'I am Become Death, Destroyer of Worlds'

reply to post by jerico65


Do you know what I read or anything about me?

I think not - I am far from a socialist and the sources I read are many and varied and cover the whole poltical spectrum.

Now, tell me why you are so keen to believe military journals. Is there perhaps a little bias on your part?

Do you believe the only publication worth reading is an MSM pro-war publication?

Let me know, I'm interested to find out where you got the idea that I'm some sort of communist or hard core socialist - or is that a label you stick on anyone who doesn't support shrub and his illegal war for cash.

Alright, let's end this personal junk and keep to the topic.

reply to post by budski



Chill pill, budski; you're gonna vaporlock if you get too excited! Please re-read my post; I never said you were a communist or socialist.

All I was saying is how is the WSWS.com a better source for info than defenselink, etc?

And I'm a bit bias; I think a military journal has better info to keep me safe next time I go overseas than WSWS.


[edit on 27-3-2008 by jerico65]

reply to post by Harlequin


I remember the civilians leaving in the thousands before that battle kicked off so I don't accept that excuse. Thats why out troops hit them so hard in there because they knew most if not all civilians had left. The only ones that stayed in the city were terrorist because we had it surrounded. Its the terrorist who blow up Innocent civilians every day over there and they hide their bombs and weapons under their child's beds so don't think for a second that I feel bad that our men had to smoke some out so they did not need to put their lives at risk needlessly. That fight was the toughest house to house battle the army Has had since Way city in Vietnam so I think they did a pretty good job of stopping the terrorist from having that as a safe haven.

reply to post by tom goose


These are the same "freedom fighters" who kill innocent iraqis in open market places correct?


Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

Originally posted by projectvxn
You wanna talk about spreading disinformation.

So, take one extreme over the other? The "million slaughtered" argument is heavily skewed, as it does not differentiate those "Freedom fighters," and Iraqis who died from natural causes, but rather clumps all those dead together thus giving the bloated number...

If you wanted to spread disinformation you'd down play the dead count to look a little less severe.

90,000 is quite severe, however, it is not quite one million... Neither can that death toll be blamed solely on the US. Last I recalled, those "Freedom fighters" were quite responsible for quite a few of those deaths of innocent iraqi civilians...

Make me wonder who some of the people on this website work for.

The above filth is a perfectly good example of why many reasonable, intelligent people, do not jump into conversations such as this. It is simply a waste of time...





[edit on 27-3-2008 by West Coast]

reply to post by jerico65


From the entry on Wikipedia,

Depleted uranium munitions are controversial because of numerous unanswered questions about the long-term health effects. DU is less toxic than other heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury, and is only very weakly radioactive because of its long half life.[2] While any radiation exposure has risks, no conclusive epidemiological data have correlated DU exposure to specific human health effects such as cancer.[3] However, the UK government has attributed birth defect claims from a 1991 Gulf War combat veteran to DU poisoning,[4][5] and studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents continue to suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure. Until such issues are resolved with further research, the use of DU by the military will continue to be controversial.[6]

No matter how effective they may be as a weapon, if they produce BIRTH DEFECTS, it is unethical to use them. It's use is basically saddling unborn children with a lifetime of terrible suffering and likely death.

If you don't understand what kind of an atrocity birth defects are, google the Children of Thalidamide.

Originally posted by HoHoFoo
reply to post by MBF

 

USA's loved ally, Turkey has destroyed Kurds for decades.

In addition to the physical destruction of 3,000 Kurdish villages, and military "incursions" into Iraqi Kurdistan augmenting Saddam Hussein's role in the destruction of 5,000 villages there, the Turkish government has sought to suppress something as simple and precious as the Kurdish language. Until 1991, it was illegal even to use this language _privately_, and the language remains officially banned for broadcasting. In practice, merely speaking Kurdish in a public place is still an invitation to intense surveillance or arrest; shops carrying any music cassettes with any identifiable words in Kurdish are likewise a routine cause for such surveillance. The word "Kurd" is not in the official Turkish encyclopedia.

Just how dangerous Kurdish national identity may seem to this Government was made clear in 1994, when Leyla Zana, Kurdish Member of Parliament, made a speech calling for reconciliation and peace between Turks and Kurds. She spoke, however, in Kurdish, bravely displaying her people's colors (red, yellow, and green) while advocating a settlement based on nonviolence and justice.

For this "offense," she was sentenced to 15 years in prison, and while in prison has been awarded the Free Thought prize of the European Parliament, the Sakharov Prize, and declared a Prisoner of Conscience by Amnesty International. She has also been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

www.kurdistan.org...

Yes, Turkey has had problems with the Kurds, and Iran may have too to some extent, but I think we were talking about Iraq.

Originally posted by HoHoFoo

Originally posted by MBF
Only the elite had this standard of living, not everybody.

It's nice to make conclusion that In USA everybody has high standart of living, indians, immigrants, people who lives on the streets.

I never said anything about any high standard of living in the USA.

Without doubt Saddam was tyrant, and he kept tribal and religious troubles in line with violence and harsh governance. But.... with your tradition with CIA and assasinations, why did you destroyed hole country? You bombed it to stone age.

I don't run the CIA, but I don't think they go around killing entire villages full of people with gas bombs. I guess it was "destroyed" so that we could rebuild it back like we did Europe and Japan after WWII. I guess we have too much money and need to do something with it.

I hope there's never need to in my country to have this kind of "American aid"

Me either, I'm tired of my country having to solve other peoples problems.

Iraq had one of the best national health-care systems in the Middle East. For example, Saudi Arabia with all her petrodollar earnings had just a fraction of that of Iraq’s.

Iraq boasted a modern social infrastructure with a first-class range of health-care facilities, and the Iraqi people enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East. In 1991, there were 1,800 health-care centres in Iraq. More than a decade later, that number is almost half, and almost a third of them require major rehabilitation. Iraq had used its oil revenues, which accounted for 60% of its gross domestic product (GDP), to build a modern health-care system with large Western-style hospitals and modern technology. Iraqi medical and nursing schools attracted students from throughout the Middle East, and many Iraqi doctors were trained in Europe or the U.S.A. Primary health-care services reached about 97% of the urban population and 78% of the rural population in 1990. But the Gulf war of 1991 and more than 13 years of U.S-Britain sponsored genocidal sanctions have left the country's economy and infrastructure in ruins.

UNICEF reported on March 28, 2003 that, "The Education system in Iraq, prior to 1991, was one of the best in the region, with over 100% Gross Enrolment Rate for primary schooling and high levels of literacy, both of men and women. The Higher Education, especially the scientific and technological institutions, was of an international standard, staffed by high quality personnel". In the 1980s, a successful government program to eradicate illiteracy among Iraqi men and women was implemented.

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO),

"Iraq had a modern sanitary infrastructure with an extensive network of water-purification and sewage-treatment systems. Water networks distributed clean, safe water to 95% of the urban population and to 75% of those in rural areas. In 1990, Iraq was ranked 50th out of 130 countries on the UNDP Human Development Index, which measures national achievements in health, education, and per capita GDP".

www.globalresearch.ca...

I never claimed to be an expert on the health care system and such, but I wonder how more than everybody can enroll in school.

About Saddam in wikipedia:

A leading member of the revolutionary Ba'ath Party, which espoused secular pan-Arabism, economic modernization, and socialism, Saddam played a key role in the 1968 coup that brought the party to long-term power. As vice president under the ailing General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, Saddam tightly controlled conflict between the government and the armed forces—at a time when many other groups were considered capable of overthrowing the government—by creating repressive security forces. In the early 1970s, Saddam spearheaded Iraq's nationalization of the Western-owned Iraq Petroleum Company, which had long held a monopoly on the country's oil. Through the 1970s, Saddam cemented his authority over the apparatuses of government as Iraq's economy grew at a rapid pace.[6]

So Saddam was secular socialist, who nationalizated western-owned oil monopoly. Now I understand why USG destroied hole country!

You would be mad too if someone took over what you had built.

OMG sosialism!!! National health care...AAAaarrrggHH! Save women and children first, cover their eyes and ears. Disgusting! Bad examples have to destroy.

[edit on 27-3-2008 by HoHoFoo]

Whatever!!!

reply to post by West Coast


I take your point and totally understand where you're coming from regarding the high numbers, however, the numbers are for deaths by violence which can be attributed directly to the occupation/invasion.

OK, these are not all committed by coalition forces, but the occupation forces are the cause - if there was no occupation there would be no IED's etc

reply to post by Sky watcher

remember the civilians leaving in the thousands before that battle kicked off so I don't accept that excuse. Thats why out troops hit them so hard in there because they knew most if not all civilians had left. The only ones that stayed in the city were terrorist because we had it surrounded.

many thousnads left - but man MORE thousands stayed behind as they had no where else to go - the Red Cross said that for everyone that left 3 stayed - or do you dispute what the Red Cross say?

they are NOT terrorists - they are fighting for there very homes , the VC were not called terrorists so why use the most overused PR word on 2007 - terrorism didn`t start 9/11

Its the terrorist who blow up Innocent civilians every day over there and they hide their bombs and weapons under their child's beds so don't think for a second that I feel bad that our men had to smoke some out so they did not need to put their lives at risk needlessly.

The US Army blow up civilians by kicking down doors , tieing up parents and raping daighters - and get immunity for doing it, its the us private army (blackwater) that stops in there cars and machine guns people at a bus stop for no reason

and you wonder why more adn more iraqi`s are taking up arms against the invader of there country to remove them by force of arms.

they are not terrorists - they are trying to fight for there own freedom from the new tyranny - they have had 1 dictator replaced by another.

That fight was the toughest house to house battle the army Has had since Way city in Vietnam so I think they did a pretty good job of stopping the terrorist from having that as a safe haven.

The wholesale slaughter of innocents which is now surpassing hitler - it is a crime against humanity on the grandest scale; they call it `ethnic cleansing` now - it used to be called genocide.

reply to post by jsobecky


You misunderstand me. It's in the language used. 30,000 dead OR wounded. Have you seen the numbers of wounded in Iraq? Or mentally unstable? It's kinda big. I'd say that's close, but even I wouldn't say 30,000. More like 20,000.

reply to post by dgtempe


I only disagree with one comment from you and that is Bush is closing in on Hitler. George Bush is not even close. Hitler would never have allowed himself to be such a stupid arse in public (probably why Cheney's disappearance's are so frequent!). When Hitler's insanity was visible he knew enough to burying himself in a bunker far from public view. Bush is NOT even interesting enough to make me sick ( Cher's dialog from Witches of Eastwick).

Since no one is really paying any attention to him anymore- his function is to grab attention and divert our eyes from whats really going on.

My theory is Cheney has cut him loose like Tom Cruise (think Oprah Winfrey Couch moment)- hoping to have him committed or impeached so the lackey can do evil bidding.

Ask yourself this: Who is more foolish: The fool or the fool that follows him/her?

Bush has been tossed to the side of the road like the garbage he is. The trick is for him to keep moving so the collectors cant take him to the dump!



[edit on 28-3-2008 by dk3000]

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
If you don't understand what kind of an atrocity birth defects are, google the Children of Thalidamide.

Last time I checked, I don't think we were using Thalidamide filled rounds in the US military.

reply to post by West Coast


Again another misunderstanding. I'm not arguing with you. 1 mil is BS It's more like 300,000 and the reason I say this is because not that long ago CNN was talking about 5000 civilian deaths per months. Multiply that over the 5 years this has gone on and you get a huge number. And we both know the numbers are being skewed. Just like those Osama Bin Laden "message" tapes.

But you can't defend this. No one can. Death is dearth no matter how you slice it. Wounded is wounded. While we bicker about numbers there are people dying. This whole campaign has been filled with disinformation, and straight up lies. How many of us do you supposed have the real numbers?

Originally posted by jerico65
Last time I checked, I don't think we were using Thalidamide filled rounds in the US military.

You miss my point by stating the above. If it causes future generations harm, even remotely possible harm... it should not be used.

If there is the potential of tainting unborn children with missing limbs, severe deformity, mental retardation or a death before the age of 2 because their mother's womb is too toxic to sustain healthy growth, it should NEVER be used.

Unborn generations should not suffer the mistakes of their forebears.

The UN told the US not to invade IRAQ, but you wouldnt listen, would you. Im guessing you are regretting your arrogance now, arent you.


[edit on 29-3-2008 by Acharya]