| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/29/2004 09:30:52 PM · #76 |
Im going to check out that article now gingerbaker.
In the meantime now that the US has taken to the air to reduce US casialties its paying its toll on civilians.
Civilian Death Toll in Iraq Exceeds 100,000 |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 10:28:04 PM · #77 |
Just in case. This is not the president's war. He does not act alone and the move here was sanctioned by congress. It is asinine to direct blame as if he got up one morning and decided to go to war.
You call the war wrong, I call it right. You wanted a continuation of the Clinton Doctrine, talk and appeasement and individual pinishments for wrong doing. Here are a couple of benefits from this war. Not very long ago Lybia creating an underground atomic arsenal. Two, there was a pipleline to Syria which was used to finance terroist against Israel, there was also a crooked UN dealing with Sadam, the French, Germans and the Russians. A cool collection of law breakers all on the take from Sadam in the oil for food program.
The War broke up the oil for food, Kadafy surrendered his arsenal and the pipleline was disrupted. On top of this it has invited terroist from all over but mostly from Syria and there we kicked ass.
Yet you question this war? That is like saying that we should have kept the French, German and Russian Governments as friends and the dear support of the crooked UN. The game is up. Of course, the left in this country feel they could have done it better. No way, you do not have the stomach to redress a 9/11 and the other countless attacks that we have sustained. Your very philosophy belies your intentions because you feel that we deserved what we got and that America is rotten and is waiting for you to make it better.
Best to get out of the way while the grown up do what has to be done and then you all can come in and play. |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 10:54:33 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Just in case. This is not the president's war. |
Oh really..
He seemed to really want it bad, so bad he would use faulty and disputed 'evidence' to push for it. Read about it here. |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 11:08:58 PM · #79 |
GF: I'm not really sure the war in Iraq had anything to do with effecting Qadhafi's most recent choices of not developing any WMDs. The UN sanctions against Libya from the early 90s had the same effect on that country as it did on Iraq, which was to isolate them from the rest of the world and weaken their infrastructure. In addition, none of the Arab countries were open to his policies of socialism. Because of those sanctions he started making better relations with the Europeans and then when the Pan Am flight 103 issues were resolved, better relations could be started with Washington.
It may even be that the Bush Administration felt more pressure to normalize relations with Libya and here's why: The United States did not want to lose out on business contracts and dealings with this country as it's got oil. Same thing with Iraq. One of the reasons that the Bush administration felt so compelled to go to war in Iraq was that sanctions were likely to be lifted and the European countries would have gone in there and gotten all those wonderful contracts that the business community in the US want so desperately. Also, once the European countries started to go into Iraq, the Bush administration would have lost all possiblities of attacking Iraq in the future. |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 11:10:48 PM · #80 |
| Isn't it amazing to you that the problems that the Bush administration have with other nations are predominantly with those countries who have oil? |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 11:54:44 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Isn't it amazing to you that the problems that the Bush administration have with other nations are predominantly with those countries who have oil? |
Canada has lots of oil. We dont attack them.
I think it has more to do with trying to get the terrorist, before they get us.
Message edited by author 2004-10-29 23:55:43. |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 11:56:05 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Your very philosophy belies your intentions because you feel that we deserved what we got...
Best to get out of the way while the grown up do what has to be done and then you all can come in and play. |
Graphicfunk -
Just which person who posts here do you actually think feels the U.S "deserved what it got" ( on 9/11)?
Just because people disagree with you, doesn't mean they are proterrorist or hate America.
In fact, I am against Bush because I feel he is incredibly SOFT on terrorists, despite talking up a whizbang storm about fighting "terrorism".
All that tough talk about being a grown up is completely off the mark, IMO.
You don't fight a technique (terrorism) used by disconnected cells of men scattered around the globe by invading countries with a frickin army. It is absurd on its face.
And especially, you don't invade a country who was MORTAL ENEMIES with the perpetrator of 9/11.
I'll say it again at this forum. Saddam Hussein is not Osama Bin Laden. They are two different people. The second one one is the guy who is responsible for 9/11. The first guy had nothing to do with it.
If Bush was truly serious about fighting terrorists, there are a 1001 things he should have and could have done immediately to catch them. He didn't do them. He still has not done most of them, or done them so late as to be useless.
If he was truly serious about fighting terrorists, he would be doing something about Saudi Arabia - who funds most of it. And Pakistan. And Iran.
But no - in case you forgot - his family is business partners and oh so close personal friends with the Saudi for the past thirty years. Including Bin Laden's father.
If there is anybody around here who is truly proterrorist it is George Bush.
He seems to do all he can to not protect us from their attacks, not tie up their money, to quash investigations into their funding, whereabouts, training, movements.
He is not interested in properly funding the security of our airlines, our trains, tunnels, ports, chemical plants, borders, food supply; or readying our hospitals and first responders.
In short - he is soft on terrorists. Soft like a little baby.
Message edited by author 2004-10-30 00:17:22. |
|
|
|
10/30/2004 04:43:46 AM · #83 |
| Learn about oil and how it controls pretty much everything here. |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 10:27:24 AM · #84 |
A new study conducted by John Hopkins and Columbia University Schools of Public Health now show that civilian mortality in Iraq, not including hot spots such as Fallujah, to be around 100,000 men/women/children !!!
The scientific study conducted within Iraq was done by Les Roberts, et al, and confirms:
"Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children."
"Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq,"
The study can be accessed at:
Global Research. |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 09:03:36 PM · #85 |
This is completely shameful, folks.
100,000 Iraqis - mostly women and children dead and this number is only those killed AFTER the invasion is over. :( :( :(
These are the people Bush claims we are there to LIBERATE!!! They are our enemy when he speaks at the beginning of his paragraph, and our allies at the end.
These people, this country had NOTHING to do with 9/11. We have no moral justification for this. It is murder in all our names. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 06:16:37 PM EDT.
