Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/24/05 02:46 PM, GorillaUnit485 wrote: No, I do understand what you mean, silly. The Iraqi civilians didn't bomb us on 9/11, yet we've killed 25,000 of them. The only difference is that we're killing civilians in the name of freedom, and they killed civilians in the name of "terror"

I shouldn't have called you a stupid fuck either way. I gotta stop cursing.

But who's 'we'? I didn't kill anybody in Iraq, I was against the damn war! These were the actions of my government, so why the hell should I be bombed for it?

At 7/24/05 02:46 PM, GorillaUnit485 wrote: No, I do understand what you mean, silly. The Iraqi civilians didn't bomb us on 9/11, yet we've killed 25,000 of them. The only difference is that we're killing civilians in the name of freedom, and they killed civilians in the name of "terror"

Who are we to say what's best for the Iraqi people?
How do we know that a free democracy is the best way to make their lives better?

At 7/24/05 02:50 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Who are we to say what's best for the Iraqi people?
How do we know that a free democracy is the best way to make their lives better?

Historically, there's no proof it will. The British tried it at the begining of the 20th century. Look how well that worked out.

At 7/24/05 02:50 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/24/05 02:46 PM, GorillaUnit485 wrote: No, I do understand what you mean, silly. The Iraqi civilians didn't bomb us on 9/11, yet we've killed 25,000 of them. The only difference is that we're killing civilians in the name of freedom, and they killed civilians in the name of "terror"

Who are we to say what's best for the Iraqi people?
How do we know that a free democracy is the best way to make their lives better?

You think I'm defending this war? I'm pointing out how disgusting it is that people say it's okay that the civilian death count is above 25,000.

At 7/24/05 02:50 PM, Loch_Ness_Monster wrote:

But who's 'we'? I didn't kill anybody in Iraq, I was against the damn war! These were the actions of my government, so why the hell should I be bombed for it?

I understand that you're against the war, and I'm sure that 99.9% of Iraqis aren't terrorists, yet we invaded them anyway. The US uses the logic that if some terrorists attack us, we should invade, killing 25,000 civilians in just 2 years. The terrorists use the same logic, if the US invades, they're going to kill anyone from the US.

Get it yet?? lol

At 7/24/05 03:57 PM, GorillaUnit485 wrote: I understand that you're against the war, and I'm sure that 99.9% of Iraqis aren't terrorists, yet we invaded them anyway. The US uses the logic that if some terrorists attack us, we should invade, killing 25,000 civilians in just 2 years. The terrorists use the same logic, if the US invades, they're going to kill anyone from the US.

Get it yet?? lol

Yeah I get it, but I still don't see how I should be killed for it. You use the word 'we', which implies that if a government invades then the entire country is reponsible for the invasion. I know that the US and the UK use that logic, but does that mean I deserve to die for it? Though I know we won't be able to agree on this :D

But aside from this, I don't see how this terrorism was connected to Iraq. The terrorists in the London bombing were all born in the UK.

At 7/23/05 01:31 PM, madzakk wrote: and for fuck's sake, share your wealth.

Share my wealth with Bin-Laden? For fuck's sake, he's richer than anyone here!

Yes, but those who do the attacks aren't. And if they were, I doubt they wanted to blow themselves up.

At 7/24/05 04:05 PM, Loch_Ness_Monster wrote:

Yeah I get it, but I still don't see how I should be killed for it. You use the word 'we', which implies that if a government invades then the entire country is reponsible for the invasion.

You shouldn't be killed for what the US gov't does, and the Iraqi people shouldn't be killed for what the terrorists in their country do. It goes both ways (hehe) and that is one of my main reasons why we should not be fighting this war. We use improper logic and silly 4th grade excuses (he bombed us so we're going to bomb them back) and it's a disgusting reason to fight a disgusting war.

At 7/24/05 08:48 AM, Veggiemeal wrote: Since when is Egypt a western country?

What does that have to do with anything? So now only western countries have terrorism? Or is it that they only need a reason to attack western countries?

I did. Who cares? It hasn't got anything to do with my point.

No it doesn't but that doesn't change the fact that it is lame.

Sure, when THEY attack YOU, it's cold blooded murder. The other way around it's okay, of course.

Because we attack combatants, they attack civilians. We actually try to prevent civilian casualties.

Besides the point that sending troops to Saudi Arabia could be a legitamite reason to hate the US, the keyword here is MAIN gripe. There are plenty of other way's the US pissed those people off.

It CANNOT be a legitimate reason to hate the US, espescially not even one that is good enough to BOMB the US. We sent troops to protect them from invasion, we were invited to Saudi Arabia. If they can't handle seeing women not walking around with thier faces covered that is there problem, not ours.

And, name the other ways. Really, go ahead and name them.

It has worked??? More than 20.000 Iraqi civillians got killed so far and you say it has worked?!

Do you have any idea how many bombs and missiles we dropped?? We launched 10,000 missiles alone. We decimated the Iraqi army which was already hiding inside the cities.

And at that, only 8,000 of those 20,000 were killed by US soldiers.

Perhaps, but you sure have a shitty aim. You tell the families of those killed Iraqi's that you did not "target" them. I'm sure they'll be very happy.

No we have perfect aim. There has never been a conquering of a country with so few casualties, much less a country whose entire budget was in the military.

Yeah, before 9/11 the US was a saint.

Can you name any acts of aggression? All they have is that we sent troops to protect Saudi Arabia, thier home country, and that we give Israel some money every year (which really is unlikely to be thier reason, everyone who wasn't around Israel has consitantly ignored the palestinians).

Maybe, but would you like those spies and covert ops to be treated like they do with people in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Graib?

I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't complain. It's only fair really, I have no doubt when a spy gets caught in Russia or Iran or anywhere else they get treated MUCH worse (probably killed).

And what do you think the cause of this "poverty, poor living conditions and oppressions" is? Iraq, for example, was a relativaly well off country before the US barged in. The living conditions of the Iraqi's are pure shit now and the way they see it, they are being oppressed by the US.

Iraq was never well off. Some rich people in Bahgdad were. You fail to realize that simply because there is oil does not mean that everyone is rich. The money gets concentrated amoung a select few.

And at that, none of that 9/11 terrorists were Iraqis, nor are any of the Madrid bombers or the London bombers.

Sure, when my point of view doesn't agree with yours, it's sad. I can burst into tears any second now.

It's not just about disagreeing, it's that you would exploit the suffering of others in order to justify your point of view, even though you held that point of view long before 9/11.

At 7/24/05 07:11 PM, Jimsween wrote: It CANNOT be a legitimate reason to hate the US, espescially not even one that is good enough to BOMB the US. We sent troops to protect them from invasion, we were invited to Saudi Arabia. If they can't handle seeing women not walking around with thier faces covered that is there problem, not ours.

I have to disagree with you there. No one wanted the United States in Saudi Arabia, or anywhere in the middle east. It was only after the United States had supplied Sadam with weapons and publically announced, or rather emphisised, that it had no obligations to protect Kuwait that Sadam invaded the area. Then, conicidentally now that Saudi Arabia was under attack, the United States insisted that they offer aid against these "acts of terror".

No we have perfect aim. There has never been a conquering of a country with so few casualties, much less a country whose entire budget was in the military.

So few casualties? The united states dropped an equivilant of 7 1/2 hiroshma bombs in 42 days. They knocked out water supplies, power supplies, and systematically killed the food chain from one end of the country to the other. And in the end, they leave the country with their terrorist leader in place. The United States made it specific that they would only solve the conflict through force. When Yemen, the poorest arab country in the world, voted against the use of force in Iraq at the UN the united states pulled off it's entire Aid Budget of $70 million three days later. Shortly after, the UN unanimously votes "ok" for force in Iraq.

The United States not only chooses NOT to take Sadam, but keeps economic sanctions that prohibit medicine from comming into Iraq. What is it to the United States that Iraqi citizens have medicine to live? Are kids going to make nuclear bombs out of a few tablets of Tylenol?

If terrorism can't be provoked, the United States came pretty darn close with the seeds it planted in that conflict.

At 7/24/05 08:41 PM, darkmage8 wrote: I have to disagree with you there. No one wanted the United States in Saudi Arabia, or anywhere in the middle east.

Saudi Arabia did. They asked us to come there. Kuwait did obviously.

It was only after the United States had supplied Sadam with weapons and publically announced, or rather emphisised, that it had no obligations to protect Kuwait that Sadam invaded the area. Then, conicidentally now that Saudi Arabia was under attack, the United States insisted that they offer aid against these "acts of terror".

You make it seem as if we somehow benefit from stationing troops in Saudi Arabia. We have to pay money to have them there.

So few casualties?

Strange, after I said this, I thought you would state the number of casualties, but instead you went to talk about how we fought the war. I can only assume that is because you know that there were very few casualties.

The united states dropped an equivilant of 7 1/2 hiroshma bombs in 42 days.

With how many deaths? At the most, 5,000.

They knocked out water supplies, power supplies, and systematically killed the food chain from one end of the country to the other.

And yet very few people died.

And in the end, they leave the country with their terrorist leader in place. The United States made it specific that they would only solve the conflict through force. When Yemen, the poorest arab country in the world, voted against the use of force in Iraq at the UN the united states pulled off it's entire Aid Budget of $70 million three days later. Shortly after, the UN unanimously votes "ok" for force in Iraq.

Funny, this has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. And at that, your talking about the first gulf war.

The United States not only chooses NOT to take Sadam, but keeps economic sanctions that prohibit medicine from comming into Iraq. What is it to the United States that Iraqi citizens have medicine to live? Are kids going to make nuclear bombs out of a few tablets of Tylenol?

And in our one attempt to reduce the severity of the sanctions, it's used to fund the army.

At 7/24/05 04:05 PM, Loch_Ness_Monster wrote:

Yeah I get it, but I still don't see how I should be killed for it. You use the word 'we', which implies that if a government invades then the entire country is reponsible for the invasion.

Well, you could move to a country who doesn't put its civis in harms way.

At 7/24/05 08:53 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 7/24/05 08:41 PM, darkmage8 wrote: I have to disagree with you there. No one wanted the United States in Saudi Arabia, or anywhere in the middle east.

Saudi Arabia did. They asked us to come there. Kuwait did obviously.

Saudi Arabia was pressured into accepting aid from the United States. The only way the U.S was going to get their foot in the door was if someone asked them to come in. The United States had been practically begging Saudi Arabia to let the U.S "protect it" for a long time. It wasn't until the Bush Administration said a Massive Iraqi Force of hundreds of thousands was clustering at the Kuwait boarder that they asked for aid, which ended up being bullshit because the Bush Administration only lauched those troops through satalite images they said proved their claims. When the CIA, Pentagon, and white house refused to release the satalite images, soviet purchased satalite images later revealed nothing to support the outrageous built-up army near Kuwait. Only the up and comming build-up of American forces in Saudi Arabia.

You make it seem as if we somehow benefit from stationing troops in Saudi Arabia. We have to pay money to have them there.

You honestly believe that the United States didn't benefit from stationing troops in Saudi Arabia? We'd been trying to get into the middle-east since the end of the second world war, but no one wanted a large western military base, especially the United States, in their region. You don't just commit half-a-million trips on the other side of the planet with nothing to gain.

Strange, after I said this, I thought you would state the number of casualties, but instead you went to talk about how we fought the war. I can only assume that is because you know that there were very few casualties.

Ironic that you think the casualties were minimal and accurate. The civilian casulties in Iraq are debatably astronomical when one looks at the size and population. There is no way you're going to knock out the entire foundation of a country like it's water purification systems and power grids that keep medicine deprived hospitals running and come out of that conflict with 5,000 civilian deaths. There was a Demographer for the Department of Commerce back in '92 that lost her job for contradicting the figures the White House gave out. Figures that estimated Iraqi casulties over 10,000 killed directly, and over 50,000 civilians killed in post-war Iraq.

An article on the subject at hand

:And in our one attempt to reduce the severity of the sanctions, it's used to fund the army.

By that time Sadam was being shown on every T.V giving food to children as a hero against the oppression of Iraq. Keeping the sanctions on Iraq for so long didn't do anything but kill civilians and fester out more hate for the United States.

You said Terrorism comes out of poverty and oppresion. I give you the Economic Sanction.

we retaliated you obviously didnt follow this whole thing from the jump we tried to settle thing with words and it soon became clear that they had attcked the #1 World power and thought they'd get away with it i dont aprove but right it's like capital punishment we are making an example of the Middle East for all the world to see

DONT F WITH THE U.S.

is coming thourgh loud and clear

Since when is Egypt a western country?

What other Western country actualy fighting? Canada and America.......

Sure, when THEY attack YOU, it's cold blooded murder. The other way around it's okay, of course.

What that made no sense.....

Besides the point that sending troops to Saudi Arabia could be a legitamite reason to hate the US, the keyword here is MAIN gripe. There are plenty of other way's the US pissed those people off.

I don't suppose you could name one? Stop acting big mr. 12 year old its ur bed time

It has worked??? More than 20.000 Iraqi civillians got killed so far and you say it has worked?!

Yeah but on 9/11 over 3,000 people died for no reason. The Iraqi Civillians are technically Collateral Damage, on 9/11 they were actually targeting civillians. And yes it has worked, instead of 100,00 it is 20,000

Perhaps, but you sure have a shitty aim. You tell the families of those killed Iraqi's that you did not "target" them. I'm sure they'll be very happy.

Yeah try telling the same thing to an american who has lost somebody in the war, but they WERE targetting him. and with that i you could argue "Yeah say that to a terrorist's family" and to that i would respond "Fuck Off"

Therefore, they have no right to be treated the way they are being treated in Guantanamo Bay. They deserve the same treatment as any other soldier. And you know what? We attacked them. Therefore, they have the right to attack us back. We kill their citizens, they kill ours.

We dont have their civillians in the POW camps, we have TERRORISTS and if you say terrorists derserve to be treated with the highest quality of prison life ever i would also respond with a Fuck off

Yeah, before 9/11 the US was a saint.

What? America is still the super power of the world, dont argue with me on that

Maybe, but would you like those spies and covert ops to be treated like they do with people in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Graib?

I'm pretty sure the terrorists dont have spec. ops, or prisons for that matter

How to stop this "terrorism"? Stop giving these poeple more and more reasons to hate us. Don't occupy their lands. Don't give weapons to Israel. Don't abuse those imprisoned, and for fuck's sake, share your wealth.

Sorry but i dont like to give my lifes earnings to a guy who wants to blow me up

And what do you think the cause of this "poverty, poor living conditions and oppressions" is? Iraq, for example, was a relativaly well off country before the US barged in. The living conditions of the Iraqi's are pure shit now and the way they see it, they are being oppressed by the US.

Yeah having mustard gas and daily murders are very well off....

Sure, when my point of view doesn't agree with yours, it's sad. I can burst into tears any second now.

No comment out of this stupidity

At 7/24/05 10:37 PM, bcdemon wrote:

At 7/24/05 04:05 PM, Loch_Ness_Monster wrote:

Yeah I get it, but I still don't see how I should be killed for it. You use the word 'we', which implies that if a government invades then the entire country is reponsible for the invasion.

Well, you could move to a country who doesn't put its civis in harms way.

Why should I feel that I have to move because of what my government does? Besides, even if I wanted to I couldn't. I'm 14.

At 7/24/05 04:09 PM, GorillaUnit485 wrote:

At 7/24/05 04:05 PM, Loch_Ness_Monster wrote:

Yeah I get it, but I still don't see how I should be killed for it. You use the word 'we', which implies that if a government invades then the entire country is reponsible for the invasion.

You shouldn't be killed for what the US gov't does, and the Iraqi people shouldn't be killed for what the terrorists in their country do. It goes both ways (hehe) and that is one of my main reasons why we should not be fighting this war. We use improper logic and silly 4th grade excuses (he bombed us so we're going to bomb them back) and it's a disgusting reason to fight a disgusting war.

You guys don't get it do you?

Are you really sitting there blaming terrorism on Bush and the Iraqi conflict? Do you really think if we'd never gone into Iraq, those terrorists would be sitting around plotting against some other country? Are you that stupid?

Keep in mind that we were attacked long before we went in to Iraq... we were attacked before we went into Afghanistan... we've been attacked since 1991.

That's what is so fucked up about all this. You guys sit here and throw barbs at the administration and try to blame terrorism on Iraq... Iraq makes such as handy excuse. For the Bush-haters, you guys are so quick to use it to argue imperialism and blame terrorism on it... for the terrorists and insurgents, they know how this country operates and how many ignorat and naive people we have over here so they blame their own terrorism on it- it's just an excuse for them. Make no mistake, Iraq or no Iraq, Afghanistan or no Afghanistan... Gitmo or no Gitmo- we would still be suffering through international terror.

At 7/25/05 08:21 AM, Loch_Ness_Monster wrote: Why should I feel that I have to move because of what my government does? Besides, even if I wanted to I couldn't. I'm 14.

Hey man, I feel for ya. And to be honest, you shouldnt feel like you have to move from your gov actions, you should be totaly safe and secure in your country. But alas, you are not, you are in a war with terrorists, and we all know the way they work.

P.S. If you're a good kid, I might sponsor you if you move to Canada :)

I think the point is that we won't win this war with brute strength alone. Our soldiers have killed plenty of the insurgents, and under normal circumstances would have crippled or destroyed an enemy such as we've been facing. The problem is (as already stated in other's posts) is that we're spawning more than we kill. While our soldiers are handling the physical battles expertly, we've gone completly slack on the propaganda war. We should be doing everything we can to discredit, confound, and undermine the Iraqi insurgent recruitment effort. While many Iraqis are glad to have saddam gone, they don't see us as the liberating heroes that we think we are. We need to have agents, diguised as insurgent enemies try to paint the image of insurgents as a completly evil force. Our country has almost mastered the art of spin, there is no reason for us to not spin the war in our favor with the Iraqis. I mean, convincing civilians that they don't have to die for another's belief should be easy.

At 7/25/05 12:18 AM, darkmage8 wrote: Saudi Arabia was pressured into accepting aid from the United States.

Proof? Why didn't we just pressure them before then?

You honestly believe that the United States didn't benefit from stationing troops in Saudi Arabia? We'd been trying to get into the middle-east since the end of the second world war, but no one wanted a large western military base, especially the United States, in their region. You don't just commit half-a-million trips on the other side of the planet with nothing to gain.

How do we benefit? Please, enlighten me. And at that, the troops would only be there for the duration of the war. Anything else is not under the same pretense.

Ironic that you think the casualties were minimal and accurate. The civilian casulties in Iraq are debatably astronomical when one looks at the size and population. There is no way you're going to knock out the entire foundation of a country like it's water purification systems and power grids that keep medicine deprived hospitals running and come out of that conflict with 5,000 civilian deaths. There was a Demographer for the Department of Commerce back in '92 that lost her job for contradicting the figures the White House gave out. Figures that estimated Iraqi casulties over 10,000 killed directly, and over 50,000 civilians killed in post-war Iraq.

You're still talking about the first gulf war, look back, analyze, what would make you think we were talking about that one? Where I explicitly stated that we weren't?

By that time Sadam was being shown on every T.V giving food to children as a hero against the oppression of Iraq. Keeping the sanctions on Iraq for so long didn't do anything but kill civilians and fester out more hate for the United States.

And cripple the Iraqi army? Notice we didn't encounter any tanks, or air force?

You said Terrorism comes out of poverty and oppresion. I give you the Economic Sanction.

The only Iraqi terrorists we've had so far have commited terrorism in Iraq.

At 7/25/05 06:00 PM, Jimsween wrote: Proof? Why didn't we just pressure them before then?

By threatening to attack them if they didn't let us in to defend their oil market? The only way the U.S was getting into the Middle-East was through an invitation. The CIA knew that troops were ready to move into Kuwait, and Sadam went in because he was convinced the U.S wouldn't interfere after the State Department kept telling him they had no obligations to defend Kuwait. Now that there's an official crisis at hand, the Bush Administration at the time conjures up satellite imagery they claimed prooved that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were clustering at the Saudi Border. The Saudis give in to the claim and ask for aid.

Later, soviet satellite imagery is purchased by a Florida newspaper that contradicts the "massive iraqi army". When asked to see the imagery the U.S government had, they refused to show them because the images were of strategic importance for the war. Those images have never been released.

How do we benefit? Please, enlighten me. And at that, the troops would only be there for the duration of the war. Anything else is not under the same pretense.

The United States benefited by stimulating their arms industry through selling Saddam hussein the weapons he was attacking Kuwait with, and then lied to Saudi Arabia about the heavily exhaggerated impending attack so they could finally get an invitation to establish a military presence and create American Influence in the Middle East, which it definitely did. We'd be trying to do it with Iran as our insider for years. Even though the Shah of Iran was very cooperative with the United States, him being overthrown by anti-west preacher Ayatohla Kohmeini was an obvious sign that people in the middle-east had to *want* the United States to be there in first place.

I'm not saying the U.S orchastrated every event of the Gulf War, only that these events show the U.S defintitely had alterior motives and definitely did pull strings; and when it comes down to it, knows what the hell it's doing when it comes to playing smart politics.

You're still talking about the first gulf war, look back, analyze, what would make you think we were talking about that one? Where I explicitly stated that we weren't?

I refer to the Gulf War because it goes hand in hand with many reasons why we are hated so much in the Middle-East. I'm not pointing the finger at Iraq for terrorist acts in the United States. I'm saying that the Gulf War, as one example, went way over-kill and needlessly decimated Iraq and kept it in ruins long after the Iraqis could no longer fight. With the heavy death tolls, raw sewage leaking out onto the streets, no medicine, and no power supply, Iraq became a beacon for people to look and migrate to who hated the West.

By that time Sadam was being shown on every T.V giving food to children as a hero against the oppression of Iraq. Keeping the sanctions on Iraq for so long didn't do anything but kill civilians and fester out more hate for the United States.

And cripple the Iraqi army? Notice we didn't encounter any tanks, or air force?

Dropping 88,500 tons of bombs on everything that looks like a military structure in the span of a month will do that to a small country, especially before you even walk across the boarder. The cruise missles did all the damage needed to take Kuwait and Southern Iraq in the span of 24 hours. Keeping the sanctions on them after the fact, and for so long, flirts with genocide.

The only Iraqi terrorists we've had so far have commited terrorism in Iraq.

Against Coalition forces and Pro-West Iraqis, yes.

At 7/26/05 01:23 AM, darkmage8 wrote:

At 7/25/05 06:00 PM, Jimsween wrote: Proof? Why didn't we just pressure them before then?

By threatening to attack them if they didn't let us in to defend their oil market? The only way the U.S was getting into the Middle-East was through an invitation. The CIA knew that troops were ready to move into Kuwait, and Sadam went in because he was convinced the U.S wouldn't interfere after the State Department kept telling him they had no obligations to defend Kuwait. Now that there's an official crisis at hand, the Bush Administration at the time conjures up satellite imagery they claimed prooved that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were clustering at the Saudi Border. The Saudis give in to the claim and ask for aid.

First of all, none of that was proof.

Second, Iraq had a war going on for quite some time, why couldn't we have made something up then?

How do we benefit? Please, enlighten me. And at that, the troops would only be there for the duration of the war. Anything else is not under the same pretense.

The United States benefited by stimulating their arms industry through selling Saddam hussein the weapons he was attacking Kuwait with, and then lied to Saudi Arabia about the heavily exhaggerated impending attack so they could finally get an invitation to establish a military presence and create American Influence in the Middle East, which it definitely did. We'd be trying to do it with Iran as our insider for years. Even though the Shah of Iran was very cooperative with the United States, him being overthrown by anti-west preacher Ayatohla Kohmeini was an obvious sign that people in the middle-east had to *want* the United States to be there in first place.

Arms industry? I'm interested, how many people do you think are employed by our arms industry? And at that, you've only managed to turn it into an even bigger conspiracy with no proof to back your claims up.

I refer to the Gulf War because it goes hand in hand with many reasons why we are hated so much in the Middle-East. I'm not pointing the finger at Iraq for terrorist acts in the United States. I'm saying that the Gulf War, as one example, went way over-kill and needlessly decimated Iraq and kept it in ruins long after the Iraqis could no longer fight. With the heavy death tolls, raw sewage leaking out onto the streets, no medicine, and no power supply, Iraq became a beacon for people to look and migrate to who hated the West.

No terrorist group has cited the gulf war for the reason of thier hatred. Nor has any terrorist of Iraqi nationality attacked us. That kind of throws your whole theory out the roof doesn't it.

You cite sanctions and bombings as examples of the US going overboard. What else is there to do? Invade Iraq? Yeah, that worked well.

Dropping 88,500 tons of bombs on everything that looks like a military structure in the span of a month will do that to a small country, especially before you even walk across the boarder. The cruise missles did all the damage needed to take Kuwait and Southern Iraq in the span of 24 hours. Keeping the sanctions on them after the fact, and for so long, flirts with genocide.

Millions upon millions of bombs were dropped on Germany and it still managed to hold out for another year.

The very same, can be said about Japan.

88 thousand tons is nothing.

But I'm sure you consulted a military expert before coming to the conclusion that we destroyed Iraq with our bombs.

Against Coalition forces and Pro-West Iraqis, yes.

And thus my point is proven.

At 7/26/05 03:50 AM, Jimsween wrote: First of all, none of that was proof.

Second, Iraq had a war going on for quite some time, why couldn't we have made something up then?

First, the said events were all facts of the U.S build-up and involvement in the middle-east. They were spawned out of gaining influence there and intimidating Saudi Arabia for an invitation. Secondly, why would you think that the United States would want to help or deter any of Iraq's conflicts in the first place? Ever since Iraq nationalized their oil market with a raised price for the U.S coincidentally started calling him a terrorist leader.

Arms industry? I'm interested, how many people do you think are employed by our arms industry? And at that, you've only managed to turn it into an even bigger conspiracy with no proof to back your claims up.

I beg to differ. The fact that the United States was actively fighting a war with someone they branded a threat to peace and justice in the world while selling him the chemical and biological weapons he used to carry those acts out *with* the knowledge of his character made the United States, once again, a significant factor in influencing the level of destruction that conflict reached before intervention.

Are you saying there is no proof that the United States sold Sadam Huessein their chemical and biological weapons? There were at least 25 countries that were doing this and condemming the war at the same time, so this isn't some big conspiracy aimed at the United States; it's fact.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0304p.asp

No terrorist group has cited the gulf war for the reason of thier hatred. Nor has any terrorist of Iraqi nationality attacked us. That kind of throws your whole theory out the roof doesn't it.

Right. Because Iraq didn't become a newborn-cesspool for Radical Islam as a result. One doesn't have to be a terrorist leader or crash planes into buildings to help Radical Islam grow. There are plenty of Iraqis who hate the United States to this day for the very reason of the Gulf War and support and praise the Radical Islamic Ideology for it's twisted-Jihad on the West.

You cite sanctions and bombings as examples of the US going overboard. What else is there to do? Invade Iraq? Yeah, that worked well.

Oh I don't know, how about not keeping econmoic sanctions implemented on a defenseless country severay YEARS after it's lost the ability to fight. You know, the ones that don't even effect the military hierarchy and only kill off civilians?

The bombings wouldn't have been so bad had their post-war effects not cluster-fucked so significantly with the damage done by the economic sanctions. Not only did those two to combine to form a death-field around Iraq, but the theme of the war was "surgical bombing" when only about 8% of those bombs were of the smart kind.

http://www.globalpol..anction/indexone.htm

Millions upon millions of bombs were dropped on Germany and it still managed to hold out for another year.: 88 thousand tons is nothing.

Considering Germany needed half the civilized world to unify in hopes of even stepping foot on Europe, I'd say Axis members were in a tad different category than ragtag Iraq.

But I'm sure you consulted a military expert before coming to the conclusion that we destroyed Iraq with our bombs.

Well lets just take a look at this, shall we?
"Thus the roughly same number of smart bombs were dropped during the 1991 (17,000) and 2003 (18,467) wars. The big difference was the number of unguided ("dumb") bombs used. In 1991 210,000 dumb bombs were dropped versus only 9,251 in 2003. "

So roughly 227,000 bombs were dropped during arial sorties during the 90s. A mere 17,000 used were of the "smart" brand. Doing a little basic math:

17,000 / 227,000 = ~0.075

So about 8% out of two-hundred and twenty thousand bombs were "smart" througout the entire surgical war. For crying out loud, it doesn't take a military expert to say we might have missed a "few times" when we shot at Baghdad.

http://strategypage...rticles/20030522.asp

And thus my point is proven.

Yes, Iraq has plenty of reasons to attack coalition forces and send a message that we're not wanted nor welcome there for "certain" reasons. I wonder why.

At 7/23/05 01:24 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: Wanna stop terrorism? Then stop begin terrorists.

I can't help noticing that after three major "terrorist" attacks in western countries we've still learned squat. The first thing the governments decide is to "fight terrorism even more". News flash: you can't destroy terrorism. How about you start and think about why these people want to blow us up so bad? It's not "because they hate our freedom". It's because we're making a hobby out of pissing these people off. On a certain day in september in 2001 a few guys thought they'd show the world they wouldn't take it anymore. How did the western world react? By invading two countries. That's one hell of a way to make friends. Hardly surprising more attacks followed.

you don't know what you're talking about.

I also find it very funny that when the US air force bombs the houses of Iraqi and Afghan people and killing countless civillians they call it "collateral damage" but when a few Arab guys blow up a bunch of American, Spanish or British people it's terrorism and the whole world is shocked. Never mind people are being blown apart by our troops every day. They don't matter. They're just not white enough.

We don't want that to happen moron, that's just war, that the terrorists started.

9/11 killed about 3000 people. 191 died in the Attacks on Madrid and 37 in London. At the moment I'm writing this the Iraqi civillian body counter is at 22880. Do your maths. Why is everone screaming about how evil these terrorists are when we are the ones doing the lion share of all the killing?

how dare we kill people who kill us...it's fair, so it's not right.

Also, why exactly are the al quaida attacks terrorist attacks and the Iraqi and Afghan invasions aren't? When you strike at someone, he strikes back. That's what these people are doing. Therefore, they have no right to be treated the way they are being treated in Guantanamo Bay. They deserve the same treatment as any other soldier. And you know what? We attacked them. Therefore, they have the right to attack us back. We kill their citizens, they kill ours.

dude, you are a moron...why aren't blowing the hell out of their people. We are destroying terrorists and their supporters. People have been released from Gitmo, the people who are staying there now are suspected terrorists. If info is brought up that would clear their name they will, and have, been set free. We attacked them? 9/11 was their first blow to us...accutally if you want to get techinical...they bombed a embassy of ours.

How to stop this "terrorism"? Stop giving these poeple more and more reasons to hate us. Don't occupy their lands. Don't give weapons to Israel. Don't abuse those imprisoned, and for fuck's sake, share your wealth.

TERRORISTS HATE OUR WAY OF LIFE! They don't care if we go to war with them. Yeah they are pissed off that we took their land, you know why? BECAUSE THAT STOPS THEM FROM KILLING US! don't give weapons to Isreal? THEY'RE OUR FREAKING ALLIES! It has been proven that there hasn't been any tortures at gitmo....share you wealth? Where the hell does that come in?

At 7/27/05 06:08 PM, darkmage8 wrote: First, the said events were all facts of the U.S build-up and involvement in the middle-east. They were spawned out of gaining influence there and intimidating Saudi Arabia for an invitation. Secondly, why would you think that the United States would want to help or deter any of Iraq's conflicts in the first place? Ever since Iraq nationalized their oil market with a raised price for the U.S coincidentally started calling him a terrorist leader.

Nice job not answering my question at all. I guess you feel content just making crap up instead.

I beg to differ. The fact that the United States was actively fighting a war with someone they branded a threat to peace and justice in the world while selling him the chemical and biological weapons he used to carry those acts out *with* the knowledge of his character made the United States, once again, a significant factor in influencing the level of destruction that conflict reached before intervention.

Again, your response had nothing to do with what I wrote.

Are you saying there is no proof that the United States sold Sadam Huessein their chemical and biological weapons? There were at least 25 countries that were doing this and condemming the war at the same time, so this isn't some big conspiracy aimed at the United States; it's fact.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0304p.asp

Not a single one of those offers proof. Just conjecture. Perhaps you didn't read them?

Right. Because Iraq didn't become a newborn-cesspool for Radical Islam as a result. One doesn't have to be a terrorist leader or crash planes into buildings to help Radical Islam grow. There are plenty of Iraqis who hate the United States to this day for the very reason of the Gulf War and support and praise the Radical Islamic Ideology for it's twisted-Jihad on the West.

Uhhuh, Iraq became a cesspool for Radical Islam. Yet another thing you just decided to make up on the spot. Or maybe I was just thrown off by the fact that no terrorists were Iraqi, nor were any prominent extremists for that matter.

Maybe they used secret mind control powers developed by ARPA and sold to them to generate more Islamic extremism. You know, since theres really no money trail either.

Oh I don't know, how about not keeping econmoic sanctions implemented on a defenseless country severay YEARS after it's lost the ability to fight. You know, the ones that don't even effect the military hierarchy and only kill off civilians?

Because once the army is gone that means it's gone forever. It's not as if oil is valuable or anything.

Considering Germany needed half the civilized world to unify in hopes of even stepping foot on Europe, I'd say Axis members were in a tad different category than ragtag Iraq.

You would say that. Well I guess I'm not suprised, it's alot easier to call the NAZIs superhuman than admit you cited a bomb statistic without knowing a thing about bombs.

Well lets just take a look at this, shall we?

You know, I read that, thinking it would somehow offer evidence to prove you correct. But it didn't. Strange, it's almost as if you did the exact same thing you did before, except this time compared it to the second Iraq invasion. I'm curious, how does that exactly prove we destroyed Iraq?

Yes, Iraq has plenty of reasons to attack coalition forces and send a message that we're not wanted nor welcome there for "certain" reasons. I wonder why.

Wow, you have to have add or something. That doesn't at all address my point. In fact almost every reply in your last post was not at all related to my post.

I guess I should have expected that from someone who can't tell the difference between the first Iraq war and the second.

Here I got the solutions, destroy all knowledge of how to build a gun, a bomb, and bullets. This being for the entire world. It will work, trust me.

Jeezus Jim, you're starting to sound like the finger-in-the-ears type. Are you actually suggesting that the Gulf war has absolutely no influence whatsoever on what's going on in Iraq now? So far I've yet to find fault with any of the counter arguments being throw at you but you seem to be dismissing them out of hand.

Do you think the US government is blameless?
That they have no blood on their hands at all?
That they were just minding there business and all of a sudeen woke up one day to find themselves the target of extremist terrorist groups?

I sure as hell hope not. Blinders that thick belong on race horses, not people.

At 7/28/05 02:15 AM, capn_g wrote: Jeezus Jim, you're starting to sound like the finger-in-the-ears type. Are you actually suggesting that the Gulf war has absolutely no influence whatsoever on what's going on in Iraq now? So far I've yet to find fault with any of the counter arguments being throw at you but you seem to be dismissing them out of hand.

I never said that at all. I'm saying it has nothing to do with the terrorism against the west and Al Quaeda.

At 7/28/05 02:20 AM, Jimsween wrote:
I never said that at all. I'm saying it has nothing to do with the terrorism against the west and Al Quaeda.

You sure? I mean, ostensibly you're right but wasn't there some...something... spewed forth from the white house press pool about Al Quaeda recieving funding and or harbouring from Saddam back in the day as part of the whole "make it seem like it connects to 9/11 even though it doesn't" deal?

At 7/28/05 02:24 AM, capn_g wrote: You sure? I mean, ostensibly you're right but wasn't there some...something... spewed forth from the white house press pool about Al Quaeda recieving funding and or harbouring from Saddam back in the day as part of the whole "make it seem like it connects to 9/11 even though it doesn't" deal?

There was some guy with a bin in his name who lived in Iraq. Other than that no.

At 7/27/05 06:56 PM, Jimsween wrote: Nice job not answering my question at all. I guess you feel content just making crap up instead.

Well I must be psychic then. Because all the crap I just made up concerning U.S involvment with Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia building up to the Gulf War is basic history. If you can find anything that stringently contradicts the basic history I've written about the U.S involvement with Iraq before the war, I'd very much like to see it.

Not a single one of those offers proof. Just conjecture. Perhaps you didn't read them?

I thought it pretty obvious by the tone of the articles that it was common knowledge the united States had willingly armed Saddam. If I honestly have to find an article that spells out how we armed Iraq, then this should be sufficient. If you can't trust sources that range from the Washington Post, to ABC Nightline, to Times, you're on your own to live in the dark. I especially like this one:

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]

http://www.iranchamb..cles/arming_iraq.php

Uhhuh, Iraq became a cesspool for Radical Islam. Yet another thing you just decided to make up on the spot.

Look, Jim. Bombing the shit out an entire nation whose religion already considers Westerners infedels and lost followers of Satan is one thing. Keeping medicine, food, and clean water from them for six years before even implementing the damn Oil for Food program is another. Throw in the Radical Islam that's already *been* in Iraq though the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites, who are already pissed off at eachother for not *agreeing* on who the successor of Islam is, and you can honestly NOT tell me that Radical Islam in Iraq was uneffected by western bombing of their country in the Gulf War.

You would say that. Well I guess I'm not suprised, it's alot easier to call the NAZIs superhuman than admit you cited a bomb statistic without knowing a thing about bombs.

I really don't even know how to respond to that. It would seem you think the combined strength and technology of the Axis that rivaled much of the Western world in it's era was on par with the non-existant strength and power Iraq posed against the United States in the 90s. A group of rag-tag Iraqi soldiers in clunker Soviet tanks as opposed to running into a flank of highly-trained S.S troopers jacked up on stims and meth. Yeah, the nazis posed the same threat as the Iraqis.