State of Iraq

[Armistead]

How do you feel about Iraq now? I admit in the beginning I jumped on the bandwagon. The towers had fallen, Saddam had WMD's...let's blow the hell out of them.

Obvious, the propaganda machine of war was long at work in the Bush adm. No WMD's, never any evidence, a big lie. Saddam, well a bad guy, but ran a basic secular culture for the region, he posed no threat to us.

So, here we are still there.

Over 5 million displaced.
Around 150- 300,000 dead civilians estimated killed by US military.
Bout one million overall dead.
700 billion Dollars spent....(there went health care.)
4500 dead US servicemen
35,000 wounded.

Billions in no bid contract to private american companies. Over 50% of the project went 200% above cost, even though many were never completed.

Many think it would be a matter of a year after we left before chaos ensued. Even Obama's so called pull out isn't really a pull out, we'll leave manned military bases, forces, etc..

Most agree insurgents are and stockpiling explosives waiting to reignite the conflict once we leave. If so, do we go back and continue nation building...


Should we continue to stay no matter the cost?

[Takeda Shingen]

We shouldn't have been there in the first place. So, no, I am not for staying the course in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Skybird]

I did not had to change my position on Iraq by one inch since 2003, so when I was saying in 2003 and 2004 that it was a big mistake, was caused not by need but by opportunistic desire, that it was about lies and intentional deception of the public, and was both badly prepared and badly carried out, then I still say so today. In fact I feel confirmed in my warnings by everything that has happened since the invasion started.

A very stupid adventure, from A to Z. The blood costs are payed by the Iraqi civilians.

[AVGWarhawk]

We shouldn't have been there in the first place. So, no, I am not for staying the course in either Iraq or Afghanistan.


Yep, should have pulled out years ago. Unfortunate we started the ball rolling. We need to clean up the mess. I have a friend who just came back for Iraq. He said it is a mess and will not survive for very long once the US troops are pulled.

[Takeda Shingen]

Yep, should have pulled out years ago. Unfortunate we started the ball rolling. We need to clean up the mess. I have a friend who just came back for Iraq. He said it is a mess and will not survive for very long once the US troops are pulled.

Not only that, but it becomes an exercise in futility. Each time we enable one of these nations to democratically liberalize in our western sense, the people of that nation end up voting in the very people we were trying to exclude from power. We're seeing it in motion in Egypt right now. Promoting democracy in the Middle East has really become a lost cause.

[Dowly]

Never should've gone there.

Saddam was a bad guy, but he kept things pretty much under control. The war and death of Saddam opened the door for terrorists and chaos. Gonna take a looong time for Iraq to get over this (if it ever will).

[Tribesman]

All the coilition did was exactly what the Iranians wanted, and probably more than they could have dreamed of.

[Ducimus]

Back when this all started, I supported it. I was just a year or two out of the military, NBC training was still fresh on my mind, and i almost re enlisted after sept 11. My grandfather begged me not to. Here was a WW 2 veteran who told me, "Don't re up. you've already done your fair share". Considering i was afraid, (because I knew the hardships I would face - again), i took his advice. Besides that, my desire to reenlist was more out of a sense of guilt for not being with my comrades who were still in, as the excrement was hitting the fan. Every bone in my body was ashamed for not being with them, but i knew the odds of re upping, and getting back to the same unit with those people were next to nill.

But there it was, Saddam was supposed to have NBC, and General Powell (the only politician i ever respected in recent time) , gave his anthrax speech to congress. I was sold on it.

When the dust has settled, and all the reasons to go were simply not there, i felt lied to, and betrayed (again). Now its my thought and fear that Iraq coupled with Afganistan, will eventually prove to be the proverbial straw that breaks the camels back. Much as Afganistan overtaxed the soviet union and lead to it's collapse. It won't happen right away, this is a long term reprocussion.

[Armistead]

Seems the US can't learn that you can't replace cultures with war. It's impossible to change a mindset that's been around 1000 years with war, it can't be done.

Bush Sr knew better, his son didn't. He lied, he is a criminal and should be charged as one, but we can't do that, somehow it would dishonor the servicemen, so it's just a lie we all live with.

[Bubblehead1980]

I am glad we went.I think the cause was just even though we did not find WMD's and tired of this crap about Bush lied etc.Believe they followed their intel and used the faulty intel.We do know Sadam had the WMD's at one time, perhaps while we were beating the war drum for months ahead and he had a deadline, he got rid of them or sent them elsewhere, very plausible scenario.

The war was mismanaged, going in fairly light with not enough troops for the shock and awe instead of a full scale war with the numbers they really needed.They tried to do it the easy way going on the assumption once Iraqi Army was gone there would be no real resistance.They failed to plan for an insurgency and it cost many more lives than it should have.

I believe one day Iraq will be the "shining city on the hill" in the middle east.The war was worth it, mismanaged most of the time, absolutely but the surge worked and things are better.Worth it? Absolutely.

[Tribesman]

very plausible scenario
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har:

Ducimus, that politician you mentioned.
When he was selling that obvious bull that practicly got him laughed out the chamber didn't he describe it as the worst point of his career and the biggest stain on his reputation.
Do you think he would describe it as a "very plausible scenario"?

The war was worth it, mismanaged most of the time, absolutely but the surge worked and things are better.Worth it? Absolutely.
Worth it? The recently installed government was finally put together after some of the most virulently anti-american terrorists in the region sat down together and agreed which Iranian backed group would take the key positions in government?
Absolutely???????
Worth it? yeah for Iran.

[CaptainHaplo]

Never ceases to amaze me how people ignore the realities just because its not front page news.

Weapons of mass destruction didn't exist, huh?

Declassified docs as of 2006:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

enough Sarin and Mustard gas to kill about 7 Million. In a degraded state, figure about half that. 3.5 Million dead isn't mass destruction? What is then?

Don't like that example? Fair enough - how about the love of the left - wikileaks? Would you rather them tell you? Turns out that one recent dump discussed this very thing....

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/

Not the quantity that was sold to the public by Bush, but thats an intelligence apparatus failure. The reality is they existed.

But wait - there is more... Everyone knows that Saddam wasn't after nukes, right? He had given up on all that, right? Of course, the 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium he had - that even MSNBC calls " seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment " doesn't mean he actually had a nuclear program, right? I am sure he was just trying to figure out how to power the palace lights with the stuff so he could, uhm - you know - get off the grid.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/

Of course - this material was located at the Tuwaitha Special Weapons research / nuclear complex. The name might ring a bell, since it was the location of the Iraqi nuclear research programme when Israel bombed it. The IAEA wanted to inspect the material - but Saddam would not allow them to do so, in violation of treaty. In fact, this refusal to allow the IAEA to inspect the uranium was a major cause of war, since whether or not the uranium was being used to enrich fuel for a weapon or not, it created the APPEARANCE that it was.

Add in the 2004 actions of removing material sufficiently enriched as to be useful in the making of "dirty bombs", as reported by USA Today.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-07-iraq-uranium_x.htm

1.6 tons of enriched uranium, 6.6 lbs of "low enriched" uranium and about 1000 "highly radioactive" items - where "highly radioactive" is defined as suitable for weapon use (but not weapons grade)- aka enriched to 20%.

@ Armistead - Bush lied? About what? Every intelligence report at the time, not only from the US but from multiple allies, indicated that WMD existed on a large scale under Saddam. Is a man a liar if he works from the best information he has?

As far as a criminal, I can only assume you are talking about Bush starting a "war of aggression". To that I can only state that there was nothing illegal about the war. Take WMD's entirely out of the equation - even without them, the war itself was legal due to the violation of the ceasefire by Iraq. Iraq, on multiple occasions, fired upon US and Allied aircraft and violated the ceasefire they agreed to. These acts were not precipitated by them being fired upon, but rather were acts of war by a belligerant in violation of the agreement in place. As such, the moment they fired the first time, any invasion by any signatory of the cease fire became legal.

I don't like Bush much. Its ok for you to not like him too. Did he mismanage the war? You bet he did. However, to call him a liar or a criminal over the war is untrue. WMD's existed that violated the notification and destruction clauses. A clandestine nuclear program MAY have existed (we will likely never know for certain to what extent it may or may not have). Intelligence from almost every source said major programs of NBC warfare existed. The government refused to allow inspections of materials that would support part of those programs - violating treaty. They violated a ceasefire by firing on forces engaged in legitimate, legally defined (and agreed to) patrols without provocation, throwing the cease fire in the trash.

The wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq have been horribly carried out. No argument here. But that was because we had no idea what to do after the regime's fell.

To be correct, we really should stop calling them wars - for they are not. They are conflict and construction zones. We got into nation building while we get shot at, because the people there don't want to do the heavy lifting.

Liberty and freedom come with a cost, and the biggest error that Bush made was that we cannot free a country. Liberty and freedom are bought with the blood of patriots - not foreigners. Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other places in the world will never have true reform until they pay the price for it themselves.

If only every leader of nations understood that.........

[Platapus]

1.6 tons of enriched uranium, 6.6 lbs of "low enriched" uranium and about 1000 "highly radioactive" items - where "highly radioactive" is defined as suitable for weapon use (but not weapons grade)- aka enriched to 20%.


You can't use 20% 235U to make a weapon. You can, however, use 20% 235U to fuel a nuclear reactor.

And "highly radioactive items" can't be used to make any sort of fission weapon. The worst you can do is use them for an RDD.

[mookiemookie]

This country has had multi-generational financial harm inflicted upon it because of these idiotic and mad quests for WMD's that didn't exist. Haplo's link says it all: An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. Billions and billions of dollars and thousands of American and Iraqi lives wasted over trivial amounts of chemical weapons. To say that members of the administration were victims of bad intel and not overt liars is wrong and has been proven wrong by revelations from Wikileaks. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-25/wikileaks-shows-rumsfeld-and-casey-lied-about-the-iraq-war/?cid=bsa:moreauthor2)

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are traitors to this nation and should be hung as such.

[Armistead]

All evidence pointed to no WMD's, so Bush fabricated fiction. Why did Bush sell out a covert CIA operative putting all her clients lives around the world in peril, because her husband told the truth about no WMD's. All the real players knew WMD's didn't exist, so did Bush. He was given plenty of facts WMD's they didn't exist. Me made up lies.


90% of casualties were civilians in Iraq, we didn't win hearts and minds there, we buried them.

We're now trying to install a puppet government that will be tossed out.

As others stated, it was worth it for Iran.

I'm rather moderate, even voted for Bush once. Now I would vote for a swift trial and swifter execution. He got what he wanted...billions in profits for his friends in the war business selling out over a million dead human beings...."Praise God, I'm a Christian" says Bush.

Worse President in history.

[breadcatcher101]

I didn't know Iraq was a state, is this one of the 57 or 8 states Obama spoke of ?

I don't think we should have gone in the first place. Now here we are rebuilding a country we laid waste to.

Iraq had nothing to do w/9/11.

We will be there always until the day comes when we decide to just leave.

[Tribesman]

You can't use 20% 235U to make a weapon. You can, however, use 20% 235U to fuel a nuclear reactor.


Don't get technical, Haplo still wants to believe the lies.

Just look at the crap "in a degraded state figure about half that"...... figure its good for nothing.
Yellowcake?????bloody hell that was one of the biggest jokes in the claims, documented, sealed and monitored by the weapons inspectors for over a decade before the invasion.
Old corroded leaking 6 inch shells left over from when Saddam was a good friend.
So corroded and degraded that it took repeat tests before they could even get any positive result for the chemicals at all.:doh:

As they say down it Texas or is it Taiwan, "fool me once shame on me fool me again long after the facts are well established and the topic has been done to death please pity me as I have difficulty facing reality, if I try to fool you too due to my difficulties please don't laugh too much"

[CaptainHaplo]

Mookie - your link talks about the internal sunni/shia feud that took place in 2006. It has nothing to do with the topic - being the start/cause of war.

Now lets look at the article. The Samarra bombing took place on 22 February. The article claims by link that Gen. Casey lies about sectarian violence. However, in the article it links to - this is stated clearly:

The general acknowledged that Iraq is facing sectarian tension and sectarian violence, but said it's "focused primarily in the center of the country around Baghdad." Even there, the situation is not as dire as media reports suggest, Casey said.

The article is dated March 19th, and states General Casey "recently" toured Baghdad. Even if he had visited the area 2 weeks prior to the article, on 5 March, the sectarian violence was mostly over by 27 Feb.
To claim that Casey somehow should have "seen" firsthand the bodies in the streets during days when he wasn't present is idiocy.

On to Rumsfeld - you state he lied.
The October 2010 Iraqi War documents leak shed new light on the events of February–March 2006. In particular, the logs reveal that U.S. soldiers immediately reported an "explosion of retaliatory killings, kidnappings, tortures, mosque attacks, and open street fighting," even as U.S. commanders including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were downplaying media reports of a surge in killings. The previous "official" death toll for post-bombing sectarian fighting, of 3-400, was based on information from the Shiite-led government and the Sadr-run Health Ministry, which was directly involved in atrocities according to the logs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_al-Askari_Mosque_bombing#WikiLeaks_data

So Rumsfeld based his view not on the info from the grunts (which he can't interview em all ya know), but on official information from the Iraqi Health ministry. Did he lie? Or did he in good faith repeat information that he was given from an official Iraqi source? Given the date of his statement - there is no way that the on the ground data would have been confirmed and then forwarded up the chain to his level by then. So what is the man to go on?

Then you state Bush and Cheney as well are "traitors to the nation and should be hung as such". Funny - nothing in your article related to either of them. Nor have you provided anything that shows they knew ahead of time that the intel they were given was false, nor what they would gain by stating falsehoods. How did they commit treason?

Everyone here gets that some folks on here don't like those in the previous administration. Some of us don't like the folks in this one. That is fine. But if your going to make accusations, try at least to back them up with something reasonable.

Also - can you pick a less left leaning source than the Daily Beast? I mean, their causes are the environmental impact of oil drilling and plastics, immigrant and gay rights. That's like half of the left's agenda right there. I was suprised I didn't find more anti-capitalism stuff to go with it.

[mookiemookie]

Mookie - your link talks about the internal sunni/shia feud that took place in 2006. It has nothing to do with the topic - being the start/cause of war. So what. They still lied. One documented example of a history of lies.

Now lets look at the article. The Samarra bombing took place on 22 February. The article claims by link that Gen. Casey lies about sectarian violence. However, in the article it links to - this is stated clearly:



The article is dated March 19th, and states General Casey "recently" toured Baghdad. Even if he had visited the area 2 weeks prior to the article, on 5 March, the sectarian violence was mostly over by 27 Feb.
To claim that Casey somehow should have "seen" firsthand the bodies in the streets during days when he wasn't present is idiocy. Defending these treasonous bastards is idiocy.

On to Rumsfeld - you state he lied.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_al-Askari_Mosque_bombing#WikiLeaks_data

So Rumsfeld based his view not on the info from the grunts (which he can't interview em all ya know), but on official information from the Iraqi Health ministry. Did he lie? Or did he in good faith repeat information that he was given from an official Iraqi source? Given the date of his statement - there is no way that the on the ground data would have been confirmed and then forwarded up the chain to his level by then. So what is the man to go on? Again, one example in a track record of lies.

Then you state Bush and Cheney as well are "traitors to the nation and should be hung as such". Funny - nothing in your article related to either of them. Nor have you provided anything that shows they knew ahead of time that the intel they were given was false, nor what they would gain by stating falsehoods. How did they commit treason? Because screw them, that's why. These things happened on their watch, and source after source has shown that it was with their knowledge and complicitness. If you have to ask that question at this point, you're either willfully blind or a partisan. Either way, it's not worth wasting time rehashing now.

Also - can you pick a less left leaning source than the Daily Beast? I mean, their causes are the environmental impact of oil drilling and plastics, immigrant and gay rights. That's like half of the left's agenda right there. I was suprised I didn't find more anti-capitalism stuff to go with it.
Don't attack the source. Attack the statement.

Actually, don't. You're not changing my mind on this, and it's clear I'm not changing yours.

[Ducimus]

I am glad we went.

Man, do you have any idea how hallow those words are?
I have to ask, Did you go Iraq? Did you serve in the military? Where you there when the **** was hitting the fan? Where where you stationed at?

Don't ever use the word, "We" in that context if you didn't participate in something like that. When it comes to Iraq or Afghanistan, *I* sure as hell won't be saying, "im glad we went". I have no right to.

There's ONE Thing that has really peeved me off with the general public every since i got out of the military. The whole, "We're gonna kick their ass!" or, "I'm glad we went!" mentality. REALLY?!!?? What do you mean, WE? Where where you again? Like the whole thing is a god damn football game, as they sit on their asses, watching CNN, and waving the American flag around like its a set of cheer leaders pom poms.

Another big FAD i always get a kick out of, is the "I support our troops" yellow ribbons some jerkoffs place next to their gas caps on their vehicles. You support our troops eh? REALLY? HOW? By buying a bumper sticker on amazon? Displaying your do nothing flag waving patrotism to assuage some guilt? Way to support the troops there...... :shifty:


You'll have to excuse me, I've had that sentiment bottled up in me for about 14 years now. As an aside, its my opinion that anyone who supports a war (any war) should be made to serve in it.

[CaptainHaplo]

You can't use 20% 235U to make a weapon. You can, however, use 20% 235U to fuel a nuclear reactor.

And "highly radioactive items" can't be used to make any sort of fission weapon. The worst you can do is use them for an RDD.

Platypus - you read well from Wiki - but you needed to read a bit further.

Reactors usually use 235U enriched 3%-5%. Anything under 20% is considered low enriched uranium (leu).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium#Low-enriched_uranium_.28LEU.29

Anything at 20% or above is considered weapon usable. Anything at 85% or higher is considered "weapons grade". Weapon usable is - as you say - for an RDD (aka dirty bomb).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium#Highly_enriched_uranium_.28HEU.29

Now - in Juneof 2004 we removed 2 tons of LEU and 1000 HEU devices - or 1000 sources of fuel for dirty bombs. See USA today link from previous.

In 2008, we removed the 550 tons of yellowcake that the IAEA knew about. The problem - the IAEA did NOT know about the 2 tons of LEU or the 1000 HEU devices prior to the invasion. In other words, Iraq prior to the invasion had nuclear fuel - both LEU and HEU, that was undeclared. The HEU could have been used by terrorists to create bombs if they got a hold of them.... the LEU was not even supposed to exist!

Atomic bombs can also be built using less uranium, down to around 15 to 25 kgs of material, according to experts.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/579/uranium-enrichment-how-make-atomic-bomb

However - that is based on weapons grade stuff. According to the ever so handy Nuclear Weapons FAQ, 245kg would be needed using a berelium neutron absorbtion sphere. FYI - berelium is common enough to be easily acquirable....

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-1.html#Nfaq4.1.7.1

So - 245kgs of 20% enriched U235 - out of 2 tons of the stuff? I don't know how much is needed for specific enrichment (as it varies with technique and Iraq had previously used more than one). It may not have been enough for a bomb.... but it would have been enough for part of one.....

Yes - Uranium at 20% can be used to make a fissionable weapon. And 1000 dirty bombs would kill people too......

[Tribesman]

1000 HEU devices - or 1000 sources of fuel for dirty bombs
Wow did they raid a hospital?

[Armistead]

http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu235/Armistead1424/Bush_codpiece_debbc-236x300.jpg
http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu235/Armistead1424/gw-mission-accomplished.jpg

Cheny's worth in Haliburton went from $241,498 to over $8,000,000.

Mission accomplished.

[Platapus]

Seems the US can't learn that you can't replace cultures with war. It's impossible to change a mindset that's been around 1000 years with war, it can't be done.



There is wisdom in these words. :yep:

[August]

Well I for one am glad that we took out Saddam and his regime. The man was just waiting for a chance to stick it to us just as soon as we took our boot off his neck.

[Armistead]

Well I for one am glad that we took out Saddam and his regime. The man was just waiting for a chance to stick it to us just as soon as we took our boot off his neck.

Was he worth 4500 american soldiers?

[August]

Was he worth 4500 american soldiers?

Considering how many he might have killed if given the chance? Yes.

He should have been finished off in '91...

[Growler]

You'll have to excuse me, I've had that sentiment bottled up in me for about 14 years now. As an aside, its my opinion that anyone who supports a war (any war) should be made to serve in it.

No excuse necessary. Your entire post is well said, and echoes my feelings as well.

My kid is looking at tour #4 in [a current zone of conflict] coming up [sometime in the future] - so I'm a little sore on the "yellow ribbon" pandering, too.

[joegrundman]

Well I for one am glad that we took out Saddam and his regime. The man was just waiting for a chance to stick it to us just as soon as we took our boot off his neck.

out of curiosity - how do you imagine he was going to stick it to ze Americans after you took the boot off his neck? Invade kuwait again?

[Skybird]

Nobody denies that Saddam at one point of time had chemical weapons, actually he has used them, against the Kurds and the Iranians. Point is, he got rid of them years ahead of 2003. The reason told to the public why this war was necessary, said he still had them. And that was a lie.

It was also said by the Bush administration that Saddam and Al Quaeda cooperated. That was also a lie. Representatives of the regime and Al Quaeda have met and one point, only to find that they have nothing to agree over. Which is no surprise for anyone knowing the stuff: Al Quaeda hates despots and corrupted pseudo-Muslims like the Saddam regime.

It also was implied that Saddam had his hands in 9/11. That is a lie.

Then there was this hilarious thing that became known as the "London missile memo", a diploma paper by student from ten years ago that was just copied and sold as latest government intel, saying that Saddam's MRBM now could reach European cities in less than 30 minutes. Maybe the best joke of them all.

Only the allegation that Saddam still has chemical weapons, was an explanation for the war given ahead of the war. When the weapons were not found, the Al Quaeda issue was published, and the 9/11 link became more focused on. The original lie had not worked, now one needed another one to justify the war.

Explanations given before a war, are reasons that may be right or wrong. Explanations given AFTER a war, are always just lame excuses.

And a final reminder on the fact that the Wolfowiotz paper planned and demanded the Iraq war of 2003 already one decade earlier. During the Clinton years, the paper disappeared in a drawer. When Bush junior entered office, the war already was decided from all beginning on when he took out that paper again.

My all time favourite which ruined Colin Powell's respectability forever: the moment he pathetically held up that unsecured vial of poweder sugar at the UN, lecturing over how dangerous a piece of Anthrax it was. What a disgrface for a man who before enjoyed quite some respect in the world and maybe was the only person respected in the whole administration. He later indicated in an interview, just some years ago, that he deeply regret that he accepted to stage this act, if I remember correctly.

If you have the opportunity, watch that 2 hopur docu from 2006 or 2007, "No end in sight", which in Germany ran under the nice title "War of the amateurs". It was on TV and at the movies, and initially was freely available on internet, but now is payware DVD only. But you can check youtube on whether or not I may be wrong. That film spoke vomes about the early inention of Bush, and the diletantism shown by the adminstration. It went so far as too actively hinder better preparation. Idiots, totally unscrupellous idiots fed from the pockets of backstage cliques and business lobbies.

The failure over realistic Afghanistan policies and Kathrina showed that their incompetence was no single case, but a basic feature of this government crew.

[Tribesman]

out of curiosity - how do you imagine he was going to stick it to ze Americans after you took the boot off his neck? Invade kuwait again?
:har: Thats cruel, don't mock so much.

[baggygreen]

There is wisdom in these words. :yep:
Well, you can, but fortunately we've largely moved on from that form of warfare. Wiping out every man, woman and child of an entire town or city as used to happen, would have been nasty enough. Imaging someone trying to do that on a national scale.

[Armistead]

Well, you can, but fortunately we've largely moved on from that form of warfare. Wiping out every man, woman and child of an entire town or city as used to happen, would have been nasty enough. Imaging someone trying to do that on a national scale.

Over 5 million displaced people and over a million dead, what would you call that?

[August]

out of curiosity - how do you imagine he was going to stick it to ze Americans after you took the boot off his neck? Invade kuwait again?

Geez Joe. A crazy dictator with a burning hatred of my country and access to billions of petro-dollars? You can't see any problems with that? :roll:

I suppose you believe that if we just stopped patrolling his borders and no fly zones he would have turned into a modern age Mahatma Ghandi, spreading peace, love and democracy across the globe?

[joegrundman]

Geez Joe. A crazy dictator with a burning hatred of my country and access to billions of petro-dollars? You can't see any problems with that? :roll:

I suppose you believe that if we just stopped patrolling his borders and no fly zones he would have turned into a modern age Mahatma Ghandi, spreading peace, love and democracy across the globe?

I didn't say that. I was wondering how in practical terms, you envisaged him sticking it to the USA, in terms that say, would have cost you more than liberating Iraq has done.

What could he have done?

[August]

I didn't say that. I was wondering how in practical terms, you envisaged him sticking it to the USA, in terms that say, would have cost you more than liberating Iraq has done.

What could he have done?

Al Quaeda aren't the only ones who can get people to strap on a bomb y'know. How about a bio weapon attack during the Super Bowl or some other large event? Don't you think that someone with his resources couldn't set up something like that if left to his own devices?

He had motive, and means, all that he really needed was opportunity.

[Tribesman]

He had motive, and means, all that he really needed was opportunity.
Better invade just about every country in the world then.
After all it doesn't take much resources to make up a crude weapon to take to a large event.

Come to think of it hadn't america better invade america as we don't want any more nuts like Rudolph with motive means and oppertunity trying to create carnage at sporting events.


Amazing isn't it, when the claims made as justification turn out to be bull someone tries pure bull as a justification.

[joegrundman]

Better invade just about every country in the world then.
After all it doesn't take much resources to make up a crude weapon to take to a large event.

Come to think of it hadn't america better invade america as we don't want any more nuts like Rudolph with motive means and oppertunity trying to create carnage at sporting events.


Amazing isn't it, when the claims made as justification turn out to be bull someone tries pure bull as a justification.


It does seem to be the case that August is saying pure fantastical speculation is sufficient grounds to invade a country.

And he's right, of course. That's pretty much where we are at the moment.

[Growler]

Saddam used chemical weapons, both against the Iranians during the Iran - Iraq war, and on his own citizens when deployed against the Kurds. In comparison, The last time chemical weapons were deployed against military troops on a large scale was World War One, following which, the Geneva Protocol of 1925 agreed that chemical and bacteriological weapons would not be used. That protocol was boosted by the OPCW Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, signed by some 165 nations on the date of ratification, with further signatures added in later years (including Iraq's, but long after the issue in contention here).

So you have near global agreement over seventy-five years that chemical weapons are a pretty rotten idea. Then you have a sovereign national leader who has demonstrated not only capability but also intent, not only against military forces but also against his own citizens.

So the rationale not to move on him is why? Oh, wait - so because the entire situation was so badly mishandled by the Bush White House that it looks today like they all lied - so because of that, the entire war was wrong.

Man. Some of you fellas live in rosy little worlds.

[Takeda Shingen]

So the rationale not to move on him is why? Oh, wait - so because the entire situation was so badly mishandled by the Bush White House that it looks today like they all lied - so because of that, the entire war was wrong.

In short, yes. Going to war on fabricated rationale and intelligence was, and is wrong. There were no weapons of mass destruction as described by the Bush administration. Also, the removal of the Hussien regime has not made the world a safer place, nor has it rendered our nation's interests any more secure. I also do not believe that it is the duty of the United States to serve as the world's police, and so I do believe the entire war to be wrong.

[August]

It does seem to be the case that August is saying pure fantastical speculation is sufficient grounds to invade a country.

And he's right, of course. That's pretty much where we are at the moment.


Pure fantastical speculation? Meh, if you want to see it that way it's your choice.

[Tribesman]

Man. Some of you fellas live in rosy little worlds.
Man, some of you fellas are from a different world.
If his chemical atrocities were so bloody bad that something just had to be done then why the hell wasn't anything done when he was gassing Iranians and Kurds?
Oh yeah, its because he was a real friendly guy when he was using chemical weapons so it was all OK and the good idea is to support such people not overthrow them:doh:

I hate to say it but that Scottish pillock Galloway did have a point when he went in front of the US hearings.

[MH]

It does seem to be the case that August is saying pure fantastical speculation is sufficient grounds to invade a country.

And he's right, of course. That's pretty much where we are at the moment.

Man, some of you fellas are from a different world.
If his chemical atrocities were so bloody bad that something just had to be done then why the hell wasn't anything done when he was gassing Iranians and Kurds?
Oh yeah, its because he was a real friendly guy when he was using chemical weapons so it was all OK and the good idea is to support such people not overthrow them:doh:

I hate to say it but that Scottish pillock Galloway did have a point when he went in front of the US hearings.

Yes Tribesman world is complicated place.

[Bubblehead1980]

Man, do you have any idea how hallow those words are?
I have to ask, Did you go Iraq? Did you serve in the military? Where you there when the **** was hitting the fan? Where where you stationed at?

Don't ever use the word, "We" in that context if you didn't participate in something like that. When it comes to Iraq or Afghanistan, *I* sure as hell won't be saying, "im glad we went". I have no right to.

There's ONE Thing that has really peeved me off with the general public every since i got out of the military. The whole, "We're gonna kick their ass!" or, "I'm glad we went!" mentality. REALLY?!!?? What do you mean, WE? Where where you again? Like the whole thing is a god damn football game, as they sit on their asses, watching CNN, and waving the American flag around like its a set of cheer leaders pom poms.

Another big FAD i always get a kick out of, is the "I support our troops" yellow ribbons some jerkoffs place next to their gas caps on their vehicles. You support our troops eh? REALLY? HOW? By buying a bumper sticker on amazon? Displaying your do nothing flag waving patrotism to assuage some guilt? Way to support the troops there...... :shifty:


You'll have to excuse me, I've had that sentiment bottled up in me for about 14 years now. As an aside, its my opinion that anyone who supports a war (any war) should be made to serve in it.

Duci, I was not even out of high school when the war started and I went to college after graduation, so no I was not there.When I used "we" I meant our country.Yes the guys actually in the military are on the front lines but everyone has a stake in the war, some more than others but it's something that WE all must pay for, we all have a stake in the fight when we are at war.That is how and many others out there see it.I respect and understand your point of view, but disagree.

[Armistead]

One thing I finally learned when it comes to politicians, moreso in war, is not to believe what they say, but check the facts from sources not related to them and compare the facts. Certainly I want so called facts from politicians, but anyone with a brain know those facts are going to be tainted with propaganda.

Nothing disgusted me more than seeing Americans react to Bush with fervor, waving flags and let's go kick some arse...Course these are the types the politicians depend on.

Now most of the facts are out to compare. Bush had all these facts. Anyone with a brain, an open mind with their mouth not stuck to a party tit can see Bush lied.

The average person could look at the facts and see Bush created fiction with patriotic fervor to start a war. Not only those facts, but the facts that the war would be impossible to get out of once in. His father was smart enough not to invade based on these facts.

The Senate hearings showed beyond doubt that Bush misrepresented his findings, chose to ignore real facts, choosing speculation instead.

Saddam was contained, our sanctions killing 500,000 children a year, he had nothing. Bush started a war because the timing was right. He was going to have this war.

Somehow in the end it the only line he could use, "we're here to spread freedom and democracy to Iraq."... We've done neither. We're more hated than ever in the region.

[Growler]

In short, yes. Going to war on fabricated rationale and intelligence was, and is wrong. There were no weapons of mass destruction as described by the Bush administration. Also, the removal of the Hussien regime has not made the world a safer place, nor has it rendered our nation's interests any more secure. I also do not believe that it is the duty of the United States to serve as the world's police, and so I do believe the entire war to be wrong.

OK, Tak, I can understand your point. So I'm going to take the thought a step further: What constitutes a "fabricated basis?"

By the way, I do agree with you in re: the world not being a safer place, but I contend that it wasn't a safe place long before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, or even the 11 Sep attacks, either. Our European members who were around in the latter half of the 20th Century could attest to the safe world of the IRA and the various Red Army factions blowing up discos in the FRG.

Last thought for now: If we Americans, with the responsibility of being one of the more powerful nations on Earth, are not to be tasked with being the world's police, then who is? Furthermore, without anyone taking responsibility for it, what's left?

Now, if we are acting as the world's police, that's one thing. Clearly, the US hasn't stopped at just that, and has projected its forms of government with its policing. I'm speaking solely of policing, not imperialism.

[Takeda Shingen]

OK, Tak, I can understand your point. So I'm going to take the thought a step further: What constitutes a "fabricated basis?"

By the way, I do agree with you in re: the world not being a safer place, but I contend that it wasn't a safe place long before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, or even the 11 Sep attacks, either. Our European members who were around in the latter half of the 20th Century could attest to the safe world of the IRA and the various Red Army factions blowing up discos in the FRG.

Last thought for now: If we Americans, with the responsibility of being one of the more powerful nations on Earth, are not to be tasked with being the world's police, then who is? Furthermore, without anyone taking responsibility for it, what's left?

Now, if we are acting as the world's police, that's one thing. Clearly, the US hasn't stopped at just that, and has projected its forms of government with its policing. I'm speaking solely of policing, not imperialism.

Yeah, 'fabrication' was probably poor word selection on my part. What I really mean is more along the lines of 'inaccurate'. These facilities, mobile chemistry labs and whatnot never appeared, and probably never existed. However, I'm not a person who believes that this discrepancy between pre-war intelligence and post-war reality was intentional.

Technically, the UN is the world's police force, but I think we can all agree on just how effective they actually are. That being said, I don't think that the world really needs a policing nation. We more or less act in this capacity, but our actions do not accomplish the goal of any policing action; that being stability. Look at the ongoing Somali civil war. We tried in that case, and all we had to show for our actions was a fat lip and an emboldened local militia. I think that example has been more typical than not of our intervention across the globe.

I agree that we aren't talking about imperialism here. Iraq is not, and will never be a colony of the United States. We're talking about policing action with the goal of stabilizing nations and regions, and I think that we are failing in that pursuit.

[August]

What I really mean is more along the lines of 'inaccurate'. These facilities, mobile chemistry labs and whatnot never appeared, and probably never existed. However, I'm not a person who believes that this discrepancy between pre-war intelligence and post-war reality was intentional.

There's a vast difference than fabricated and inaccurate that is apparently lost on some folks. In fact if anyone was fabricating things then it was Saddam himself trying to look more powerful than he really was.

Note to future despots: You don't point toy guns at cops and you don't threaten hostile superpowers with fake WMD.

[Freiwillige]

I think the key point in this argument thus far is what constitutes enough probable cause to warrant invasion and regime.

Listed reasons are, WMD's, Hostility towards neighbors, oppressive regime, Hostile to US.

Now I can name allot of country's that fit that bill that we haven't invaded, lets use North Korea as an example. They meet and in fact exceed most criteria that validates invasion using Iraq's justification for War.

Discuss

[August]

I think the key point in this argument thus far is what constitutes enough probable cause to warrant invasion and regime.

Listed reasons are, WMD's, Hostility towards neighbors, oppressive regime, Hostile to US.

Now I can name allot of country's that fit that bill that we haven't invaded, lets use North Korea as an example. They meet and in fact exceed most criteria that validates invasion using Iraq's justification for War.

Discuss

This oversimplifies the things that have to considered in such a decision. Probable cause does not say anything about opportunity or ramifications. These aspects need to be factored in.

Main differences that I see:

1. North Korea is within Red China's sphere of influence and would likely defend the NK's if they're invaded. They have already done it once and would likely do so again.

2. South Korea and Japan would have to be willing to host invasion forces in spite of knowing that they, especially SK, would get severely messed up in the crossfire, if not nuked for their troubles. They might do it if they felt theatened enough like at least some of Iraqs neighbors seemed to be.

3. North Korea would have had to repeatedly violate the ceasefire agreement since it was signed.

4. North Korea would have to pretend to violate even more serious aspects of the ceasefire agreement such as claim to be ready to use WMD capabilities they actually didn't have. Like pointing a toy gun at a cop, Dumb.

5. There would need to be large ethnic groups of North Koreans that could be counted on to, not only be in favor of removing Kim and his government from power, but willing to actively assist us in doing it.

6. These large ethnic groups would also have vocal expatriate populations who make sure that each one of Kims atrocities are made known to the American people.

7. There has to be a fairly strong domestic feeling from bottom to top that we had left the job unfinished the last time we were there.

[Tribesman]

Yes Tribesman world is complicated place.
Actually its not that complicated.
If a crazy dictator is gassing people and needs to be removed for doing that nasty stuff then he is a crazy dictator that needs to be removed from doing that nasty stuff, however if you support him while he is doing all the nasty stuff then using the excuse years later when he isn't gassing people then your excuse is pure bull.
Plus of course if you support crazy dictators who do really nasty stuff and try and justify the really nasty stuff it does suggest that your regime is very crazy too and needs a regime change itself rather rapidly.

[gimpy117]

All of the evidence against Saddam was trumped up. Those "mobile WMD labs"? Artist conceptual drawings, not actual intelligence. And again...why haven't we found anything to date? Theres a reason why the UN didn't find anything, and on that subject there's a definite reason why the administration tried everything they could to paint the UN in a bad light whenever they told us not to go into Iraq. They were a fly in the ointment, someone who wasn't beating the war drums...and they had to be discredited in the eyes of the American people.

Secondly,We went through 3 different reasons during that war, First...saddam was a threat with WMD's, but then we found none so it was "ohh he was a tyrant and were making a better life for them". People get mad in Iraq because we actually made everything worse and start shooting at us and it's "insurgents and terrorists that we have to defeat to protect america" Even though there really hasn't been solid evidence that terrorists were there before we showed up.

I have a hard time finding a war legitimate if you keep changing the reason were there. They should have said it from the begining: "we don't like Saddam, want some oil if we can get it...and while were at it lets throw some money to haliburton and other defense contractors."

[Freiwillige]

Here is my take.

Saddam has not fired a shot outside of his border's since Gulf war One.

Terrorists fly planes into the WTC and that wakes a sleeping giant.

We then start agitating for war with Iraq and here is my problem with it all

Iraq somehow starts getting thrown in with the attack in the media and soon it almost becomes as If Saddam himself ordered the attack. The media really starts pushing the links to AL Q.

Thats when I had to call BS. The way it was being sold you could smell the pure speculation and fabrication of it all. We knew that almost all of the terrorists were almost exclusively Saudi. But did we hold Saudi Arabia responsible? At this point you could say no but why should we, This was an attack by individual extremists and that makes it hard to make a nation accountable, Yet at the same time thats exactly what we did in Iraq!

We used one thing (WTC) to justify a complete other (IRAQ Invasion)

So far we have destabilized a region, created a power Vacuum that Iran is more than happy to fill, Cost countless lives both ours and theirs, ran up a dept that will be hard to recover from and made the USA look like fools and tyrants to the rest of the world including most of our allies.

Nope it wasn't worth it, IRAQ would have been better off with Saddam.

[August]

Nope it wasn't worth it, IRAQ would have been better off with Saddam.

Easy to say when it's not your family being subjected to chemical weapons attacks or being tortured because you lost a soccer game.

[gimpy117]

Easy to say when it's not your family being subjected to chemical weapons attacks or being tortured because you lost a soccer game.

and how many are dead there now or displaced? I can't say we really helped either.

[Tribesman]

Easy to say when it's not your family being subjected to chemical weapons attacks
What chemical weapons attacks?
The ones many years before when he was our friend.:yep:

Though to further illustrate the level of bull and sheer hypocricy some still spout in support of the lies lets take a few of their usual lines and apply them to Iraq....
Saddam killed some civilians, these civilians were supporting Iranian backed terrorists and the terrorists were hiding amongst the civilians.
That makes it the terrorists fault and the civilians fault and the Iranians fault, they are the ones who were wrong not Saddam.
While using chemical weapons in civilian areas isn't very nice it is one of the lesser evils we must support to counter the greater evil and if those civilians didn't wan't to be gassed they should have moved somewhere else or made the terrorists move.

[Platapus]

and how many are dead there now or displaced? I can't say we really helped either.

We had to destroy the village in order to save it, I believe was a rational during Viet Nam. :doh:

[August]

and how many are dead there now or displaced? I can't say we really helped either.

It'll take 50 years to know for sure either way.

[Armistead]

and how many are dead there now or displaced? I can't say we really helped either.

We don't see the innocents as human, they're numbers. Hard to grasp the US military killed close to 300,000 civilians. Imagine you as a parent having your home blown up and all you can find of your kids is body parts. We are supposed to protect civilians, when we level towns because of a few gunman then blame them for all the civilian deaths....that's just murder.

[August]

Hard to grasp the US military killed close to 300,000 civilians

Care to cite where you got that statistic?

[CaptainHaplo]

We don't see the innocents as human, they're numbers. Hard to grasp the US military killed close to 300,000 civilians. Imagine you as a parent having your home blown up and all you can find of your kids is body parts. We are supposed to protect civilians, when we level towns because of a few gunman then blame them for all the civilian deaths....that's just murder.

While I highly doubt the 300,000 number you list since that would mean we are killing innocent civilians at a rate of about half of what was done during the bombing of densely populated cities with massive amounts of dumb bombs in Germany during WW2.... Think on that for a minute and you will see how inane such a claim is....

Still, let me play devils advocate for a moment. Using your logic, the death of "300,000" people is "murder". While I admit its a tragedy, let us look at history. In WW2, German civilian deaths were between 600,000 and 700,000 dead, about double that wounded, and 7.5 Million made homeless. So using your arguement, the leaders of the Allies were all murderers. They should have never acted to preserve the peace, remove a psychopathic tyrant and save the known world from being killed if not of "good German stock". Perhaps you'd like to be speaking German now?

It is documented that Saddam is known to have killed at least 600,000 people. http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html
With this fact alone, even assuming your loss numbers are correct, we have eased the plight of the Iraqi people substantially. Yet what you so lightly dismiss - the "levelling" of towns because of a "few" gunman (and I'd like a bit more than mere accusation on that topic), is in fact sound policy. The townspeople KNOW who the insurgents are. They choose to not point them out and have them removed. Instead, they ALLOW them to hide within the general populace. Thus, they are complicit in their actions.

Let me tell you, the vast majority of soldiers in Iraq (and anywhere else) would like nothing better than to get flagged down on a patrol, told who, what and where the bad things are, and be able to handle those problems (be they people, IED's, weapon cache's, etc) discretely with a minimum of fuss (and danger). However, that doesn't happen in some places. So then you get into a bad spot, and it becomes a "you or them" equation. All the namby pampy hand wringing of "we shouldn't be there" doesn't do those grunts any more good than TP for armor at that point. Had the "innocent" civilian population stood up and not hidden the bad guys, it wouldn't get to that point. But they did. They are no longer innocent.

I'm sure this will be met with great disgust by some here, but I am going to say it anyway. Remember the story of Sodom and Gommorah? Had just a tiny segment of people be righteous, the cities would have been spared. The same applies here - had one or 2 souls in a village been brave enough to stand up for their own country and their own people, they could have saved that village.

The war has been mismanaged. Thus it has turned into a tragedy. It will not be a success until the Iraqi people truly are willing to stand up for themselves, and secure their own freedom with their own blood. Yes, sometimes they don't talk out of fear. Thankfully, there ARE a fair number that step forward and help cleanse their villages of insurgents. Those are the true Iraqi patriots - and they have saved countless lives. Lives of their fellow Iraqi's, and lives of US and allied soldiers. May Iraq find more of them among its people, and then they could truly have their freedom, and we could come home.

To those brave Iraqi's, just as I do with our own servicemen and women.... I salute you. :salute:

[Freiwillige]

Still, let me play devils advocate for a moment. Using your logic, the death of "300,000" people is "murder". While I admit its a tragedy, let us look at history. In WW2, German civilian deaths were between 600,000 and 700,000 dead, about double that wounded, and 7.5 Million made homeless. So using your arguement, the leaders of the Allies were all murderers. They should have never acted to preserve the peace, remove a psychopathic tyrant and save the known world from being killed if not of "good German stock". Perhaps you'd like to be speaking German now?



This is just postwar theory. I highly doubt that Hitler had any real interest in Germanisizing the world in a literal sense. And yes all sides of that horrible conflict were murderers. Murder is the price you pay for committing warfare on your enemy if civilian lives are lost or if you kill captured soldiers. Guess what, we all did it. Civilians were brutalized and yup we all did it. This is war and its never pretty!

But there comes a point to where you have to say Hmmm is it really worth it? In this case my opinion, and I realize it is just that an opinion is that No it was not worth it, Not then and not now.

My views on war are simplistic, Avoid war at all costs and if you fail on that then take Pattons advice and destroy them, Use there guts to lube the wheels on your tanks.

We didn't follow the first part of that equation, In fact that is the first time In this century that the US didn't react to war but was pro active in starting it, Maybe that's why its so sour.

[Tribesman]

It is documented that Saddam is known to have killed at least 600,000 people.
When he was our friend:yeah:

They choose to not point them out and have them removed. Instead, they ALLOW them to hide within the general populace. Thus, they are complicit in their actions.


Perfect, Haplo excuses crazy saddams murders, damn I though he was trying to justify removing Sadam for being a crazy murdering bastard

So lets get this straight
the "levelling" of towns because of a "few" gunman (and I'd like a bit more than mere accusation on that topic), is in fact sound policy.
Mr so called christian is on the same page as a genocidal maniac.

[Armistead]

Care to cite where you got that statistic?

Just do online searches. The problem is the number goes anywhere. Most US data bases have the deaths due to military around 100,000. These include dead with a a name. The numbers don't include unknowns. Radical sites want to put the number over 800,000. When you carpet bomb an area and kill many that are buried by the public, it's about impossible to get a correct count. The many various data bases all vary, but most agree around 300,000 from military alone, most killed by air strikes.

No doubt many were caught in a warzone, used by insurgents as shields, but we constantly blamed them. Understand I don't blame soldiers, if I was being shot at from a house, I'd shoot back at it.

Take the battle of Fallujah. No doubt the town was full of fighters and insurgents. We totally surrounded the town. We used various methods telling all the civilians to leave. US sources say 70% of the 300,000 civilians left, other sources said about 40% were able to leave. The US number for civilians killed is around 6000, higher numbers say 20,000...insurgents killed, 1500. We leveled that town. We really had little choice as insurgents set up bomb traps all over. They were given credit for killing another 3000 civilians.

We created the Geneva Conventions after Germany to help protect civilians. This is one of the reasons Bush Sr. refused to invade Iraq, he clearly states in several writings the death to civilians would be in the millions to remove Sadaam, plus he saw no reason to destroy the country since Saddam was contained. He had more reason to deal with Saddam.

[Armistead]

Let me tell you, the vast majority of soldiers in Iraq (and anywhere else) would like nothing better than to get flagged down on a patrol, told who, what and where the bad things are, and be able to handle those problems (be they people, IED's, weapon cache's, etc) discretely with a minimum of fuss (and danger). However, that doesn't happen in some places. So then you get into a bad spot, and it becomes a "you or them" equation. All the namby pampy hand wringing of "we shouldn't be there" doesn't do those grunts any more good than TP for armor at that point. Had the "innocent" civilian population stood up and not hidden the bad guys, it wouldn't get to that point. But they did. They are no longer innocent.

I'm sure this will be met with great disgust by some here, but I am going to say it anyway. Remember the story of Sodom and Gommorah? Had just a tiny segment of people be righteous, the cities would have been spared. The same applies here - had one or 2 souls in a village been brave enough to stand up for their own country and their own people, they could have saved that village.


To those brave Iraqi's, just as I do with our own servicemen and women.... I salute you. :salute:

The reason they're called innoncent, is because they're unarmed. I guess you expect the unrighteous women and children to take sticks and fight insurgents.

Actually about 70% of civilians killed were by airstrikes. You know, sitting at the table in your home with your family eating and boom..everything you love is splattered around you.

You know there was a reason journalist were embedded and controlled by the military to start with...

Only radicals invoke the name of God in killing, your logic is no better than the muslim radicals there.

[August]

Just do online searches.

Do your own research. You claimed there have been 300,000 civilian deaths caused by the US military so either put up a credible source or admit you are exaggerating.

[Armistead]

Do your own research. You claimed there have been 300,000 civilian deaths caused by the US military so either put up a credible source or admit you are exaggerating.

Don't be ignorant. Here is how simple it is. In search type "Iraqi civilian deaths" Up will pop 1000 links. You can compare actual US military counts vs. UN counts vs. over 40 different governments or non government agents. data base counts. Results for actual named marked graves being 100,000, unmarked graves could be near a million. Most unbiased surveys state between 200-400,000 killed, I split the difference.

Right now they have marked over 200,000 unknown graves, some mass graves. Most were in battle areas. Slowly they're digging them up to determine cause. They say it's fairly easy to determine who and what killed them, just very expensive, so they just pull a few. Many think years from now we'll be accused of mass murder. The US military has fought against digging up unknown graves...They want to protect the rights of the dead not to be disturbed.

In the end, we have somewhere between 1-2 million dead, we'll never know, but was it worth it for nothing.

I have no problem taking war to a civilian population that supports a government and the war machine. Iraq can't be compared to Germany.
Not to mention none of our interest that meet a war agenda were met.
If so, then we need to be at war with over 20 other nations.

[CaptainHaplo]

I have no problem taking war to a civilian population that supports a government and the war machine. Iraq can't be compared to Germany.

I rarely take things personally - and I know this wasn't meant to be personal, but I have a dog in this one. You either want to ignore the realities of history - or you simply don't know your history. You think the Hitler came to power through an election of the people? If so, think again. He was made chancellor after the Nazi's LOST seats in government - so that he would support Hindenburg. The majority of Germans did NOT want the Nazi's in power. The situation is little different in Iraq now. You have thugs with guns who want to force a government on a people that they don't want. Yes, you resist the insurgents, you very likely will get shot and killed. Same as in prewar Germany. Iraq has its patriots. Germany had theirs. Germany didn't have enough of them - and neither does Iraq right now.

Your entitled to your opinion, but your displaying a woeful ignorance that insults every patriot of any country.

Not to mention none of our interest that meet a war agenda were met. If so, then we need to be at war with over 20 other nations.
"Not to mention" - aka you can't prove your one point so lets move to another one...
Whatever....

[Armistead]

I rarely take things personally - and I know this wasn't meant to be personal, but I have a dog in this one. You either want to ignore the realities of history - or you simply don't know your history. You think the Hitler came to power through an election of the people? If so, think again. He was made chancellor after the Nazi's LOST seats in government - so that he would support Hindenburg. The majority of Germans did NOT want the Nazi's in power. The situation is little different in Iraq now. You have thugs with guns who want to force a government on a people that they don't want. Yes, you resist the insurgents, you very likely will get shot and killed. Same as in prewar Germany. Iraq has its patriots. Germany had theirs. Germany didn't have enough of them - and neither does Iraq right now.

Your entitled to your opinion, but your displaying a woeful ignorance that insults every patriot of any country.


"Not to mention" - aka you can't prove your one point so lets move to another one...
Whatever....

You're forgetting your history. Hitler didn't come to power by the people, but once in the majority fell for his fervor to restore Germany back to power, most in hope of economic gain. When such a war machine seeks to destroy the world, invade your home, you have the fight to fight back.

We, in the same way invaded Iraq, pumped up in a fervor over lies. Millions jumped on the cause without asking the right questions. It's rather easy to see how people fall for men like Hitler and Bush.

Germany invaded nation after nation, seems you forgot that part of history with mad goals to take over the world. Rather silly of you to compare the state of a broken beaten Iraq totally surrounded under sanctions to a war machine like Germany seeking to control the world with brute force. If you can't get that, can't help you.

The political climate in Germany has no comparison to Iraq. The Nazi's were a brief political movement in history, compared to a culture in Iraq for generations. Why parts of that culture is violent and cruel, the only reason we make it our business is oil. We've sought control of the region through dictators or colonialism. We really have no business there in war. If it wasn't for oil and profit, we wouldn't care a bit would we? Almost funny, you hear all these GOP politicians say we need to use the energy we have, so we don't have to fight these wars or be involved over there...I agree, but let's be honest why we've sought to control the region and politics there.

Our soldiers are brave heroic men that I support, but fighting to support lies and control others land that can do you no harm doesn't make the war just. You may be willing to die or have your children die for men like Bush, I certainly wouldn't want my son to die for him.

[Tribesman]

I rarely take things personally - and I know this wasn't meant to be personal, but I have a dog in this one.
Its a very sick dog you have which needs to be put down, rather like that sick puppy saddam was put down.

[Skybird]

FWIW:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

From their Rationale:
"The continuing high level of violent death in Iraq since 2003 is a result of the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq. None of the deaths we record would have happened were it not for the invasion. The USA and the UK are electoral democracies. Voters and tax-payers of these countries share in the responsibility for their governments’ actions. Iraq Body Count team members are all citizens of the USA or UK who believe that it is our continuing responsibility to record every known Iraqi death resulting from the actions of our leaders."

About them:
"Iraq Body Count (IBC) records the violent civilian deaths that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention in Iraq. Its public database includes deaths caused by US-led coalition forces and paramilitary or criminal attacks by others.
IBC’s documentary evidence is drawn from crosschecked media reports of violent events leading to the death of civilians, or of bodies being found, and is supplemented by the careful review and integration of hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures.
Systematically extracted details about deadly incidents and the individuals killed in them are stored with every entry in the database. The minimum details always extracted are the number killed, where, and when.



Confusion about the numbers produced by the project can be avoided by bearing in mind that:

IBC’s figures are not ‘estimates’ but a record of actual, documented deaths.
IBC records solely violent deaths.
IBC records solely civilian (strictly, ‘non-combatant’) deaths.
IBC’s figures are constantly updated and revised as new data comes in, and frequent consultation is advised. "
Keep note of their criterion for what they count - and what not. The total loss of life actually is higher than what they count.

However, "Sourcewtch" has a somewhat critical opinion about IBC, but it is difficult to judge whether or not their criticism is justified - anyone can come along and accuse the other whose opinion he odes not like, to be"just an amateur". I am an amateur for number-tracking stuff myself - but still I have knoweldge of the basics of statistics and studied it for several semesters.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iraq_Body_Count

Next, there is this:

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq

Very different numbers.

I wonder if the lack of correct number tracking for wounded soldiers and civilian deaths is intentionally done by the Pentagon - to hide the costs of war. Only KIAs seem to be correctly counted.


Two things I take for certain:

1. the US and UK have no interest in revealing the full perspective about wounded and killed people, in order to hide the real costs of the war,

2. therefore it is a safe bet that the actual numbers are much higher than the official statements by government and military speakers.

Or have politicians all of a sudden learned their responsibility to not to deceive their people but to always speak the truth? :88)

[August]

Don't be ignorant. Here is how simple it is. In search type "Iraqi civilian deaths"

Don't be ignorant yourself. "Iraqi civilian deaths" are not the same thing as "Iraqi civilians killed by the US Military", unless of course you think that it's our soldiers out there planting roadside bombs and blowing up crowded markets.

[Skybird]

You both are right in a way, August and Armistead. Because all this violence exists for no other reason than the invasion of 2003, without that war the violence since then would not exist. That way the US and UK have to accept a certain ammount of responsibility even for those deaths where the own troops have not actively pushed buttons and pulled triggers. Thus it is legitimiate to discuss both the directly and the indirectly caused death numbers.

[August]

Because all this violence exists for no other reason than the invasion of 2003, without that war the violence since then would not exist. That way the US and UK have to accept a certain ammount of responsibility

No way. Saddam killed far more civilians than what died in OIF and he continued to kill them in large numbers right up until the moment we removed him from power. You can't assume this long standing pattern of violence was going to stop had we not invaded.

[Skybird]

No way. Saddam killed far more civilians than what died in OIF and he continued to kill them in large numbers right up until the moment we removed him from power. You can't assume this long standing pattern of violence was going to stop had we not invaded.

I do not hold the US and UK responsible for the deaths caused by Saddam - with the exception of where the US/UK assisted Saddam, gave him the opponent, and delivered him with the means to commit these killings. I think of the Iran war, the Western assistance in arming Saddam chemically, or the treachery after Kuwait 1991 when the US motivated the Shia revolt - and then let them down when High Noon had come and watched without motion when Saddam massacred them.

But regarding the violence since 2003, I hold the US and UK responsible for all those deaths that happened because and since that war, and that would not have taken place without the invasion of 2003. The US/UK created the opportunity for Al Quaeda entering the stage in Iraq as well, and it created the opportunity for the outbreak of violence between the ethnic factions, and the entering of the Iranians and Shia fundamentalists into the Iraqi playfield.

These responsibilities you have to accept - causally and morally, whether you like that or not. You cannot just march into a country, mess it up more than it already was, start a shooting war and see criminals and terrorists entering the place in your wake adding to the general harm, and then claim that you have nothing to do with the mess you created. This is your bank coup, and that others commit other bank coups or would have started a coup on the bank you now have targeted yourself, if you wouldn'T have done it first, does not change that you are responsible for you own coup. What Saddam would have done since 2003 if you would have left him where he was, is speculation, and does not interfere with the deaths caused not by him, but by you.

[August]

What Saddam would have done since 2003 if you would have left him where he was, is speculation, and does not interfere with the deaths caused not by him, but by you.

I can live with the accuracy of that speculation Skybird. Can you live with your willingness to keep murdering dictators in power because you fear the potential alternatives?

[Gerald]

Long before 2003, Saddam dug their future in a pit

[Skybird]

I can live with the accuracy of that speculation Skybird. Can you live with your willingness to keep murdering dictators in power because you fear the potential alternatives?

Yes I can, because I am realist enough to know that it goes beyoind my/our power to remove them all one by one. As I see it, the state after the removal of Saddam became and still is more chaotic and unnormal, than it was unde rhis reign. Not even mentioning our own long-lasting strtageic interests that have suffreed miserably form this war, while we have helped to make our enemies stronger, namely Iran's influence.

But can you live with giving a late excuse for a war after the war was held because your original explanations from before the war have failed, and can youz live with the many many bad guys and dark alliances that you leave in power, and even still support...? Sending your own troops into battle and see thousands killed and hundreds of thousands (yes, right that: hundreds of tousands) physically and psychologically injured over lies and private corporation interests that had been formulated and brought to paper one decade before Bush II even took office?

Beside the costs payed by the Iraqis for your "good will" and "kind intention", American losses are vanishing. Their losses numerically weigh many, many, many times heavier than yours.

For what? Is the status quo, is the realistic future perspective worth it?

My answer is a sounding No. And that was forseeable from even before it all began in 2003.

[August]

My answer is a sounding No. And that was forseeable from even before it all began in 2003.


Then we'll have to agree to disagree. It didn't have to go the way that it went and 300,000 is a ridiculous number.

[Skybird]

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. It didn't have to go the way that it went and 300,000 is a ridiculous number.
Okay.

Just that 300,000 number thing you must discuss with Armistead, and not object to me - I did not bring it up, but linked those two sites with their different countings and reasons why they count it the way they do.

[Skybird]

Just this, checking Youtube I see that the German dubbed version of "No end in sight" still is available there under the title "'Invasion der Amateure", in several parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8WN7rgcqu8
and more parts

"It didn't have to go the way that it went" - well, really? How could have gone it any other way - with plannings and intentions like that...?

[CaptainHaplo]

But regarding the violence since 2003, I hold the US and UK responsible for all those deaths that happened because and since that war, and that would not have taken place without the invasion of 2003. The US/UK created the opportunity for Al Quaeda entering the stage in Iraq as well, and it created the opportunity for the outbreak of violence between the ethnic factions, and the entering of the Iranians and Shia fundamentalists into the Iraqi playfield.

Well geez - its all the fault of the US and UK. Its not the responsibility of the various ethnic factional leaders, or the Iranians, or the Islamic fundamentalists that suicide bomb public markets. Sure, they are the ones causing the death and destruction, but they have no moral or ethical responsibility for their own actions...

Ok - fine, the US led coalition opened up the door. Fine - I can live with that responsibility. The key is, we didn't decide who would walk thru it, the interests in the region - as well as the Iraqi's themselves - have done that. It goes back to the responsibility of the citizenry - and so far while there have been those who would see their country stand on its own, too many still choose to live in fear rather than freedom.

The guys like Al Sadr, who put their own power grabs over the needs of their nation, don't hold any responsibility when their own militia's gun down the innocent, do they Skybird? The Iranians have no responsibility when they arm and train insurgents - from all over the islamic world, and then help them get into Iraq, to kill not only coalition troops, but also Iraqi citizens. Do you see how lame that is....

We provided an opportunity. So far, it has not been embraced. Some of us knew that it might not be. At least they have had the chance for freedom. Do I regret the decision to go being made? No. Do I despise how the aftermath has been dealth with? Yes. But to try and lay the responsibility of the whole mess at the feet of the US, removes and absolves the criminality of the acts perpetrated by those who are struggling to keep Iraq from being free......

Go ahead, keep blaming the US. Not you personally Skybird, but there are people that seem to live for nothing else, regardless of the reality.

[Tribesman]

Sure, they are the ones causing the death and destruction, but they have no moral or ethical responsibility for their own actions...

Apparently they don't, following Haplo logic they are patriots who can kill as many women and kids in any way possible and its all fully justifiable, admirable even.:smug:

don't hold any responsibility when their own militia's gun down the innocent
There are no innocents, they live there so they are all guilty, its a "christian" thing:up:

[redsocialist]

USA and Israel are the real terrorists. By that mean the governments, not the people or land.

How much proof of this does one need?

[Morts]

USA and Israel are the real terrorists. By that mean the governments, not the people or land.

How much proof of this does one need?
more than what you posted

[MH]

Well geez - its all the fault of the US and UK. Its not the responsibility of the various ethnic factional leaders, or the Iranians, or the Islamic fundamentalists that suicide bomb public markets. Sure, they are the ones causing the death and destruction, but they have no moral or ethical responsibility for their own actions...
.

Don't you know that insane indoctrinated people cant be responsible for their actions.
Thats way Iraqis miss good old uncle Sadam.
He knew how to deal with this peaple.
World is experiencing kind of twisted Stockholm syndrome.

[MH]

USA and Israel are the real terrorists. By that mean the governments, not the people or land.

How much proof of this does one need?
I'm glad you agree with Tribesman.:salute:

[August]

USA and Israel are the real terrorists. By that mean the governments, not the people or land.

How much proof of this does one need?

Says the guy with a username glorifying the most bloodthirsty nation ever created.

[Skybird]

Well geez - its all the fault of the US and UK. Its not the responsibility of the various ethnic factional leaders, or the Iranians, ...

(...)

...and absolves the criminality of the acts perpetrated by those who are struggling to keep Iraq from being free......

Go ahead, keep blaming the US. Not you personally Skybird, but there are people that seem to live for nothing else, regardless of the reality.

Well, of course you can snap when you are being criticised instead of giving you the glory you thought you would get when starting to shoot from the hip in Iraq. But don't expect other people in other nations finding that a respectable attitude. There must be a reason why the majority of people in pretty much all nations outside the US, are against you over Iraq. And even inside the US, scepticism seems to constantly grow since years.

Anyway, an accomplice in violence and/or crime is somebody who assists in the act of criminal/illegitimate violence by

- either directly participating in committing it,
- or by distributing the means and tools of carrying it out,
- or by allowing it and even provoking it when creating the opportunity for it to break out,
- or by carrying out deeds and acts and not caring for right these deeds creating opportunity for violence to unleash,
- or by not helping when he could easily help to prevent or contain it,
- or by misleading somebody who considers the use of justified self-defence that one would help him, but then betrays him and let him down, ledtting hin run into his enemies knife that way.

For all these crimninal failures and criminal intention as well, there are many examples regarding the US' role on Iraq. The US support for Saddam. His arming, conventionally and chemically. His terror. His launching of the war against Iran. Allowing him to stay in power after 1991. Allowing him a limited airforce so that he could crack down on the Shia revolt. Motivating and causing the opposition for that rebellion, promising them support and then letting them get massacred withoiut raising one hand to their assistance. And finally the dilletantic expectations of how easy the 2003 war woulöd go, and how nice the Iraqis qwould find it, and how much lack of reaction from terror groups, Iran, Al Quaeda, and ethnic hate and revenge parties there would be. This list of blood-dripping crimes and failings goes non not just since 2003. Not even since 1991. But even since before that. It started already under the Shah.

And any American (or German, for that matter) court where you are found guilty of charges like I describe in the second paragraph, would sentence you and label you as assisting in the committing of the crime.

You allowed yourself to get mislead and deceived by your leaders, and you allowed to commit great injustice even leading beyond the evil that already existed. But you do not even have the grandess to admit that now whiule the obviousness of your policiy failures jump right into your face and stare right into your eyes, and you do not want to stand to your moral and causal responsibility. But you messed it up, you want to get away with it, and you snap when the rest of the world does not let you, and points finger at you.

And then you complain about others being "Anti-American"...!?!? I am a lot of things to which I am "anti" - but "anti-American" is one of the last things I am. I am anti-bull, and anti-lies, anti-short-sightedness and anti-stupidity and anti-murderous-cynism. The nationality is not the issue I have quarrels with - but what is done in its name.

I said it in 2003, and I stillö say so today: Iraq is a much greater failing, than Vietnam. Both wars were casued by ill political perceptions and intentional cheating. Both wars were carried by immense betrayal and lying to the American public. And both wars were decisvely hampered in the competrence of the military way to carry them out. The difference is that in Vietnam it just was "face" that got lost, unneeded. In Iraq, decisive longterm strategic balances were shifted in favour of enemies, and vital interest have been lost without getting any real compensation for their loss. That is what makes Iraq (and Afghanistan) the greatest military failures in the post-WWII time.

Soldiers and warriors should be more critical over the reason for which thexy accept orders to start wars and risk their lives. Because it is nothing less than their lives they risk. Their political leaders at best risk their office - getting much financial compensation anyway. In other words they do not risk anything but other people's lives.

[Oberon]

more than what you posted

:har: Nicely said. :yeah:

[Tribesman]

I'm glad you agree with Tribesman.

Are you having one of your moments of patriotic blindness again?

[Freiwillige]

This topic inspired some research on my part and I learned allot about Saddam Hussein. He was an avid admirer of Stalin's. He didn't want communism per say but he did want Stalinism. When he returned from self exile in Egypt and started planning for the Baath party he was quoted as saying "Well turn this into a Stalinist nation yet." He often read books about Stalin's childhood feeling a certain kinship as they were both extremely motivated thinkers from a peasant stock who used any means necessary to grab power.

the Guy writing all this has interviewed Saddam several times and is putting together a book. He says that Saddam was very annalytical and always looked toward the future and creating the perfect state and making Iraq the head of the Arab world even if it meant killing a large number of Iraqi's to achieve this.

Very interesting reading ill have to find that page again.

[redsocialist]

Says the guy with a username glorifying the most bloodthirsty nation ever created.

No doubt the USSR had ties to imperialism after Lenin, however during the creation of the Soviet Union in 1917, it was on its way towards a workers state, until being invaded by 15 imperialist countries including the US, in which it advocated to a militant idealogy; war communism for defense against Imperialism and monarchic restoration. However, for the most bloodthirsty nation ever created? USA without a doubt. You all want proof so let me compile:

Here's a nice video that compiles most (It's in 2 parts)
If you don't think its true and this is "anti-american propaganda" then look up each event yourself

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96GLQ8bpew
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPJB0hnUDHA&feature=related

[August]

No doubt

Indeed.

[TLAM Strike]

No doubt the USSR had ties to imperialism after Lenin, however during the creation of the Soviet Union in 1917... let me finish that for you

...Lenin and Trotsky killed 5 million people trying to impose Soviet rule over various ethnic enclaves and fledgling new nations.

[redsocialist]

let me finish that for you

...Lenin and Trotsky killed 5 million people trying to impose Soviet rule over various ethnic enclaves and fledgling new nations.

:haha::haha::haha::har::haha::haha:


:yawn:

[Sailor Steve]

Here's a nice video that compiles most (It's in 2 parts)
If you don't think its true and this is "anti-american propaganda" then look up each event yourself
I'm already familiar with many of those events, and that video is about as warped and biased as it can get. Since you obviously know nothing I'll explain it to you.

He jumps from event to event and blames them all on "Americans", starting with the Spanish invasion of South and Cental America, which had nothing to do with British "Americans". Those "Americans" didn't even exist for another 300 years.

He then jumps all the way to 1846, and the Mexican-American war. Santa Ana couldn't get anybody to live in Texas, so he farmed it out to Steven Austin and his slave-trading followers. Bad? Yes, but nothing to do with what he describes in the video. By 1832 the population of Texas was mostly "Anglos", and they decided they wanted to become an independent state. Santa Ana, said "No", and they went to war. In 1836 they won their independence, and that was that. In 1845, with Sam Houston as president, they decided to petition the US for statehood. That was too much for Santa Ana, and he told the US that if the congress granted statehood to Texas it would mean war with Mexico.

The British and French warned us not to do it, because at that time Mexico had the finest Napoleonic army on the planet. We did it anyway, and I won't go into all the reasons why we won, but we did. We took Texas, and California to boot. The US congress wanted to take all of Mexico, and the Mexican congress actually thought that was a good idea, but President Polk said "No, not gonna happen."

Bottom line: The United States didn't start that war, Santa Ana did, and what the guys says in the video is an outright perversion of the actual events.

The Philippines: It can be argued that we started the war with Spain, but even that is debatable. Spain owned the Philipines and Cuba, and we took them both. And guess what? We granted them independence. Both were friendly to America through the majority of the 20th Century.

A lot of the things he refers to after that are true, and we have made the mistake many times of supporting a dictator because he suited somebody's agenda. We are indeed indirectly responsible for the atrocities commited by those people, and in some cases directly responsible. That said, at least we have a system that allows us to question the activities of our own government, which is more than any Soviet or Arabic state can say.

The Soviet Union under Stalin killed more people in the World War Two years than the United States has killed in our entire history. That's what August meant by "bloodthirsty".

[August]

The Soviet Union under Stalin killed more people in the World War Two years than the United States has killed in our entire history. That's what August meant by "bloodthirsty".

Yes, as well as the millions more the reds allowed to starve to death in the famine of 1921 and the still millions more victims of Stalins various purges.

Red is an apt color for those monsters. The color of the blood of millions.

[redsocialist]

Spain owned the Philipines and Cuba, and we took them both. And guess what? We granted them independence. Both were friendly to America through the majority of the 20th Century.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hahaha yes they were friendly, the Cuban Mafia, generals, and the dictatorship of Flugene Batista was very friendly to the United States especially for "military reasons"
:haha::haha: Thats why he killed 20,000 of his own people that disobeyed him. Fidel may not be perfect, but he sure as hell didn't murder 20,000, and he sure didn't take crap from the US imperialists. Good thing Che Guevera was there, otherwise Cuba may of fallen to US imperialism. And don't go telling me he was this racist butcher, LOL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot of the things he refers to after that are true, and we have made the mistake many times of supporting a dictator because he suited somebody's agenda. We are indeed indirectly responsible for the atrocities commited by those people, and in some cases directly responsible.
------------------------------------
Yes we are, and most Americans don't even know these events though you and a few others may
----------------------------------------

That said, at least we have a system that allows us to question the activities of our own government, which is more than any Soviet or Arabic state can say.
----------------------------------
Free on the inside, buy a state of economic opression and genocide on the outside. If we're so free, then why is the government on our Skype, naked body scanners, "patriot act", all these illeagle searches/ siezures. If we're so free, then overthrow the government, and stop the imperialism which has killed over 1.6 billion people, most US is part of. Can't see ANY "communist dictator" is responsible for that many. Capitalism leads to imperialism and as Lenin said fascism is capitalism in decay. Look at the "economic system" we have now.. :haha::haha::har::haha:
----------------------------------------------
The Soviet Union under Stalin killed more people in the World War Two years than the United States has killed in our entire history. That's what August meant by "bloodthirsty".
----------------------------
Well he's dead wrong there, at most "Stalin killed" 10 million the most of them were sent in camps not "directly murdered". The US on the otherhand, however... well should we start with the 300,000,000 Genocide against the Native Americans towards its founding? I know a lot, and I know what I'm talking about so don't tell me I "know nothing". We can disagree idealogically, but you can't lie about history. The "black book of communism" btw is VERY INNACURATE, and Harvard itself admits it.

Btw, we haven't even STARTED to discuss US war criminals like Henry Kissinger or Dick Cheney which are FAR worse than Stalin. I do not like or agree with Joseph Stalin's policies but the enormous propaganda said about him to be used against communism, is outrageous.

[Takeda Shingen]

Yes, as well as the millions more the reds allowed to starve to death in the famine of 1921 and the still millions more victims of Stalins various purges.

Red is an apt color for those monsters. The color of the blood of millions.

And let's not forget the time before there was a Soviet Union. The anti-Jewish pogroms of the 19th century. The millions upons millions of serfs that toiled at the whim of the tsars and the countless numbers that perished in Peter I's pursuit of vanity. The list is near endless.

And of course, there's Cechnya.

[August]

Btw, we haven't even STARTED to discuss US war criminals like Henry Kissinger or Dick Cheney which are FAR worse than Stalin. I do not like or agree with Joseph Stalin's policies but the enormous propaganda said about him to be used against communism, is outrageous.


So the question becomes do you actually believe this clap trap or are you just another forum troll? :hmmm:

Your next 5 posts will tell.

[redsocialist]

So the question becomes do you actually believe this clap trap or are you just another forum troll? :hmmm:

Your next 5 posts will tell.

No I'm not a troll I'm engaging in this discussion. Unfortunetly, we went off track, and thats probably my fault for discussing overall US foreign policy instead of only Iraq. Also August for brining up my name

[TLAM Strike]

Btw, we haven't even STARTED to discuss US war criminals like Henry Kissinger or Dick Cheney which are FAR worse than Stalin. I do not like or agree with Joseph Stalin's policies but the enormous propaganda said about him to be used against communism, is outrageous.
Stalin himself admitted to killing 10 million of his own people with his polices!

[redsocialist]

And let's not forget the time before there was a Soviet Union. The anti-Jewish pogroms of the 19th century. The millions upons millions of serfs that toiled at the whim of the tsars and the countless numbers that perished in Peter I's pursuit of vanity. The list is near endless.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ljxQsgUM4

[Takeda Shingen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ljxQsgUM4

And did that make any of it not happen? Did that excuse the Socialist purges? Lenin's Red Terror? Lenin's supression and advocacy of mass execution of the striking workers in 1919? The very people that the Socialists claimed to be helping?

Lenin said a whole lot of stuff, but a despot is still a despot, even in a nice suit.

[Sailor Steve]

No I'm not a troll I'm engaging in this discussion.
Not that I've seen. So far your idea of "discussion" seems to consist of throwing insults at the objects of your hatred.

Unfortunetly, we went off track, and thats probably my fault for discussing overall US foreign policy instead of only Iraq.
When did you discuss anything? You only hurled venom.

[redsocialist]

Well, I may be the only marxist on subsim but I don't care. I wanted to get a message across and now that I have, I'm done. No more political/idealogical talk from me, look for my next post on my little adventure with U-47 on my campaign :salute::salute::salute:

[Sailor Steve]

Well, I may be the only marxist on subsim but I don't care. I wanted to get a message across and now that I have, I'm done. No more political/idealogical talk from me, look for my next post on my little adventure with U-47 on my campaign :salute::salute::salute:
Check out CCIP. He's been a valuable member here for many years, believes in Communism and has actually been know to discuss it intelligently, without ever going on a tirade about the "evil US" or anything else.

Sorry, but the only point you got across is that you're biased, hateful, and so convinced you're right that your discussion is limited to invective.

Now that I've done my tirade, I'll say please do continue political dialogue. If you actually have something to say, it is quite welcome, as long as it's actual discussion. :sunny:

[redsocialist]

Check out CCIP. He's been a valuable member here for many years, believes in Communism and has actually been know to discuss it intelligently, without ever going on a tirade about the "evil US" or anything else.

Sorry, but the only point you got across is that you're biased, hateful, and so convinced you're right that your discussion is limited to invective.

Now that I've done my tirade, I'll say please do continue political dialogue. If you actually have something to say, it is quite welcome, as long as it's actual discussion. :sunny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBDrt3EoklI

[CCIP]

Haha, now, I've been eyeing this thread cautiously to avoid getting involved. It never ends well :dead:

I'm a little surprised this has turned to Russia-bashing as much as socialist bashing. Can we please not see the world as black and white - or red-and-white for that matter? With hidnsight, it's easy to slam down things quickly. Without baggage of Eurasian history (that America gleefully claims to be no party to), it's easy to come out with 'objective' prove how as a nation, the US stands on higher moral ground, whether in Iraq or WWII. But real history as it happens is never that simple. With regard to the USSR/Russia's role in European history, just as with the US's role in Iraqi history, you can't just outright dismiss it as universally good or bad. And in the end, I think both were misguided by principles and have to own up to mistakes that cost real human lives. People, believe it or not, are much the same everywhere. And a human tragedy isn't any less of a tragedy whether it happens to a Russian, American, Arab, or any other victim of terror - be it by state or individual, and be it on the scale of one or millions. The Iraq War, no matter how you slice it, was a tremendous social, moral and political EVIL. Could it have been a necessary one? Maybe. But for crying out loud, as an American, you elected many of the officials who got it rolling (or permitted them to be elected, or didn't sufficiently object after they were elected). OWN UP TO IT, recognize that you don't live in a state run by angels, that your political choices can be wrong, and you don't fart blessings and moral glory spontaneously and without pause. If you're going to slam down Russians or Arabs as morally-detestable-based-on-history, don't forget that get that log out of your own eye. That holier-than-thou attitude and willingness to blame other people, and not the politics and military reality of the war, is what always pisses me off in this debate.

As far as my own stance, Steve isn't totally correct on my views. I'm not a communist and I don't really believe in scientific socialism as per Marx because many of its underlying assumptions are flat out WRONG, and at best are based in a very idealized world. But that doesn't mean we can't learn from it. And I do genuinely believe that the solution to the world's ills lies in everyone coming together and making pragmatic but mutual compromises, NOT pulling everything to themselves because they feel entitled to what they "earn", without considering what the real price of things is or who might've "owned" it in the first place. I guess that makes me a dangerous socialist by some people's estimations. All the same, I have great respect for the Western ideal of the thinking, moral individual who can make his/her own responsible choices and exist on equal respect with others without anyone telling him/her to. Which is why I really only pitch into politically-neutral or non-political discussions in GT anymore. I hate being slammed for something I don't even believe in but am forced to defend (because I think it's a view has learning-value even despite its flaws), and I hate having to lose respect for other people that in all other situations (even on this forum) I can and do totally get along with.

[Takeda Shingen]

Haha, now, I've been eyeing this thread cautiously to avoid getting involved. It never ends well :dead:

I'm a little surprised this has turned to Russia-bashing as much as socialist bashing. Can we please not see the world as black and white - or red-and-white for that matter? With hidnsight, it's easy to slam down things quickly. Without baggage of Eurasian history (that America gleefully claims to be no party to), it's easy to come out with 'objective' prove how as a nation, the US stands on higher moral ground, whether in Iraq or WWII. But real history as it happens is never that simple. With regard to the USSR/Russia's role in European history, just as with the US's role in Iraqi history, you can't just outright dismiss it as universally good or bad. And in the end, I think both were misguided by principles and have to own up to mistakes that cost real human lives. People, believe it or not, are much the same everywhere. And a human tragedy isn't any less of a tragedy whether it happens to a Russian, American, Arab, or any other victim of terror - be it by state or individual, and be it on the scale of one or millions. The Iraq War, no matter how you slice it, was a tremendous social, moral and political EVIL. Could it have been a necessary one? Maybe. But for crying out loud, as an American, you elected many of the officials who got it rolling (or permitted them to be elected, or didn't sufficiently object after they were elected). OWN UP TO IT, recognize that you don't live in a state run by angels, that your political choices can be wrong, and you don't fart blessings and moral glory spontaneously and without pause. If you're going to slam down Russians or Arabs as morally-detestable-based-on-history, don't forget that get that log out of your own eye. That holier-than-thou attitude and willingness to blame other people, and not the politics and military reality of the war, is what always pisses me off in this debate.

You are absolutely right, and I have stated the fallacy of the Iraq war. I also agree about the holier-than-thou attitude. However, when you join the conversation by stating that America is an imperialist nation of terrorists, none of which is true, and then proceed to throw around terms like 'imperialist' and 'communist' without any real understanding of what those terms mean, you can't expect to be taken seriously. You never do those things, but my responses in this thread were directed to someone who did.

To clarify, imperialist nations exact political and economic control over their satellite states, much like the British Empire, or the Warsaw Pact nations. The United States' overseas military installations are not, therefore, a form of imperialism. Neither is the occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan. Those nations remain autonomous, both politically and economically. No such taxes are extracted from those nations; nor are they from Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia or any other nation hosting a US military installation. I do find this type of meddling distasteful, and I do not approve of it, but imperialism it is not.

Communism is the process of replacing private ownership and profit-based economies with public ownership and communal control of industry and economic structures. No nation in the history of man has ever had a communal system of ownership. The Soviet Union, for example, had a system of state ownership, where the economic and industrial sector were owned and controlled by the government, not the people. Specifically, the Soviet Union was socialist oligarchy, where the powers of the state were held by a select few. The People's Republic of China continues to refer to itself as a socialist state, not a communist state.

[Sailor Steve]

Haha, now, I've been eyeing this thread cautiously to avoid getting involved. It never ends well :dead:I'm a little surprised this has turned to Russia-bashing as much as socialist bashing.
Umm, Socialism and Russia didn't come into play until August's comment in post #88, and that was a direct, and well-deserved, reply to post #84. No one would have gone there if not for the accusation that the US and Israel are "the real terrorists".

Can we please not see the world as black and white - or red-and-white for that matter? With hidnsight, it's easy to slam down things quickly. Without baggage of Eurasian history (that America gleefully claims to be no party to), it's easy to come out with 'objective' prove how as a nation, the US stands on higher moral ground, whether in Iraq or WWII.
I completely agree. No nation, or people, should ever try to sweep their own culpability under the rug. Stalin's atrocities were Stalin's, not Russia's or "Communism's". The Nazis atrocities were done by individuals, not the nation or even the Party. Americans, British, and others have committed evil in the belief that they were doing good. But again, August and I didn't start that sideshow, we responded to an attack.

But real history as it happens is never that simple. With regard to the USSR/Russia's role in European history, just as with the US's role in Iraqi history, you can't just outright dismiss it as universally good or bad. And in the end, I think both were misguided by principles and have to own up to mistakes that cost real human lives. People, believe it or not, are much the same everywhere. And a human tragedy isn't any less of a tragedy whether it happens to a Russian, American, Arab, or any other victim of terror - be it by state or individual, and be it on the scale of one or millions.
I completely agree.

The Iraq War, no matter how you slice it, was a tremendous social, moral and political EVIL.
I have reservations on that judgement. I believe that to be an opinion, arguably correct but still an opinion.

Could it have been a necessary one? Maybe.
I separated my response to this because while I don't necessarily think it was EVIL, I also don't believe it was necessary or warranted. I thought from the start it was a huge mistake, and a lot of people have paid for it.

But for crying out loud, as an American, you elected many of the officials who got it rolling (or permitted them to be elected, or didn't sufficiently object after they were elected). OWN UP TO IT, recognize that you don't live in a state run by angels, that your political choices can be wrong, and you don't fart blessings and moral glory spontaneously and without pause.
:rotfl2: I love it!

And you're right. We have quite a few here, like myself, who try to look at things from an unbiased viewpoint, and we have a few who will insist that somebody else is the cause of all problems, and must be blamed at any cost. As far as the government - especially mine - being "of the people", and we being responsible for its actions, I said as much in another post.

If you're going to slam down Russians or Arabs as morally-detestable-based-on-history, don't forget that get that log out of your own eye. That holier-than-thou attitude and willingness to blame other people, and not the politics and military reality of the war, is what always pisses me off in this debate.
Again I agree without reservation. But again, in this particular case both August, Tak and I responded to just the opposite, an attack on the US, and our response was directed at an accusation from a poster who at the very least implied that the US was far worse than, yes, the Soviet Union in this department, and our responses were directed specifically at that accusation. I think you have this one backwards this time.

[TLAM Strike]

The Nazis atrocities were done by individuals, not the nation or even the Party.
I would disagree, Nazi atrocities were a matter of state policy at the highest levels.

[gimpy117]

I don't see how it wasn't an evil.

Any time you invade a country on false pretenses and kill its people I would say its a pretty unwarranted and aggressive invasion. The only reason we got away with it is that were america and nobody wanted to condemn us, and also partly because iraq isn't a popular country.

[August]

I don't see how it wasn't an evil.

Any time you invade a country on false pretenses and kill its people I would say its a pretty unwarranted and aggressive invasion. The only reason we got away with it is that were america and nobody wanted to condemn us, and also partly because iraq isn't a popular country.

Dude honestly. If you want folks to start taking you seriously then quit mixing up "false pretenses" and "bad information". They are just not the same thing.

A no time did the US government not consider Saddam to be a viable threat.

[Skybird]

I would disagree, Nazi atrocities were a matter of state policy at the highest levels.

I tend to agree. Nazism by nature includes a strong element of racism, and Nazi ideologcy does not do anything less that turning sadism and inhumane barbarism based on racial arguments into a collective and mandatory moral obligation of the community - the community and not the individual, because Nazism is a totalitarian ideology, and by defintion totalitarianism means the community overrules the individual interest, although both are under total control by the "elite" at the top, or the leader at the top. The individual'S behavior is demanded to melt into the behavior of the collective, the one is demanded to become indistinguishable from the many, in his thinking and opinion, in his motiavtion, in his craving and yearning for goals, in his deeds and acts. Uniformity, in other words.

[gimpy117]

Dude honestly. If you want folks to start taking you seriously then quit mixing up "false pretenses" and "bad information". They are just not the same thing.

A no time did the US government not consider Saddam to be a viable threat.

Ha ha seriously? you think all the "evidence" we had was actually believed by anyone other than the american public? The CIA was being told to give information that backed up what the bush administration "knew". I mean they showed us artists conceptions and acted like it was fact.

[Tribesman]

Dude honestly. If you want folks to start taking you seriously then quit mixing up "false pretenses" and "bad information". They are just not the same thing.


False pretenses fits the bill, when the sources of "bad information" stand up in public and humiliates the US presentation of that information and the US carries on selling that information as evidence then that is unquesionably going on false pretenses.
If so much of the "bad information" hadn't been so widely exposed as tripe well before the invasion then august may have a point, but as it had he hasn't.

[MH]

I don't see how it wasn't an evil.

.

Puting all the political and tactical strategic stuff aside.....

Don't you agree that Sadam was evil?
US wanted to get rid of Saddam and install some kind of normative friendly government.
Its simply did not work as expected.
If it did Iraq could have been what Egypt just might be for middle east.
Many Iraqis wanted this to happen but they are tired by now.
The stategy of kiling civilians and linking it to US presence worked well.
No much effort was needed for that since in Saddam time it mostly happened to Kurds and to ones with whom Saddam was unhappy with.
Stalin style.
As long as you kept your mouth shut and thought the right thing you might be OK.
The ocationaly killing of inocet peaple while fighting the terrorist just contributed to the mess.
Now add to this all kind of events of atrocities in line of duty amplified by Arab and Western media.
Its hard to avoid them when keeping such a big military force in hostile territory for so long.
And i don't think it was endorsed by US army.


Road to hell is paved by good intentions or politics.

[August]

Ha ha seriously? you think all the "evidence" we had was actually believed by anyone other than the american public? The CIA was being told to give information that backed up what the bush administration "knew". I mean they showed us artists conceptions and acted like it was fact.

You mean the same information that the Clinton administration also believed?

Dude I know you're partisan minded but the truth of the matter is the Administration was going by what they believed to be true.

[Skybird]

Don't you agree that Sadam was evil?
Many are - without the 1st Airborne jumping right onto them.

US wanted to get rid of Saddam and install some kind of normative friendly government.
That was called for in the Wolfowitz paper from around one decade earlier (they called it a "strategic change" there, I think). But that was not the explanation given by Bush before thew war, nor was the validity of the Wolfowitz paper for the planning of the poltiical roadmap of the Bush administration admitted. The reason that weas given for the war was: "Saddam has WMD (at this present moment), we know where they are, and they could reach european capitals wiothin 30 minutes".

Sorry, but you have to judge the war by the reasons given for it before it was launched.

the i ntention for thae chnage in Iraq as demanded by Wolfowitz and the neocon group around him,l was a different one, btw. It was to reduce the French in fluence on the oil industry in the region even more, and to support certain American corprorations to get dominant and power-monopolistic influence over the trading and distribution patterns of the Iraqi oil business. Certain figures favoured to acchieve that by giving key orders to corproatiosn to which they were and still are closely related by bound by own profit interests. The US army did not fight on behalf of vital security inmterests of the United States, nor on behalf of liberatzing the Iraqis. It fought for the profit intrerests of certain American business men and their accomplices in politics.


Its simply did not work as expected.
For the in volved comanies? Yes, that is partially right. The rich profitable dominant position in Iraq they did not acchieve in full, and in dealing with the afterwar violence the pre-planned desires for gainign such a psoition had to be limited, in parts given up. But Halliburton, mercenary companies and subcontractors still make good profits from their involvement in the war. Promised benefits for the economies of partner countries like Spain, Poland and Britain, however, showed to be disappointing, some even say: non-existing.

If it did Iraq could have been what Egypt just might be for middle east.
No, never, from all beginning on. Only a mind not knowing anything about the region in general and Iraq in special could have ever imagine that. The vast majority of people having some knowledge about the region, and the differences between the various places in it as well as the differences between the region and Wetsern countries, warned loud and clearly that it wpouöld not work out the way Bush and Rumsfeld were painting it out. and maybe Rumsfeld and Cheney knew it themsaelves too, but just did not care - for their interests were more focussed on shady business interests they personally were involved in.

BTW, the US military leadership WARNED against an invasion of Iraq initially. This was no war that the military leadership was enthusiastic about while the political way-paving was underway.

[gimpy117]

You mean the same information that the Clinton administration also believed?

Dude I know you're partisan minded but the truth of the matter is the Administration was going by what they believed to be true.

Or thats what they say because there was no evidence to back anything up. All of that intelligence was shoddy at best. Somebody had to know it. But it "fit" what we wanted to hear...so the bush administration threw up it's arms and said it was true.

-That yellow cake uranium "Iraq" tried to buy:
a forgery that had been discredited by the intelligence community. Had a signature that was of an official that was 10 years out of office and out of date law references. sold to the U.S by some shady guy

-Those mobile "wmd trailers":
actually weather balloon filling stations like the Iraqi's said (Britain sold them to them).

-The tons and tons of WMD's:
where are they? Even the inspectors found no evidence before the invasion. Even if they did have any it was long expired stocks.

-Terrorist camps in the north:
They were outside of the Iraqi boarder.

Unmanned WMD aerial vehicles:
300 mile range...whoopty dee

Manned WMD aerial vehicles:
also called aircraft. we have them too

All of these claims were discredited or shoddy at best before we went to war. But the administration decided that It was all true. Using information that is wrong to go to war and NOT LISTENING TO ANY OF THE DISCREDITING INFORMATION is much more than just having bad intelligence, it's a deliberate attempt at making up a premise for war.

[August]

Or thats what they say because there was no evidence to back anything up.

Whatever Gimpy. You go ahead and believe whatever you want. :roll:

[TFatseas]

550 tons of yellow cake taken from Iraq, 2008
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/05/world/main4235028.shtml

Polish Forces find Sarin nerve gas, 2004
http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/polish-troops-find-warheads-in-iraq-1.216154

[August]

550 tons of yellow cake taken from Iraq, 2008
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/05/world/main4235028.shtml

Polish Forces find Sarin nerve gas, 2004
http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/polish-troops-find-warheads-in-iraq-1.216154

Shhh, you'll harsh Gimpys anti-Bush buzz!

[Takeda Shingen]

In all fairness, the yellowcake is not even potent enough for a dirty bomb, and that mustad gas was so badly degraded that it would not pose a legitimate weapon. They were very much the last gasp attempts at a 'see, I told you so'.

[gimpy117]

Shhh, you'll harsh Gimpys anti-Bush buzz!

whoopty dee august. It wasn't weapons grade. It was known to inspectors from long before the invasion.

Although the material could not be used in its current form for a nuclear weapon or even a so-called dirty bomb, officials decided that in Iraq's unstable environment, it was important to make sure that it did not fall into the wrong hands.-New York times

oh yeah...and what takeda said on the mustard gas.

[Dowly]

I might be wrong here, but hadn't the 500 something tons of 'Yellow cake' been there all the way from First Gulf War?

I faintly recall reading the IAEA inspectors sealing the stuff after the FGW. :hmmm:

[Tribesman]

550 tons of yellow cake taken from Iraq, 2008

Haplo already tried that one, its bollox:down:

Polish Forces find Sarin nerve gas, 2004

A media statement from that beacon of truth Rummy, also in the claims by Haplo and also bollox:down:


Shhh, you'll harsh Gimpys anti-Bush buzz!
:har::har::har::har::har::har:
Shhhh you are demonstrating how the administration was selling a pile of bollox.

[redsocialist]

The Bush Administration, the corporations that worked with them, and the rest of the neocons orchastrated and carried out this invasion. These two wars have resulted in almost 2 million civilian deaths. Billions in profits for the War Industry, and several demeanors/ war crimes being committed from the soliders who fight it. Weather or not they are just "bad apples" is up for you to decide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NaoL5YlMic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtnnbn3s71A

The list goes on and on

Iraq is now for sale for the highest bidder, where mercenaries run the streets. There are now more people killing for profit, than those "killing for freedom", as mercenaries fight alongside the troops in overwhelming numbers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU-Y2RZ7_8k&feature=related.

America IS an imperialist nation, and always has been. ANY country, that has ventures around the world, securing military domination, and to steal or manipulate other's countries resources are is by an act of Imperialism. There is no denying it. However this being said, USA is not "officially" imperialist by name that is obvious. But "freedom and democracy" is the slogan for imperial control just as it was "glory" for the Roman empire. It is not our fault for the actions committed by the USA we have no control. And this is what I want people to understand. It is the imperialists that have committed these horrific acts all around the world and these include the highest people in government, influences of the largest corporations and so called "institutions" that have resulted in almost a billion deaths. The military industrial complex, neocons, etc... are actors in this military domination but the real enemy is capitalism because of its highest stage imperialism. I am a Marxist and that is why I believe that. You may believe otherwise which is fine, but understand I'm not blaming you, the troops, or simply "businessmen". I'm holding the people at the top, the imperialists who used the system of "free enterprise", to achieve global hegemony, around the world, installing dictatorships, oppression, genocide. The saying "nobody has killed more than Americans", is not from the majority of American people, but caused from the imperialists themselves. They laugh at you, when you believe your fighting for yours or some one else's freedom, they don't suffer the losses of loved ones, US, or Arab, anyone else who's been a victim of the blood thirsty crusade.

So please, wake up and realize whats going on.

http://www.youtube.com/theparadigmshift#p/a/u/1/IsrMzfhdmkU

http://www.youtube.com/theparadigmshift#p/a/u/0/Cr7ePrCAqzohttp://home.arcor.de/deantaylor/usworldtour.jpg

[August]

So please, wake up and realize whats going on.

Please spare us the propaganda Comrade... :roll:

[Takeda Shingen]

America IS an imperialist nation, and always has been. ANY country, that has ventures around the world, securing military domination, and to steal or manipulate other's countries resources are is by an act of Imperialism. There is no denying it.


http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1597503&postcount=111

Quo erat demonstrandum

[MH]

They laugh at you, when you believe your fighting for yours or some one else's freedom, they don't suffer the losses of loved ones, US, or Arab, anyone else who's been a victim of the blood thirsty crusade.

So please, wake up and realize whats going on.


I'm quite awake and must say i prefer this free market coca cola reach get reacher dirty democracy to any other system currently available.
Marxism scares me lol.

[Takeda Shingen]

I get the impression that our redsocialist never actually lived under Soviet rule. If he had, he would likely not have such a rosy view of socialist oligarchies.

[TLAM Strike]

Damn it I wish we were imperialists! :damn: Then we could start taxing all these nations we invade and maybe pay down our national debt. :03:

[August]

Damn it I wish we were imperialists! :damn: Then we could start taxing all these nations we invade and maybe pay down our national debt. :03:

I'm still waiting for my barrel of Iraqi oil.

[Growler]

Quo erat demonstrandum

I love it when you talk dirty.

I'm still trying to figure out how alleged bombing of all those nations is proof of "US Global Domination"... I mean, those must be some bombs, to also OCCUPY those countries and make them subservient US states that pay taxes to and recognize the authority of Washington.

[krashkart]

I'm still waiting for my barrel of Iraqi oil.

And I'm still waiting for my genu-ine camel farm. Pretty sure the advert mentioned 6-8 weeks for the seeds to arrive. :hmmm:

[Sailor Steve]

...
Okay, I asked you once not to play that game of replying within the quote. Now I have to go to all the trouble of separating out everything because you're too lazy to reply properly.

Hahaha yes they were friendly, the Cuban Mafia, generals, and the dictatorship of Flugene Batista was very friendly to the United States especially for "military reasons"
:haha::haha: Thats why he killed 20,000 of his own people that disobeyed him. Fidel may not be perfect, but he sure as hell didn't murder 20,000, and he sure didn't take crap from the US imperialists.
First of all, this isn't kindergarten. Childish taunts are no different than the other bad habits you display here. Please try to discuss intelligently and avoid games.

I agree, Batista (and it's Fulgencio, not 'Flugene'), was a monster, and we were wrong to support him. But I was referring initially to the separation of Cuba from Spain, which was 35 years before Batista took power.
r. On the other hand, Castro's documented firing squad tally is only 14,000, so I guess you have me there.

Good thing Che Guevera was there, otherwise Cuba may of fallen to US imperialism. And don't go telling me he was this racist butcher, LOL.
Why not, since he was? I don't know about racist, but it's pretty certain he personally killed around 200. As a statistic that's not many, but as a personal score?

Yes we are, and most Americans don't even know these events though you and a few others may
Obviously you don't, for all your boasting, or you wouldn't have believed everything in the slanted videos you keep linking too.

That said, at least we have a system that allows us to question the activities of our own government, which is more than any Soviet or Arabic state can say.

Free on the inside, buy a state of economic opression and genocide on the outside. If we're so free, then why is the government on our Skype, naked body scanners, "patriot act", all these illeagle searches/ siezures.
Again I agree about the wrongness of those. But you didn't answer my question. Show me a country you negatively compare us to, just one, in which you could say the things you're saying and not be arrested, and likely shot without a trial. Cuba? Iran? China? Russia (under the Soviets, of course)?

If we're so free, then overthrow the government, and stop the imperialism which has killed over 1.6 billion people, most US is part of.

Can't see ANY "communist dictator" is responsible for that many.
Please show where the US has killed that many. You're connecting everything remotely involved with the US, and I mean remotely. Do that with your favorites and you'll get similar if not worse numbers.

Capitalism leads to imperialism and as Lenin said fascism is capitalism in decay. Look at the "economic system" we have now.. :haha::haha::har::haha:
If you have to resort to rhetoric and derision then you're just playing games. As I said before, at least try to have a real discussion.

Well he's dead wrong there, at most "Stalin killed" 10 million the most of them were sent in camps not "directly murdered".
You seem to want to have it one way for the US and another for whomever you wish to praise. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Stalin is responsible for the deaths of around twenty million of his own people.

The US on the otherhand, however... well should we start with the 300,000,000 Genocide against the Native Americans towards its founding?
You already played that card, and I showed why you were totally off base here http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1597308&postcount=97

Except for some isolated incidents perpetrated by individuals like Crittenden the US has never engaged in "genocide" against the natives.

I know a lot, and I know what I'm talking about so don't tell me I "know nothing".
Anybody can make that claim. That doesn't make it so, at least not for every subject. Your problem is that you want to argue from the point that you're sure you're right. This leads you to insult and attack rather than discuss, as I pointed out before. There are others here who do that. I'm not one of them, and you don't have to fight with me.

We can disagree idealogically, but you can't lie about history. The "black book of communism" btw is VERY INNACURATE, and Harvard itself admits it.
But you're not trying to discuss idealogy, or even history. You're sole agenda seems to be to prove that the United States is the worst group of terrorists who ever lived, and you won't discuss even that rationally.

So I'll ask again - under what Communist government could we even have this discussion?

And please use the Quote function properly this time.

[redsocialist]

So I'll ask again - under what Communist government could we even have this discussion?



Socialist Federated Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRJ)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4e/SFRJ-V.jpg

Btw, communism has never been acheived. You are refering to socialist states. Communism is the state withering away a statless, classless society, this has never happened.

[Sailor Steve]

Socialist Federated Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRJ)
I'll take your word that there actually is one, out of how many?

Btw, communism has never been acheived. You are refering to socialist states. Communism is the state withering away a statless, classless society, this has never happened.
I could have told you that, and it's nitpicking. I'm guilty of using a commonly accepted term. What are you guilty of?

[UnderseaLcpl]

I'll take your word that there actually is one, out of how many?



I wouldn't. Yugoslavia isn't even a country anymore. It broke up when the socialist ideal proved insufficient to overcome poverty and ethnic tension.

[August]

I wouldn't. Yugoslavia isn't even a country anymore. It broke up when the socialist ideal proved insufficient to overcome poverty and ethnic tension.

George Bush's fault. :yep:

[redsocialist]

George Bush's fault. :yep:

LOL

[August]

LOL

You remind me of someone. Have you had a Subsim account previous to this one?

[redsocialist]

You remind me of someone. Have you had a Subsim account previous to this one?

lol no, who do I remind you of man?

[August]

lol no, who do I remind you of man?

I'm not sure but it'll come to me eventually if somebody else doesn't remember first.

[August]

I wouldn't. Yugoslavia isn't even a country anymore. It broke up when the socialist ideal proved insufficient to overcome poverty and ethnic tension.

This ^

[TFatseas]

I wouldn't. Yugoslavia isn't even a country anymore. It broke up when the socialist ideal proved insufficient to overcome poverty and ethnic tension.

Tito was no saint either. The only reason Yugoslavia stuck around so long was due to his ruthless suppression of ethic groups.

[Krauter]

Reading through this thread kind of brought up a mix of emotions for me..

Just a few thoughts and opinions of mine:

Should the U.S have gone in to Iraq: No, though the U.S may be the worlds police, I do not EVER think ANY nations needs to regard itself as the world police. This idea that the U.S must police the world brings out a mix of hypocritic actions and the like.

Do I think Sadam was evil: Hell yes.. this is where some conflicting emotions come into play for me. The U.S should have gotten rid of Sadam the first time they went in AND THEN BACKED OFF.

On this idea that the U.S is an imperialist state: I do not believe in this at all..

Nazi killings compared to Sadam; The nazi party was convinced that any non Germanic people were subhuman, and thus took back seat the the Aryan race. This, combined with the Lebensraum (sp?) theory meant that to make space, they needed to get rid of people already on the land (comparable somewhat to the U.S/Native American debacle, but that is a different era). Sadam on the other hand was not looking for total domination of the Arab world, nor was he under the impression that the Iraqi people were superior to others in any way (to my knowledge..)

US: Being 'terrorists', lying regime, etc: I wouldn't say the U.S is a terrorist nation. I would venture that there is a fair bit of "misdirecting the truth" to meet peoples agendas. It all comes back to my biggest gripe with the U.S. The whole world police card.

It's fine and dandy if you play world police. But do it objectively and in the sense that you're there to resolve a dispute. NOT replace the whole regime, situation with one likened to the U.S (Democracy in my opinion is far from perfect. It has its perks over communism, socialism, etc but, as happened with communism, it empowers a select few to a degree where it is similar to an oligarchy). In my perfect little world, the U.S as world police wouldn't so much solve the problem, but mediate the problem (sounds too much like the U.N..) in the interest of the people of that area.

Cheers,

Krauter

Sorry if this sounds haphazard or uncoordinated. Just sitting around reading this thread made me want to jump in at points, only to realize its at p. 3, 5,7 etc. Hopefully these opinions won't lessen peoples opinion towards me, but I enjoy a good discussion and had to throw my own 2 cents in.

[gimpy117]

but when does it become our job to topple dictators? why is it our problem. If they wanted saddam gone so bad...

[Krauter]

Which is exactly my point. Who nominated the U.S to be world police? If we have the U.N, then use the U.N. Don't complain about it being broken and then do nothing to fix it.

[Skybird]

The UN.

...

Why not the salvation army?

[Sailor Steve]

Sorry if this sounds haphazard or uncoordinated. Just sitting around reading this thread made me want to jump in at points, only to realize its at p. 3, 5,7 etc. Hopefully these opinions won't lessen peoples opinion towards me, but I enjoy a good discussion and had to throw my own 2 cents in.
On the contrary. Your post was well thought out and concise. You stated your feelings without attacking anybody. Of course it helps that I agree with you, but you said it well. :sunny:

[August]

Which is exactly my point. Who nominated the U.S to be world police? If we have the U.N, then use the U.N. Don't complain about it being broken and then do nothing to fix it.

The US never wanted to be world policeman, the job was sort of thrust upon us after WW2 as strongest free world nation. Most of us would like nothing more than to wash our hands of the whole business, but who will replace us?

Somebody will that's for sure.

[Armistead]

Reading through this thread kind of brought up a mix of emotions for me..

Just a few thoughts and opinions of mine:


Do I think Sadam was evil: Hell yes.. this is where some conflicting emotions come into play for me. The U.S should have gotten rid of Sadam the first time they went in AND THEN BACKED OFF.

US: Being 'terrorists', lying regime, etc: I wouldn't say the U.S is a terrorist nation. I would venture that there is a fair bit of "misdirecting the truth" to meet peoples agendas. It all comes back to my biggest gripe with the U.S. The whole world police card.

Cheers,

Krauter

.

One should read the memoirs of former Pres. GH Bush about why we didn't invade Iraq the first time.

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=200976

The main reasons if you don't want to read the entire article.


"engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs."

We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.
That political forces in Iran would fill a power vacuum and support terror in Iraq.

No viable exit plan.

Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome. "


His son should've listened....all that he said was in fact true, so here we are a trillion spent and if we ever do leave chaos will ensue.

[Skybird]

The US never wanted to be world policeman, the job was sort of thrust upon us after WW2 as strongest free world nation. Most of us would like nothing more than to wash our hands of the whole business, but who will replace us?

Somebody will that's for sure.
It's not as if you have not gotten plenty of compensation for it. America wanted to take over from the British Empire. It wanted to become the dominant power in the West, and one of thr two majhor powers in the world. It wanted to become that, due to the benefits this bring via financial and economic feedbacks. And the more these mechanisms got installed in form of global patterns focussing on American markets and interests, the more the need emerged to intervene and to react in defence of these global networks and global interests.

As Herrfried Münkler characterises it so precisely in his book on the character of empires: an empire never can afford to not act in domination, and to not react to even small challenges even in its outer periphery.

An isolationist America? First victim of it would be America itself. Economically, financially. This is not the world from a hundred years ago anymore.

[August]

That still doesn't answer the question as to who should replace us. One way or the other we'll be giving up the job eventually.

[Skybird]

That still doesn't answer the question as to who should replace us. One way or the other we'll be giving up the job eventually.
In the West? No one, our global game is pretty much over, our empires are stories from the past - you Amercians are the last example of that imperial tradition, and I don't see any Western player taking over from you. But China will, more later than sooner, but they will - no matter whether you quit the job first, or not. And like you have interpreted the job by your interest and values, they will interprete the job according to their views and interests.

[Armistead]

In the West? No one, our global game is pretty much over, our empires are stories from the past - you Amercians are the last example of that imperial tradition, and I don't see any Western player taking over from you. But China will, more later than sooner, but they will - no matter whether you quit the job first, or not. And like you have interpreted the job by your interest and values, they will interprete the job according to their views and interests.

I hope whoever it is they don't deem our resources a self interest like we do others.

[Freiwillige]

I hope whoever it is they don't deem our resources a self interest like we do others.

But of course they will, Its human nature.

[Krauter]

The US never wanted to be world policeman, the job was sort of thrust upon us after WW2 as strongest free world nation. Most of us would like nothing more than to wash our hands of the whole business, but who will replace us?

Somebody will that's for sure.

Yes but my question is. Does the world need it?

As you say the U.S was the strongest free world nation post WW2. However, based on their actions, the only way they seem compelled to "police" is to eliminate any goverments that they deem hostile (to them not the people or the world as a whole) and replace it, or rather attempt to replace it, with a democracy. (Thought it could also be debated that the reasoning behind this was the Cold War. If this were used in an argument, I would point out that if you're going to police the world, you shouldn't really be involved in a conflict with another nation of ideologies [whether the conflict is 'hot' or 'cold' is irrevelant])

One prime example of this is Vietnam. I believe they are still a communist, rather socialist, country today. Are they a threat to America? No, I don't believe they are.

All I'm saying is, yes it's awesome that America took up the mantle for global peace and the like. But if it enforces this peace selectively, then the whole purpose is defeated right from the get go.

Cheers!

Krauter

[Skybird]

I hope whoever it is they don't deem our resources a self interest like we do others.
Considering China's long record of copyright infringements, product piracy, the Chinese way of first triggering a technology transfer in joint ventures, then discriminating, mobbing and raising false criminal charges against Western partners to push them out of the Chinese market but keep the technology, and finally the extremely violent behavior of Chinese companies and their "security services" in African countries where they harass workers and local populations, I think you hope in vein.

[Elektroniikka-Asentaja]

Some opinions from just-a-kid-who-doesn't-really-know-a-crap-about-this

Would Saddam have done any hostile actions against US? I don't think so, it requires some balls and damn big army, even if I hate to say so as I'm so sick and tired of that american patriotism (which suddenly seems to disappear when you talk about wars...).

Was Bush there to liberate the region from mass destruction weapons, chemical weapons and one dangerous dictator? I don't think so, 9/11 just gave everyone huge phobia against muslims and as US had fought there before why not do go again when you have a reason? Well what was Bush doing there then? Think about it, USA has worlds (second?) largest coal reserves but there is something that is more valuable and what Iraq has. No it's not nukes or gas weapons. It's oil. If everything would have gone like planned USA would now be able to decide the cost of an oil barrel like Arabs do now. Would have done good to their finances.

Saddam was just in wrong place at a wrong time and doing wrong thing, world thought that Bush was good nice guy who hung a crazy dictator, he just didn't thought about who is going to lead the nation next, there wasn't any such powerful faction to take over the (non existing) government as Saddam had removed all such threats from existence. Now USA is there, trying to keep the country stable, which is hard, just like in Afghanistan. Normal Iraqians don't like you out there, you wouldn't like Iraqians walking with guns and driving tanks in your own home cities, and it causes problems. And as the government barely exists anyone who has a few friends could go and take over it and do less or more nice things. First you went there to conquer the place, now you're there to keep the place not falling into anarchy, doesn't sound like a war anymore.

Don't take this as an insult but as United States of America is still such young nation (if you compare to some Iraq for example, as they've been there for thousands of years doing whatever they want) you have so great love towards your country as you had to fight for it to liberate it from Brits "just a moment ago". And as your continent didn't have much people back then everyone is a grand children of one of those patriots.
Take a leadership of a very powerful nation, add some of that patriotism, a bit of bad luck and 9/11. You don't think twice anymore if you have a chance to pay it back. Bush just attacked wrong people, all muslims don't hate USA, it just happens that there was an american who hates all muslims.