Originally posted by CHRles
Forget it pkc, some people can't take the hint, and dont realize that Sadam was the true "occupier" of Iraq. Now there may instability in the region, but the number of people killed during Sadam's illegitimate regin was far bigger.
Furthermore, the country is now a democracy run by and large by the people of iraq, not by America.
I suggest you ignore the Kryptonian. All he does is never admit he's wrong, ask you for proof when its unnnecessary, and dictate to you what your writing style should.
Some libertarian :haha:
um, most of that ^^ is quite incorrect. especially the part about democracy. the state needs to function for it to be a democracy.
CHRles
France's first attempt at democracy involved a lot of chaos too, and didnt last for too long. It was nontheless a democracy.
Krypton
quote:
Originally posted by CHRles I suggest you ignore the Kryptonian. All he does is never admit he's wrong, ask you for proof when its unnnecessary, and dictate to you what your writing style should.
What an IRONY...:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
hardcore trancer
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
for god's sake, explain to me how that is a "key" ing question?
edit: i know, let's give the insurgents a free ride coz it was the americans that destabled the country. let's blame everything on america, you know, coz they're the ones blowing up civilians in markets etc.
nobody in the world is evil, coz america is evil!
May I ask who is to blame here then? I know you are saying that these groups have been in war for many years but it was Saddam who had them under control.Now that you have a lawless Iraq with no security,it is like a free brawl for these groups to go at it.
Iam sking you this,if the Americans didnt have invaded Iraq would we be having these problems today?
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by hardcore trancer
if the Americans didnt have invaded Iraq would we be having these problems today?
of course not. but i take exception to various posters that seem to ignore those that are actually carrying out the murders, as if they are somehow less to blame than the US, which is clearly ridiculous.
those that deliberately bomb civilians do not deserve to hide behind the US' wrongs that began in 2003, and neither should those here excuse them for it.
DJ Shibby
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
of course not. but i take exception to various posters that seem to ignore those that are actually carrying out the murders, as if they are somehow less to blame than the US, which is clearly ridiculous.
those that deliberately bomb civilians do not deserve to hide behind the US' wrongs that began in 2003, and neither should those here excuse them for it.
Absolutely.
We are murderers, and so are they. All the sugar-coated bull explanations in the world for why things allegedly had to go down the way they did doesn't excuse any party.
It's just a mess, but this is not news. All I get out of this whole situation is the realization that my government has no idea what the it's doing.
Fir3start3r
quote:
Originally posted by hardcore trancer
May I ask who is to blame here then? I know you are saying that these groups have been in war for many years but it was Saddam who had them under control.Now that you have a lawless Iraq with no security,it is like a free brawl for these groups to go at it.
So mass murder under Saddam was ok because it was, "Under control"? :conf:
The only thing that's changed are the guards...
Krypton
quote:
Originally posted by Fir3start3r
So mass murder under Saddam was ok because it was, "Under control"? :conf:
The only thing that's changed are the guards...
You might want to do a little investigating...
----------------------------------------------
{{{Donald Rumsfeld meets Saddam Hussein on 19 December - 20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984, the day the UN reported that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name."}}}http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82
US Corporations named in an Iraqi UN Report as providing logistical support Iraqi WMD program...
U.S. corporations involved...
A - nuclear K - chemical B - biological R - rockets (missiles)
1) Honeywell (R,K)
2) Spektra Physics (K)
3) Semetex (R)
4) TI Coating (A,K)
5) UNISYS (A,K)
6) Sperry Corp. (R,K)
7) Tektronix (R,A)
8) Rockwell )(K)
9) Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)
10) Finnigan-MAT-US (A)
11) Hewlett Packard (A.R,K)
12) Dupont (A)
13) Eastman Kodak (R)
14) American Type Culture Collection (B)
15) Alcolac International (C)
16) Consarc (A)
17) Carl Zeis -U.Ss (K)
18) Cerberus (LTD) (A)
19) Electronic Associates (R)
20) International Computer Systems
21) Bechtel (K)
22) EZ Logic Data Systems,Inc. (R)
23) Canberra Industries Inc. (A)
24) Axel Electronics Inc. (A)
Originally posted by Fir3start3r
So mass murder under Saddam was ok because it was, "Under control"? :conf:
The only thing that's changed are the guards...
A Mass murderer who at least had control over his country and would never have allowed for such disaster that we have today.You may call whats happening today as "Democracy" but me and many others see this as a major disaster with no ending on sight.
CHRles
First of all, yes, the American government supplied Sadam with things it shouldn't have back in the 80s.
Second, I think it sucks that people in Iraq are dying, and America's presence in Iraq leaves a lot to be desired, to put it lightly.
The choas that ensues Iraq presently has to do with different groups vying for power. None of them want to be left out, yet for some reason they seem to think suicide bombings are the answer. That is not what the American military is advocating or preaching.
The US is in a catch 22, which it largely brought on itself. It can leave and let some other dictator rise to power in Iraq, or it can stay and continue to see parts of Iraq tumble to the ground in the hopes of someday (soon?) seeing a somewhat stable country unfold.
I don't apologize for America wanting to take out Sadam, for whatever political interests it might have done so. I will apologize though for whats happened as a result of Sadam being taken out of the picture.
Magnetonium
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
and who do we think is killing the most iraqis currently? hint: its not the americans.
You're disregarding the fact that the reason so many civilians have died were directly from US invasion. Just because most of them died by other people [not American forces], American occupation forces deliberately weakened the country as to allow countless foreign and domestic terrorists and radicals to blow the country to bits. So obviously US occupation and its way of dealing with things is at fault. Even Saddam didnt murder this many people in his last few years before he was taken down. The violence caused is by mismanagement of the country, mainly helped by American political failures in Iraq. Americans came in, weakened the borders, the system, put incompetent puppets in power, and then blames foreign countries for its failed tactics ... Iraqis hate Americans. Because Americans failed to win the support of Iraqi hearts and minds. And no wonder why some choose violence. US troops have protected themselves very well, so most of violence is directed against pro-American Iraqis or Iraqis who co-operate with occupation forces. These people are weak, unprotected, not properly backed. They die because of American occupation.
Krypton
quote:
Originally posted by CHRles
First of all, yes, the American government supplied Sadam with things it shouldn't have back in the 80s.
Second, I think it sucks that people in Iraq are dying, and America's presence in Iraq leaves a lot to be desired, to put it lightly.
The choas that ensues Iraq presently has to do with different groups vying for power. None of them want to be left out, yet for some reason they seem to think suicide bombings are the answer. That is not what the American military is advocating or preaching.
The US is in a catch 22, which it largely brought on itself. It can leave and let some other dictator rise to power in Iraq, or it can stay and continue to see parts of Iraq tumble to the ground in the hopes of someday (soon?) seeing a somewhat stable country unfold.
I don't apologize for America wanting to take out Sadam, for whatever political interests it might have done so. I will apologize though for whats happened as a result of Sadam being taken out of the picture.
According to what you just said here, the US has no business in the continuation of the occupation. Unfortunately, a $600 million dollar embassy is being built inside the Green Zone. The empire will not be leaving.
