Attack Saddam not Iraq

[Kintaro]

Some more propaganda from the x11.rocks.it

freely distribute.

[Stryker]

I don't recall any incidents where we have gone in and started shooting at civilians. Everyone that we have killed (intentionally at least, i hear there was an accident) died willingly while opposing the U.S.

[Kintaro]

Oh yeah, sending thousands of missiles and bombs into the city, naa thats not going to kill anyone.

DO THE AMERICANS USE THERE HEADS (the prowar ones anyway)

[Calum]

the answer is a simple word beginning with 'n' and containing an 'o'.

starting a war kills innocents. that is something that even the arse licking moron leading the 'united' kingdom admits. starting a war in a country that has no long range weapons and who is a long way away from your country ensures that many of their civilians will die, but none of yours will.

simple.

[Pantso]

If you Americans haven't seen the Iraqis killed so far, then I should assume that your information is being filtered by the US government (surprise, surprise!).

Thankfully I have satellite access to Al Jaseera and have seen with my own eyes dismembered kids, women and elder men. I've also seen the American POWs, including two Apache USAF pilots and a shot-down Apache helicopter!!!

Talk about a "walk" to Baghdad! ! And you haven't seen the worst yet! Wait till the so-called coallition troops reach Baghdad, where all of Saddam's forces are, including suicide bombers!   :eek:

[cahult]

We are spoonfed with bad american TV series and movies showing us special attack forces going in and taking out specific targets. How come they (US and ENGLAND(!) not UK) aren

[Stryker]

There are notices that are sent out to warn the citizens (which would also seem to warn the actual targets, eh?). Civilians may get hurt, i'm not denying that. But they know full well that the city is being bombed, they don't have to just stand there while bombs hit the building next door. I know it's not easy on them, but after this is done it should be a hell of a lot better for them than it was when saddam was around.

Well, that's half of my stuborn opinion... I got to go to school though. later.

[Calum]

so if your entire country gets invaded and hostile troops with automatic weapons sweep from one side to the other while their air force continually bombs the cities day and night, then this is acceptable so long as they drop leaflets beforehand telling you they're going to do it is it? i can see that going down well turned the other way round. so you're saying that if whoever was responsible for those planes/buildings attacks had dropped a lot of leaflets on the 10th of september 2001, saying that they were going to do that, then it would have been fine and none of the americans would have complained? somehow i don't see it.

these leaflets are simply a way for the americans to salve their own consciences without having to face the harsh cruelness of their own actions.

edit: however i kind of agree with some of the sentiment behind the US' actions, even though i disagree with their actions and the patronising way they have gone about this whole affair.

[ March 25, 2003: Message edited by: Calum: crusader for justice & peace ]

[KernelPanic]

quote:Originally posted by Panos:
If you Americans haven't seen the Iraqis killed so far, then I should assume that your information is being filtered by the US government (surprise, surprise!).

Thankfully I have satellite access to Al Jaseera and have seen with my own eyes dismembered kids, women and elder men. I've also seen the American POWs, including two Apache USAF pilots and a shot-down Apache helicopter!!!

Talk about a "walk" to Baghdad! ! And you haven't seen the worst yet! Wait till the so-called coallition troops reach Baghdad, where all of Saddam's forces are, including suicide bombers!    :eek:  

Indeed, its a 'so-called coalition'. The other day some senior english military guy was talking about Kk-US forces and then corrected himself and said 'i mean coalition'. This little stumble is bang on the nose.
Only the US UK and Aussies are fighting in this war, and spain has sent wait for it....
a hospital ship.
What a coalition, the rest of the 30ish nations will have been convinced by what American 'aid' they have been offered.

I am not sure what judgement to make of the whole situation though, I guess we will have to see what post-war iraq is like and whether it was worth the civilian and infrastructural losses.

I do wish england wasnt taking part for a start, the issue of whether war is justifiable/legal has been shady and frankly we can't afford it. Blair makes no sense, you dont reduce nation debt by starting a damn war! It hasnt even made the economy pick up over here.

Anyway, rambling...

[TheQuirk]

I'm not going to mention me opinion here, but I'm going to point out that nothing is being filtered.

 

quote:
Iraq has reported 78 civilian deaths since Monday as a result of bombing raids. Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saaef al Sahaf 16 people were killed late Monday evening and early Tuesday morning in the coalition bombing of Baghdad. CNN cannot independently verify Iraq's figures.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/war.tracker/index.html

Right there under the coalition casulaties.

Panos: Can you even understand what they say on that station (just wondering--my friend's dad is from Iraq and watches it--and yes, he does support the war in Iraq, as does his Iraqi famiy which still lives there).

[Pantso]

quote:Originally posted by TheQuirk:
I'm not going to mention me opinion here, but I'm going to point out that nothing is being filtered.

 

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/war.tracker/index.html

Right there under the coalition casulaties.

Panos: Can you even understand what they say on that station (just wondering--my friend's dad is from Iraq and watches it--and yes, he does support the war in Iraq, as does his Iraqi famiy which still lives there).

Of course I can't (    ), but I have an arab friend (from Lebanon) who certainly can.     The Greek television also shows extensive scenes from Al Jazeera, while an Arab translates what the reporters are saying. The television here also shows extensive reports from CNN, which I also watch pretty often. Unfortunately, the propaganda war is going on from both sides as is usually the case in a modern war.

The point here is not Saddam. Saddam has been in power since 1969. It's also an undeniable fact that every single chemical weapon or biological agent he possesed, or may still possess, have been sold to him by the Americans and other countries. Some other facts include the Kurds genoside in Northern Iraq in the 1980's by chemical weapons as well as the slaughter of many Iranians during that time as well. Strangely, Iraq was one of US's best alies back then along with the Mudjahedin in Afghanistan (you know the Talibans).   :eek:  

As you can see, these simple examples would be enough to show you that the US shift their foreign policy according to their interest, or better yet according to what suits the war industry in the US.

I can't also say that this is only a war about oil. It's a war about CONTROL! Do you realize that if the US set up another protectorate in Iraq, they will be able to control the whole Middle East? However, it is a war about oil as well since Iraq IS the richest country in oil reserves in the world and since the US oil reserves will finally end in about 25 years. As you can see there is no option there.

What's really sickening though about the US fictitious reasons on why they ought to war is that Hussein is a dictator in his country! If most of you Americans only knew about the situation in the Middle East, then the least you would do upon hearing such reasons would have been to burst out laughing! The reason? Simply that if you look at other Arab countries where their citizens do not even know the meaning of the word "elections" or where women have to go out with clothes covering their whole bodies, you would see that they are living in the Middle Ages!

I could go on and on and on but I won't, since this is not the appropriate forums for such talk or discussion. Keep in mind the following picture though: You are a father and your child suffers from leuchemia. The doctors are certain that your kid will die if he/she does not receive chemotherapy. you go on with chemo but after a few weeks of treatment the doctors tell you that they have run out of medication. So you just sit there and wait for your child to die. That my friends is the everyday situation in Iraq since '91, a country with one of the highest death rates among children around the world.

You see, civilians don't have a choice! They have to stand somewhere between the "humane" bombardments of Mr. Bush and the lunacy of a dictator (Saddam Husein) and just wait for their ending to come!

That's all. Sit down and think...

[Stryker]

quote:Originally posted by Panos:

You see, civilians don't have a choice! They have to stand somewhere between the "humane" bombardments of Mr. Bush and the lunacy of a dictator (Saddam Husein) and just wait for their ending to come!

That's right, they don't have a choice. They have no say in how they are governed. In my history class we are going over natural laws and natural rights and when they were discovered and all that crap. You just reminded me of this. Saddam is a selfish prick who'll sacrifice his country if it gives him an advantage. He failed as a leader, and the people have the right to get a new government. But Saddam, as we all know, would kill anyone who opposes him in leading his country. That's why we are in Iraq. To give them the choice of how they are governed. After this war if they say, "We liked it the way it was, lets get a new dictator just like Saddam" then I'd back down foolishly and admit my mistake. But I doubt highly that's what will happen.

People have said that this war is just about oil. Or that oil is a big part in this war. I really don't believe it has anything to do with it. But even if it did... so what? (That's my opinion and easily argued with, you don't need to bother though... I've heard them all)

But until we get to hear from the people of Iraq, in full (not the few 100 people that got to say their opinion), we won't know whether or not this war is just.

All of what I quoted is true except that last part. America would lose all of their power and popularity in the world if there was an end to the Iraqis. It's foolish to think that's what we would do.

[ March 25, 2003: Message edited by: Stryker ]

[billy_gates]

quote:Originally posted by Stryker:


That's right, they don't have a choice. They have no say in how they are governed. In my history class we are going over natural laws and natural rights and when they were discovered and all that crap. You just reminded me of this. Saddam is a selfish prick who'll sacrifice his country if it gives him an advantage. He failed as a leader, and the people have the right to get a new government. But Saddam, as we all know, would kill anyone who opposes him in leading his country. That's why we are in Iraq. To give them the choice of how they are governed. After this war if they say, "We liked it the way it was, lets get a new dictator just like Saddam" then I'd back down foolishly and admit my mistake. But I doubt highly that's what will happen.

People have said that this war is just about oil. Or that oil is a big part in this war. I really don't believe it has anything to do with it. But even if it did... so what? (That's my opinion and easily argued with, you don't need to bother though... I've heard them all)

But until we get to hear from the people of Iraq, in full (not the few 100 people that got to say their opinion), we won't know whether or not this war is just.

All of what I quoted is true except that last part. America would lose all of their power and popularity in the world if there was an end to the Iraqis. It's foolish to think that's what we would do.

[ March 25, 2003: Message edited by: Stryker ]

Oh, cmon, of course its all about oil, and thats why we need to go there.  This war needs to happen so we can get more oil.  Sure Sadam and his evil empire are a great way to get people to support the war, but it is all about oil and I'm damn proud it is.  We need to fight for oil cus its too damn expensive.  If only the other countries would help, maybe we would sell it to them cheaper and they could drop their oil prices too, but they don't seem to care as much.  So you anti war people, keep paying 2.50 a gallon, while we get it back to the good old price of, hopefully under a dollar.

Don't say we aren't dependant on oil either. everything, during the manufacturing process, or by being used, used fossil fuels.  From our cars burning gas, to our petrolium based plastics, to our fire melted metal, to our coal burning electricity.  Everything requires oil.

[JH]

quote:Originally posted by Stryker:
But they know full well that the city is being bombed, they don't have to just stand there while bombs hit the building next door. I know it's not easy on them, but after this is done it should be a hell of a lot better for them than it was when saddam was around.

OK. But won't be surprised then if someone desides that's a hell better for you to die than having Bush around. At least you don't have to stand there while your city is bombed to dust.

[ March 26, 2003: Message edited by: JH ]

[Calum]

quote:Originally posted by Stryker:


That's right, they don't have a choice. They have no say in how they are governed. In my history class we are going over natural laws and natural rights and when they were discovered and all that crap. You just reminded me of this. Saddam is a selfish prick who'll sacrifice his country if it gives him an advantage. He failed as a leader, and the people have the right to get a new government. But Saddam, as we all know, would kill anyone who opposes him in leading his country. That's why we are in Iraq. To give them the choice of how they are governed. After this war if they say, "We liked it the way it was, lets get a new dictator just like Saddam" then I'd back down foolishly and admit my mistake. But I doubt highly that's what will happen.

i agree with you here. i think this is the approach that the US says it takes, and i have no doubt that many of the US citizens believe this is why the US are in iraq, but i cannot believe that this is the reason the bush administration went to war with iraq. for one thing, they went in far too early. if they wanted to minimise civilian casualties, they would have got properly positioned before they mobilised fully. also, politically, they would have waited and got more support in the UN.

i agree with the official sentiment behind this war, but i do not believe that 'coalition' (do they call it that in the states? not sure if that would be good or bad for propaganda reasons) intelligence is motivated by altruistic concerns for the iraqi people. there's a lot of money and now lives been spent on this, and that does not happen unless the people spending the money feel they will get a return on their investment.