eye, which knows Everything.



Irrelevant. Hussein was a threat, and Hussein's rule represented those very fundamental problems in the middle east that had created, or at least empowered, the reactionary politics of groups like al-qaida.

Let me remind you again, that Hussein was NOT a direct threat to America, never actually was, he never like Al-Qaeda (since it was an American prouct, the baby of CIA, NSA etc) and that even your allmighty president admited that 9-11 had NOTHING to do with Saddam. Mister Hussein was a problem, when he started to sell oil in Petro-Euros - remember that? Or is it IRRELEVANT?



As if.
We run this planet, we dictate what gets to happen. We can't necessarily stop events like 911, anymore than a person can prevent any other relatively random act of violence. But as far as concerted action against the US, for any realistic length of time?


Whoa! Now this reply is beyond stupidty and arrogance. What do you mean WE run this plant? You mean America? Well that is the biggets bowl of crap I ever saw written! America does not run the show - do you know who the Committee of 300 is? Trilateral Commission? Council for Foreign Relations? Bilderbergs? Rothchilds? Rockafellers? Ever hear of the phrase GLOBAL ELITE. They RUN America and throught America they exercise their power to rule the world. Therefore America is nothing but a puny puppet on the strings of people with lots of money and power, and they decide.

Or did you actually mean WE, as if you are a memeber of this societies?

Well that is more likely to be true.



Please explain why 600k dead iraqis is 'wrong' (killed in the chaos of iraq by their own people), but millions of dead germans is ok?

Well let me explain;

Let's say China decides to Liberate America from the Dictatorship regime of President Bush - and the process of Liberation is kind of costly; let's say 2.5% as it is the rate of Mortality in the case of this study we are talking about in Iraq, which would mean 2.5% of the USA population would be 7.5 million deaths, caused DIRECTLY by the Liberation of United States. Now how would that make you feel? Liberated? Free? Safe? Secure?

Or is that IRRELEVANT?



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by Steve99
When did Bush say Saddam was responsible for 9/11.. Show me anything that he said that. Or did you make that up. Where did you hear it, in your dreams. Stop making stuff up to support your ideas. He never said it.


He implied it many times, not least in a statement on March 18th 2003:

source

Whereas on March 18, 2003, the President transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate the President's determination, consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), that reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and that the President's use of military force against Iraq is consistent with necessary ongoing efforts by the United States and other countries against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001;


The trick is to keep putting Iraq and 9/11 in close proximity. That way people make the connection but then, when you look back, it's hard to pin down. It's a tactic you use whent you know you're lying.

I've just managed to find the 2003 State of the Union address. If you search on Google, using the phrase "text of 2003 state of the union address", it's the first result. When you look on the White House website, it's unfindable. I wonder why? Perhaps it's because it's full of infamous whopping lies. Dunno, just a thought. And here we have the implication that Saddam is linked with Al-Qaeda. When these connections were made at the time, I thought - this is unlikely: Saddam, well-known secularist, OBL, well-known fundamentalist... these people are not natural allies whatever the USG says. And so it proved.

From the 2003 address:

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)


Look at that first sentence again. It sets up, in the inattentive mind, a connection between Saddam and 9/11 that could not be clearer, although, on close inspection, the connection becomes a little more tenuous, and becomes deniable. And look at the paragraph immediately preceding this:


Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.


There's the explicit connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, and it's right next to a remark about 9/11. It's very clever rhetoric aimed at not especially attentive people... and it sure as hell worked. Why else would there be so many denials that he'd said it? People certainly believed it. I've lost count of the number of interviews with troops that thought they were getting payback for 9/11 by going into Iraq.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Steve I do not need to make things up all I have to do is listen to your president and I think Rich 23 has provided you with the proofs. If you choose not to believe it thats your choice but you dont need to call people liars.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
OK so saddam is being trialed, Osama is OBVIOUSLY dead, There are no usuable weapons of mass destruction..why are we still over there? Dont support the war when you have no clue why were over there, or because you want to be the unique one on this post and support bush. How was Iraq ever a threat, or even responsible for 9-11? How can you even say Al-qudia did it? Did Bush even justify why we went into Iraq for the 9-11 attacks? Did he even justify them at all, besides saying we would "get them"? If that were true then hed shoot himself in the head. Anyway..im pretty sure half a million iraqis didnt STRAP THEMSELVES and blow up in the middle of the streets one by one. Well lets just see what happens because America will not go unpunished forever.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Iraq is not ww2 and no even a Vietnam because Iraq never declared a war to nobody

Recall however that the nazis didn't actually attack the US, it was a disatnt ally of their on the other side of the planet that did. And yet, we sent out troops after Hitler and Berlin.

so they can have no problem ripping the country away with oil drilling.

But what happens when its an iraqi state entity that is owning the drilling (like a nationalized oil co, like in many opec countries?)

Profits will be the majority for the American oil barons

American oil companies hold, apparently, 2.5% of the global oil reserves. Iraqi oil is going to largely profit Iraqis, if they ever bother to stop killing each other and start focusing on important things, like profit.

Meanwhile the future terrorist are been born and raise in this enviroment so they can find more reasons to hate the American nation and its people.

All the more reason to fight them as visciously and effectively as possible. Destroy what destroys you, no? If we had done nothing in iraq, then the global jihadis would be flowing to the US, not Iraq. And if Husseins' government had collapsed on its own, things would be even worse there, and america would be blamed (for supporting hussein in the first place, for not supporting the revolution after the gulf war, for not toppling saddam in the gulf war, and for not intervening if his government fell on its own too). THere's nothing america can do to prevent people in that part of the world from deciding to attack us. At least this way, they are falling over themselves to cause chaos in iraq, not the US.


rizla
650000 dead. Wow. What a total #-up.

Since they've been able to prevent terror attacks in the US soil through some of their actions in iraq, its a success. Iraqi deaths are unfortunate, but its iraqis that are venting their internicene rage upon one another in an anarchic situation, its sad, but that doesn't make it a failed defense for the US.


waiting2awake
Sometimes - SOMETIMES - things break down and war has to happen

What do you mean sometimes? Its the standard.

However, nothing in the last 6 years has ment this has had to happen

The 911 attack meant this had to happen. The US had remained out of the middle east, in so far as occupying territory, and only supported governments that were friendly, or practical for countering the soviets and islamist iran. On 911 that policy bit us on the ass. Thats what happeneed, thats why the US had to try something utterly different, not neutrality, not isolationism, and not distant manipulation, but direct intervention, militant democratic revolution.

When the initial case that lead to this outcome still has so many questions around it as to how it all took place

911 was planned and carried out by al-qaida, all evidence supports this. Nothing contradicts this. al-Qaida did 911, militant radical islam showed that it was far to dangerous to merely counterbalance with violent nationalist regimes like Hussein, or traditional monarchists like the S'auds or the old Shah. It demanded direct intervention, not action at a distance.

There is no honour in this.

THere's never honour in any war. There's nothing 'honourable' about getting to the point where you have to send people over to someone that doesn't like you and start killing them. Its brutal and wretched.

How to end it I don't know,

The end is amazingly simple. Muslim populations merely get together, in peace with one another, and discuss their problems and elect their own leaders. They don't want to, they'd rather kill each other, as evidenced by this 600k death count in iraq. I can understand being opposed to US pressence, but clearly its not quite the same as an invader overthrowing a popular representative government. They could remained armed, independant, and opposed to US pressence, and simply have teh US gone in a flash by not promoting havoc and simply voting for their own representatives for government. If they want al-Sadr as Prime MInister of a government that listens to the people, then they can have it. They don't, they're rather use this anarchy as an oppurtunity to settle old scores, just like in bosnia-serbia.


Jahmuhn
What would be your solution for giving a crap about those "hundreds of thousands" that died before the US/UK war on Iraq?

Seekerof isn't saying that he is personally concerned about the fate of the iraqis, he is saying, if anyone cares now, why not then?


What is your solution to the Sudan genocide...or conflicts in the Congo, Uganda...or other countries?

Let them rot in a cesspool of their own making. The middle eastern countries have shown that they are capable of waging devastating attacks upon the US. That is why its in US interests to be invovled in the middle east. As far as africa, the US, clearly, has to pull out as far as it can and remain absolutely isolated and neutral. We can't afford to get invovled and have, in a few generations, 'africanist' terror organizations plotting a 911 in revenge for the US having 'humiliated' the sudanese government, or for 'picking sides' in Uganda.

Why do you try to tell us that it is good to say "I care" about those conflicts while at the same time supporting regimes (US/UK) that directly and indirectly cause more hundreds of thousands of deaths

Who says we care? We don't care. We are responding to a threat; islamist terrorism. Rather than install a region wide totalitarian american puppet state, and nuking all major population centers in the middle east to reduce the threat and control the population, we are figuring that IF representative government can get started there, that people will 'attack' the US by opposing us in the UN, or having their parliaments pass resolutions condeming our culture and arrogance, rather than crashing planes into towers.

Can you define hypocrisy for me?

Calling for democracy, until bush makes a move for it and then condeming it???


Agit8dChop
Had we not of entered that country, the bombs owuldnt be going off, the beheadings wouldnt be happening, the secretarian violence wouldnt be happening.

Correct. Instead there'd be the gassing of entire populations and a governmental policy of suppressing opposition through rape squads.

We're not piping up about sudan, south africa or china are we?
we not liberating them.
why?

Sudan is meaningless, south africa is as good as its going to get, and china can nuke us. Thats why. Iraq is part of a world system that was able to cause 911. Sudan is not. The sudanese are going to destroy one another for generations, if the US stays out, they won't be able to say 'this was because of you america, now you die'.

Because its not beneficial to our economy to be occupying them.

Gosh, i thought most people argued that the iraq war was a drain on our economy, both in terms of eating up our federal budget and in terms of sucking up people's spending money through rising gas prices. Apparently, the Iraq war has made us rich, whoopie!
That, by the way, is what 'imperialism' is. IF the US invaded iraq, and bombed the public into oblivion in order to actually own their oil, then you'd have an imperial center looting the provinces. What we have is the US spending 'treasure and blood' to build iraqi infrastructure and try to create enough stability to allow a democratic national government and army to form to protect itself.

Saddam, he was withholding oil,

Saddam was doing everything he could be able to sell more oil, and even made illegal deals with members of the UN to secretly sell more oil.
HE was not witholding any oil. There were international sanctions on iraq preventing them from selling oil.

But look at the people he's controlling?
They are quite content with decapitating people.

I fail to see how thats an arguement for not having invaded iraq. YOu are saying that the iraqi people are basically scum who deserve to be ruled over by an iron-fisted power that uses mass murder to control them, AND that the iraq war was good for the US economy. SO what exactly is your problem with the war? The deaths, you are fine with, and its making us rich (according to you), so whats wrong?

Iraq and Wmd's... WHAT wmd's?
Freedom and liberty.. what.. behind abu grahib cells?
security and infrastucture... before or after the IEDs and missles?
But oil n money.. well thats just fortunate we happened to wrongfully invade a country full of the stuff...

SO your basic criticism is that our policies for stabilizing iraq are too weak and need to be more genocidal. Intersting.


maficmushroom
So Nygdan you finally admit that Bush and the goverment was lying, that Irqa 2 was not about WMD'S or 9/11 (just to remind you I dont know how many time's I heard Bush saying Saddam was responsible) it was about spreading democracy.

Bush, like every other national leader in the west and every major politician in the US, thought that Iraq was hidding WMD. That factored into selecting them as the nation to invade as part of the counter to 911.

And yes Saddam did have chemical weapons but he did not have the delivery systems did he, so again no real threat.

I have already noted that hussein wasn't able to launch an attack on the US directly. Bush even noted this. Only blair was saying that they could launch missiles at British interests in '15 seconds' or some such. ANd, again, no one at the time was able to refute it anyway.

And personally you have lost all credibility as an inteligent human being to state that its better for thousands of people to die as long as its not Americans.

Of course its better for that than for Americans to do, at the very least, thats the responsibility of the American government! What the hell kind of national government would say 'better to have another 911 than kill innocent iraqis in a war'!?!?!?

And you wonder why people want to kill Americans.

I don't wonder, they follow, in many instances, the same logic as I am, except, since they're not americans, they say 'better to have a 911 happen in america than to let them and their corporations pimp out our women and interfere in our policies'.

You should be ashamed of yourself, there is nothing to be proud of

You keep talking about pride. This has nothing to do with pride. Its common sense. If my country is attacked, it has every right in the universe to counter-attack, even if that counter-attack kills more or the enemy and their neighbhors than the original attack on us did. We responded to an attack on pearl harbord, a military installation on teh edge of japanese dominion provoked by our trying to destroy the japanese by cutting off their oil, by fire-bomging dresden and nuking two cities. This is the same thing. We killed millions of innocent japanese and german civilians, not to mention the soldiers who weren't ferverent nazis (and japanese soldiers) and were simply trying to, in their mind, protect their homeland and weren't 'evil' at all.
Absolutely innocent people die in war, its a good reason to not start one, especialyl when the people you attack are a global super power that can wipe you out at literally the push of a single button.

and such sentiments doom the human race to complete failure.

Failure at what? THis isn't some cosmic test set up by some sky-daddy, this is reality, there are people that want to kill americans, they were around long before Bush was in office and long before America invaded iraq. Now, at least, we are in their homes killing them, there's no reason to stop that. When they decide that the killing ain't worth it, they are free to stop and we can all have peace.


souljah
Truth is Irrelevant - Resistance is Futile - You shall be Asimilated

Finally someone who gets it.

And I thought YOU wanted to liberate the people of Iraq.

We did, apparently, they are using that liberty to commit atrocities agianst one another. What a waste. They've had the totalitarian state of Hussein's removed, they step out into the streets, and blow themselves up. Idiots.

So, by Liberating the people of Iraq, you actually mean bringing Chaos and Death to them?[/quote
We meant to adress the historic greivances that people in the middle east have against us, for not supporting the anti-soviet mujahideners in afghanistan and letting the country go into anarchy and eventual taliban rule, for supporting the shah and suppressing democarcy in iran, and for giving hussein weapons as a counter to the iranian revolution. Apparently, all that talk of muslims througout the middle east just wanting to be free, left alone, and not ruled by puppet dictators, was bollocks. All they really want, as shown by iraq, is to kill their own neighbhors.

Who are THEY?

The world system that props up and creates radicalized islam. If there were democracy in the middle east in the first place, there'd be no radicalized militant islam. People that wanted to be zealous in their religion could do so, and there'd be no local dictators to oppose through radical islam.THe iraqis didn't attack the US on 911, it was a plot cooked up by people mostly from the penninsula and carried out in an afghan base of operations. The afghan war addressed the parties directly responsible for 911, al-qaida and the taliban that gave them a home-base. The iraq war was supposed to be the start of a series of wars and manoeuvores that would knock down the very dicatorships that people in the middle east supposedly hated and turned to islamism in order to oppose, which ultimately lead to the existence and power base of al-qaida and the 911 attacks. Its all tied up together. The Afghan war addressed the 'proximate' cause, the Iraq war was part of a larger policy to address the 'distal' cause.

OR are you just putting all Muslims in this Chaos and Death wishes you have?

I'd far prefer for everyone to just say 'enough is enough, lets leave eachother to our own devices and agree to disagree, and stop killing one another'. The only way that that is ever going ot happen is if there are democratic governments in the middle east. This was an attempt to start that process. Clearly, its not working, maybe the war wasn't wide enough, and maybe there wasn't enough effort on other fronts (ie, forcing diplomatic change in saudi arabia, funding programmes to prop up civil society in palestine, etc).

Pakistan did not attack America either, and they got a nice threat, saying that the mighty Imperium Americana will carpet bomb them to stone age, if they do not cooperate. Well that is kind of a threat.

? Its a pretty clear threat. "Get in line or effing die", no mistake about it, thats a threat. We threatened the pakistani governement to work with us, or be destroyed along with afghanistan.

But ofcourse that does not matter anyway. They attacked You, and You have to kill Them.

I'm not saying that all muslims are guilty for 911 and that their lives are therefore forfeit.
What caused 911 (for the sake of arguement lets at least pretend it was al-qaida that did it)?
Muslim greivances agianst the west.
And what are those greivances?
Support of Israel (or at least the lopsidedness of the support for isreal as opposed to palestine)
Support of regimes like Saddam Husseins.
Interference in the internal politics of iran (propping up the shah, crushing democracy).
Not supporting the mujahideen to rebuild afghanistan.
Failure to seriously promote civil society through-out the middle east.

And a host of other issues, largely related to our failure to get invovled, because, as a super-power, we're seen as being strong enough to really make good things happen in the middle east, if only we want (iow, we are irresonsible, because with power comes responsibility).

So what does the attempt to destroy hussein's government and create the conditions necessary for a representative government in iraq do?

Honestly, what does that attempt rerepresent? It represents an attempt to address most of the historical greivances that the islamic world has against the west in general and the US in particular.

The way I see it, there are only two options to address those justifications and motivations for terror attacks on US installations and US soil.
One is to actively get invovled and try to fix the problems that are listed above.

The other is to pul out, entirely, just leave them alone, and figure that they'll leave us alone.

This second option is utterly immpossible. Even if we made a law absolutely forbiding contact with any government contact with any group in the middle east, government, ngo, or other wise, there will still be elements of the US in the middle east. Corporations, culture, and products. The only way to even attempt to address that is to make it illegal for an american or company in america to do any business in the middle east, which is insane. We shouldn't have to do that in order to keep a buck of morons from attacking us.
And, even if we did, who is to say that some ticked off group of muslims isn't going to attack us anyway, for not getting invovled to prevent atrocities internally? Or to try to pressure us to force other western nations to do the same thing we are doing, become absolutely isolated?
And just what happens, decades from the start of complete western isolation, and even a complete shut off of immigration from the middle east into the west (immpossible as it is), and there is, say, a region wide caliphate? What happens when these isolated, impoverished, abused and angry muslims in, say, turkey, start looking at greece? Or what happens when some muslims in the balkans make public calls for their brothers in the Isolated Caliphate to help them establish a muslim state?

There is no preventing chaos and conflict that way. If we isolate and remove ourselves, there is going to be a conflict that eventually has to be addressed. There is, iow, no other option than direct intervention. And there is no sensible 'thing' to try to establish other than a mildly representative governement, and no way to do that without toppling the dictatorial regimes and having troops present to fight any elements of the old regime, or islamist radical terrorists in the state.

I'll agree, 100%, that we're doing a crappy job of it. But 'it' is what we have to do, we "simply" have to do a better job of it.


DCP

posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Someone above talked about Halliburton making record profits...could be because they are a great company, well run, and for somethings that they do, are the only american company that can do it. Every soldier i talked to that has dealt with Halliburton has nothing but good things to say about them.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   
At it again Nygdan, your starting to unravel, So people should stop fighting if they want peace, yes thats a good idea. The only problem with that statement is that you can have peace if you accept the American version of it, that if you dont cow tow to mighty America then you get the shock and awe crap.

And how can anyone live in peace with America doing what it likes, its just a case of the school yard bully, well bullies get whats due to them.
What your really saying is that America is a dictatorship that wants to rule the world, and if thats the case then you are no better than Saddam, Hitler or Stalin.

And as far as America ruling the world, I nearly hurt myself falling off my chair at that statement, America does have much influence in the world but that does not mean it rules it. America weilds such power that it had to bully and bribe countries into supporting it for Iraq2. Russia is still a superpower with armed forces that match the US's and China is building up its armed forces like its going out of fashion. They have aspirations to be a world power and will be probaly will within the next 20 years.

America has been helping the Japanese build up its forces and the US has been quitely re-positioning its naval units to try and counter the Chinese threat. Its interesting though that to date America has chosen to attack countries that cannot defend themselves, irrespective of the reason why. One wonders how the shock and awe treatment will work on the Russians or the Chinese.

And with regard to America, yes you could let go with both barrels in Iraq, Iran or North Korea but that would be totally counter productive wouldnt it. Not only that there would be a good chance that a wider conflict would unsue and the US would get clobbered by Russia, China and anybody else that you have p---d off. So that would not be a very wise move would it. Also the Bush Goverment is or possibly has lost its credibility on the world stage so any further military action could accelarate this process. But I'm sure you will tell me you dont care because America rules the world and your always right (America that is).

It would be interesting if someone carried out a survey in America to see just how much support there is for the war in Iraq and any future conflicts, mind you you would have to tell the people the truth so they could make an imformed opinion based on facts. Only trouble is could you trust the figures, I mean even your elections are rigged so it may well be a pointless exercice.

And pride does not come into it, its about all those who would wage war against each other at the expense of every one else.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Confidential Document on Iraq Oil Lobbying
Commentary by James Paul
Global Policy Forum
July 14, 2006

www.globalpolicy.org...

WHAT OIL COMPANIES WANT
A right to oil reserves
An opportunity to make large profits
Predictability of tax and regulations

From Washington to Baghdad: Planning Iraq's oil future

www.globalpolicy.org...

Nydgan you are a very intelligent member and an outstanding Mod, at least in my personal views and experience with you.

But . . . I regret to tell you that you are wrong when it comes to what big interest wants in Iraq with the Iraqi oil.

Is not nationalization what they want and they are doing everything they can to privatization is accepted by the government, no even asking the people but lobbying in within the government.

Read Nydgan, see for yourself the big plans . . . is not for our benefit either and is not for the Iraqi benefit at all.

Is all about money, power and greed.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I don't see why the iraqi oil shouldnt be used by private companies. Its a perfectly legitimate approach. Oil is a resource, like any resource, it can be gathered and sold by private companies. Private companies usually do a better job at it anyway.

I mean, really, what give, say, a sunni from the middle of the country, the right to expect, say, a paycheck from the government, made from national profits on oil sales? He didn't work for it, he's not part of the oil extraction, and he didn't invest in it or get it started. Why should he get the profits from it?

Granted, its probably in the best interests of iraq, as a nation, to do this, because that oil money will might be enough of a motive to get the people to stop fighting, but there's nothing inherently wrong with private oil companies.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Granted, its probably in the best interests of iraq, as a nation, to do this, because that oil money will might be enough of a motive to get the people to stop fighting, but there's nothing inherently wrong with private oil companies.


Nygdan, Nygdan, is not for the best interest of Iraq, unless they find other oil comapnies ouside the US to do the privatization. because what Big oil companies wants in Iraq is all for them and none for the Iraqi people beside poluting their sands.

Nydgan the big names behind the whole issue are Cheney, Rumsfeld and yes all the big oil barons salivating and calculation about their money and who cares about the people.

No, is not for the best interest of Iraq at all. No at all.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   
What I mean is, if there was a private iraqi oil company. Americean oil companies dont' own or actually control very much oil. Clearly, there'd be something seriously wrong with the iraqi government if it gave the right to privately work their oil fields to american, or any other foreign oil companies (at least beyond an initial set-up period or something reasonable like that).



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Jahmuhn
What would be your solution for giving a crap about those "hundreds of thousands" that died before the US/UK war on Iraq?

Seekerof isn't saying that he is personally concerned about the fate of the iraqis, he is saying, if anyone cares now, why not then?


People did care then as they care about causes all over the world now. What makes you think that they didn't? And why shouldn't they care when it is their own people causing so many deaths? I don't mean to offend, but it smells of that attitude, "well if Saddam did it, then it's not a big deal if we do it too."



What is your solution to the Sudan genocide...or conflicts in the Congo, Uganda...or other countries?

Let them rot in a cesspool of their own making.


That's pretty cold-hearted of you to torment them with such words. Compassion is a virtue, my friend.



Why do you try to tell us that it is good to say "I care" about those conflicts while at the same time supporting regimes (US/UK) that directly and indirectly cause more hundreds of thousands of deaths

We are responding to a threat; islamist terrorism.


And it has been proved ad naseum the lack of any significant evidence linking Saddam to attacks against the US. Much less could you call Saddam an "Islamic" terrorist.


IF representative government can get started there, that people will 'attack' the US by opposing us in the UN, or having their parliaments pass resolutions condeming our culture and arrogance, rather than crashing planes into towers.


Once again, there was no evidence Saddam was involved in any way with 9/11.

As well, you are ready to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands to do this? When did you ask them if it was all right that their brothers, sisters, and friends would die for you?

No one is supporting Saddam here, which is what it seems some would like to equate with those who oppose the Iraq war. But, no one has the right to go and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians because one is so arrogant to force their own beliefs and values on someone.



Can you define hypocrisy for me?

Calling for democracy, until bush makes a move for it and then condeming it???


And when exactly did the Iraqis democratically vote that the US/UK could kill hundreds of thousands of their citizens?

[edit on 14-10-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   


We did, apparently, they are using that liberty to commit atrocities agianst one another. What a waste. They've had the totalitarian state of Hussein's removed, they step out into the streets, and blow themselves up. Idiots.

So who did you liberate? The Shias? The Sunnis? The Kurds? The people of United Iraq? Because it looks to me, that they kind of are not working very well living togather anymore - everybody is blowing up everybody. Why do you think they "blow themselves up"? Because they are happy and liberated and free? Or is that possibly a sign, that they are not feeling very good in their new Democratic country?



We meant to adress the historic greivances that people in the middle east have against us, for not supporting the anti-soviet mujahideners in afghanistan and letting the country go into anarchy and eventual taliban rule, for supporting the shah and suppressing democarcy in iran, and for giving hussein weapons as a counter to the iranian revolution. Apparently, all that talk of muslims througout the middle east just wanting to be free, left alone, and not ruled by puppet dictators, was bollocks. All they really want, as shown by iraq, is to kill their own neighbhors.

Whoa, what kind of ignorant post - so you think that Muslims just want to be ruled by dictators? Tell me, who did install this puppet-dictatorship regimes? Themselves? Tell me, how long we have to go back in history, to see when people of Middle East were living without any Western interventions and manipulations with their lives? Ask any Muslim and he will tell you, that Western Soldiers are NOT welcome here. Ask yourself, what kind of picture does the West make out of Muslims - seen any movies with Good Muslims lately? They are usually portaited as terrorists, sex-slave traders, war-mongers or all it at the same time. Check Hollywood movies and see what kind of light you are throwing at the People of Middle East. Why is that? Is it maybe because the West is strongly dependant on the Oil they have under their feet? Everybody wants to be Free if you did not notice - but the Global Elite will sure make it very clear, that they are the ones who run the Show, not the People. And the People of Middle East have surely been manipulated and deprived of their Basic rights for such a very long time, that ofcourse some of them loose it. What can you expect?



The world system that props up and creates radicalized islam. If there were democracy in the middle east in the first place, there'd be no radicalized militant islam. People that wanted to be zealous in their religion could do so, and there'd be no local dictators to oppose through radical islam.THe iraqis didn't attack the US on 911, it was a plot cooked up by people mostly from the penninsula and carried out in an afghan base of operations. The afghan war addressed the parties directly responsible for 911, al-qaida and the taliban that gave them a home-base. The iraq war was supposed to be the start of a series of wars and manoeuvores that would knock down the very dicatorships that people in the middle east supposedly hated and turned to islamism in order to oppose, which ultimately lead to the existence and power base of al-qaida and the 911 attacks. Its all tied up together. The Afghan war addressed the 'proximate' cause, the Iraq war was part of a larger policy to address the 'distal' cause.

Tell me WHERE is Democracy? In America? In Europe? You call that Democracy? You have to be kidding man! Let me tell you a secret - there actually is NO democratic society on this planet, even if we call them like that. Now, how can this system exsist in a completly non-western enviroment, where things flow a little different?

Now why is this Radical Islam so strong these days? Could it be, that the decades of Western interventions in this place have left the mark on the people? Could it be, that when a 5-year old Palestinian boy sees how his sisters, brothers, father, mother, grandfather, uncles and aunts get blown away, that he starts to feel a little hatred towards Israel? If you think that by Invading Foreign countries will eliminate the threat of Radical Islam you are severly wrong. If you did not notice, things have gotten worse since 9-11 and wonderful actions by Bush&Co. And yes, let's talk about 9-11; for example I do not belive that radical islamists crashed into the buildings and that resulted in collapse of WTC towers. We have numerous proofs of controlled demolitions, we have NORAD standing down, we have the entire Saudi family of Bin Laden (who was supposed to be the mastermind behind the attack) flying out of USA, when all passanger airplanes were grounded. And let's not even start with Pentagon attack. So in my opinion all the official stories were Bollocks and the biggest bowl of crap ever served and swallowed by the entire Planet. So if the Radical Islamists did not do it, then all the invasions in Afganistan and Iraq are kind of out of place. And we all know that Al-CIA-duh is the baby of Western Intelligence Agencies and not the plot of few Islamic Terrorist Masterminds, for which we do not even know if they live.



I'd far prefer for everyone to just say 'enough is enough, lets leave eachother to our own devices and agree to disagree, and stop killing one another'. The only way that that is ever going ot happen is if there are democratic governments in the middle east. This was an attempt to start that process. Clearly, its not working, maybe the war wasn't wide enough, and maybe there wasn't enough effort on other fronts (ie, forcing diplomatic change in saudi arabia, funding programmes to prop up civil society in palestine, etc).

If you call Democracy in Middle East what is happening in Iraq today, then I do not think any country of this world wants Democracy at all!



I'm not saying that all muslims are guilty for 911 and that their lives are therefore forfeit.
What caused 911 (for the sake of arguement lets at least pretend it was al-qaida that did it)?
Muslim greivances agianst the west.
And what are those greivances?
Support of Israel (or at least the lopsidedness of the support for isreal as opposed to palestine)
Support of regimes like Saddam Husseins.
Interference in the internal politics of iran (propping up the shah, crushing democracy).
Not supporting the mujahideen to rebuild afghanistan.
Failure to seriously promote civil society through-out the middle east.

So what exactly do these Radical Islamists gain by attacking America on their own soil? What exactly do they gain, by attacking the strongest Military Power on Planet? That is like walking into a bar and spilling the beer over the strongest guy there - BAD IDEA! So what would they gain? And then lets turn to the Project for the New American century, which says, that America NEEDS a new Pearl Harbour to start their war machinery once again and to keep that dollar flowing at all cost.

There is no Bringin Peace and Democracy - since Peace does not sell very well. Peace is bad for business. Peace is bad for stock markets. Peace is just Bad for the Empire. And ofcourse, the ultimate price will yet again be payed from the side of those most innocent people - the Civilians. Now there is supposed 655,000 dead Iraqis - how much more, until the Democratic process will be worth it? 1,655,000? 2,655,000? 6,555,000?

[edit on 16/10/06 by Souljah]



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TONE23

I am really at a loss here. 600,000 Iraqis are dead... and we are helping this country again how? For a war that should have never happened?

I am sorry but this number just sickens me.


Easy bub, Wars are not pretty.. This world would be much better without them. We all know that. When has there ever been a war that didnt cause mass collateral damage?
You can thank the terrorist for alot of the killings. We wouldnt be there if they werent there.. Bush F'ed up sure.. but its to late to cut and run now.. This is a battle ground that we cant just leave. to many lives have been lost.. It would only get worse if we left. 130,000 soldiers plus allied forces are not enough to protect an entire poplution of a country... We need more boots on the ground if we are going to do that... These extremist need to be wiped out.. Theyre over there, we're over there... Lets not stop till everyone of them is done for.. Not included are the innocent iraqis..



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by TONE23
I am really at a loss here. 600,000 Iraqis are dead... and we are helping this country again how?

The death of 600,000 iraqis is well worth preventing another 911. US foreign policy exists to help the US, not other countries.



I think im gonna trow up.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join