The Iraq thread 3

[Veovis 0]

Quote[/b] ]the once safe Iraq

....

I will now eat a handfull of glass.

[theavonlady 2]

It`s quite simple.They f*cked up the country so badly creating the once safe Iraq

Let's put things into proportion. Once safe? How many Iraqis died through all sorts of grueling methods during Saddam's and the Baathist's reign for over 2 decades?

Safe?

Quote[/b] ]into a terrorist heaven where they are free to rampage the entire place that unfortunatly if they leave tomorrow even though that`s what the Iraqis wish, because of the fact that they disolved the army and were unable to train the Iraqi forces it won`t be able to stand on it`s own.

That part I agree on. I think it's the Coalitions responsibility to agressively combat all of the terrorists operation in Iraq and engage them in a full military conflict.

Once the country is secure, it's also the Coalition's obligation to repair the infrastructure and the oil industry plus plow additional monies where needed to ignite Iraq's independence.

Quote[/b] ]You are confusing "moraly correct" to making yourself needed.

I don't need you to need me.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Right. Am I allowed to wish those that mesmerize of having an atomic bomb dropped upon me and my family that they and their families heads should be sawed off slowly and recorded for posterity?

I have every right to criticize those people who jest in expresses their wishes for my people's suffering.

Are they allowed to wish those who came and stold their lands are terrorising every day the Palestinians,pushing them to commit suicide attacks out of desperation destroying the homes of their relatives in retalliation and killing civillians in air raids......

If you wish to argue over one historical opinion versus another, fine. That's not what happened here. What happened here is called flaming.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]I have every right to criticize those people who jest in expresses their wishes for my people's suffering.

I am trying to tell you for a while that it goes both ways.

Where did I instigate jesting and laughing at people being killed? Please. Find where I started this.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]Let's put things into proportion. Once safe? How many Iraqis died through all sorts of grueling methods during Saddam's and the Baathist's reign for over 2 decades?

Safe?

I am talking about pre-war status not about 2 decades ago when Iran-Iraq war and the Shia rebellion influenced the situation as I`m not refering to USA condition considering the civil war.

Before the war started there was nu humanitarian crisis(as in Sudan),no car bombings,no terrorist attacks so yes compared to what`s going on even today one year after the war "ended"

Iraq was relatively safe.

Quote[/b] ]I will now eat a handfull of glass.

Veovis I am getting tired of your 1 line rethorics caused by your uncapabillity to read the thread/my post properly.If you have something constructive to add please do so if not refrain yourself.

Quote[/b] ]Where did I instigate jesting and laughing at people being killed? Please. Find where I started this.

I appologise,I thought you were refering to Arab people in general, a forum is not the best place to comunicate.Now I understand that you were refering to Jinef posts.

Quote[/b] ]I don't need you to need me.

Absolutley wrong.You see there is something that TBA is afraid.After spending all of their resources in Iraq and so much money,the country turning into a copy cat of Iran(as religious figures are EXTREMLY popular right now among Iraqis)

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Let's put things into proportion. Once safe? How many Iraqis died through all sorts of grueling methods during Saddam's and the Baathist's reign for over 2 decades?

Safe?

I am talking about pre-war status not about 2 decades ago when Iran-Iraq war and the Shia rebellion influenced the situation as I`m not refering to USA condition considering the civil war.

Before the war started there was nu humanitarian crisis(as in Sudan),no car bombings,no terrorist attacks so yes compared to what`s going on even today one year after the war "ended"

Iraq was relatively safe.

Quote[/b] ]I will now eat a handfull of glass.

Veovis I am getting tired of your 1 line rethorics caused by your uncapabillity to read the thread/my post properly.If you have something constructive to add please do so if not refrain yourself.

I will now eat two handfulls of glass, swallow a gallon of gasoline and swallow a match.

Take that, Veovis!

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Where did I instigate jesting and laughing at people being killed? Please. Find where I started this.

I appologise,I thought you were refering to Arab people in general, a forum is not the best place to comunicate.Now I understand that you were refering to Jinef posts.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]I don't need you to need me.

Absolutley wrong.You see there is something that TBA is afraid.After spending all of their resources in Iraq and so much money,the country turning into a copy cat of Iran(as religious figures are EXTREMLY popular right now among Iraqis)

Now I've lost you. Who needs who? Stop typing in 'Stral!

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]will now eat two handfulls of glass, swallow a gallon of gasoline and swallow a match

You are not "helping" me.Obviously you think that my opinion that Iraq was safer before the war started then today with constant car bombings directed at the Iraqis is completly wrong.Explain why is it so,by refering to my above post.

Quote[/b] ]Now I've lost you. Who needs who?

I don't need you to need me=The Bush Administration doesn`t want to be needed in Iraq as it is not in their best intrest

[Veovis 0]

Quote[/b] ]Veovis I am getting tired of your 1 line rethorics caused by your uncapabillity to read the thread/my post properly.

The last time I mistakenly read your post was because you used sarcasm, which can be hard to catch when just reading text. I apologized, and edited the comment out of my post.

This time, however, I did not feel it necessary to explain why I disagreed with your statement. I hope you'll be hard pressed to find another person that thinks Iraq has been a 'safe' place within recent memory (the last three decades or so).

[denoir 0]

Defiant Saddam appears in court [bBC]

They censored all the sound, so the video is pretty useless. So much for transparency, eh?

[theavonlady 2]

So much for transparency, eh?

That's a JPEG. You need a GIF for transparency.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]The last time I mistakenly read your post was because you used sarcasm, which can be hard to catch when just reading text. I apologized, and edited the comment out of my post.

If you would have read what I`ve quoted it would have been easy for you to understand.

Quote[/b] ]UNcapability, huh

English is not my first,nor my second language but if you would look at your keyboard you would see that that it was a typo as "U" and "I" are right next to eachother.

edit

Quote[/b] ]This time, however, I did not feel it necessary to explain why I disagreed with your statement. I hope you'll be hard pressed to find another person that thinks Iraq has been a 'safe' place within recent memory (the last three decades or so).

You mean by the time Iraq-Iran war was going on,right?

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]will now eat two handfulls of glass, swallow a gallon of gasoline and swallow a match

You are not "helping" me.Obviously you think that my opinion that Iraq was safer before the war started then today with constant car bombings directed at the Iraqis is completly wrong.Explain why is it so,by refering to my above post.

How many Iraqis were killed, tortured, raped and mutilated by Saddam and his henchmen, from the time he gained power until he was ousted?

Go ahead and exclude war casualties (but not punishments), other nationals and even those killed in the Shi'ite rebellion (but not those killed after the rebellion was suppressed).

[theavonlady 2]

Stop typing in 'Stral!  

I have no idea why I assumed all this time that Quicksand was Australian.

Maybe that's because I mistake Australians for Romanians?

[denoir 0]

How many Iraqis were killed, tortured, raped and mutilated by Saddam and his henchmen, from the time he gained power until he was ousted?

Go ahead and exclude war casualties (but not punishments), other nationals and even those killed in the Shi'ite rebellion (but not those killed after the rebellion was suppressed).

As in dead Iraqis/year? Looking at it that way, Iraq was certainly safer during Saddam.

Edit: Well, I shouldn't say "certainly" as we don't have any reliable numbers on either.

[Veovis 0]

Quote[/b] ]English is not my first,nor my second language but if you would look at your keyboard you would see that that it was a typo as "U" and "I" are right next to eachother.

incapability-English is not my first nor my second language,I`ve been studying it for just more then 1.5 years- I don`t think it reflects my

Sorry, this always tends to slip my mind. I've always admired the rest of the world's ability to pick up English. Only 1.5 years and you are able to type this well? I took French for three years and I doubt I could carry out a conversation in it.

Anyway...back to Iraq. Instead of going to war, we should have just sent Hussein one of these.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]Sorry, this always tends to slip my mind. I've always admired the rest of the world's ability to pick up English. Only 1.5 years and you are able to type this well? I took French for three years and I doubt I could carry out a conversation in it.

Yes!First I have to say that until I`ve started tutoring(in school I was taking french and italian classes) I`ve learned alot from television because all of our movies are subtitled and not doubled(like in Germany or Turkey).And now it`s like a puzzle,every day a new piece comes along,I also found posting in forums helpful and checking words that I`m not sure how to spell in google.

Quote[/b] ]I have no idea why I assumed all this time that Quicksand was Australian.  

Maybe that's because I mistake Australians for Romanians?  

Well that`s something you don`t hear everyday considering how much we have in common  

Aslo I have to say it makes me kind of proud to be confused with a nationallity whose english language is native  

Quote[/b] ]How many Iraqis were killed, tortured, raped and mutilated by Saddam and his henchmen, from the time he gained power until he was ousted?

Go ahead and exclude war casualties (but not punishments), other nationals and even those killed in the Shi'ite rebellion (but not those killed after the rebellion was suppressed).

As pointed out by denoir this is debatable as I was refering to Iraq just before the war started.I think we should stop this topic for now as we are spinning in circles and sources are extremly vague.

[miles teg 1]

Uhh Teg, I think you need to read my post there buddy. Did I say we need to just start invading Islamic countries? No, when I say "THEY" I do mean the whole Middle East, except for our only friend there, Israel. I honestly can not see how somebody could not see this. It just amazes me! There is a way to "Finish it" in Iraq, but we are going to have to get tough, and don't think Im just talking here, if I need to go to Iraq for my country, then I WILL do it! Sadly I can't yet because Im still a sad sad high school boy.  Im not saying blood for blood, Im saying we must do what it takes to stop the attacks(with trying our best not to hurt the innocent) by the terrorist in Iraq, and all around the world. We are not going to win this thing by sitting around an doing nohting, or trhough talking, this is a fight, and if we back down we will loose.

No you didn't say anything about invading countries, but that is the logical route to take using your logic of "getting tough."

The war on terror is far more then just Iraq. It now involves the entire Islamic world and trying to identify and kill Islamic extremists mixed in with the rest of the Islamic world. We have NO MEANS of doing so becuase we don't even know who the hell these people are nor do we have any methods on how to identify them other then when they commit an act of terror or crime in the name of Islam.

We can "Get Tough" all we want in Iraq and it won't do a damn thing except encourage more and more Iraqis to create a full-scale national uprising against the United States.

Then what???

Nuke 'em all?

What about all the people in the Middle East that support them? Do we "get tough" with them also? That would mean either bombing the hell out of them or invading them. Either way it would mean killing hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. We have done it before (in Vietnam) and it didn't do us much good then nor will it solve anything now except create more and more hatred against us from not only Muslims, but the entire world.

I fail to see you logic of how "getting tough" in Iraq is supposed to make things better. Please explain to me in detail how this works.

By the way I am ex US military, was born in the Middle East, have lived in the Middle East and currently I'm about to complete my masters degree in cultural anthropology specializing in conflict anthropology in the Middle East just to give you some background on myself. I'm not saying I'm better then you or smarter then you, but I do have not only academic experience on these issues, but also real world experience as well and have no problem seeing and understanding things from both a military and diplomatic perspective.

There is a proper place for the use of military power in this war on terror, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that right now we are badly misapplying our military and using blunt force to combat a delicate and highly complex problem that requires alot more then just brute military force to crush.

It may work in the movies, but in real life with real human beings it does not.

Right now the US Department of Defense needs a HUGE shift in strategy for how they are fighting this war on terror.

I am currently trying to get employment with some government agency or civilian contractor to hopefully influence that shift to a more intelligent and productive form of war.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[theavonlady 2]

How many Iraqis were killed, tortured, raped and mutilated by Saddam and his henchmen, from the time he gained power until he was ousted?

Go ahead and exclude war casualties (but not punishments), other nationals and even those killed in the Shi'ite rebellion (but not those killed after the rebellion was suppressed).

As in dead Iraqis/year? Looking at it that way, Iraq was certainly safer during Saddam.

Edit: Well, I shouldn't say "certainly" as we don't have any reliable numbers on either.

Some old and new articles to remind us of what once was:

Iraqis pour out tales of Saddam's torture chambers

The Saddam Files

Killer File - Saddam Hussein

Quote[/b] ]Kill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqis and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranians killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shi'ite Muslims killed during Hussein's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 100,000. (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). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

Let's stop kidding ourselves.

[quicksand 0]

It`s not in my character to post this kind of videos but this one really cracked me up.

Bush&Blair 4 MB (not left or right propaganda,just funny)

[Jinef 2]

Ok I am going to clarify my positition.

I was the one who brought jest at death.

AL was the one who brought racism to the table. (Slight Note: Generally left wingers like myself are not racist, the trend is with the other side of the table)

Explanation:

I provided evidence that several high ranking US generals and reporters were laughing at an image of a laser guided weapon hitting a bridge with people on it.

Now, people did not find this offensive in any form. So obviously I am missing the joke.

To create a similar situation I posted this:

Now this quote is the reasoning for this.

Quote[/b] ]I say we get Avon elected to lead Israel.

First order in government is to have 2 A4 Skyahawks fly out and drop nuclear weapons on Palestine.

A Trident missile is then launched from HMS Spartan or something and bye bye Israel. The next 15 minutes is a frenzy of comms between Paris, London, Washington, Beijing, Moscow, Delhi and Islamabad. The main question is, do we destroy the Earth? Well with politicians who have restraint then no. The world lives happily ever after. The End.

This is an absurd situation, first of all Avon is not going to lead Israel (Thank The Heavens). So there is the satire, it's absurd and not going to happen so we can make a serious point using humour. The serious point is that it is really hilariously funny to think of 6.4 million people being heated up to a toasty 1 million degrees celcius in under 1/10 of a second, right?

Now quite honestly it's sad to me that when you read this you don't get the point and instead of seeing the value in human life and having empathy for my position you take it as a crude anti-semitic stance. I am not anti-Human to wish genocide on anybody, and that to anyone who knows me or heard my position on these global affairs in more detail (Which I won't bother doing as people will read down to second line where they find something they don't agree with, ignore the rest of the post and start replying) is truly absurd.

I am replying now (I earlier waited it out to see if Avon actually realised what I was saying) as other people are stepping in on the racism issue where truly it was unfounded, I hope everyone here has played enough OFP to realise death is not nice and you should not wish it upon any other human. That's just basic fucking values, it seems here that some extreme left want to see more terrorist attacks just to prove the right wrong and the right want to get a gun and personally blow off Mr Bin Laden's head.

Oh and Duke of Ray, if you are still in high school you should be thinking about the opposite sex (Or same) and going to uni to learn about all the interesting things in the world there is to learn about. Go experiment with life, don't consign yourself to standing around on guard duty in some far away place waiting to get killed, you only get one life, don't waste it on a cause not yet proved worthy.

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

Defiant Saddam appears in court [bBC]

They censored all the sound, so the video is pretty useless. So much for transparency, eh?

im pretty sure thats done for secuirity reasons, same reason why the judge has his face blurred out.

[denoir 0]

im pretty sure thats done for secuirity reasons, same reason why the judge has his face blurred out.

Nope, they said that they censored him to prevent him from holding political speeches.

In one way, I can understand that, but bottom line I think it was the most moronic thing they could have done. It will only spread rumors and look like they are trying to hide something (well, which they are actually).

[quicksand 0]

Well is anybody watching CNN?They are showing bits of the audio and everybody is shocked.Even the comentors are poiting out that it appears he is in control of the court and the judge is way out of his league.This was suposed to be a formality that should have lasted 5 minutes but because of Saddam wits(they`ve said it not me) it lasted more then 30 minutes.

I`ll leave my comments for later.

[denoir 0]

Yupp, they are showing it on BBC as well. Some parts of the audio have now been released. Very interesting alltogether.

Did you notice in the end the guard that at first seemed to refuse to take Saddam away?

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

im pretty sure thats done for secuirity reasons, same reason why the judge has his face blurred out.

Nope, they said that they censored him to prevent him from holding political speeches.

In one way, I can understand that, but bottom line I think it was the most moronic thing they could have done. It will only spread rumors and look like they are trying to hide something (well, which they are actually).

well if thats the reason then, thats rather sad.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

he looks like a smelly old man with dandruff!