i bet those iraqis sure are happy to be free

[spillmind]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040728/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_040728113258

bush BROUGHT terrorism to iraq and made us more of a target.

with more than 900 of our troups dead.

more than 6000 wounded.

more than 11,000 iraqi civilians all dead.

more than 30,000 iraqi armed forces.

that's a lot of blood for a puppet government that will eventually revert back to a dictatorship anyway.

 

[dmp]

You can't be serious.

 

[5stringJeff]

Bush did not bring terrorism to Iraq. There were terrorists all over Iraq during Saddam's rule, but they did not attack because Saddam was friendly towards terrorists who targeted the West. Now that the new Iraqi government is friendly towards the West, they are themselves a target of the many terrorists inside its own borders.

The US is not more of a terrorist target. When was the last terrorist attack on US soil?

While I certainly don't want any US troops killed or wounded (especially since i have several friends over there) 900 killed and 6000 wounded in 1 1/2 years is almost nothing. Consider the tens of thousands that died in the Battle of Antietam in one day.

And many Iraqis have died. Yet I don't see mass revolts in the streets of Iraqi cities demanding that Saddam or another dictator be reinstated. The longer Iraq is a democracy, the stronger its people will stand against terrorism. That's why the terrorists are trying so hard to attack Iraq's new government now, before it has a chance to take hold.

 

[HGROKIT]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040728/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_040728113258

bush BROUGHT terrorism to iraq and made us more of a target.

with more than 900 of our troups dead.

more than 6000 wounded.

more than 11,000 iraqi civilians all dead.

more than 30,000 iraqi armed forces.

that's a lot of blood for a puppet government that will eventually revert back to a dictatorship anyway.

 

[Comrade]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040728/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_040728113258

bush BROUGHT terrorism to iraq and made us more of a target.

No, terrorists went to Iraq, Bush didn't "bring" them. Then they mostly died.

with more than 900 of our troups dead.

more than 6000 wounded.

And honorably, right?

more than 11,000 iraqi civilians all dead.

Less deaths than in any period in Iraqi history before Saddam was deposed.

more than 30,000 iraqi armed forces.

Again, far less than in any conflict started by their own government under Saddam.

that's a lot of blood for a puppet government that will eventually revert back to a dictatorship anyway.

Sounds terrible!

Maybe we'll stick around then.

 

[spillmind]

Bush did not bring terrorism to Iraq. There were terrorists all over Iraq during Saddam's rule, but they did not attack because Saddam was friendly towards terrorists who targeted the West. Now that the new Iraqi government is friendly towards the West, they are themselves a target of the many terrorists inside its own borders.

do you have any way of proving that saddam supported terrorists like you claim? and if they aren't attacking anyone, how are they terrorists?

The US is not more of a terrorist target. When was the last terrorist attack on US soil?

so you are saying there will never be another attack on our soil in retaliation for our aggressive behavior in the ME? if you're not saying this, why try to make this a point?

While I certainly don't want any US troops killed or wounded (especially since i have several friends over there) 900 killed and 6000 wounded in 1 1/2 years is almost nothing. Consider the tens of thousands that died in the Battle of Antietam in one day.

i don't think it's almost NOTHING. i bet their families don't either. and iraq is not vietnam. so why bother trying to trivialize their deaths?

and many Iraqis have died. Yet I don't see mass revolts in the streets of Iraqi cities demanding that Saddam or another dictator be reinstated. The longer Iraq is a democracy, the stronger its people will stand against terrorism. That's why the terrorists are trying so hard to attack Iraq's new government now, before it has a chance to take hold.

try mobilizing any kind of protest UNDER MARTIAL LAW. i know you're more intelligent than that. are you saying iraq is a democracy UNDER MARTIAL LAW? if they are a democracy, it certainly doesn't resemble anything of our system. save for the puppetmasters.

btw, the jesus shtick is a nice touch. really smoothes things over.

No, terrorists went to Iraq, Bush didn't "bring" them. Then they mostly died.

again, if they weren't attacking anyone before, how were they terrorists? are you speaking firsthand on the intent of thousands of people you're never met and never seen? oh, that's right, our government says so, right?

And honorably, right?

honorably, yes. for a honorable cause? you tell me.

Less deaths than in any period in Iraqi history before Saddam was deposed.

i assume you are talking since the CIA made sure the Ba'ath party was installed? i don't recall 40,000+ deaths anytime recently between the first gulf war and this 'war'. care to refresh our memory? or can we call this statement official PROPAGANDA?

Maybe we'll stick around then.

yes, better get used to it. funny how i don't remember anybody saying we are going to be there for years, possibly decades to come when they were pushing so hard to invade. we've already proven the humanitarian reason a complete farce, because the US ignores Sudan. let me guess, this time around, we are blaming the UN for that, right? how convenient. too bad some people actually believe that nonsense.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Great point with Sudan. For those who champion the moral argument for the war in Iraq it seems they must be for going into Sudan and helping out there. Minus the moral argument you're left with the two real reasons: WMD and terrorism - both are questionable enough to necessitate not rushing to war.

 

[Gop guy]

It's a shame spillmind is so anti-freedom, oh well....

 

[Sandy73]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040728/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_040728113258

bush BROUGHT terrorism to iraq and made us more of a target.

with more than 900 of our troups dead.

more than 6000 wounded.

more than 11,000 iraqi civilians all dead.

more than 30,000 iraqi armed forces.

that's a lot of blood for a puppet government that will eventually revert back to a dictatorship anyway.

 

[spillmind]

It's a shame spillmind is so anti-freedom, oh well....

did you think of that one all by yourself? GET REAL, MAN. i'm not stating anything that isn't true. it's amazing how you can block out the truth so that it fits your rose-colored view of iraq. debate a point or get out of the peanut gallery.

you care to explain? i thought not, and i rest my case. pretty easy to condemn something without even arguing your side. not unpredictable, however.

 

[5stringJeff]

do you have any way of proving that saddam supported terrorists like you claim? and if they aren't attacking anyone, how are they terrorists?

The ties between Saddam and terrorism are well documented. No time to post links but they are all over the place - and, if I'm not mistaken, even acknowledged in the 9/11 commision's report.

so you are saying there will never be another attack on our soil in retaliation for our aggressive behavior in the ME? if you're not saying this, why try to make this a point?

You said that America is more of a target because of Iraq. I'm saying that we apparently are not more of a target, given the lack of terrorist attacks on American soil and the heightened anti-terrorist actions of our government since 9/11.

i don't think it's almost NOTHING. i bet their families don't either. and iraq is not vietnam. so why bother trying to trivialize their deaths?

I'm not trivializaing anything. I've lost a good friend and several acquaintences in Iraq and would love to have them back. In the grand scheme of things, however, 900 deaths in a year and a half is not a large number.

I am heartened to hear, however, that you mention that Iraq is not Vietnam. Too many on the Left try to make that comparison without justification.

try mobilizing any kind of protest UNDER MARTIAL LAW. i know you're more intelligent than that. are you saying iraq is a democracy UNDER MARTIAL LAW? if they are a democracy, it certainly doesn't resemble anything of our system. save for the puppetmasters.

Lincoln imposed martial law for long stretches of time during the Civil War. Did that make America any less of a democracy? I'm no fan of martial law, but in case you haven't noticed, there are thousands of terrorists trying to topple the government. If the Iraqi government feels that declaring martial law in the short term will keep the government from collapsing, that's their preogative.

btw, the jesus shtick is a nice touch. really smoothes things over.

Thanks!

 

[Sandy73]

did you think of that one all by yourself? GET REAL, MAN. i'm not stating anything that isn't true. it's amazing how you can block out the truth so that it fits your rose-colored view of iraq. debate a point or get out of the peanut gallery.

you care to explain? i thought not, and i rest my case. pretty easy to condemn something without even arguing your side. not unpredictable, however.

Can you explain to me how you can put the "True American" above your avatar and only worry about the Iraqis ? I don't care about the Iraqis I care about our country and the men and women serving it ! Your post seems ignorant on the loss of iraqis and their people ! We are keeping ourselves free from terrorism ! That is what the war is about ! Our Chief and Commander does not want another 9/11 ! Our President is protecting us first and then trying to make a better life for your friends in Iraq !

 

[spillmind]

The ties between Saddam and terrorism are well documented. No time to post links but they are all over the place - and, if I'm not mistaken, even acknowledged in the 9/11 commision's report.

i'm talking more specifically to the part where you say:

There were terrorists all over Iraq during Saddam's rule, but they did not attack because Saddam was friendly towards terrorists who targeted the West.

would you care to elaborate exactly which factions and where they were located? or can we just say you grossly exaggerated to support your claim?

You said that America is more of a target because of Iraq. I'm saying that we apparently are not more of a target, given the lack of terrorist attacks on American soil and the heightened anti-terrorist actions of our government since 9/11.

um, so by that logic, there have been LESS foiled attempts at terrorism in the USA since 9/11? i'd be VERY CURIOUS to see hard evidence of your asserted obvious desrepancy that you are proposing here.

and if you think it's better to be travelling as an america abroad, i guess we'd have to agree to disagree.

I'm not trivializaing anything. I've lost a good friend and several acquaintences in Iraq and would love to have them back. In the grand scheme of things, however, 900 deaths in a year and a half is not a large number.

900 DEAD, plus 6000+ injured. now that is a substantial enough number of lives ruined for me to question the cause and the result. admittedly, even one death for a deeply flawed cause is a travesty. but i guess we all value life in different ways. i wonder how jesus would feel about that?

Lincoln imposed martial law for long stretches of time during the Civil War. Did that make America any less of a democracy? I'm no fan of martial law, but in case you haven't noticed, there are thousands of terrorists trying to topple the government. If the Iraqi government feels that declaring martial law in the short term will keep the government from collapsing, that's their preogative.

that's all well and good, but let's not call our intern puppet government a democracy. and when the majority elects a dictatorship-leaning leader, and when there are continued constant attempts on government officials, and when people can't protest for fear of being detained indefinitely or exectued, lets not lie to ourselves about them being 'free'.

 

[spillmind]

Can you explain to me how you can put the "True American" above your avatar and only worry about the Iraqis ? I don't care about the Iraqis I care about our country and the men and women serving it ! Your post seems ignorant on the loss of iraqis and their people ! We are keeping ourselves free from terrorism ! That is what the war is about ! Our Chief and Commander does not want another 9/11 ! Our President is protecting us first and then trying to make a better life for your friends in Iraq !

ok, since you don't want to stay on topic (more so, declining to address my points), we'll just assume you agree with everything i've proffered. must be strange conceding i'm right on all those points and still voting for bush.

it's pretty obvious your don't care about iraqis from your post. so you are saying that you only cared about the threat of terror from iraq? so, by that logic, why haven't we invaded NK, a country that ACTUALLY HAS WMDs, or iran, who is very close to having WMDs?

you contradict yourself by saying:

'I don't care about the Iraqis I care about our country and the men and women serving it !'

and then you say right after that:

'Your post seems ignorant on the loss of iraqis and their people' ...am i the only one seeing a striking contradiction here?

NEWSFLASH, Sandy, the war in iraq is not protecting us from anything. nor will it prevent another 9/11. you've been swallowing a lot of propaganda. but i'll admit it's much sweeter than the truth.

 

[dilloduck]

ok, since you don't want to stay on topic (more so, declining to address my points), we'll just assume you agree with everything i've proffered. must be strange conceding i'm right on all those points and still voting for bush.

it's pretty obvious your don't care about iraqis from your post. so you are saying that you only cared about the threat of terror from iraq? so, by that logic, why haven't we invaded NK, a country that ACTUALLY HAS WMDs, or iran, who is very close to having WMDs?

you contradict yourself by saying:

'I don't care about the Iraqis I care about our country and the men and women serving it !'

and then you say right after that:

'Your post seems ignorant on the loss of iraqis and their people' ...am i the only one seeing a striking contradiction here?

NEWSFLASH, Sandy, the war in iraq is not protecting us from anything. nor will it prevent another 9/11. you've been swallowing a lot of propaganda. but i'll admit it's much sweeter than the truth.

The point is to defend ourselves from terrorists. The terrorists are based in the ME. The first strike was against the Taliban. Did you agree with that?

 

[Hobbit]

would you care to elaborate exactly which factions and where they were located? or can we just say you grossly exaggerated to support your claim?

Well, I can say right off hand that Hamas got a lot of funding from Saddam, and that Saddam gave sanctuary to the only 1993 WTC bomber that we never caught.

 

[spillmind]

The point is to defend ourselves from terrorists. The terrorists are based in the ME. The first strike was against the Taliban. Did you agree with that?

i'll agree the taliban was the first strike. however, afghanistan is close to being overrun by warlords once again, and things aren't much different there than they were before. it certainly doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that we have acheived our goal of 'smokin them out', much less eliminating the threat.

Well, I can say right off hand that Hamas got a lot of funding from Saddam, and that Saddam gave sanctuary to the only 1993 WTC bomber that we never caught.

so, that sounds like: 'There were terrorists all over Iraq during Saddam's rule, but they did not attack because Saddam was friendly towards terrorists who targeted the West. '

 

[Comrade]

again, if they weren't attacking anyone before, how were they terrorists? are you speaking firsthand on the intent of thousands of people you're never met and never seen? oh, that's right, our government says so, right?

YOU said: "bush BROUGHT terrorism to iraq and made us more of a target."

I said: "No, terrorists went to Iraq, Bush didn't "bring" them. Then they mostly died."

Those travelling by their own will into Iraq after the invasion are what we speak of.

Those same parties to the conflict against our coalition, and now in direct opposition to the new Iraqi government, are the issue.

Whether they plant roadside IED's, drive car bombs into crowded areas and checkpoints, or kidnaps foriegn national and behead them, their actions speak for themselves. They are terrorists or insurgents or guerillas or maybe you think even freedom fighters (as if). No matter, it's better they die there than in America or elsewhere. Bush didn't "bring" them, they brought themselves, and they continue to die as idiots.

honorably, yes. for a honorable cause? you tell me.

Just and honorable. You believe the cause was unjust. But if you are indeed 100% opposed to their cause then you must also despise their actions, which these troops have carried out with total dedication and without reserve. If you are truly set against their actions you must also condemn those who went about the war willingly and with a full appreciation for their cause. Their is a considerable list of links to troops who continue to affirm their just actions, all which you, in your claimed view, MUST condemn for their willingl hand in the matter. Those who are listed here generally support the disposition of Saddam's government. So read their words and feel proud when and if they meet their death, Spilly. For their cause is what you despise, do you not?

http://chiefwiggles.com/

http://www.frontlinevoices.org/

http://www.inlet.org/wade/

http://www.marinecorpsmoms.com/

me you are talking since the CIA made sure the Ba'ath party was installed? i don't recall 40,000+ deaths anytime recently between the first gulf war and this 'war'. care to refresh our memory? or can we call this statement official PROPAGANDA?

Bub, you just earned this one:

Civilian and Military Postwar Deaths from Violence

Beginning on March 1, 1991, the day after the cease fire, uprisings began to sweep through Iraq [14]. The violence was primarily in the Kurdish north and Shiite south during March and April 1991. An untold number of people died, and the estimate in this report of excess deaths during this time is the most uncertain. In Endless Torment, Middle East Watch describes a scene of mass chaos in northern and southern Iraq. Although the number killed in the postwar turmoil is impossible to estimate, two independent sources (William Arkin and the U.S. Census Bureau) arrived at the same estimate: 30,000 civilian deaths and 5,000 military deaths. The U.S. State Department, in a separate document, reported that the suppression of the uprisings accounted for "casualties estimated in the tens of thousands" [15]. No additional information on the number of post war civilian deaths seems to exist at this time.

There you go, you pompous ass. After you recover from that lapse you should follow the pattern and blame Bush (the elder) for this as they tend to do, given his lack of action to protect the uprising. It's still somehow America's fault, or so goes the standard line.


I've seen in several places that the overall, two millions Iraqi deaths are directly attributable to Saddam since took power over 23 years ago, 87,000 needless and senseless deaths of his own people (leaving out Iran, Kuwait, and others killed by his forces) annually. 40,000 with the promise of far less in the future is pretty damn good, don't you agree?

yes, better get used to it. funny how i don't remember anybody saying we are going to be there for years, possibly decades to come when they were pushing so hard to invade.

Do you remember the speech Bush gave about the Axis of evil, and how the war would be long and costly? What's the problem? I like this tactic.

We've already proven the humanitarian reason a complete farce, because the US ignores Sudan. let me guess, this time around, we are blaming the UN for that, right? how convenient. too bad some people actually believe that nonsense.

But if we commit to Sudan before November that's automatically a bad thing, or not? Say it now because we want it on record. We have no UN resolution nor can we expect one. And Sudan has oil.

Also, let us know right now, if Bush is re-elected in November and we do attempt to resolve, with force and not some half-assed sanctions the French will ignore (oil contracts), and without any UN support, will that suddenly change your mind about Iraq and the humanitarian motive?

Or are we clear about the fact that Sudan indeed has oil, and that the moment we go in that's pretty much the motive? I mean we're no fools, the oil issue is the first thing we'll expect from you and we won't even hear anything at all about Iraq and the link to humanitarian issues. I know your type so well. State clearly your stand on the issue now and be a real man, or dress up in the bunny suit and bounce around like Kerry.

Where do you stand or are you going to squat all your life?

 

[CSM]

Fortunately for most of us, the US government is not a dictatorship. Bush is not the sole leader of this country (even if he is the Commander in Chief). There are many other elected officials (including Kerry) that approved the "pre-emptive war".

I also fail to see how a lack of acts of terrorism within the country's borders is proof that this nation and its citizens are "less safe" because of US foriegn policy. While it is true that there are many kidnappings occurring daily throughout the world, most of the victims are NOT US citizens.

 

[Comrade]

Fortunately for most of us, the US government is not a dictatorship. Bush is not the sole leader of this country (even if he is the Commander in Chief). There are many other elected officials (including Kerry) that approved the "pre-emptive war".

I also fail to see how a lack of acts of terrorism within the country's borders is proof that this nation and its citizens are "less safe" because of US foriegn policy. While it is true that there are many kidnappings occurring daily throughout the world, most of the victims are NOT US citizens.

I agree completely.

Somehow the idea we are "less safe" is repeated with increasing vigour in direct proportion to the time elapsed since the last actual attack. This is what they chose to say at the DNC in public, and cheered it as some kind of fact in their warped reality.

By such logic a terrorist catastrophe would should bring some sigh of relief and an end to this whole hyperactive rhetoric, a sort of tension release for these people. But they are all fucking crazy. Not like you and me.

We all know that an event like this would only be hyped up as proof of their conviction. And they'd probably go on to win the election, having been "proved correct". It's a disgusting thought, but if you were a diehard Kerry supporter you might wish for this, wouldn't you?