Will US give the power over?

Everyday or so there is a bombing off and both US forces and Iraq inoccent citizen die. In the recent day over 100 Iraqis died from car bombs.
Is this the road on which US will hand Iraq its keys? While they are in a middle of a civil war? With this continuied violence will US give up the power to Iraqis who are disorganized and are killing each other?.
The past few months the continued car bombs and US bombs has kill hundreds of Iraqis. Even US has suffered from roadside bomb. In January alone US has suffered 45 casualties.

link

Yet we might consider these details about last week's car bombing of a police station in Iskandariyah, south of Baghdad, as reported by the Washington Post's Ariana Eunjung Cha: "After the explosion, U.S. troops trying to secure the area clashed with angry Iraqis who contended that the explosion was caused by a missile fired by a U.S. warplane. Witnesses said the troops fired into the crowd, hitting civilians." One Iraqi subsequently died.
As a mental exercise, perhaps we should try to imagine ourselves on the scene. Do the American GIs feel they are welcomed? What of the Iraqis? If they really believe that the United States would blow up an American-financed police station, then what are the chances that they will vote for a rational pro-American government anytime soon?

[Edited on 17-2-2004 by Russian]

[Edited on 18-2-2004 by Kano]

This was a country that was invaded abruptly by the U.S. Forces. It seems to me that now this country was invaded, the Iraqi people are no better off than when Saddam was in power.

As the article states, people are dying nonetheless, probably more so from terrorist acts that were probably not even present when Saddam was in power.

This country had great wealth, that is why the ruling elite decided to invade it. U.S. forces are just that, soldiers for the ruling elite to get their contracts on rebuilding in Iraq infrastructure and oil extraction.

The Americanization of Iraq is bringing nothing but terrorism, and people should think about other methods of international relations, not war and invasion of another country.

That being said, I'm about to rip into some people right now.

As things stand, Iraq won't be free anytime soon. It's that simple. The US isn't ready, and the government isn't prepared to let it go.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some of this turmoil is being artificially manufactured in order for us to have a viable claim that the Iraqi people still need us there, and so we have to stay.

All I can say to that is that it's just another pile of George W.'s bull#. And I for one am getting sick and tired of scraping my boots.

Immortal, you are ignoring alot when you make such allegations.

You are ignoring the fact that the Iraqi people are already much better off than they were under Hussein's rule. Their infrastucture is much better off, the citizenry is free to pursue their own dreams and aspirations and their wealth is now theirs. The attacks are not coming from the citizenry, it is not a case of a civil war, but is a case of those who hate freedom and anything that smells of it and are willing to blow up innocent people to destroy it. The fact that rogues and monsters are attempting to derail the concept of a free Iraq, controlled by the citizenry, is not the fault of the coalition.

As frar as the "ruling elite" making a mint on contracts and oil, there is no evidence of this, as a matter of fact, it has been proven that this is not the case but only the creation of overly paranoid minds.
Just out of curiosity, what would have made you happy? That the coalition not rebuild Iraq? Sorry, America has a thing for rebuilding after a war, even when the aggressor intended on destroying our way of life (Germany, Japan, for examples). Or would it make you happier if France got all contracts?

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Immortal, you are ignoring alot when you make such allegations.
Just out of curiosity, what would have made you happy? That the coalition not rebuild Iraq? Sorry, America has a thing for rebuilding after a war, even when the aggressor intended on destroying our way of life (Germany, Japan, for examples). Or would it make you happier if France got all contracts?

Well, I think that I express the view of all the protestors against a war between countries when I say this. If I was the President of the United States, I would have sought out U.N. approval for a justified war against Iraq. If that did not work, I would have to say that Iraq comply with U.N security demands etc. Part of these demands would have included U.N. peacekeeping forces present in Iraq, while attempting to derail any "weapons of mass destruction" plans that Saddam would have had. In the meantime, there would be U.N resolutions for Iraq to treat its citizens more humanely.

Having a war against the middle east did nothing to curtail terrorism, and there is still no weapons of mass destruction. Are the Iraqi people free? As of now, I hardly believe that is the reality. Just like you finished saying, there are still those who will not allow freedom to reign in the middle east. As a result, innocent American citizens are singled out for terrorism abroad and on the U.S homeland.

Operation Iraqi Freedom? What's next for TV, Operation Let's go after North Korea?

Originally posted by IMMORTAL
Operation Iraqi Freedom? What's next for TV, Operation Let's go after North Korea?

That would be season two. Season one would be Cuba.

I think "Operation When Hell Freezes Over"




[Edited on 18-2-2004 by dreamrebel]

I'm not concerned with the protestors anymore than I am with the U.N. As far as the U.N. is concerned, when some of the major U.N. players are making money under the table by dealing with Iraq for financial gain and the other half is less than concerned with either our well-being or the well-being of the Iraqi people, that is a moot cause. As well, it might be pertinent to consider how many tin-horn dictators are represented by the U.N. and are looked upon like legitimate state representatives, who are certainly not on the side of good or right. No, the U.N. is not the end-all for authority, as has been demonstrated by Hussein thumbing his nose at it for years after the first war there.

The Chamberlain-type approach of appeasing the enemy does not work. Not ousting Hussein would have done nothing but given the terrorists and terror-aiding states the green light for continued attacks. It was confirmed by foreign intel that Hussein's regime was coordinating with the terrorists before the 9/11 attacks, hiding known terrorists such as Abu Nidal, and if you believe that Hussein was moving a highly secretive and advanced weather balloon system around, you'll be glad to hear about the great deal on a bridge I can sell you.

No, nothing has come of the war on terror. Unless maybe you count the tin-horn in Lybia's change of heart something.

Wars are generally not won in a year, sometimes they even take several years. Lives are not saved from violent deaths after the initial onslaught, either. As far as Americans being at risk away from home, that's nothing new, either. Unless you are in your teens and haven't been informed of the numerous Americans killed before the War On Terror, you should already be familiar with that.

Ten years from now, I cannot say that another Iraqi ruler won't be emploing plastic shredders and gang rapes, but this one's time came to an end.

North Korea next? Is that your suggestion?

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
As far as Americans being at risk away from home, that's nothing new, either. Unless you are in your teens and haven't been informed of the numerous Americans killed before the War On Terror, you should already be familiar with that.

Ten years from now, I cannot say that another Iraqi ruler won't be emploing plastic shredders and gang rapes, but this one's time came to an end.

North Korea next? Is that your suggestion?

I'm not in my teens anymore, and I don't really keep up on American citizen death statistics abroad from terrorism.

Anyway, it's good to know that Saddam is not in power, to say the least, as he could have used his plans to build weapons of mass destruction.

As for North Korea, no, I was just being satirical about the televising of Operations.

Everyone Bush wont get the innoocent soldiers out of Iraq because he wants his oil hes a #ing dick. He was born and raised being rich because of an oil company he will not take the soldiers oput of Iraq

Get over it TC, we're in Iraq for the oil and everyone knows it. Besides that, how do you know that the Iraqi people are better off now then they were under Hussein's rule? Have you perosonally been over there and taken a pole?

Don't go and make guesses about their state of affairs before and after Bush's war.


Oh yah almost forgot, Russian: Of course we will not give them their power, at least not until we have their oil.

Ask yourself honestly: would we be in Iraq if they didn't have oil?

[Edited on 18-2-2004 by MrJingles]

We are in Iraq for many reasons...

1) It was ruled by an evil dictator

2) They did pose a threat to the US. Just because we have not found any WMD's does not mean they didnt have any. Think about it - if you had them, would you have them stored somewhere that the US would look? Or would you hide them in places where only your most trusted advisors knew of? And lets not forget, even if he didnt have any, and thats a big if, are you dumb enough to believe that if he had the opertunity to aquire them, be it bio, chem, or nuke, he would not? And take that one step further - if he did manage to aquire them, would he have the slightest hesitation in using them? It is well documented that many Russian nukes are unaccounted for, and could be bought on the black market. Now with all his wealth, if he had bought say 1 or 2, he could now invade contries knowing that when the US comes over to give him the boot ala gulf war I, he could use a nuke on us. Or better yet, he could hook up Osama. Despite there differences, do you really think if they talked that an "agreement" couldn't be worked out?

3) Yes, Iraq has oil! we all know that was a major reason we are there. But that is not the main reason, as we were getting oil before this conflict. Further more, it is our presidents job to look out for national interests! He would be a bad president if he didnt! The US economy is dependent on that oil - all of our cushy lives in the states are. The worlds economy is dependent on the US economy! So yes, we are over there because they have oil - it is that oil which made Sadam a threat. It gave him the cash to put together an army, and to have WMD programs!

All in all, if you take your political aliances out of it, the US is doing a very good thing here. We are liberating a country from an evil dictator. We are securing our national intrests in the process. We are turning a rogue hostile nation into one that can be a model for the rest of the middle east. No one said it would be easy, or that it would happen overnight. we've been there less than a year, and already we have captured Sadam, and are training an Iraqi police force and millitary. We are setting up an Iraqi run democracy. We are setting up an Iraqi court to judge Sadam. Let's see how well the Iraqi's treat him when they decide his fate.

Let's also not forget that if we had not gone over there, Sadams sons would have taken over which would have been even worse! These guys reguraly raped women. As in it was very common place. I forget which son, but the one who ran their national sports teams was especially bad. He made his soccer athletes kick concrete balls barefoot when they underperformed! He would torture them in the basement of the training facilities!

If this regime was not evil, and didnt deserve to be ousted, then niether did Hitler!

yea...eventually. who would want a country that's made out of camel #?

It's " obvious " that Russian is right. If I was Bush, I would " deal " with Irak like Putin did it with Tchechenya or like the Chicoms in Tibet.

And for those who can wonder,yes, it was a sarcastic post.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
major U.N. players are making money under the table by dealing with Iraq for financial gain and the other half is less than concerned with either our well-being or the well-being of the Iraqi people, that is a moot cause.

You think Bush gives a crap about the well-being of the Iraqi people? If you do you should become a stand-up comedian.

Oh...and the US aren't making any financial gain out of Iraq? So I guess it's ok as long as the US beats everyone else to the juice eh?

Yea, right after we tap more money out of them (Iraq). Bush doesn't care for people. If he did, we'd tangle up with N. Korea to help the millions that are starving.

That's a strategically smart idea. Let's fight North Korea again, and China while were at it.

China is not a country to mess with due to the sheer numbers they have to work with.

I know, in another post, I said the US is afraid of those who could challenge them.

Originally posted by AD5673
Everyone Bush wont get the innoocent soldiers out of Iraq because he wants his oil hes a #ing dick. He was born and raised being rich because of an oil company he will not take the soldiers oput of Iraq

An example of ignorance prevailing over all evidence.

Stupidity such as this inhibits any logical or reasonable discussion.

Originally posted by MrJingles
Get over it TC, we're in Iraq for the oil and everyone knows it. Besides that, how do you know that the Iraqi people are better off now then they were under Hussein's rule? Have you perosonally been over there and taken a pole?

Don't go and make guesses about their state of affairs before and after Bush's war.


Oh yah almost forgot, Russian: Of course we will not give them their power, at least not until we have their oil.

Ask yourself honestly: would we be in Iraq if they didn't have oil?

[Edited on 18-2-2004 by MrJingles]

No, I haven't been over there, but I am not that far removed from the military that I do not have "eyes on the ground". Maybe you think they are better off, but that might be because you haven't dug seen the mass graves or the other horrors imposed on the people by Hussein.

You ask would we be there if they didn't have oil? What a moronic point. Have we always gone only to places with oil? No. Was Hussein a threat. Already covered that ground, but you'll believe your hate-America crap regardless. Do I think the U.N. would have cared more about the people? The sad facts speak for themselves...NO!

You have no point, you are the weakest link...GOODBYE!