[pnj]

how many roadside bombs and suicide bombers were there before the US got involved after 9/11?

it seems like lots and lots of people are getting blown up daily over there. of course, the news didn't report as much about the daily life over there as they do now so that surely has something to do with it but does anyone know, has the violence increased or decreased with the removal of saddam?

 

[BurlyShirley]

You mean are more people dying during a war than not during a war? Yes.

 

[pnj]

then why do I keep hearing people say (or reading what people say,rather..) that the people over there are better off since we invaded?

 

[BurlyShirley]

then why do I keep hearing people say (or reading what people say,rather..) that the people over there are better off since we invaded?

I guess since mass murder at the hands of a brutal dictator, political imprisonment, rape squads and a ton of other human rights violations have been replaced with simple acts of terrorism that will fade with time as democracy grows and Iraq is able to profit from its immense oil assets and re-emerge as one of the richest free nations on the planet.

 

[pnj]

I see.

 

[Skookum]

Cool now we can invade Sudan and make things right there too!

right?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Cool now we can invade Sudan and make things right there too!

right?

Pffft? How is halliburton gunna profit from that?

 

[bomberz1qr20]

I guess since mass murder at the hands of a brutal dictator, political imprisonment, rape squads and a ton of other human rights violations have been replaced with simple acts of terrorism that will fade with time as democracy grows and Iraq is able to profit from its immense oil assets and re-emerge as one of the richest free nations on the planet.

Say hi to Mr. Roarke for me.

 

[Jesus]

I guess since mass murder at the hands of a brutal dictator, political imprisonment, rape squads and a ton of other human rights violations have been replaced with simple acts of terrorism that will fade with time as democracy grows and Iraq is able to profit from its immense oil assets and re-emerge as one of the richest free nations on the planet.

 

[Jesus]

Cool now we can invade Sudan and make things right there too!

right?

Works for me!

 

[MikeD]

Works for me!

As Col Nathan R. Jessup said, "Then I suggest you pick up a rifle and stand a watch!"

 

[Jesus]

As Col Nathan R. Jessup said, "Then I suggest you pick up a rifle and stand a watch!"

Been there, done that.

But I wouldn't mind a little more fun before I get too old!

 

[MikeD]

Heh. I know a couple of gunnies who need quotas filled...probably love to buy you a beer or six...

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

well, 9/11 the worst day in terrorism for the US was 5000 US deaths and several billion bucks on losses, and a few hundred a month in iraq because of saddam.

so far, there are 1000 US deaths, who-knows-how-many-thousands iraqui lives, and 200 billion bucks.

yet the chance of another 9/11 still exists. how far is the point at which the solution will be more expensive in $ and US-lives than the original problem was???? (i dont even count iraquies, as they dont seem to be important for US purposes. plus anyway, probably all the iraquies already killed in this war are more than what saddam would have killed until he was 100 years old a a rate of a couple hundred a month)

i think is not very far. and of course nobody can make that bad of an error, not even GWB. so there must be other benefits, outside common knowledge, to be made by the US for this war to be profitable.

hmm, what it may be in a dessert with nothing else but oil, right in the middle of the gas station of the world, in which a puppet iraqui gvmt will be "elected"??????

 

[pnj]

Been there, done that.

But I wouldn't mind a little more fun before I get too old!

hey jesus

do you feel all muslims should be eliminated or just some? I know you have a pretty strong view point on this subject. I have a good friend, who has a good friend that is working over there right now as a sniper and he feels ALL muslims should be killed. he feels this way because, he says, their teachings say to kill anyone who is not one of them. what are your thoughts on this?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

hey jesus

do you feel all muslims should be eliminated or just some? I know you have a pretty strong view point on this subject. I have a good friend, who has a good friend that is working over there right now as a sniper and he feels ALL muslims should be killed. he feels this way because, he says, their teachings say to kill anyone who is not one of them. what are your thoughts on this?

hahahahahahaha!, the stupidity of the friend of your friend is so sad that its funny.

he feels muslims should be killed because they are taught to kill everyone who is not one of them???? do you see any contradiction there?????????

i guess that only shows how ignorant and guillible that friend of a friend of yours is.

 

[Jesus]

hey jesus

do you feel all muslims should be eliminated or just some? I know you have a pretty strong view point on this subject. I have a good friend, who has a good friend that is working over there right now as a sniper and he feels ALL muslims should be killed. he feels this way because, he says, their teachings say to kill anyone who is not one of them. what are your thoughts on this?

No way.

I am not so narrow minded as to believe that all Muslims are bad. But I do believe that MOST are. I look at them, the same way I look at American Rednecks. Most are just stupid.

I have spent many years in the Middle East and Africa. Rarely did I ever meet a Muslim that wasn't doing something bad, or was trying to. The way they treat they're fellow Muslims, especially women, is sickening.

I think they main problem in the Muslim world is the lack of value on human life.

BTW, Muslims kill a lot more Muslims then the US ever will.

 

[Jesus]

hahahahahahaha!, the stupidity of the friend of your friend is so sad that its funny.

he feels muslims should be killed because they are taught to kill everyone who is not one of them???? do you see any contradiction there?????????

i guess that only shows how ignorant and guillible that friend of a friend of yours is.

I don't agree with him, but I don't see the contradiction either.

If you feel someone's main purpose in life is to kill you, then it's simple.

Kill them first.

 

[bmxr]

well, 9/11 the worst day in terrorism for the US was 5000 US deaths and several billion bucks on losses, and a few hundred a month in iraq because of saddam.

More like 3000 and I don't know where you got the "few hundred a month" from...

plus anyway, probably all the iraquies already killed in this war are more than what saddam would have killed until he was 100 years old a a rate of a couple hundred a month

You'd better read-up on what your buddy, the "not-so-bad" Saddam, had been up to. "Between 60,000 and 100,000 Iraqi dissidents and Shi'ite Muslims are estimated to have been killed during Hussein's reign. Over 100,000 Kurds were killed or "disappeared". (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shi'ites and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Amnesty International estimates that at the time of Hussein's downfall in April 2003 there were about 300,000 Iraqi refugees around the world, with over 200,000 residing in Iran. Other sources claim between three and four million Iraqis, or about 15% of the population, fled the country seeking refuge." If you include Iranians that died defending themselves against Iraq, throw in another 700,000+. And just for fun, add another 500,000 or so Iraqi children who starved while Saddam built palaces with his "oil-for food" money.

i think is not very far. and of course nobody can make that bad of an error, not even GWB. so there must be other benefits, outside common knowledge, to be made by the US for this war to be profitable.

hmm, what it may be in a dessert with nothing else but oil, right in the middle of the gas station of the world, in which a puppet iraqui gvmt will be "elected"??????

So why haven't we invaded Venezuela or Saudi Arabia yet then? They have a ****load of oil too...Face it, the administration believed in this war. If some of their reasons turned out to be "bad intel", that's fine, but you can't convince me that we did it just for the oil, nor can you convince me that Iraq is not better off.

Funny, for all the moaning about how we "illegitimately" removed Saddam, I don't hear many of you asking to put him back in Bahgdad and to give him his tanks, airplanes, and nuclear scientists back... :eviltongu

 

[Skookum]

Funny, for all the moaning about how we "illegitimately" removed Saddam, I don't hear many of you asking to put him back in Bahgdad and to give him his tanks, airplanes, and nuclear scientists back... :eviltongu

Funny you don't seem to get that Iran and North Korea really have or are really producing WMD's and our hands are tied because of missteps along the way. Syria, Pakistan hey at least Khaddafi disarmed though.... yipee.
So let's cry over the genocide in Sudan while we don't lift a finger.
Snub our noses at the U.N. and attack Iraq now watch as we rely on them for keeping Iran in check? Beg Isreal not to get involved? Watch as we pray that China keeps N. Korea in check, but at what cost? Will Taiwan fall as China attacks then assimilates them into their Republic? Do a deal with the devil.... beside we're in debt to them too, how convenient.... All the while Osama Bin Laden runs loose, because we dropped the ball in Aghganistan.
Bush stays in office how much more can he bungle?
Sure we got Sadaam out and captured his sick fuk ass. But now we've discovered he wasn't an imminent threat to the U.S. as we were told. Then we have missteps in Iraq with the administration refusing to be accountable for. Well sure there are always going to be mistakes along the way, hindsight's 20/20 blah blah blah, but the strength of this administration, and their main argument to stay in power is for a strong foreign policy. Give me a break...

So why haven't we invaded Venezuela or Saudi Arabia yet then? They have a ****load of oil too...

Yah why haven't we invaded Saudi Arabia since nearly all the terrorists who crashed into the twin towers were Saudi's. Hmmm.....

If some of their reasons turned out to be "bad intel", that's fine, but you can't convince me that we did it just for the oil

i thought that myself, sure would like you to prove that the administration were tainted in their decision from bad intel.
But we didn't just do it for the oil, we did it because of our ecomomic dependance on oil. Bush want's stability in the area because of our economic interest. We are dependant upon the reserves there otherwise our economy will have serious problems. Don't tell me you don't feel the pinch when the price at the pump get's jacked up.... Until our dependance on crude is minimalized drastically we're going to continue to seek stability in that region and kiss the Saudi's assess like punk bitches.

nor can you convince me that Iraq is not better off.

Hooray Iraq is better off, now what............ and nobody is completely convinced Iraqis are better off just yet, jobs far from over there, can't count the chicks before they hatch....

my own personal belief is that problems won't go away til we start taxing the hell out of gas, use the tax money to create massive strides and benefits for alternative fueled vehicles, and take care of our own damn problems on the our own shores instead of being compelled to act due to economic dependance on oil.
Or if we go abroad and fight at least do a hell of alot better than this administration does. Will history consider the Bushes responsible for trading Kuwait for Taiwan. Will history tell a story of America kicking Iraq which scared Iran which were bombed by Isreal which were invaded by Syria which finally gets the French to attack haha..... will there be a history?

 

[bmxr]

Good points all. I am not a Bush apologist. I disagree with a lot that is said and done on both sides, especially when grossly incorrect facts are quoted.

 

[N8 v2.0]

We can thank Bill Clinton for Korea's WMD program...

 

[Changleen]

We can thank Bill Clinton for Korea's WMD program...

Why not N. Korea?

 

[N8 v2.0]

Yeah, the Iraqi people were much better under Saddam...



http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/14004914?source=Evening Standard

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

More like 3000 and I don't know where you got the "few hundred a month" from...


You'd better read-up on what your buddy, the "not-so-bad" Saddam, had been up to. "Between 60,000 and 100,000 Iraqi dissidents and Shi'ite Muslims are estimated to have been killed during Hussein's reign. Over 100,000 Kurds were killed or "disappeared". (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shi'ites and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Amnesty International estimates that at the time of Hussein's downfall in April 2003 there were about 300,000 Iraqi refugees around the world, with over 200,000 residing in Iran. Other sources claim between three and four million Iraqis, or about 15% of the population, fled the country seeking refuge." If you include Iranians that died defending themselves against Iraq, throw in another 700,000+. And just for fun, add another 500,000 or so Iraqi children who starved while Saddam built palaces with his "oil-for food" money.


So why haven't we invaded Venezuela or Saudi Arabia yet then? They have a ****load of oil too...Face it, the administration believed in this war. If some of their reasons turned out to be "bad intel", that's fine, but you can't convince me that we did it just for the oil, nor can you convince me that Iraq is not better off.

Funny, for all the moaning about how we "illegitimately" removed Saddam, I don't hear many of you asking to put him back in Bahgdad and to give him his tanks, airplanes, and nuclear scientists back... :eviltongu

1st thing. i dont applaud saddam.

2nd, saddam might have killed 100s of thousands in the past. we dont know, maybe 1 million.
but this war wont stop those killings from happening, since they already happened. you see???
the best this war would do is stop the ones going at a current rate. but at what cost?? at the cost of more lifes than the ones that would have ended with the war????

UN and the US, while not perfect, did some good work on iraq since the 1991 war (an OK war imo). since then the number of deaths caused by saddam (specially in the last few years) were nowhere near the numbers in the 80s you state.
so in a way, the problem was there, yes, but not in the full magnitude of before. you can argue, it was sort of under control by the UN, as the lack of WMD demonstrate. alright, it was not perfect, and there were still deaths, but the cost to eliminate those deaths (supposed with this war) is actually higher than the peope who would have died without it.

the argument here is.. was the solution more expensive than the problem?? and if so, was it more expensive to everyone?? or where the costs being localized?????

even though a great number of deaths in the post war period (500k to 1 million according to unicef) were caused by the postwar sanctions.

its not a good argument to say, this war was to save lifes, when at the current rate of deaths due tu saddam, the final number of deaths would have been smaller than the number of deaths caused by the "solution". (dont count past deaths, because this war would not fix those deaths in the 80s, and they were not as big of a problem since UN-US intervention in 1991)

so in a way, this "fixing war" (which in the 1st place didnt have that purpose, and naming it now a war for the freedom of iraquis, is a PR resource to cover up the obvious intelligence failure), ends up costing more than the what the problem was costing lately.

dont count the hundred thousands of deaths before, because they already happend, and the UN kinda had the situation under control (not perfectly but at least the situation was much better than with saddam in the 80s)-

why does the US does not invade arabia or venezuela???
lol, there is no need for military intervention in arabia. the saudis already are in bed with the US. and venezuela???...

hmm, didnt chavez (an awful president imo, but seems to be very popular there) got coup´ed a short time ago, with US funds????????? i mean, military interventions imo, only happen when subersive methods like coups and lobbys cannot work, which seems to be what was going on in iraq.

there is a lot of strategical value in a puppet gvmt in iraq, which imo, seems to have much greater value for the US, than to save a few thousand iraquis.

 

[MikeD]

Yeah, the Iraqi people were much better under Saddam...



http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/14004914?source=Evening Standard

Are you kidding us? Seriously...

No one really cares whether the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam.. The whole question is AMERICA's security; whether or not America is more secure now is definitely a point up for debate. And to make the obvious and trite point, if this was about the Iraqi people's freedom, we'd have 1) done something long ago and 2) led many, many more military actions around the world to free people from oppression, rather than ignoring, or in many cases, supporting it (under both parties' leadership, mind you). No one made anything other than incidental mention of the poor Iraqis when gearing up for the war; it was WMDs, violations of UN resolutions, and 'imminent threats' and 'mushroom clouds.'

So give us a break. No one has ever said the people were better off under Saddam. Perhaps it was more stable under Saddam, but we all know he was a ruthless gangster of a tyrant who killed, raped, and stole whatever and whomever he wanted. Tell us something we don't know!

MD

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

so my point is, that most of the accusations against saddam, while true, were partially solved in 1991 by the US and UN.

since then iraq as a threat to the world is nowhere near it was before.

so using the pre-1991 iraq as a reason to defend this last war is not a valid argument, since iraq was not longer the threat it was in the 80s, and since that threat got somehow fixed by the UN-US.

so using the iraq of the 80s as a monster to justify this late war is not OK. that monster got nurtured a long time ago in the 1991 war, and was a pathetic dog since then.
and the cost to fix the remaining problems seems to be greater than the residual problem itself lately. (if you dont count the strategical value of a puppter gvmt in iraq, and etc)

so lately, saddam was a mofo?? yes!!!!. but its the cost of the solution to the lare iraq worth the cost (thousand more deaths, iraquis and US), billions of bucks???

or do you think there is something more there that may tip the balance to make it worth???

 

[Jesus]

even though a great number of deaths in the post war period (500k to 1 million according to unicef) were caused by the postwar sanctions.

I have always had a problem with that statement.

I don't believe it was ever the sanctions that caused the people to starve. It was Saddam. He always seemed to have enough food, and enough money to build palace after palace. He kept the money for himself. Blame him, not the sanctions.

Also, the reason we invaded in the first place was because he wouldn't let inspectors in. How many times do you have to threaten before you actually do something?