I agree we went about it the wrong way, but it still needed to be done. The past is just that, the past. It may not have been the best way to go about it, but we can't change that can we? At the end of the day we took a ruthless dictator out of power. There was no draft, just volunteers who went into the army by their own free will. So whether you agree with what happened or not, it still happened. Get over it and move on. And on a side note, I haven't seen gas prices higher than $2/gal over here yet. $4/gal would kind of piss me off.
Lol, if only it were so simple. You think those poor sods that US and UK troops are shooting at daily can just "move on"? You think that we can just "move on" from all the anti-western feeling that we've generated? If only! The coalition have well and truly f***ed iraq, and if they're not very careful they'll soon have f***ed the whole region. Sam
remember what Nostrodamus said about the end of the world, about everything kicking off in the middle east. where's it kicking off now? you guessed it the middle east. i know "i'll be Singing for absolution" when the end comes. i love muse( in a non gay way )
Excuse me? They are taught in schools to hate us, they are told by the government to hate us, they're entire belief is that we deserve death. It has nothing to do with this war. By putting Saddam out of power we can atleast begin to reverse their hatred for us. In either case we are supposedly pulling out in June/July (I forget which).
Nice sweeping generalisations there... Lets stop calling it a "war" shall we? Lets give it its rightful name- an Occupation. I can assure you that Iraquis are not "taught in school" to hate the west. I can also assure you that by engaging in this illegal invasion and occupation we have given a lot of people a reason to hate us. Sure, there were some people who detested the west beforehand- but I guarantee you there are a lot more now. If you can't see that then frankly you need to get your eyes tested. If the west really cared about getting rid of Saddam they would have done it in 1991. Instead they abandoned the Shias after calling on them to rise up. I think its very telling that the US and the UK allowed museums and hospitals to get looted whilst guarding the oil ministry. I also find it disturbing that Dick Cheney's old company (Halliburton) has won a huge majority of the contracts to "rebuild" the damage that we've caused... Sam
this "war" was nothing more than a fight to get more oil for the west.the US is trying to avoid peak oil. read about the it here> http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Future_oil_supply.htm
the pres is just a war hungary monkey hog bringing down the economy step by step (wondering what canada is like )
Actually, it is a war. Look at the definition of war in the dictionary if you don't agree with me. As for that photomontage, I feel it to be grossly insensitive and disrespectful. How would you feel if your brother/sister/father's photograph was being used as part of a stunt with the sole purpose of inciting further political ill-feeling? Whatever the reason for the war in Iraq we should be thoughtful of those who have lost their lives, irrelevant of nationality. I am not going to get drawn into an argument about the rights and wrongs of this conflict, I will however defend the honor of those who were simply doing their job. You may fix cars for a living, some of us protect your right to do so.
I would disagree. There is no longer a "state of iraq" as such. An american is in charge! The coalition is now in charge of Iraq, so I don't think its pushing it too far to call it an occupation. Sam
They may well be occupying Iraq, what I am trying to get across it that it is a war between parties, in the broader sense. Don't let personal feelings confuse the understanding of the english language! From the top: War on Terrorism (Global) Gulf War (Regional) War on Iraq (National) War against the militia/freedom fighters/liberators (whatever you decide). (Internal) War between the Iraqi police and the Looters/Kidnappers/. (Local)
A few things. 1)I do think that picture is distasteful and just not right. I mean make them look like the american flag or something not like that dumbass. 2)Didn't we originally go into iraq to find WMD's? Have we found any yet? Im not say there is or isn't just wondering. 3)Bush is a moron. I don't agree with him or like him. He has done one good thing in office and that is remove sadaam. 4)Sadaam was a git. He basically always goads the USA. Im sure if not publically then on a level where we would know about it. Maybe he did support Al Queda maybe not. But you make yourself very clear about it. I mean he was kinda poking a injured Tiger which is never a good idea. And the fact that we have wanted him gone for a while just added fuel to the fire. 5)As an american I can't disagree with this decision to go to war anymore because of that fact that we are already there and I don't want to be like those damn hippie idiots in the 60's that would spit on our soliders. I think it was a bad decision but I will support our troops until it is over and they are back.
If that Question was directed towards me then: What about the civillians? Our civillians over there? Their choice to be there if they get killed its sad but their choice. The Iraqi civillians sorry that you have ****** that don't want you to have freedom and would rather kill you and the americans so that you won't get it.
What nonsense. It is not in anyway "spitting on your troops" if you believe that they should come home. They're just doing what they are told- so you can argue and protest for them to be brought home without doing them any kind of disservice. I feel bad when British troops get killed, but I still want them brought home. What about the civilians that died when we dropped cluster bombs and missiles on their villages and towns? Sam
Isn't Jeb Bush Gopv. of Florida? maybe it WAS, now it's a dictatorship replace Saddam with "Bush"... delete "Even" and change "he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction" to ''he does have weapons of mass destruction" it becomes: the US is the only country in the history of civilization that has used a nuke on a civillian population. Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Astrum, just about everything you've said is true for Bush too. maybe we're not openly taught to hate the middle east. but reading the posts of such an open-minded person such as yourself prove it. you've bought into the hype. Newsflash! not every muslim is a terrorist!
Part of the muslim doctrine states that EVERY non-muslim shall be killed. Obviously not every muslim goes around fulfilling this, but the extremists do. They are even killing other muslims just for associating with non-muslims. The fact is they are still following a religion that is even more violent (in recent years) then christianty. And about the nukes, the total body count for both cities, is around 165,000, and that is including people that died later from radiation. That is horrible, but consider the alternative. Invading the japanese mainland with US troops. That could easily have killed just as many if not more civilians, not to mention possibly tens of thousands more US troops.
what about dropping one bomb into the ocean by Japan. show them what we got, then tell them we will drop one on tokyo if they don't surrender. how many people would that kill? maybe 10 people out fishing? i would surrender if they hads a bomb that could level a town and poison the soil for miles around that town. I'm still pissed about the Japanese intermnent camps. how could we fight the Nazi's and say we were on the moral high ground? don't be confused, i still think any Nazi sympathyzer (even a casual one) should be destroyed. preferably death by repeated kicks to the groin (kick "them" till it kills 'em )
