Iraq Statistics

[suggs]

no, you're so right, they should have backed that left wing chap in Iran.
so you think they have just let saddam get on with it. Hats off to your vision.

[BlackKnight01]

no, you're so right, they should have backed that left wing chap in Iran.
so you think they have just let saddam get on with it. Hats off to your vision.

Dont put words into my mouth. I said nothing of that caliber...

Reread what I said, and try to process it thoroughly before assuming im saying stuff which I did not say

[muy_thaiguy]

Not to sound like a broken record or anything, but that one post sounded an awful lot like xtratabasco.

Anyways, for the Maine, it is still unresolved as to what caused the explosion that sunk it, so jumping to the conspiricy conclusion is right on the same par as those accusing the Spanish of doing it. Probably the best theory that has come up is that a stray mine hit it, not the US government.

And need I remind you, that we went to war in Iraq because Saddam had violated 27 or so UN resolutions, and the US was the only country that actually thought bringing down the SOB might be a good thing. Also, one must also remember that it was a different Administration in office at the time, not the same one.

[comic boy]

Not to sound like a broken record or anything, but that one post sounded an awful lot like xtratabasco.

Anyways, for the Maine, it is still unresolved as to what caused the explosion that sunk it, so jumping to the conspiricy conclusion is right on the same par as those accusing the Spanish of doing it. Probably the best theory that has come up is that a stray mine hit it, not the US government.

And need I remind you, that we went to war in Iraq because Saddam had violated 27 or so UN resolutions, and the US was the only country that actually thought bringing down the SOB might be a good thing. Also, one must also remember that it was a different Administration in office at the time, not the same one.

The thing is that nobody outside of a tight knit circle does actually know , we in Britain were told that it was purely because of the supposed WMD's for example. If it was for violating UN resolutions then we would be invading countries every week, check out Israel for a start ! In fact the General Secretary of the UN specifically said that in terms of the UN charter the invasion was illegal, hardly backs up your case im afraid.

[silvanricky]

My country does not represent me.

Thank God

[Neutrino]

My country does not represent me.

Thank God

And it is very unfortunate that you are probably a fair representation of the average mindset in the US.

Let's keep it above personal attacks, m'kay?

[Jenos Ridan]

*Did you know that if you were to take JUST the quantity of bombs dropped upon Baghdad alone, it would be 3 times greater than that of WWI and WWII combined

*Did you know that during "Operation: Iraqi Freedom", The US and Britain destroyed the Infrastructure of Iraq?

*Did you know that if you wanted to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq before the 2003 invasion, it would cost 4 times the cash the US owes to other nations (Debt)

*Did you know that I can go on and on about how you destroyed an entire nation in a month and that nation took centuries upon centuries to be where it was at?

*Did you know that I can go on and on about facts during the 2003 invasion?

Listen son, dont feed me this bullshit, alright? You, I, and that man over there- all of us, do know why the 2003 invasion was initiated

And It wasn't initiated for the big dark eyes of the Iraqi children, I'll tell you that much

And if you wanted to liberate a nation, you wouldnt drop 500 ton bombs upon the heads of children and women...

... For the sake of my point, let us just say, Cause America is so 1337 sauce that its okay for the United States to do so; However, its never okay- never will be okay, for any nation to drop Weapons of Mass Destruction onto the city of that nation

Whether it be a city with a population of 5 million or 1,240

And you would like to know what sort of WMDs they dropped? Ill give you a small list and a location as to where they dropped it:

White Phosphorous - Every city in Iraq
Templated Nukes - Fallujah and Baghdad
Depleted Uranium - Every city in Iraq
Cluster Bombs (Used upon civilians... you can call it a WMD) - Every city in Iraq as well

So, god bless Uncle Sams freedom! You guys should go spread that around some more, eh?

I hear the African Nations have requested a dose or two of that Uncle Sam Democracy? Oh crap, they dont have Oil... Damnation...

And throwing shit out of the window? Are you fucking kidding me? Do you know why they throw shit out of the Window now (if that bs is true)? Its thanks to Thy Almighty George W. Bush God grant him paradise amongst the other Skull and Bone members and the Freemasons

getting tired of all this bullshit they feed you guys... Read your news from multiple sources... Read CNN, Al- Jazeera (No matter how fucked up they may seem), Al- Alam, Almanar ect

If you want to know whats going around you and you want to be civilized, get your news from the 1st party, 2nd, and the third

As in, the US, The Mid. East, and a neutral country like Russia, or Switzerland

Makes sense?

Your first point is total bunk, since precision guided weapons negate the advantage of carpet bombing. Also, modern 'wars' tend to be (hey, ever wonder why they're called) low-intensity conflicts, in which the more advanced side racks up the kills like crazy.

Much of the infrastructure was destroyed in the regime force's retreat or by neglect by the regime.

I'll just cut to the chase here at attack your rhetoric head-on:

The only women and children killed by Coalition Forces were the result of guerillias hiding from our forces, using them as human meatshields; our enemy is one with no rules of engagement!

Nukes?! Get real, nuclear warheads aren't even deployed at the tactical level anymore.

Skull and Bones? Freemasons? This alone is enough to write you off as a witless loony.

And the day I can trust the state-run news in Russia is the day I've done communist.

There are strategic reasons behind our actions in the Middle East: It is because Iran will soon make nukes and we'd like to be there to take the plants out before they can even arm a single warhead. If not us, then it falls to Israel to do to Iran what they did to Saddam's project; send in two fast planes and dive bomb it.

I'm sick and tired of the ducks crap that seems to get bandied about as "the truth", the fact is we are there and we have a job to finish.

[Lazy_Pilgrim]

Just one point here, i think that a lot of you have missed the point of this war entirly.

Firstly this war had nothing to do with terrorism (perhaps oil but thats unlikly also). The first stage was the creation of isreal after WW2, smart move that putting a jewish superstate in the middle of an arab dominent area by the way . Anyway it is because of the west`s and particualrly americas closeness to isreal that we are in this mess. In the first place why did we give isreal nukes, non of the other countries in the region are even remotly close of there than possable the House of Saudi who convently is an alli in the area.
So,
*isreals creation began this
*saddam was introduced by CIA and British special forces in a coup that over threw the then democratic government of iraq at the time
*we then lost control of a man we knew was a megomaniac (thats why we picked him)
*first golf war (we needed our puppet state back)
* Bush Snr vowes that iraq will one day fall
* Bush Jr strangly is hell bent on acomplishing this threat.
* And here we all are knee deep in it.

Few other things for people to think about, if your going with the saddam supported terrorism your just plain stupid, if you knew anything of the inter clan muslim faiths you would understand that saddam would have killed any talliban or al-qeda (spelling lol) member opperating in his country, firstly because hes a dictator complete control thats what he does and two there of different musim sects (bit like protestant and catholics a few hundred years ago).

And finally im sure your all bord by now of my nonsensical typing but hey. The reason america reacted the way it did was it was the first time it got hit since peral harbour. Americans need to understand that every other country in the world suffered from "terrorism" for years before you guys discovered its existance. BTW im not sure on figures (would love to know if someone does) but around 4000 americans died on sep 1th? i just want to know as a ratio the number of people killed as a result of this 1000:1 probably more but i will be nice. You fell right into their hands and you still dont know it yet they feed of your hate for them everytime you kill a man his son will grow up to hate you, we will never win this war because we do it for money and stratigic position. They fight because you murder torture and kill their friends and families. For yous the only victory is genocide and to be honest if it comes to that I know which side i would rather stand with.

[heavycola]

The only women and children killed by Coalition Forces were the result of guerillias hiding from our forces

I am staggered. I cannot believe that anyone would post this as a statement of fact. Even you. Absolutely staggered.

'I am sick and tired of all the ducks crap bandied about as 'the truth''

Oh. My. God.
Who the hell do you think you are?

[unriggable]

Jenos Ridan, that's bullshit. Precision guided missiles don't work. First fifty bombs dropped in Iraq all missed, and they were of that kind.

[silvanricky]

And it is very unfortunate that you are probably a fair representation of the average mindset in the US.

Let's keep it above personal attacks, m'kay?

Boy oh boy, you enjoy being an arrogant bastard, don't you!!

[Snorri1234]

And it is very unfortunate that you are probably a fair representation of the average mindset in the US.

Let's keep it above personal attacks, m'kay?

Boy oh boy, you enjoy being an arrogant bastard, don't you!!

Who doesn't?

[comic boy]

Its true not one single innocent civilian has died in Iraq, not one single British or Canadian soldier has died from 'friendly' fire either

[Napoleon Ier]

Its true not one single innocent civilian has died in Iraq, not one single British or Canadian soldier has died from 'friendly' fire either

Its a war comic boy. Iraq wasn't the best place to set up a front, and the occupation has been a fiasco, but now the liberal democracies of the West are fighting there, and much as our systems are wrong, we are fighting people infinitly worse than any corrupt administration we may have here, bent on destroying our freedom and expanding dar-al-islam. So frankly, rather than wailing pathetically, get behind the soldiers trying, and now finally beginning to see fruits of their labour, to make the islamo-fascist tide roll back.

[radiojake]

Its a war comic boy. Iraq wasn't the best place to set up a front, and the occupation has been a fiasco, but now the liberal democracies of the West are fighting there, and much as our systems are wrong, we are fighting people infinitly worse than any corrupt administration we may have here, bent on destroying our freedom and expanding dar-al-islam.

Surely, Napoleon, you must be down with people trying to expand their religion onto more people. Didn't the french turn all of Africa catholic?? What's wrong if some muslim people try to replicate the same shit Christian's have been doing for centuries?

Man, Iraq a threat to anyone besides their Neighbours is a joke. Just like Lazypilgrim mentioned above, the US just need their puppet state in the Middle East back.

[Napoleon Ier]

Its a war comic boy. Iraq wasn't the best place to set up a front, and the occupation has been a fiasco, but now the liberal democracies of the West are fighting there, and much as our systems are wrong, we are fighting people infinitly worse than any corrupt administration we may have here, bent on destroying our freedom and expanding dar-al-islam.

Surely, Napoleon, you must be down with people trying to expand their religion onto more people. Didn't the french turn all of Africa catholic?? What's wrong if some muslim people try to replicate the same shit Christian's have been doing for centuries?

Man, Iraq a threat to anyone besides their Neighbours is a joke. Just like Lazypilgrim mentioned above, the US just need their puppet state in the Middle East back.

1/France peacefully evangelized Africa, the quick-fire evidence being that sub-Saharan Africa rapidly abandoned shaky tribal paganism for the attractive new religion, whilst Northern Africa kept more deeply-rooted Islamic convictions.
2/ Any instances you may care to point out other Christians have imposed their religion by the sword, i can unequivocally say I condemn from an ethical and theological basis.
3/

What's wrong if some muslim people try to replicate the same shit Christian's have been doing for centuries?

The fact that those rare instances colonial powers actively forced natives through violence to adopt Christian beliefs were wrong, and those instances in no way justify their emulation on a vastly larger, more brutal scale by the Islamo-fascist hordes.
4/The US have enough power-bases, namely Saudi-Arabia and Kuwait, and if they had wanted oil, they would be getting the revenues and would have chosen Iran as the place to invade instead.

[unriggable]

4/The US have enough power-bases, namely Saudi-Arabia and Kuwait, and if they had wanted oil, they would be getting the revenues and would have chosen Iran as the place to invade instead.

Heh, no nuclear weapons but still a threat...

[Napoleon Ier]

4/The US have enough power-bases, namely Saudi-Arabia and Kuwait, and if they had wanted oil, they would be getting the revenues and would have chosen Iran as the place to invade instead.

Heh, no nuclear weapons but still a threat...

Re-read, I said offensive action on Iran would have been prioritized if the United States really were seeking oil from their middle eastern tours, a theory I find ridiculous.

[comic boy]

Its true not one single innocent civilian has died in Iraq, not one single British or Canadian soldier has died from 'friendly' fire either

Its a war comic boy. Iraq wasn't the best place to set up a front, and the occupation has been a fiasco, but now the liberal democracies of the West are fighting there, and much as our systems are wrong, we are fighting people infinitly worse than any corrupt administration we may have here, bent on destroying our freedom and expanding dar-al-islam. So frankly, rather than wailing pathetically, get behind the soldiers trying, and now finally beginning to see fruits of their labour, to make the islamo-fascist tide roll back.

Well certainly the invasion has been a propoganda blessing for Islamic Fundamentalists, hell of a lot more of them in Iraq now then 5 years ago.
Im not quite sure what you mean by 'get behind the soldiers' as I am on record as saying that the USA has no choice now but to stay and clear up the mess as best it can. That does not mean I am not at liberty to take to task those who post utter nonsense suggesting innocent civilians have not been killed in their thousands,or that this whole shambles is somehow a great victory.

[Neutrino]

1/France peacefully evangelized Africa, the quick-fire evidence being that sub-Saharan Africa rapidly abandoned shaky tribal paganism for the attractive new religion, whilst Northern Africa kept more deeply-rooted Islamic convictions.
2/ Any instances you may care to point out other Christians have imposed their religion by the sword, i can unequivocally say I condemn from an ethical and theological basis.

For someone who is very firmly against the alteration of "his" countries' current culture, you seem to be all for your country screwing around with other countries cultures.

I'd call you nationalist and possibly hypocritical, but you'd probably take that as a compliment (well, the first part, anyway).

[heavycola]

1/France peacefully evangelized Africa, the quick-fire evidence being that sub-Saharan Africa rapidly abandoned shaky tribal paganism for the attractive new religion, whilst Northern Africa kept more deeply-rooted Islamic convictions.
2/ Any instances you may care to point out other Christians have imposed their religion by the sword, i can unequivocally say I condemn from an ethical and theological basis.

For someone who is very firmly against the alteration of "his" countries' current culture, you seem to be all for your country screwing around with other countries cultures.

I'd call you nationalist and possibly hypocritical, but you'd probably take that as a compliment (well, the first part, anyway).

But other countries, especially ones with black people in them, are backwards and pagan. France, like England, brought only peace and civilisation.

[Napoleon Ier]

1/France peacefully evangelized Africa, the quick-fire evidence being that sub-Saharan Africa rapidly abandoned shaky tribal paganism for the attractive new religion, whilst Northern Africa kept more deeply-rooted Islamic convictions.
2/ Any instances you may care to point out other Christians have imposed their religion by the sword, i can unequivocally say I condemn from an ethical and theological basis.

For someone who is very firmly against the alteration of "his" countries' current culture, you seem to be all for your country screwing around with other countries cultures.

I'd call you nationalist and possibly hypocritical, but you'd probably take that as a compliment (well, the first part, anyway).

But other countries, especially ones with black people in them, are backwards and pagan. France, like England, brought only peace and civilisation.

Its a little more subtle than that. However you cannot call places in Africa during the colonial country "countries", nor can you deny colonialism brought some benefits. I still see it as wrong, but I'd say we actually brought them civilization, rather than tamper with theirs.

[heavycola]

1/France peacefully evangelized Africa, the quick-fire evidence being that sub-Saharan Africa rapidly abandoned shaky tribal paganism for the attractive new religion, whilst Northern Africa kept more deeply-rooted Islamic convictions.
2/ Any instances you may care to point out other Christians have imposed their religion by the sword, i can unequivocally say I condemn from an ethical and theological basis.

For someone who is very firmly against the alteration of "his" countries' current culture, you seem to be all for your country screwing around with other countries cultures.

I'd call you nationalist and possibly hypocritical, but you'd probably take that as a compliment (well, the first part, anyway).

But other countries, especially ones with black people in them, are backwards and pagan. France, like England, brought only peace and civilisation.

Its a little more subtle than that. However you cannot call places in Africa during the colonial country "countries", nor can you deny colonialism brought some benefits. I still see it as wrong, but I'd say we actually brought them civilization, rather than tamper with theirs.

Fair point initially, maybe they weren't centrally governed nation states. nor would I claim that colonialisation was all bad for the colonies. But morally i believe it was unjustifiable, and to now claim our conquerees were in need of a healthy dose of western civilisation is equally unjustified. Who the hell are we to interfere? Does Belgian colonial policy, for example, have blood on its hands in Rwanda? Yes, IMO. That is the first example that springs to mind. The best thing colonialism did was teach teh world how to beat England at cricket.

Reporter: What do you think of western civilisation?
Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea...

[Napoleon Ier]

Of course it was wrong in its practice in many cases. As for the principleof civilizing them, by no means was it wrong. Indeed, the British Empire for example helped reduce slavery which was widespread usage amongst native tribesmen. SOI dont think its fair to inanely call all colonial periods inherently wrong.

[Frigidus]

Of course it was wrong in its practice in many cases. As for the principleof civilizing them, by no means was it wrong. Indeed, the British Empire for example helped reduce slavery which was widespread usage amongst native tribesmen. SOI dont think its fair to inanely call all colonial periods inherently wrong.

By the time slavery was reduced we had already enslaved a good portion of the people living there. Not to mention that we tried mix seperate cultures and enforce our religions and definition of "civilization" on them. Africa, before we came, was perhaps a bit backwards but not a bad place to live. When we left it was diseased, and now there's constant fighting across the continent.