Falujah
 

So why is the body count in Iraq suddenly escalating? Cause we're turning Iraq upside down hunting for the people who burned those bodies and hung them from a bridge.

It's an outrage what happened to those dead bodies-- but they weren't any deader than the other 630 deadAmericans, or the uncounted dead Iraquis. They're throwing good lives after bad, and it's all because they're fishing for a propaganda victory. They're trying to restore the illusion that they're in control, and it isn't about securing the peace in Iraq. It's about securing Bush's sagging approval ratings.

Rubbish, the only way you can combat these terrorist insurgents is with more precise powerful attacks :rolleyes:

That my friend, is why Bush is an idiot (not wholly why though).

Rubbish yourself... people are getting killed everyday here, ost of them horribly, but they didn't call for this kind of response. This is all about the TV pictures.

10,000 Iraqi's killed, 500 US troops killed (approx figures), so, whos the savage?

Just what do you propose we should do, spiderbaby1958?

papadoc, I'll throw my own two pence worth in, if you don't mind?

Hand control of Iraq over to the UN, all of it, not just security, but all of it; the awarding of contracts, control of the oil and the timing and running of any elections. I'm not saying this will sort Iraq's problems out, but it will stop US big buisness carving Iraq up.

Reform the Iraqi army immediatly. This will have two benefits;

a) An Iraqi army controling security in Iraq would be a good thing
b) An Iraqi army would see an de-crease in unemployment.

Kick out the US appointed goverment. That goverment is full of crooks and would be war-lords.

Again, this wouldn't solve the problems immediatly, but it would go along way towards it.

I propose we elect ourselves a real president.

Thanks marvinbarcelona.
That is not an answer to my question.
Do you actually have a legitimate repsonse, like marvinbarcelona did?
Something more than partisan political talking points.

No, I don't.. because it's a goddamn mess. If we stay there's going to be bloodshed, if we leave, there's going to be bloodshed, and either way, some of the blood just might be shed on our own soil. Plans were made by the State department and the CIA for the reconstruction of Iraq... and they were ignored.

My point was that Bush seems to care more about TV images than about lives, and I don't understand why you think I should have a way out of the mess Bush created in order to make that point.

I just thought that you were intelligent enough
to have an opinion on how to resolve this problem,
regardless of who got us into this problem.

Nope. Not a clue.

Getting the UN involved is one option,
but I'm really skeptical about their involvement.
It could be said that they're one of the reasons
why Iraq got the way it was under Saddam.
There were under the table deals with him and the UN,
causing the UN to overlook and underact on their resolutions.

While I do think the UN should be involved now politically,
and get that away from the US, as we seem to be fumbling that right now,
I don't think the UN has the balls to take over military actions.
One bomb on their buiding in Beirut and they ran away.
So maybe give political and governmental power to the UN,
in the interim time until the Iraqi government gets going,
and keep our military there to help keep law and order,
and train the Iraqi military and police,
until they can do for themselves what we are trying to do for them.
But do it as quickly as possible, because as long as we're there,
we will attract the minority of enemies that want to attack us for simply being there.

But at this point, cutting our losses and running is not an option.
We did that once already to the Iraqi people.

He cares more about reelection than lives, most likely...
esit: He also likes oil and his special interest groups and his campaign sponsers a lot. That's why he devoted billions of dollars to a missle defense system instead
of terrorism: the defense contractors gave him big bucks.....
And he is still blaming 9/11 on every single perosn and agency EXCEPT for himself or the White House.....

I agree with marvinbarcelona, we get the fuck out of there and the UN takes over. I would say that EVERYONE should pull out and just let the Iraqis do whatever they want, but thent here might be civil war....

I say the UN takes over everything until Iraq elects its own govt and forms a good enough army to keep the peace, then we all just get out.

Here's what is really funny (well not funny, more like Ironic) :

The Chinese revolution that eneded in Commy rule there (the cultural revolution?) was seen as "freedom" by some.........when the govt, years later, decided to tell the people to speak up, the people did after being silenced; th problem was, the govt had expected people to applaud them but instead the people spoke out against the govt a lot. So the govt made people dissappear and limited free speach again.

The same thing happened in Iraq, to a point. We go in and free the people and tell them that they now have the right to speak up. But then there are a bunch of people speaking out against the govt, so what do we do? we shut down the anti-american newspaper.

Anyone see the correlation(sp?)?

i just think that the families should hear of the deaths from the army not from watching cnn


oh yeah fuck bush and the war

George Bush isn't about to hand the mess over to the UN. Politically, it's not feasible-- and politics is the only reality the cut taxes/invade Iraq/build a missle shield crowd seems to really respect. Seriously, I think our best chance to avoid disaster is a new President, a fresh start with our enemies and our allies. I think that John Kerry is a fine man, and I hope he's up to the task. But I'm not sure Soloman himself could get us out of this.

What in the world do you mean a fresh start with our enemies?
Once again, how do you propose we do that?

Fresh start = fresh president in the white house.

edit: At least, that's th best we can do for now.

What the HELL, Papadoc? Let's recap!

I wrote:
Seriously, I think our best chance to avoid disaster is a new President, a fresh start with our enemies and our allies.

You quoted me:
Seriously, I think our best chance to avoid disaster is a fresh start with our enemies

and commented:
What in the world do you mean a fresh start with our enemies? Once again, how do you propose we do that?

You edited the answer to your own question out of my post... what's THAT about?

You can try to spin my reply anyway you want,
but the fact still remains that you proposed getting a fresh start with our enemies.
All I want to know is how you suggest we do that.

my two sense:
Secure Iraq - Lock it down. Pump more troops in there. Make it so no one can take shit without a patrol knowing of it. This not only sounds harsh, but it IS harsh. Get the weapons out. Saddam was smart. He hid weapons caches all over that damned country. It'll be long and hard but finding them IS possible.

Make them NOT want to kill you - Jobs. Money. Education. Decent health care. Security. The majority of arabs are family oriented. Yeah, they have 5 wives and 22 kids, but its still a family. If the bread winners have a job, they may NOT have time to go out and kill you. If they need to buy groceries (for which they need money aka job), they may NOT put killing you on their list. If children are in school, learning of the alphabet and algerbra, they may NOT be learning to want to kill you. If they aren't worried about them or there loved ones dying on a daily basis, they may NOT want you out.

Confidence - Yes. It is all nice and well to have someone to whip your ass for you, but I'd much rather do it myself. If they believe they have the abilities and strength to build their country back up, they just may very well do it. How does confidence get built. One way is military service. You learn alot about yourself and your fellow man when you're pinned down under enemy gunfire. But if you live, you're a better man for it. Once they have there own militar and police force, no longer will they have to sound like idiots talking to US solders. Explaining where they are going and such. I know I'd sound like a jackass if i tried to speak arabic after only hearing it spoken on tv. People respond better to members of their own superorganism than those of others, esp. in tense situations.

Get the fuck out - Pretty much self-explanatory.

And now my hand is begining to hurt.
I have to save some strength for masturbation.

My two cents...

Get UN involved, try to convince relatively stable "pro" western muslim countries to send in peacekeepers (Malaysia, Egypt, Marocco, Indonesia, Pakistan etc..) they will be perceived less as occupiers than Americans/Brits/Japs/whoever...

Stick to the handover/election deadline, and publicly promise to respect the result, no matter the outcome

(for america) Stop vetoing UN resolutions on Israels violation of Human rights, that's something that really generates anti american sentiment in the arab population

Training/Policy or whatever it is that's not working with the Iraqi security forces needs to be fixed. They're apparently not very trusted or liked by the general population, and it's pretty important that they have the publics support.

yeah, and changing the president in the white house would be a big step too....

- Stefan

Are you taking about guns and ammunition etc? If I remember corectly it is the US whos constitution states that a well armed population is necessary in order to ensure that the government cannot run amok over the people. How ironic!

lol :D

nice one phily :up:

Anyway, i shouldn't talk, we'll probably soon all be equiped with rifles and send to greenland to protect Danish territory from the evil Canadian Invaders who are trying to take over our land :/

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/mar3104.gif

Guns? Ammo?
to quote whiteflip:
Take that shit and go buy me some popcorn.
I was refering to the motars, RPG's, landmines, etc.
If WE can't have it, neither can they.

Actually you constitution says "arms" which includes everything from pointy sticks to nuclear weapons. Not allowing grenades and RPGs to be owned by the public is actually in breach of your constitution.

Sorry, but that's the most stupid thing you'll ever say.

YEAH!! We need our RPGs! Games for all..........oh wait......:p :D

What the fuck? I'm spinning YOUR reply, papadoc? What are you smoking?

You changed MY words.

Again:

I wrote:
Seriously, I think our best chance to avoid disaster is a new President,a fresh start with our enemies and our allies.

You quoted me:
Seriously, I think our best chance to avoid disaster is a fresh start with our enemies

and commented:
What in the world do you mean a fresh start with our enemies? Once again, how do you propose we do that?

And I'm spinning you?

Well, how we accomplish that is with a new president, which you edited from my words-- and I also think it was dishonest of you to remove the words "and our allies", since a new president will obviously effect our relations with our allies before it will effect our relations with our enemies. In my mind, this was where lies the real import of my statement. The current administration has done us more damage through our relationships with our allies.

Unless you own up to your dishonesty, or explain how this was an honest mistake, I'm not going to reply to anything else you write... it's just not worth the effort.

The constitution is maliable and can be interpreted.
It has been well established policy for a very long time to restrict the type of arms the general populace may have.
You MAY have an M-16 WITH a grenade launcher.
But in order to obtain the grenades, you must be in the milatary or a law enforcement officer.
You MAY have a bazooka, but only as part of an arms collection and only with a license and a gaurentee/affidavid/certification that it is PERMENANLY disabled.
I can see how you living in the UK could give you the impression that we allow all sorts of weapons to change hands on a daily basis in the states.
Clearing out ALL of the arms in Iraq is impossible. In most third-world countries, an AK-47 can be bought for 50$US. However, anything that can take out an armor plated Humvee does not need to be in the hands of your average citizen.

This post and the one above are identical in what they are trying to communicate.
Just this one uses more words.
In the future, i will remember to use lots of words as you long for reading material.

So why does Iraqs consitiution have to be exactly the same as the US's? I thought the plan was to liberate Iraq and thus let them make their own minds up about these things.

I know the US constitution is over ridden by law, but there is no justification for this, it's just that you accept it, not because it's "right".

If the reason for having a well armed public is to overthrow a rogue government then having weapons that can take out an amour plated Humvee are necessary and should be allowed. Same for large explosives, battle ships, attack helicopters and nuclear weapons.

Don't bother, the extra words added nothing and your point of view is still wrong.

Let's look at this entire statement shall we?
It suggests we do 3 things.
1. elect a new president
2. get a fresh start with our enemies
3. get a fresh start with our allies
I don't see how you can keep denying #2.

Do you honestly think our enemies started hating us because of George Bush?
If so, how do you explain all the bombings, and all the killing of Americans
during the Clinton administration?
Do you honestly believe that by electing a new president,
they'll magically stop hating us?
Let's say we elect John Kerry and he pulls us completely out of Iraq.
You think our enemies will just stop attacking us in other places too?
If so, how do you explain 911.
That attack came before Afghanistan and before Iraq.
That attack came because they hate us and hated us long
before George Bush came into office.
That attack, and all the attacks during the 90's were
because they've declared a holy war on Christians, Jews, and America.
So it won't matter who's president, they'll still hate us,
and they'll continue to attack us in the future.

So, I've just given my opinion on why I think
a fresh start with our enemies is not possible.
Now maybe you can give your opinion on why you think it is possible.
If you have a legitimate idea about this, I'd love to hear it.

:p

Do you realize how bad that post makes you look?

Okay, I changed my mind.

A logical construct
1. America was attacked by muslim extremists
2. muslim extremists want to overthrow secular governments in the muslim world.
3. Saddam was a secular government

therefore:

4. WMD's or no WMD's, the idea that Saddam was going to arm people who want to overthrow him was always pretty ridiculous. By cooking up evidence and invading Iraq, Bush opened up an entirely new front in the terror war, for no good reason.

Not only that, by overthrowing Saddam we did Al Quieda's job for them, and gave them an opening to establish a new terror-theocracy.

With a new president, I don't expect our enemies to stop hating us. I do expect them to be handled with just a wee bit more competence.

Actually, a lot more! A smart president would have contrived to drive a wedge between bin Laden and the arab world, but the Iraq adventure has had the opposite effect. It's turned into a big Al Quieda recruiting drive. Young arab radicals are wearing bin Laden t-shirts the way American college students used to wear Che Guavera.

And now I'm done with you.

ACTION ALERT:
CNN to Al Jazeera: Why Report Civilian Deaths?

April 15, 2004

As the casualties mount in the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah,
Qatar-based Al Jazeera has been one of the only news networks broadcasting
from the inside, relaying images of destruction and civilian victims--
including women and children. But when CNN anchor Daryn Kagan interviewed
the network's editor-in-chief, Ahmed Al-Sheik, on Monday (4/12/04)-- a
rare opportunity to get independent information about events in Fallujah--
she used the occasion to badger Al-Sheik about whether the civilian deaths
were really "the story" in Fallujah.

Al Jazeera has recently come under sharp criticism from U.S. officials,
who claim the Iraqi casualties are 95 percent "military-age males" (AP,
4/12/04). "We have reason to believe that several news organizations do
not engage in truthful reporting," CPA spokesman Dan Senor said (Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, 4/14/04). "In fact it is no reporting." Senior
military spokesman Mark Kimmitt had a suggestion for Iraqis who saw
civilian deaths on Al Jazeera (New York Times, 4/12/04): "Change the
channel to a legitimate, authoritative, honest news station. The stations
that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are
not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda, and that is lies."

Acting as the substitute anchor on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports, Kagan began
the interview by asking Al-Sheik to respond to those accusations, citing
U.S. officials "saying the pictures and the reporting that Al Jazeera put
on the air only adds to the sense of frustration and anger and adds to the
problems in Iraq, rather than helping to solve them." After Al-Sheik
defended Al Jazeera's work as "accurate" and the images as representative
of "what takes place on the ground," Kagan pressed on:

"Isn't the story, though, bigger than just the simple numbers, with all
due respect to the Iraqi civilians who have lost their lives-- the story
bigger than just the numbers of people who were killed or the fact that
they might have been killed by the U.S. military, that the insurgents, the
people trying to cause problems within Fallujah, are mixing in among the
civilians, making it actually possibly that even more civilians would be
killed, that the story is what the Iraqi insurgents are doing, in addition
to what is the response from the U.S. military?"

CNN's argument that a bigger story than civilian deaths is "what the Iraqi
insurgents are doing" to provoke a U.S. "response" is startling.
Especially in light of official U.S. denials of civilian deaths, video
footage of women and children killed by the U.S. military is evidence that
needs to be seen.

And Al Jazeera is not alone in reporting a reality very different from the
one U.S. officials describe. Authorities have been able to keep a tight
rein on the information flow from Fallujah, with only one small television
network pool in the city that "travels and operates" under the watch of
the Marines (Television Week, 4/12/04). (It's noteworthy that the U.S.
has reportedly demanded, as a condition for lifting the siege of Fallujah,
that Al Jazeera cameras be removed from the city-- IslamOnline.net,
4/9/04.)

But independent journalists reporting from Fallujah have described a scene
consistent with the one broadcast by Al Jazeera. Rahul Mahajan, a U.S.
journalist in Fallujah, estimated that of the 600 Iraqis killed in
Fallujah, 200 were women and 100 young children, with many of the adult
male casualties also non-combatants. He reported witnessing "a young
woman, 18 years old, shot in the head" and "a young boy with massive
internal bleeding" at a clinic (CommonDreams.org, 4/12/04). Mahajan
recounted that during the "cease-fire," "Americans were attacking with
heavy artillery but primarily with snipers"-- with ambulances among the
targets. The sniper activity was also reported by U.S. journalist Dahr
Jamail (NewStandardNews.net, 4/11/04): "Fallujah residents say Marines are
opening fire randomly on unarmed civilians and have attacked clearly
marked ambulances."

When reports from the ground are describing hundreds of civilians being
killed by U.S. forces, CNN should be looking to Al Jazeera's footage to
see if it corroborates those accounts-- not badgering Al Jazeera's editor
about why he doesn't suppress that footage.

Never said it did have to be the same as ours.
I just said the weapons have to go.
Why?
Because it is NOT an independant country.
It was CONQURED{sp) by the united states.
When we either get it right or run like scared bastards, then they can make up there own minds.

The judical branch(supreme court) interprets the constitution however it sees fit and for the changing times.
It also clarifies the founders wishes.
Ex. The right to bear arms is not granted to those the courts deem mentialy diseased or defective. It is not in the public's best intrest to have clinicly diagnosed individuals running around with VERY deadly weapons.
There IS justification for this.

If you are FOR distrubiting these types of arms to the general public, thats your opinion. It is NOT in the public's best intrest to have every person in america so armed. Each state maintains its own standing army, navy, and air force. Each state maintains its own government. Should the Federal government ever be so compromised that we have to throw down in the streets, the domestic enemy will not have it easy.

prove it

wronge, not U.N but

it was One bomb on U.S.A building in Beirut and the U.S.A army ran away.

First Main Goal:U.S.A invaded Iraq for Oil. "seems we still live in dark ages and U.S.A look like USSR!"

either U.S.A accept the natural shrink of their economy or either kill/steal other nations.

History teach us that we can't stay super Power for ever.

Ok all jokes aside.........

#1 The U.S. Army dosen't run. They are hardcore when it comes to Wars. Now Marines however........

#2. THE U.S.A. didn't invade Iraq for oil. The GOP (Government Of Power which is currently Republican) used the force of the Millitary to invade Iraq. Its not official that they did it for the oil or not...... Things that are done by the GOP dosen't necessarily reflect what we THE PEOPLE WANT those asses to do but....

#3. The United States Of America Will NEVER become like the USSR. They were communist, had bad civil rights practices, and psychopaths for leaders. Fortunately our current leader is just a country hick!! LOL! I highly doubt that he will be re-elected.

#4. Natural shrink??? The economy is expanding and If the U.S. Economy hurts, then ALL MAJOR NATIONS take a huge hit as well. Besides, Most foregin companies rely on Wall Street doing well or they risk financial burden.

#5. We didn't Kill/Steal other countries' economies. They were rightfully allowed to trade in those countries who allowed it. We didn't steal the economy in Korea, Japan, England, Australia, Canada, Russia, France, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Switzerland, Poland, Germany, India(just to name a few off the top of my head)........They had the Honor and RIGHT to deny American Trade in their countries. Hell even CHINA out of all nations agreed to trade with us. They didn't have to but they did and doing it on their own terms.

AND last of all #6....

We didn't decide to become the Super Power of the world. That title was given from all of the WARS that we been through with trusted allies through out the century.

History lesson.........
We, the U.S.A. was dragged into WWI and II. The South Koreans wanted help from us during that period and we deliverd for the most part. Until the last couple of wars have been controversial, starting with Vietnam which was wrong and proved that, when the people took action to impeach Nixon. The Gulf War was a reasonable cause to help Kuwait get what was rightfully theirs. People didn't like it but it came out alright in the end.

This recent Iraqi war is very conterversial, though the Iraqi people ARE actually benefitting from all this. They get freedom from Saddam, they get to go to schools, they get human rights that was stripped away by Saddam, Civil Rights, civil liberties, the freedom to commit to hobbies like Music, Art and Theatre. Matter of fact from the views of RECENT REPORTS, many of them EMBRACE American trade and products. Remind you, they never had Free Trade. Iraqi business owners are selling PEPSI out of all things(I'm a Coke man myself...). Pepsi was a luxury for them, now its an everyday item for most.

Journalists have a habit of looking for "Juicy" topics and the attacks get the most ratings so they report them instead. Keep that im mind when posting illinformed rants...

i proper grammatical breakdown of his statement would show that he meant that #1 would lead to #2 and #3, not that it's an independent course of action.

let's not bring arguments based on the bending of words into this. that's what politicians are for.

nice try zootm.