I wish I was dead before seeing this...

Ok ..We need to remove Saddam ...

Are we doing that by killing Children and civilians...

Check this JUST if your heart is strong enough........


URL

umm IRAQ's propaganda machine working over time as usual...

not that i dont feel sorry for the deaths but these are expected in wars and in this war there is a very low number of CIV casulites maybe if IRAQ fought there war on a battle feild instead of hiding between civs this would not happen.

Would a mod please delete this thread... AND this user (xclnt). He's obviously not going to contribute anything to the forums (especially since the first time he spammed us, he started spamming us in the Apache forum...).

I wonder if he is going to post pictures of all the civilians that were shot by saddam's forces whilst trying to flee the cities?

I wonder if he is going to post pictures of the POWs which Iraq paraded on TV which (according to Red Cross) is a war crime (due to being interviewed by reporters).

Felt somehow inclined to give some opinions on things posted here...This IS the lounge after all, so nothing wrong there imo.. I just got the impression he tries to stir things up since he posted some heavy images. No need for that I think.. The question he asks is a valid one though (question remains if he really wanted to discuss it though)... and him being new doesn't give him less right to asks such questions here right?every civilian killed is one too many but as pointed out it's part of a war (which makes war an awfull thing). Your statement about there being less casualties if Iraq fought on the 'battlefield' (whatever definition you use for that) is somewhat colored imo since (1) it IS the battlefield (not the point though) and (2) it's the only place the Iraqy forces can keep a stand (for some time). They would be nuts/suicidal to take a stand in the middle of the desert with all allied satellites and precision bombing. Of course, it would be 'better' but keep realistic. Even better would be to let Bush & Saddam duel right?Maybe he is, maybe he isn't... who cares? Fact is both sides will be doing nasty things (maybe the some more than others) and war is ugly. Btw, the coalition forces also showed POW's on television when they were captured (also against the geneve-convention). If the Americans are so noble and honest in all their actions abroad, why don't they support the court in The Hague?

/just trying to get some perspective in this thread...

edit
I just saw xlct's other thread about 'our youth' so I think that answers my first question about him stirring the thing... not that important though since the rest still remains valid I think

you who live peacefully in america with your family home and friends . do you think that war is easy ? have you ever tasted war? have you ever seen your son, father, mother , or even brother fall a part to pieces ? for god sake why are we fighting Saddam ? if he is a criminal we can easily assasinate him ? what do we will benefit from attacking iraq?

now be ready for the big question
Why do we leave North korea?

Why?
Why?

this time i have a clue

we are being used like puppets for the sake of the big companies . the big golden guns send americans to face thier death while enjoying countless accounts and continuos flow of money?

check this site to see how many americans suffered http://www.honaweb.com/bush/

Instead of deleting the thread just add the user to your ignore list. Works great, you don't ever need to see their crap anymore.

Why can't we assassinate Saddam? Oh... let me see, I guess that's why the US is trying to war Iraq. Wait, you said assssinate, which has a different connotation than kill... let me see, I guess Saddam has supporters, many of them. Again, let's see, he's really good at planning stealth actions. Many strong people in Iraq don't want Saddam, even those people who pretend they like Saddam, but why hasn't they kill him? I guess it's not that easy. In spite of this, we can never leave the fact that Bush may have interest for oil.

About benefit of attacking Iraq. If Iraq's current regime don't fall down and continues to build weapons of mass destruction, it doensn't matter who wants or doesn't want war, Iraq will start it with a big bad attitude.

You have a point though with North Korea, but I guess as Bush said that he wants to war Iraq because he wants to free the Iraqi citizens, and with North Korea there are no one to free, there are people to defend, but no one to really actually free - I hope so.

I have a small question for all of you. When you want to free a country you free it from the government or from the people? The majority of the world's population is against the war even the Iraqis themselves. Why do we stick our nose in people’s affairs? If Iraqis don't want Saddam it is their problem.

Secondly, we should first finish the unfinished business with Al Qaeda and then concern ourselves with other things. Do you know haw many Americans were killed in the 9-11? You all know the figure? Do you know how many innocents were killed in Afghanistan? 20000 innocents were killed only by accident. Have you ever experienced death? Have you ever faced it ? Have you ever seen the one who you love smashed into pieces like a crushed doll out of battery? Killing a dog, is considered a big crime, but bombing innocents is a case that we can argue about it. Give me a break.

I agree 100%. Reasoning is either (A) We want to show we're superior to everyone else (B) There is some strategic reason we need to have control of/be in good standing with the leader of a region.

You free it from whoever is constraining them to act on their own fill.

Quote:

The majority of the world's population is against the war even the Iraqis themselves. Why do we stick our nose in people’s affairs? If Iraqis don't want Saddam it is their problem.

It's not only Iraqis who don't want Saddam. With Saddam in power, anyone can be in danger. An example would be looking at what he's done in the past. Some might say that we always live in danger everyday, but to answer that, the danger we talk about here is different - it's constant and detrimental; unnatural.

Quote:

Secondly, we should first finish the unfinished business with Al Qaeda and then concern ourselves with other things. Do you know haw many Americans were killed in the 9-11? You all know the figure? Do you know how many innocents were killed in Afghanistan? 20000 innocents were killed only by accident. Have you ever experienced death? Have you ever faced it ? Have you ever seen the one who you love smashed into pieces like a crushed doll out of battery? Killing a dog, is considered a big crime, but bombing innocents is a case that we can argue about it. Give me a break.

No, and I don't want to. I cannot say I know what they are going through because I don't, and also I cannot speak for them. But I will speak my mind; the purpose of this war is to stop a possible future mass annihilation. I am not trying to convince anyone, but just try to look at it at a different perspective. If the US did not war Iraq and try to throw Saddam from power (hopefully he does), then Saddam will continue to kill people and prepare for a more destructive war - correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we've proven that Saddam is building weapons of mass destruction. Conclusively, war is inevitable, but the difference is it's more destructive. Then, the casualties we have now may double, triple, who knows?

Some might say how about N. Korea, Al Qaeda? Well, they are dangerous, but whatever happens now and whatever terror these two entities pose in the future, they can't be blame to the fact that US did not deal w/ them first because the difference made today is a difference pursuing tomorrow.

Lets assume that we beat Sadam and install a democratic government.

Iraq is going to need some serious rebuilding and emrgency aid. Seeing that they are nearly 400 billion in debit (from the last war). How are they going to pay for it? The oil will not be enough to pay for this war as well as the rebuilding. Without Japans and Germany' contribution it is going to get very expensive for the allies (US paid around 10% of Desert Storm). The Geneva convention states that the aid is our responsibility.

Who decides which companies get the contracts to do the rebuilding?
Already Haliburton is in there. Replacing the oil wells they sold Iraq after the last war. Guess who owns the company? VP Cheneys family.

So now we have a stable Iraq with elections. In a mainly Muslim country don't you think that they will elect a Muslim government.

Not on the best terms with the Muslims in the area are we? The longer the war goes and the more accidents we have the lower we are regarded. This is not going to get better when we win.

The end of Sadam will be just the start of the problems.

>>An example would be looking at what he's done in the past.
Did not stop the US supplying him in the past. Hope it will stop the US supplying arms to dictators it sees as 'useful' in the future.

I am getting confused. The first time I tried one of these site, I got to a site which seems to contain discussions, only in a very strange language.

This site doesn't seem to exist: The system detected a DNS Server Failure while attempting to retrieve the URL: http://www.jahra.org/free/umnooof/iraq3.jpg

It seems like I am one of those people who are able to write webpages, but I can't use them. Does anyone have a copy of "The internet for dummy's" that I can borrow ?

Sorry... This has nothing to do with the discussion. I just don't see how you guys can discuss something that isn't there.

lol, look at the related threads here,,,,