Jordan and Egypt both did, if they can, Syria and Iran should be able to.
Iraq - Biggest shithole on planet Earth?
- Thread starter Mr-Fusion
- Start date
Jordan and Egypt both did, if they can, Syria and Iran should be able to.
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
the west
didnt
care
when he was
at his worst
the occupation has led to the deaths of more iraqis in 3 short years than in almost 30 years of saddam's reign of terror
let me reiterate this again ..whether directly or indirectly the US is responsible for the deaths of 655,000 iraqis ..it wasnt a mistake
@Stern, Does that give terrorists (I'm bundling all parties involved that are trying to destabilize Iraq), a blank cheque?
How far does this responsibility go?
I agree the US is responsible for direct deaths, and some indirect as a direct result of the war.
But i dont agree with for instance Iranian, Syrian or Saudi Arabian organizations, along with European Muslims and whoever wants, interfering, blowing up Iraqi's trying to destabilize Iraq for their own "vision", or pure to fight the coalition forces in some jihad, not caring whether they blow up Iraqi civilians with them or destroy Iraqi society.
According to this article over 4000 foreign fighters have been claimed to be killed while fighting in Iraq
You can say Americans are indirectly responsible for setting up Iraq as the battlegrounds, but you cant put all the responsibility and blame on Americans for whatever happens in Iraq.
By that same logic Al Qaeda would be responsible for all deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq, because their 9/11 attack set the stage so Bush could get the support he needed, that he'd dare invade Iraq, and get elected a second term to continue the occupation.
I think its safe to say Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't have been invaded if 9/11 never happened, and Bush would most likely not have been elected a second term, if it weren't for his constant "reminding" of the "Danger of another 9/11".
Al Qaeda drew a war to the Middle-East in their attack, its actions indirectly set the stage for this, hence they share responsibility, just as the warriors who go to Iraq today, to destabilize, share responsibility.
9/11 was of such magnitude, and the US haven't had their oil soil so full of blood since the Civil War, that it literally put a madman in the position he wanted -> with a blank cheque in support...
In short, before somebody cherry-picks my post out of context, i agree with the US being responsible for direct casualties, and in many cases indirect casualties, but i strongly disagree with the US carrying all responsibility including foreign warriors who have come to wreak havoc for some holy war or in an attempt to create another Iran.
Thats too far off indirect and unreasonable.
(this however, doesn't change my opinion in that Iraq is the shame of today, and the biggest lie I've seen in a long time).
How far does this responsibility go?
I agree the US is responsible for direct deaths, and some indirect as a direct result of the war.
But i dont agree with for instance Iranian, Syrian or Saudi Arabian organizations, along with European Muslims and whoever wants, interfering, blowing up Iraqi's trying to destabilize Iraq for their own "vision", or pure to fight the coalition forces in some jihad, not caring whether they blow up Iraqi civilians with them or destroy Iraqi society.
According to this article over 4000 foreign fighters have been claimed to be killed while fighting in Iraq
You can say Americans are indirectly responsible for setting up Iraq as the battlegrounds, but you cant put all the responsibility and blame on Americans for whatever happens in Iraq.
By that same logic Al Qaeda would be responsible for all deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq, because their 9/11 attack set the stage so Bush could get the support he needed, that he'd dare invade Iraq, and get elected a second term to continue the occupation.
I think its safe to say Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't have been invaded if 9/11 never happened, and Bush would most likely not have been elected a second term, if it weren't for his constant "reminding" of the "Danger of another 9/11".
Al Qaeda drew a war to the Middle-East in their attack, its actions indirectly set the stage for this, hence they share responsibility, just as the warriors who go to Iraq today, to destabilize, share responsibility.
9/11 was of such magnitude, and the US haven't had their oil soil so full of blood since the Civil War, that it literally put a madman in the position he wanted -> with a blank cheque in support...
In short, before somebody cherry-picks my post out of context, i agree with the US being responsible for direct casualties, and in many cases indirect casualties, but i strongly disagree with the US carrying all responsibility including foreign warriors who have come to wreak havoc for some holy war or in an attempt to create another Iran.
Thats too far off indirect and unreasonable.
(this however, doesn't change my opinion in that Iraq is the shame of today, and the biggest lie I've seen in a long time).
zleppelin
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 565
- Reaction score
- 0
That's roughly 2% the population of Iraq.
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
I've never suggested/implied anything of the sort
yes and they continue to perpetuate it ...both directly and indirectly on a daily basis
the march 2003 invasion gave foreign interests the opportunity to support/influence particular factions ..the invasion is the catalyst to the sectarian violence which was facilitated by a break down in law and order immediately after the invasion
but it's no different than what the US did in afghanistan during soviet occupation
the US orchestrated the occupation of iraq knowing full well what the outcome would be ..they intentionally lied their way into iraq, destabilising the country and leading to all out civil war
you're also missing the fact that I had posted several times that they are indirectly responsible for sectarian/violence in general due to a breakdown in law and order caused by the invasion and subsequent occupation of iraq ..the US perpetuates this directly and indirectly by continuing their occupation of iraq
There seems to be some misunderstanding here, the US led coalition is not "to blame" for every death in Iraq, not in the slightest. Casualty estimates from the lancet show that coalition forces are responsible for only 31% of violent deaths, lower than insurgent and criminal elements(singley or combined). And those figures do not distinguish between combatant/insurgent and civilian deaths.
The coalition is in fact -under international law- legally responsible for the life of every Iraqi citizen, and what happens to them and their country. It's a huge distinction and all the more damning for it. An army of occupation is responsible for the security of the occupied, and its the complete and utter absence of security that creates the situation in which Iraqis find themselves today.
Dont mistake a symbolic "handover" for true (or legally recognised) independance, whilst troops are stationed in the country and Iraq is dependant on those troops, Iraq shall remain "occupied", elections or not.
Its much less useful to try and portion out blame from some kind of moral standpoint, as all that happens is arguing back and forth without any possible resolution (as this thread shows). Saying that the coalition is to blame, is in effect relagating the occupiers to the status of a single link in a chain of events, a single random domino with one tracable effect and then onto the next. The actual situation is complex,continuous and internationally recognised.
Another thing; reading even the more intellegent posts in this thread, its still like the Ottoman or Turkomen empires never existed. Vanished from history, "poof!" gone.
colson
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2004
- Messages
- 342
- Reaction score
- 0
As long as they don't bother any one else I couldn't give a f*ck! I'm so tired of those stupid bastards whinning and fighting for religions that are obviously insignificant and are a downright lie. All I ever hear is muslim this jew that and etc. Also I'm tired of countries thinking they can be the world police. I feel sorry for the poor bastards that get sent to that dump to fight a war for no damn reason. Americans don't need to fight "the war on terrorism" because all it does is fuel the terrorism. They've created it themselves by invading other countries by "trying to make them better places". I'm also tired of my own government sending all those poor bastards to Afghanistan to "help" the people there. Why should we help a country where half of them shoot at you? In my opinion if you are going to have a war you better go all in and eliminate all opposition. You waste everyone's time and lives by just going half in and then "peacekeeping".
I was referring to your indirect responsibility comment. Yes the US shares a big portion of responsibility in that, though lets not forget Al Qaeda was the one who started the ball rolling.
As i mentioned before: the US would not be in Iraq, nor in Afghanistan if it weren't for the 9/11 attacks... Thats a pretty safe statement to make.
Bush and his administration simply took advantage of an extremely angered American population, after a brutal attack.
Bush used that to execute the Iraq war for whatever reason. Now we all know the Al Qaeda-Iraq connection is bs, yet the Iraq invasion is still a direct result of the savage 9/11 attacks.
Al Qaeda set the direct-stage for Bush to be able to execute this retarded "power".
Bush and his administration may have lied their way into Iraq, but that would never have happened if Al Qaeda didn't attack the US, and blow up 3000 Americans. Those things are in direct-link here. Terrorism is about the least % cause of death, yet has the largest psychological effect on a population. Fear is what drove the Americans into believing and supporting Bush, and extending his term believing his crap again.
Therefor, if the US setting the stage in Iraq are responsible directly and indirectly (which i agree), lets not forget the ones who started this whole mess back in 2001, whom share one of the larger chunks of the blame: Al Qaeda.
I'm just pointing this out, since to often these days do i hear people go off blaming everything on America, forgetting the ones who are now laughing on the sideline or covertly participating in their own silly little wars.
They are the ones who we should be blaming perhaps even first and foremost, then the stupid Bush administration.
Iraqi's are simply a victim in this case, and every country, organization or person who gets involved shares full blame for whatever he's doing there.
There is no excuse for the many foreign policies in execution in Iraq these days. They are all fully responsible for their acts, and responsible for making Iraq the shithole that it is today.
This goes from the regional Islamic states who get involved, to the European Muslim who travels to Iraq to blow up Americans or Iraqi's.
Thats all i wanted to point out. That every side shares its responsibility, and we shouldn't forget the bigger picture and just focus on certain events/chains.
For the rest i agree so i have nothing to comment on that, and i hope the US "learns" from this cluster**** and those responsible are brought to justice.....
repiV
Tank
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2006
- Messages
- 4,283
- Reaction score
- 2
Thanks. We think she's had a stroke, but it's not confirmed yet. Heading back down to the hospital in a little while...
I really hope there's no lasting damage. She couldn't talk properly yesterday, it was like she'd reverted into a childlike state.
repiV
Tank
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2006
- Messages
- 4,283
- Reaction score
- 2
Umm, it's true. The life expectancy of people in North London is significantly higher than the life expectancy in any third world country. What the **** are you whining about?
And I like the way you call me a capitalist like it's some kind of insult.
Funny how every successful country on earth is capitalist, eh? How people escape communist/socialist regimes to the evil oppressive West in their millions? Wonder why that is.
The US led occupation doesnt "share" responsibility for the situation IN Iraq it holds sole responsibility.
From the US army's own field manual ;
The geneva convention that relates to the matter is summed up by the International Commitee for the Red Cross ;
Pretty much says it all.
From the US army's own field manual ;
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/27-10/Ch6.htm
The geneva convention that relates to the matter is summed up by the International Commitee for the Red Cross ;
http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/634KFC
Pretty much says it all.
Slacker
Newbie
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,698
- Reaction score
- 0
I talked to a family friend of mine who was an Enigeneer in Iraq for about a year, and he says that the country will never get better, and democracy will never work. It's not like America isn't trying hard enough, it's that the citizens aren't used to the system, and never will be. He said the whole country is basically worthless, and going there in the first place was a complete waste of time. I mean yeah, you hear that from a lot of people anywhere, but it meant more coming from an American Soldier who had been there.
