Can we really blame most of the insurgents in IRAQ?

skadistic said:
The fool is the man who sits and whines in a nation to selfish to risk its treasures and people to free a nation on the other side of the world from an insane mudreous despotic tyrant who filled mass graves with hundreds of thousands of people, a man who had prisons for children of political prisoners, a man whos sons raped little girls for fun and killed for sport, a man who tortured, a man who gased his own citizens. A fool indeed to cry foul about a nation on the side of freedom to sooth his eggo but forgets the evils that no longer run unabashed.

The war was won in an astoundind display of military power. The aftermath could have been avoided or lessened if only the selfish nations who would rather point and complain instead of helping had the balls to back up their holy then thee high horse rhetoric. But actions are hard and talk is cheap.


RedWolf said:
This craptastic post is exactly why I wish your nation, it's politicians and it's military only the worst in Iraq. I'm not sure why you're so angry at me - you wanted this war - you got it. Deal with it - we're better off without it.

By the way - you're welcome for the help we've delivered in Afghanistan (and the Canadian lives we've thrown away). I don't support that one either - but it's irrelevant since people like you don't appreciate it anyways.

I agree with skadistic on the point that we're there trying to do the right thing (yes we have our stakes in the matter, but you can't argue that we did not get rid of a loathsome system) and I also appreciate the canucks over in Afghanistan doing the same.... the thing is, though, are you really better off without us being in Iraq and Afghanistan?

But also, if we're not doing this for our own benefit, is there any reason we should be over there fighting these wars? In the name of what's right and good for humanity perhaps, but if it didn't affect us, why should we care? Do we care only because it affects us?
 
The fool is the man who sits and whines in a nation to selfish to risk its treasures and people to free a nation on the other side of the world from an insane mudreous despotic tyrant who filled mass graves with hundreds of thousands of people, a man who had prisons for children of political prisoners, a man whos sons raped little girls for fun and killed for sport, a man who tortured, a man who gased his own citizens. A fool indeed to cry foul about a nation on the side of freedom to sooth his eggo but forgets the evils that no longer run unabashed.
And how many times has this happened since 1991? How many times has it happened recently? How does this justify hundreds of thousands of people to die? If you want to catch the real tyrants then you need to go to North Korea or Zimbabwe. Don't get me wrong, I know Saddam was bad but if you're going to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, the only way that it is justified is if even more people would have died if he had lived.

The war was won in an astoundind display of military power. The aftermath could have been avoided or lessened if only the selfish nations who would rather point and complain instead of helping had the balls to back up their holy then thee high horse rhetoric. But actions are hard and talk is cheap.
The aftermath could have been avoided if there was no war. What responsibility is it of other countries to wipe up your mess?

False. Yes they are.
Proof?
 
Imagine if all that happened, would you take up arms and see this as an opportunity to kil atheists/christians (depending on you'r faith)?

Yes, I can blame the insurgents.
 
Imagine if all that happened, would you take up arms and see this as an opportunity to kil atheists/christians (depending on you'r faith)?

Yes, I can blame the insurgents.

Only here, it would be conservatives vs liberals...see Modern History of Columbia ;)
 
This craptastic post is exactly why I wish your nation, it's politicians and it's military only the worst in Iraq. I'm not sure why you're so angry at me - you wanted this war - you got it. Deal with it - we're better off without it.

By the way - you're welcome for the help we've delivered in Afghanistan (and the Canadian lives we've thrown away). I don't support that one either - but it's irrelevant since people like you don't appreciate it anyways.

I'm not angry with you. I pitty you. You just wished death on not only my friends and family but my fellow Americans and the Iraqis. I don't respect you either. As you just showed in you post you don't care about people, only your self.

Maybe you can explain what people like me are and what I don't appreciate exactly.
 
Ok well then if we were wrong for putting him into power (which we didn't we only assisted if we were involved at all) then surely it was right of us to remove him from power. Not that this much affects the rest of my analogy.
.

Well, no.

Because Saddam is a tyrant, is not sufficient reason in international law to remove him. That would be illegal.

That was exactly why the Bush and Blair administration had to re-write the reports from their intelligence services to give the fake appearance of certainty about WMDs.

So in the rest of your analogy, Canada's action would also be illegal.

Also, despite the surely, it wasn't right for you to remove him.
 
Yes, we can blame most of the insurgents.
 
Imagine if all that happened, would you take up arms and see this as an opportunity to kil atheists/christians (depending on you'r faith)?

Oh, teh day might not be far off here in the USA.

A few economic downturns, and relying on military training might end up awarding the biggest paycheck.


Yes, I can blame the insurgents.

The insurgents are a multi-facted group. Some are al queada, and they tend to target civilians, some are militia groups, and they tend to fight for their religious sect, and some are nationalists, who tend to attack coalition and Iraqi government forces.

It is a sophmoric attempt at oversimplification buy the US government and its propaganda motuhpiece to try to lump them all together as one single entity. Of course, America's continuous failure to quell any of them shows how anarchistic and nihilistic the "insurgency" is, it is the perfect guerilla force, and is undefeatable, without wiping out the entire Iraiq population, which would bring democracy to a pile of rubble.
 
The insurgents are a multi-facted group. Some are al queada, and they tend to target civilians, some are militia groups, and they tend to fight for their religious sect, and some are nationalists, who tend to attack coalition and Iraqi government forces.

And I blame them all, for ruining thier own country.
 
The insurgents are a multi-facted group. Some are al queada, and they tend to target civilians, some are militia groups, and they tend to fight for their religious sect, and some are nationalists, who tend to attack coalition and Iraqi government forces.

It is a sophmoric attempt at oversimplification buy the US government and its propaganda motuhpiece to try to lump them all together as one single entity. Of course, America's continuous failure to quell any of them shows how anarchistic and nihilistic the "insurgency" is, it is the perfect guerilla force, and is undefeatable, without wiping out the entire Iraiq population, which would bring democracy to a pile of rubble.


:lol: I feel the same way when i hear about law-and-order types talk about 'the criminals', as if it's a batman comic and all the criminals get together at night in a secret lair to decide who's heisting the bank and who's robbing little old ladies on tuesdays and wednesdays...
 
And I blame them all, for ruining thier own country.

yeah, they had to go and destroy the paradise Saddam built.

It's a crying shame.

hannity.gif
 
I'm dissing the Israeli who shows complete lack of understanding of the situation in Iraq or human nature.

Good tactic that is, confusing you'r opponet untill he has no idea what you are babbling about.

:goodjob:
 
Back
Top Bottom