Well, when the EU invades America because George Bush is too religious and crazy, you go ahead and fly the old blue and yellow flag then.
Can we really blame most of the insurgents in IRAQ?
- Thread starter Xanikk999
- Start date
Well, when the EU invades America because George Bush is too religious and crazy, you go ahead and fly the old blue and yellow flag then.
I'm quite sure I did, but hey, I'll trust you.
belive whatever you want, don't let the facts get in the way.
GoodEnoughForMe
n.m.s.s.
Sorry. If there's one group of invader's I can't accept, it's soccer lovers.
And Bush isn't exactly Hussein either.
nivi
Call me Ishmael
scipian
Czar
neomega- You're wrong (concerning nivi's comment). Nivi said that the terrorists were messing up their nation. True. you said that they were messing up Saddam's paradise. Huh? I don't even know if that is true or false because it is nonsensical.
BTW-If Bush were truly as bad as Saddam, I'd lovingly cheer on the Eu forces. However, since he is not, I would prefer that you keep to real life and not fantasy about a fantasy.
BTW-If Bush were truly as bad as Saddam, I'd lovingly cheer on the Eu forces. However, since he is not, I would prefer that you keep to real life and not fantasy about a fantasy.
waht nation? the socialist utopia Saddam fashioned, or the bombed out shell of a nation America left after "shock and awe"?
checkmate... mates.
No, blaming the iraqis for the lack of law and order is nonsensical.
You're a traitor if you would cheer on the EU.... but you probably would be dumb enough, just like the American Iraqis belieing America would make everything better, to believe the EU could solve America's problems. Kind of like the Ukrainians cheering the Nazis after. Any occupying force is going to be more brutal with the citizens of the nation it is occupying, than it would with it's own citizens.
Peopel talk of the "freedom" Iraqis have now... BULLSPIT in a toilet. They got no freedoms if the US Army decides they are enemies, then the US Army can do whatever the hell it wants with them, including making naked pyramids and rounding up entire villiages.
I would be on the streets, planting bombs, cuz only Americans can solve American problems. The French and British and Germans Polish and Latvians got their own problems.
A bit more welfare here.... a little less guns there... no smoking here... and 26,000 new interstate trade regualtions... and viola... EU has solved Americas problems!!! NOT
True. I think it's pretty safe to say that Bush is far more of a threat to world security than Hussein ever was.
nivi
Call me Ishmael
waht nation? the socialist utopia Saddam fashioned, or the bombed out shell of a nation America left after "shock and awe"?
checkmate... mates.
This is the second time I heard this term, the first was about NK, now Iraq.
The "bombed out shell of a nation" could have been rebuilt, just like europe after WW2 (which endured much more bombing), but it wasn't becuase of insurgents who prevented rebuilding and destroyed what was.
@Skadistic - your posts are full of dubious contentions:
First: 'Saddam killed hundreds of thousands'; I can't find the link that was posted last time this came up, but the best estimate available from the State Dept IIRC was that Saddam killed between 100,000 and 125,000 of his citizens over fifteen years. We can all agree this was a terrible wrong and he was a bad person. The most reliable estimate of civilian casualties from the 2003 war and ensuing occupation is 655,000 - that is five times as many dead in a quarter of the time. So there is a pretty strong argument that ordinary Iraqi people have suffered greatly as as result of the invasion.
Second, the benevolence argument would be far more convincing were contracts for reconstruction biased toward local contractors and evenly shared - hell, even your close allies like the UK got crapped on by Bremer's crew when the contracts were handed out. Similarly the oil contracts being negotiated are heavily biased against Iraq and in favour of the oil companies - almost all US based - that will exploit them. And the neo-cons made no secret of the geo-strategic benefits they believed would accrue to the US from invading Iraq. So the benevolence argument is, at the very least, questionable.
Finally there is democracy. Now you and I value democracy. We might even consider sacrificing our lives to preserve it or introduce it where it doesn't exist. But that's not what happened. We sacrificed other people's lives in order to introduce it. Lots of them. They are entitled to take a different view as to the value of democracy relative to the life of their loved ones. Indeed, if anyone decided to sacrifice my kids' lives in order to preserve democracy I'd remove their kidneys with a blunt spoon and no anaesthetic, and screw my anti-violence principles.
I've no doubt there are a substantial number of insurgents who are determined to destabilise the country so that their political/religious agenda - of which you and I would strongly disapprove - can be promoted. I'm also sure there are a substantial number of insurgents who are taking revenge for dead loved ones, or genuinely believe themselves to be acting patriotically in defence of their country.
Right now around half of Iraqis believe attacks on coalition forces are justified; that says to me that there are a lot of patriotic insurgency supporters out there.
BFR
First: 'Saddam killed hundreds of thousands'; I can't find the link that was posted last time this came up, but the best estimate available from the State Dept IIRC was that Saddam killed between 100,000 and 125,000 of his citizens over fifteen years. We can all agree this was a terrible wrong and he was a bad person. The most reliable estimate of civilian casualties from the 2003 war and ensuing occupation is 655,000 - that is five times as many dead in a quarter of the time. So there is a pretty strong argument that ordinary Iraqi people have suffered greatly as as result of the invasion.
Second, the benevolence argument would be far more convincing were contracts for reconstruction biased toward local contractors and evenly shared - hell, even your close allies like the UK got crapped on by Bremer's crew when the contracts were handed out. Similarly the oil contracts being negotiated are heavily biased against Iraq and in favour of the oil companies - almost all US based - that will exploit them. And the neo-cons made no secret of the geo-strategic benefits they believed would accrue to the US from invading Iraq. So the benevolence argument is, at the very least, questionable.
Finally there is democracy. Now you and I value democracy. We might even consider sacrificing our lives to preserve it or introduce it where it doesn't exist. But that's not what happened. We sacrificed other people's lives in order to introduce it. Lots of them. They are entitled to take a different view as to the value of democracy relative to the life of their loved ones. Indeed, if anyone decided to sacrifice my kids' lives in order to preserve democracy I'd remove their kidneys with a blunt spoon and no anaesthetic, and screw my anti-violence principles.
I've no doubt there are a substantial number of insurgents who are determined to destabilise the country so that their political/religious agenda - of which you and I would strongly disapprove - can be promoted. I'm also sure there are a substantial number of insurgents who are taking revenge for dead loved ones, or genuinely believe themselves to be acting patriotically in defence of their country.
Right now around half of Iraqis believe attacks on coalition forces are justified; that says to me that there are a lot of patriotic insurgency supporters out there.
BFR
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Oh no, a naked pyramid!
Why can't we just be civilized like our Muslim friends and cut off their heads?
skadistic
Caomhanach
BFR
The mass graves filled with about 300k dead shia and kurds. Nothing dubious there. And your 600k dead civilians is bullfeathers and has been debunk repeatedly.
Heres some links to the mass graves you have such a hard time finding.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html
The mass graves filled with about 300k dead shia and kurds. Nothing dubious there. And your 600k dead civilians is bullfeathers and has been debunk repeatedly.
Heres some links to the mass graves you have such a hard time finding.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html
blah blah
not even close to 300,000 bodies have been exhumed from mass graves, at least not definitively linked to Saddam.
(dead Iranians, dead Iraqi soldiers from Iran Iraq and Gulf War I)
And since the lancet journal use dthe same technique as other studies, if the lancet journal numbers are inflated, that the estimated dead under saddam, are also inflated. Sorry, can't have it both ways.
Human rights watch claims up to 295,000 have been killed, I guess they missed the "400,000" Blair claims to have found.
Yeah right. 400,000... why no photos? Most mass graves have a coupel of hundred.... but blair claims 400,000.
and
to show how lame youir USAID website is looky here:
If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II.
Oh? News to me!
What about Stalin, Mao?
no?
What, you got some pimply faced middle school kid writing for usaid.gov????
What abotu pre WW II serbia, or Armenia?
no?
never heard of it.
DISCREDITED
nivi
Call me Ishmael
If we blame G.W for the deaths, why not blame saddam for his useless wars deaths? (500k?)
nonconformist
Miserable
As the Insurgency in its current form breaks down:
-Almost all(>95%
are Iraqi Nationals
-3 broad groups:
-Islamist, i.e Iraqi nationals who are Muslims and feel the need to efend Iraq from foreign invasion by chrsitians (large majority of insurgents)
-Nationalist (including Ba'athists who were forcibly removed from power, ex-soldiers and Republican guard who had nowhere to go, Iraqis fighting against loss of nationall Sovreignity, probably 2nd largest group)
-Secular (including Communsits driven underground by Saddam)
-Jihadi (including foreign elements, by far the smallest, yet most hyped, group).
The majority of Insurgents consider civilians to not be targets, and try to limit their targeting to Coalition troops, Iraqi Security Forces, Police, and collaborators, all legitimate targets, which are targeted by most groups, though some don't and prefer to attack other militias instead.
Overall, considering the Iraqis have effectively lost their homeland, their national identity, their sovreignity, their stable lives, the semblance of normality from day to day, I can very much empathise if not sympathise with their objectives, and their methods, while sometimes questionable, would be used by their enemies in any case, so ti's a matter of necessity to them.
All in all, I wish them the best of luck in their objectes insofar as removing foreign presence from their soil.
-Almost all(>95%
are Iraqi Nationals-3 broad groups:
-Islamist, i.e Iraqi nationals who are Muslims and feel the need to efend Iraq from foreign invasion by chrsitians (large majority of insurgents)
-Nationalist (including Ba'athists who were forcibly removed from power, ex-soldiers and Republican guard who had nowhere to go, Iraqis fighting against loss of nationall Sovreignity, probably 2nd largest group)
-Secular (including Communsits driven underground by Saddam)
-Jihadi (including foreign elements, by far the smallest, yet most hyped, group).
The majority of Insurgents consider civilians to not be targets, and try to limit their targeting to Coalition troops, Iraqi Security Forces, Police, and collaborators, all legitimate targets, which are targeted by most groups, though some don't and prefer to attack other militias instead.
Overall, considering the Iraqis have effectively lost their homeland, their national identity, their sovreignity, their stable lives, the semblance of normality from day to day, I can very much empathise if not sympathise with their objectives, and their methods, while sometimes questionable, would be used by their enemies in any case, so ti's a matter of necessity to them.
All in all, I wish them the best of luck in their objectes insofar as removing foreign presence from their soil.
Here's the problem!
Your pimply faced middle school boy who wrote this report misquoted tony Blair, what Blair actually said was:
"as many as 400,000 bodies lay in Saddams mass graves" (from the PDF),
not
"We've already discovered just so far the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves," said British Prime Minister Tony Blair on November 20 in London.
as claimed by 7th grade book report Billy.
God it must suck being against NeOmega. I'm glad I'm on my side.
*kisses flaming biceps*
*blows on steeeeaming hot fingertips*
ooohhh.... burn!
Your pimply faced middle school boy who wrote this report misquoted tony Blair, what Blair actually said was:
"as many as 400,000 bodies lay in Saddams mass graves" (from the PDF),
not
"We've already discovered just so far the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves," said British Prime Minister Tony Blair on November 20 in London.
as claimed by 7th grade book report Billy.
God it must suck being against NeOmega. I'm glad I'm on my side.
*kisses flaming biceps*
*blows on steeeeaming hot fingertips*
ooohhh.... burn!
skadistic
Caomhanach
Why because you said so? That was hardly a discredit.
Why not? I do. Saddam is responsible for the deaths of all Iraqi soldiers, and all Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war.
He is also responsible for all the death of the Kuwaitis in the Kuwait invasion.
However, I do not hold him responsible for crushing the post Gulf War I Shiite uprising, since any good dictator should be allowed to crush a military revolt.
Nor is he responsible morally, (but he is strategically) for the deaths of all peopel in Gulf War I.
Similar threads
