Al Fallujah

[rkef]

lol, ummm, wow. so lets see, a history of iraq, shall we?

Iraq invades Kuwait:

saddam invades kuwait, and strips the hospitals of their incubators; those are needed to keep newborn babies alive(the glass cribs). it is estimated that a full generation of kuwaiti children died in 20 minutes because of that. why did saddam steal the incubators? Iraq couldnt afford to buy the new ones.

Thankfully it wasn't true.

No one pretends Saddam wasn't a monster (except people like Michael Moore, I regret to say, who did himself and "his" cause a great disservice, when he portrayed Iraq as one gigantic picnic), but that is no excuse to give the USA carte blanche, when it comes to the way they behave. Your history is fanatically selective.

 

[Tr0n]

...like US Soldiers. Face it PXM, you were worried at the start of the Iraq campaign, because you thought your country was next.

You got Punk'd.

Well....I think Bush might be still planning to invade Iran. :|

 

[Eg.]

Thankfully it wasn't true.

No one pretends Saddam wasn't a monster (except people like Michael Moore, I regret to say, who did himself and "his" cause a great disservice, when he portrayed Iraq as one gigantic picnic), but that is no excuse to give the USA carte blanche, when it comes to the way they behave. Your history is fanatically selective.

Times, or any other news groups also have this opinion?

 

[Maxi]

Iraq invades Kuwait:

saddam invades kuwait, and strips the hospitals of their incubators; those are needed to keep newborn babies alive(the glass cribs). it is estimated that a full generation of kuwaiti children died in 20 minutes because of that. why did saddam steal the incubators? Iraq couldnt afford to buy the new ones.

Eh? WTF? Babies don't need incubators to live... they only keep children that are born early in them to mainly shield them from infections (they have a poor imune system, since it's not fully developed), and then, the incubators have a warmlight ontop of them to keep the babies warm, aswell...

 

[Eg.]

Eh? WTF? Babies don't need incubators to live... they only keep children that are born early in them to mainly shield them from infections (they have a poor imune system, since it's not fully developed), and then, the incubators have a warmlight ontop of them to keep the babies warm, aswell...

i mean the noraml cribs, newborns will die if they are cooled, but still BABIES, ADORABLE BABIES dead

 

[rkef]

Times, or any other news groups also have this opinion?

Actually, the Times (you meant NY Times?) did run an op-ed by John R MacArthur on the subject, where he tears it up pretty good. Basically, the only person who saw this actually happen is "a friend" of the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S. An unnamed friend. And the girl who originally told the story (again, the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S.), said she saw it happen, but only later admitted to having not. Viz. she lied.

Other than that, you'll find it mentioned on the CBC, CS Monitor, and FAIR websites.

What you won't find is anyone mentioning the story as true, and it was a BIG story at the time. There is zero evidence it happened, nothing. And guess where the burden of proof lies, when such stories are told? It's one for the memory hole.

You'd probably need Nexus-Lexus access to find out more.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Well....I think Bush might be still planning to invade Iran. :|

Also, the war in Iraq turning sour is the main reason why Iran is progressing so far with its nuke program: They are convinced the US would not want to repeat the mistake of invading another country so soon.

Looks like we're all 'punk'd'!

Thankfully it wasn't true.

No one pretends Saddam wasn't a monster (except people like Michael Moore, I regret to say, who did himself and "his" cause a great disservice, when he portrayed Iraq as one gigantic picnic), but that is no excuse to give the USA carte blanche, when it comes to the way they behave. Your history is fanatically selective.

Why is it that whenever I drunkenly write a long-ass post, someone always writes a more specific and concise improvement of it?

lol, ummm, wow. so lets see, a history of iraq, shall we?

A history lesson from Eg? This ought to be amusing.

Iraq invades Kuwait:

saddam invades kuwait, and strips the hospitals of their incubators; those are needed to keep newborn babies alive(the glass cribs). it is estimated that a full generation of kuwaiti children died in 20 minutes because of that. why did saddam steal the incubators? Iraq couldnt afford to buy the new ones.

As was pointed out, that is a lie.

during the retreat from kuwait, saddam sets fire to the oil fields,the staple of most middle eastern economies. these oil fires produces as much pollution as the world cars do, as some oil fires could not be contained until 2000.

Well, yes, he did do that. Back in the 80's.
So did we go to Iraq to prevent Saddam from maybe lighting the kuwaiti oilfields a second time?
That's not really a justification for war. It's an excuse.

in iraq saddam used sarin nerve gas, and mustard gas. Mustard gas does things to u, like buirn ur skin off

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWmustard.htm

http://www.cfrterrorism.org/weapons/mustard.html

"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein used mustard gas on Kurds in northern Iraq during 1987-88"
Meaning twenty years ago. I don't know the specifics, but wasn't that around the same time the US was supporting Iraq's military campaigns?
Apparently it's only worthy of retribution once the alliance is done.

now, also torturing occured in iraq at the same time, saddam let his two sons do whatever they wanted with THEIR OWN PRISONS. the most common punishment was to annally insert a catlle prod and let it go off. when removed, the burnt flesh came with it.

And, as was pointed out, no-one is debating that Saddam and his family were horrible people.
But was a poorly planned war that put both tens of thousands of american soldiers and hundeds of thousands of iraqi civilians at grave and unecessary risk really worth it?

ok, so now desert storm is now done, moving on

from the end of the war, the no fly zones have been set up, these are patrolled by american airplanes that make sure saddam cant gass any more people, or move any large infantry units around. they shot at daily by iraq missile sites, but no american were ever hit, because they dodged the missiles and promptly blew up the site.

Okay? Saddam shoots at his enemy. I'd expect that.
Again, this is back in around 1993, right? Can you describe anything he did after then?

the oil for foold scam worked like this.
marlket prices for a barrel of oil, are say 50 dollars. saddam would sell them at 45 dollars to french, german, and russian companies. saddam would get a kickback of 2.50 dollars, and the buyer woudl keep the other 2.50. this build up of kick backs (several million barrels a DAY) gave saddam credit, soon when the credit built up into the billions, he would have asked the un members cough france, germany, russia, cough to remove the sanctions against him.

So... Saddam tried to make a scam work? Back in the early 90's as well, right?
How does this make him a bigger threat than Al-Queda in 2002?

desert storm 2.

no big news there, the majority of the iraqi army gave up, or we killed them all, the die hards are killing innocents purposefully, america is made out to be the bad guy.

The people fighting now are not the all iraqi army members. Only a few of them. The "die hards" are normal civilians who took up arms, and turned to Al-queda for support against an illegal invasion that is killing their people.
Basically, the war in Iraq has created its own enemy. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

yes, we are sobs, arent we?

No-one was saying that, but they way you present it, it sure looks that way.
What you're describing is not a pre-emptive strike. It's a post-emptive one. All the things you describe, save one, are either incorrect or have taken place decades ago.

So, the war in Iraq, and the hundreds of thousands of casualties, the weakening of the US on the international scale and the huge boost in Al-queda enlistment that came with it, those are all the result of putting Saddam Hussien on trial for things he did before 1993, and that the US disregarded in 1980?
In the end it all boils down to the most costly revenge scheme in history, in terms of both lives and dollars?

And therefore it's okay?

Edit:

i mean the noraml cribs, newborns will die if they are cooled, but still BABIES, ADORABLE BABIES dead

Call me a heartless bastard, but that made me laugh a bit.

Eg: Saddam killed babies in 1980! So we needed to start a war right now!

Rkef: But he didn't kill any babies. That was a lie. Here is proof that he didn't. It never happened.

Eg: BUT THE BABIES! ADORABLE BABIES!

It's just funny how much he's bought into it.

 

[Eg.]

ok...

Al ot nurses in kuwaiti hospitals have said that the incubators were stolen, not just 'unnmaed" people

the oild fires in the first gulf war can eality be googled

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...War+oil+fires&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&sa=N

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...War+oil+fires&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&sa=N

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...War+oil+fires&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&sa=N
so after signing a cease fire (the end of hostilities) he had his troops fire on american planes up to the second gulf war, up to 2002.

the oil for food scam worrked up to the last minute, thats like 1 decade so it was building up huge sums of cash, and that would have been leveage for teh removal of sanctions


now, most of th eterrorists in iraq are.... iranian and suadi, WHat????

and if they stop blowing themsleves up and concentrated on making a govenment in iraq work, maybe there would be none dead, maybe just maybe, the iraqi people will have a nice, democratic govenment that doesnt kill town loads of villages, hmmm. if only the terrorists stopped, all the accidental deaths form crossfire would also stop, beacuse thered be no reason to shoot anything

now there have not been hundreds of thousands dead, the Un total is estimated a 14k to 200k, that pretty much a big guess, most nation and news groups put well below th 50k mark,

the weaking of the US, my ass. our military still has the best equipment, we still have th biggest military budget, all our bases are still there, and we could still take anything else over, or throw our political weight into any decsision

Its been proven it never happened, just as many sources say it didnit happen, there are as many that say they have

 

[rkef]

Al ot nurses in kuwaiti hospitals have said that the incubators were stolen, not just 'unnmaed" people

So, now it's you telling stories? Where did you get this information? I feel like I'm really wasting my time with you. A nurse is a noun, but it's not a name, hence you've proven my point.

The Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter was supposedly the "nurse" who witnessed the events. Another lie.

 

[Eg.]

i meant to say a lot of nurses

 

[rkef]

i meant to say a lot of nurses

I kinda figured that out. So what? Name one, or show me their statements.

p.s. My last post in this nonsense forum, but I'll be glad to check back on your progress, in producing some evidence for your claims.

 

[Eg.]

lol, I ve been watching you mister freeman, ahh tha brings back the memories, too much for tonight, check tommorrow

 

[CptStern]

Eg know when to quit, politics are not your forte

 

[Eg.]

oh ill be back tommorrow, u just wait.

 

[PXM5000]

where did iraq gets its ability to produce mustard gas, where did it get its fighter planes and tanks, well you gave it to them so they attack us and weaken us, saddam was like frankestines monster, you produced him but things got out of hand.
And no you clame to be the good guys saving the world from the monster, even if bushes reason for war really was the liberation of iraq(which it wasnt) your just cleaning your own mess.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I'd respond to Eg, but I can hardly understand a damn thing he's saying.

I managed to glean this though:
"The main problem with the war is that the people of Iraq didn't just bend over and surrender. Therefore all the casualties are not the US's fault."

No, it was up to the US to come up with a plan that would avoid casualties. They were the attackers.
The idea that, under any circumstance, there would be no resistance was a tremendous mistake from the start, and arguably what has caused so many casualties, with the soldiers understaffed and ill-equipped.

You can't seriously be proposing that, after invading a country, all the bad that subsequently occured is the invaded people's fault.

"the weaking of the US, my ass. our military still has the best equipment, we still have th biggest military budget, all our bases are still there, and we could still take anything else over, or throw our political weight into any decsision"

First, you have confused the process of being weakened with weakness itself. Is the US still strong? Undoubtedly.
Is it as strong as it was before? Hell no.

Your interpretation here is entirely too literal. Yes, the US has the tanks and the bases. But what has it lost?
It has lost allies, and it has lost the support of the iraqi people. It has lost a great portion of the iraqi population to Al-queda. But, most of all, it has lost respect. It has lost my support for the administration, and the support of billions like me.
At least you have the tanks, right?

But what good are they against an enemy that attacks through the random acts of solitary hateful men?
The greatest weapon against Al-Queda is to show not only that america is strong, but to show that western culture as a whole is non threatening, or even preferable.

What has the war done to further that aim? Or, at least, what has it done to not detract from it?

It's a war of cultures and the war in Iraq is making ours look like the villain.
We've given the iraqis 'freedom', but it is an all too partial freedom and one that we have done nothing to promote.

It's an unknown device thrown through a window. And the note attached says "screw you".
Sure, the intentions are honourable. But America has caressed the mouse too hard.

 

[Eg.]

ok.... nect day, u have not acknowledged the oil fire, ill take that as u accepting they did occur during Gulf war 1, not in the 80's

the majority of iraqis want a nice, peaceful nation, The IRainian terrorists and the Saudis that do come in are the problem. they need to be killed off.

to say my agrument is incomprehensible is just to make other people think i can barley right, but what ever, i dont use tricks like that.

point is in 20 years, when this is over and the iraqis are doing some sort of parade in their democratic nation and thanking the US, then ill know im right

 

[Mechagodzilla]

ok.... nect day, u have not acknowledged the oil fire, ill take that as u accepting they did occur during Gulf war 1, not in the 80's

Okay, instead of this:

"Well, yes, he did do that. Back in the 80's.
So did we go to Iraq to prevent Saddam from maybe lighting the kuwaiti oilfields a second time?
That's not really a justification for war. It's an excuse."

...pretend I said this:

"Well, yes, he did do that. Back in the 90's.
So did we go to Iraq to prevent Saddam from maybe lighting the kuwaiti oilfields a second time?
That's not really a justification for war. It's an excuse."

My point is still there, even on the nect day.

Also on the nect day, you haven't really responded to anything I've said.
I'll assume that means that you are wrong in pretty much every way (except about the 8 being a 9).

the majority of iraqis want a nice, peaceful nation, The IRainian terrorists and the Saudis that do come in are the problem. they need to be killed off.

Well, obviously they want peace, and obviously the terrorists are flooding across the now-unguarded borders so that they can take a shot at the US.

But guess how many iranian and saudi terrorists there were in Iraq before the war? I'd say around zero.
So, the war against terrorism Iraq is actually causing terrorism in Iraq. Hooray?

To say [that] my argument is incomprehensible is just [a trick] to make other people think [that] I can barely write.
But whatever, I dont use tricks like that.

Spelling/grammar corrections are highlighted in bold.

point is in 20 years, when this is over and the iraqis are doing some sort of parade in their democratic nation and thanking the US, then ill know im right

"The ends justify the means" is not a great strategy. In fact, it's a sucky one.
From this and other threads, I get the impression that you would nuke a city just to kill one terrorist.
You're saying that around 100 000 preventable deaths are okay because people will eventually forget that the US caused them?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions like these.

However, I do agree that we won't be seeing a democratic Iraq for at least another two decades.

 

[hasan]

Firstly I'm to stupid for starting a thread and not following it for 3 days .... but this political discussion stuff kinda diusturbs me so I try to stay away from it for sometime. don't ask me why, I don't know. (phobia?)

I'd like to reply to stuff that was said on the first page ..

first, stern, when I say jihad, that doesn't mean a holy war as in a crusade. I am thankful for the anti-war movement in europe and north america. I marched in a protest against the war on march 2003 here in calgary. I think pretty much everybody here hates bush

now .. for silly bushists: READ THIS!
First of all, go to my profile and do a search on the threads that I started, read the thread about the Italian hostage ..
ok .. done that? good.

now, why do you constantly complian about beheadings? is beheading a barbaric way of killing?
Is bombing a civilized way of killing? or is sniping kids a civilized way of killing? is spraying civilian cars with bullets a civilized way of killing? is turoring prisonors to death a civilized way of killing?
look at the civilization of americans:
http://www.islamonline.net/english/In_Depth/Iraq_Aftermath/2004/11/Images/pic05.jpg
http://www.iraqvictims.com/
http://www.albasrah.net/images/war_crimes/index.htm
http://www.albasrah.net/images/democracy/index.htm
http://www.albasrah.net/images/iraqfreedom/index.htm
(googling stuff like this is pretty easy ..
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=iraq+victims+pictures
etc ..)

if anyone is barbaric here .. it's the americans.

for your information: most of the iraqis in american prisons are just normal people, not mujahideen.
Americans are kidnapping THOUSANDS of Iraqis and KILLING many of them. and TURORING the rest.
the soldiers who were sentenced 8 mothes .. heh .. that's a joke. the only reason they sentenced them is the scandal. If these incidents weren't widely publicized, the americans wouldn't have done anything about it.

btw, many (not all, mind you) of the hostages were working for the americans, either as guards or supplying ammunition and food for american bases.
like I said, read my italian hostage thread .. (I'm sure you won't ..)


And for your information: Fallujah DEFEATED the marines in April. they are not cowards, they are the bravest fighters I've ever seen.

who is the coward?
the one who has nothing other than rifles and rpgs and mortars, facing the strongest military power in the world? (mujahideen)
or the one flying in his aircraft, bombing civilian homes from up high? (americans)
even if they are bombing fighters, these fighters have nothing more than light weapons, they have no tanks or anything. when they are facing the strongest and most brutal force on earth, I think that's VERY BRAVE.

now back to news: Americans have been claiming control over fallujah for several days now, but that's ofcourse a lie: why don't they let independent journalists enter the city? why don't they let aid enter the city?
compare this to the fall of baghdad (worst day in my life :angry: ) al media was there, everybody saw it, fighting stopped, etc.

infact, they are still lying about the number of injuries even though close to 400 soldiers arrived to the german hospital.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_US_WOUNDED?SITE=SCCHA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

for the past two days, americans have been saying "Fallujah is under control, but there is still some fighting going on!"

yeah like .. right! but it's not thier fault, it's the fault of the idiots who believe them.

 

[PXM5000]

Is your only problem setting fire to oil fields, so thousands die to save the oil!
That is too Stupid.

 

[polypod]

That's a good point Hasan, MANY iraqis are detained for no reason, other then they are of fighting age. This is evidenced by the mass releases of hundreds of iraqis. Those were people they simply had no reason to hold.

I think it is hard for us to imagine what it's like to have bombs drop near you. When we bomb a particular building, we're scaring the daylights out of people. Imagine what it would be like. It's hard to.

I also have a problem with the term collateral damage. If you make a decision to use a .50 cal machine gun in a residential area, knowing according to ballistics tests that it will go through walls, then you are responsible when it kills the insurgent, and THEN kills a civilian. You may not have INTENDED to kill the civilian, but you knew they were at risk, and you bear responsiblity.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

... wow, Fallujah went out the window.

 

[hasan]

source: american military who's been saying that for the past week.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

... where you talking to yourself Hasan?

Because you do realize, you're alone right?

 

[hasan]

ofcourse .. if everybody here agreed with me why would I bother to make a thread?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Because you like your opinion reinforced? ... but wait ... that just helps you.

 

[hasan]

your sarcasm isn't funny, and it doesn't even make the point.

what are you talkign about?

 

[FatCombine]

Wow, how biased and misinformed you are, hasan. Just basing your argument off muslim websites, which as a matter of fact, are mostly biased. Look at some other sources.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

We keep telling him that.

... its great to hear this out of someone else ...

Tell him again!

 

[hasan]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-11/22/content_2244288.htm

It's called, I'm taking basing my opinions off eyewitnesses. you are basing your opinions of military propaganda.

Just tell me, why don't the americans let un-embedded journalists in? why don't they let aid get in?

 

[Tr0n]

All news channels and websites are biased in some ways...it's just up to you decided which one is right in your own mind.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

^ This is true.

 

[Eg.]

i get my news from CNN and The Times, i just know what wording to look for

 

[Absinthe]

The only trustworthy news source is Weekly World News, stupid heads.

 

[FatCombine]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-11/22/content_2244288.htm

It's called, I'm taking basing my opinions off eyewitnesses. you are basing your opinions of military propaganda.

Just tell me, why don't the americans let un-embedded journalists in? why don't they let aid get in?

Your response just made my day. "Military propaganda," oh man, that just cracks me up.

Xinhua? I wouldn't trust that. It's a state-run news service run by the Chinese communist government that has a bad reputation for blowing things out of proportion, not disclosing certain facts or hiding them.