IRAQ WAR PICS UNRELEASED
-
It's not surprising. It is dirty and messy there.Originally posted by MobyDog:There is actually some truth in this statement.
Over the year, I have seen US soldiers laughing and smiling infront of dead Iraqis, and Video of all sorts.. especially when they gunned down a resistance fighter with .50 cal MG and the fellas entire face was rip off and was laying on the ground... Fvcking GI found it amusing.
Other times, I questioned the Pics about how the Iraqis were killed, since blue wires found seen around their wrist and neck.
However I am not surprised at the battlefield conduct of the yanks, if you have been fighting in intense urban combat and your adrenaline is pumpingÂ… one tends to react in an outburst of joy when he manages to neutralize his enemy. The fighting there is brutal and dirty and while in the normal civilian context expressing elation over killing somebody is unacceptable, it's far more understandable when you are a combatant who only moments beforeÂ… was at risk of getting blown up or shot by your enemy.
I am not saying it's right, but more often then not it's a coping mechanism to deal with the stress of combatÂ… rather then an actual joy over killing another person. When the action is over most soldiers would take a more subdued view of the events, but bubbling over killing your enemy is certainly something that will get you killed. There are some cold-blooded killers however, who are into it for the joy of killingÂ… but I don't think they are a large proportion. In any case we can see this kind of shocking apathy to death on both sidesÂ… esp. in the crowd jubilation of the mutilation and murder of the Blackwater Contractors. I think this is more a symptom of war.
Frankly the media depiction of the yanks have been quite unbalanced, constantly depicting them as a bunch of cowards who go around terrorizing the populace. But it's far more likely the typical G.I. is rather level-headed and knows the difference between right and wrong.
What I am surprised about is why nobody thinks its newsworthy to document or make noise about the atrocities that some Iraqis are doing to other Iraqis! Nobody made much of a murmur when a hundred or so Iraqi recruits were murdered in cold blood or the way the rival factions terrorize and murder the civilian populace. I am not sure if the real problem is with the Americans being in there, but what the Iraqis are doing to each other right now. The conflict there is nutty, and often the people in there don't even know what they are fighting and killing for.
I think it can be summed up in one incident: during the battle of Fallujah the then-Iraqi prime minister went to negotiate with the insurgent factions. During the negotiation he asked them, for the sake of an argument, what would everyone do assuming they get what they were supposedly fighting for, which was the pullout of the multinational collation in Iraqi.
And you know what the insurgency negotiators said? They responded quite immediately that it would be a catastrophe, that Iraq would be dismembered. In other words they were fighting the Americans apparently with the goal of getting them out but paradoxically they know that such a move would be disaster for the Iraqi people in the inevitable factional violence that would erupt. They know this, but they also can't give up their chips at the table and hence everybody is fighting under some hazy logic that nobody quite figures all. All this while the bodies piles up.
Is it any surprise we find pictures from such a war hard to stomach? -
I feel sick looking at these picture.
We are all fun loving people.
No more war please.
-
don post it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*off to puke*
-
-
no matter how sick it is, its just how war is.
wonder if ww2 was like that.. -
u shld see if you can tahan the video of the iraqi death squads beheading (actually slowly sawing) off ppls heads.Originally posted by leo-kun:i survive the pics..anymore more gross pics...bring it on!
u watch that u wld think saw is PG-13 -
I still remember few years ago I have a debate with, I guess Atobe who claims tat iraq got weopons of mass destruction, iraq becoming a better place after the world etc when the war just started. And TS is there claiming I am wrong and tat I am stupid etc. Well wat do we have now ? The whole war is just a big lie for american to get the oil. North korea have nuclear weopons and they test it. Wat do US do ? Iraq say they do not have and they still invade them. Why the descrepancies ? Is iraq a better place now ? Under saddam time at least the people have peace. Now the worse job to become in iraq is a policeman and almost everyday u read headlines claiming a bomb have exploded here and there. U can blame on iraq for their problems, but why doesn't these problems show during saddam time ? The whole war is a mistake
-
this pictures are indeed gross although i am quite not affected by it because i have seen some in the past.
people have a common fear of seeing inside their own body.... those body parts and the blood. i dun dare to look initially because it reminds me og my own body.
have you ever wonder then how we eat so many chickens and pork everyday without thinking about it.
from a buddhism and scientific point of field..... we have to always remember that we are really mere mortal of organs , blood and flesh
not matter how much PS3 games you are playing... how you are celebrate with your girlfriend today or how you are going to work on a project this month. please remember that you are also an animal who requires the safe and healthy body, with working organs to be alive. -
-
Hold your oil horses SIS. Your view on this Middle East issue is simplistic, and has no considered several important facts:Originally posted by stupidissmart:I still remember few years ago I have a debate with, I guess Atobe who claims tat iraq got weopons of mass destruction, iraq becoming a better place after the world etc when the war just started. And TS is there claiming I am wrong and tat I am stupid etc. Well wat do we have now ? The whole war is just a big lie for american to get the oil. North korea have nuclear weopons and they test it. Wat do US do ? Iraq say they do not have and they still invade them. Why the descrepancies ? Is iraq a better place now ? Under saddam time at least the people have peace. Now the worse job to become in iraq is a policeman and almost everyday u read headlines claiming a bomb have exploded here and there. U can blame on iraq for their problems, but why doesn't these problems show during saddam time ? The whole war is a mistake
Firstly I am not sure what you mean by "problems" not showing during Saddam's time. There were plenty of it to go around.
There were plenty of issues during Saddam's regime, and he didn't really make an effort to hide it at all. Basically just about any minority or even majority that weren't quite the Sunni he favored received the short end of the stick from him. A lot of the current power struggles and chaos happening within Iraq stems directly from the division of society that he created with his abusive policies.
This is not to mention the number of disastrous wars he led his country into with Iran and Kuwait, his genocide of the Kurds and other nice little actions. Hundreds of thousands of people died needless deaths under his regime.
Also he was playing a dangerous game of chicken with just about everyone else. Despite many calls for him to come clean with WMDs, he kept up this cat and mouse game that eventually gave his enemies a reason to invade him. His' bluff got played, and he lost. He made many statements that Iraqi had NO WMDs, however he played this dangerous game of brinksman ship that prevented this from actually being confirmed by constantly denying proper inspection.
Unfortunately he hasn't been known to be the most rational of leaders to begin with, it is very likely he never had a sound plan to go on when he decided to play around with this UN Disarmament policyÂ… he played the game and his lost. Unfortunate for the Iraqi people who have traditionally suffered because of him. Other regimes in the Middle East may be oppressive, but at the very least their leaders made sound strategic decisions that kept the level of madness at bay. Saddam led Iraq into many nutty adventures to improve his stance in the Middle East at the cost of much Iraqi lives, and he has a great habit of pursuing policies that quite obviously put his own people as quite expendable to the ends.
As such I am not sure if the Iraqi people now are worse off. At the very worst it could be argued that with the way things are their plight now receives worldwide attention and is something that is not ignoredÂ… unlike Sudan, Somalia, Gronzy that all those other places which seriously need aid as well. And more importantly now they have the opportunity to shape the kind of Iraq that they want (unfortunately many different factions have different ideas on it).
The US may not have the most altruistic reasons for invading Iraqi, but I think it's a very big stretch of the reality to suppose that the Saddam regime is preferable to what is happening now. It is only preferable to the Sunni minority who prospered under him, that's for sure. Unfortunately there never was an easy solution for Iraq the moment Saddam took over all those years backÂ… given Middle Eastern politics one knows that no matter what route you take blood will be shed.
Is the whole war a mistake? It's a mixed bag. Removing Saddam is certainly the right thing to doÂ… however the US made a critical error in the days following his fall when they decided to bypass the tribal leaders that offered to control Iraq in his place, which would have cut down a lot on the infighting or even avoided it all together. -
There were plenty of issues during Saddam's regime, and he didn't really make an effort to hide it at all. Basically just about any minority or even majority that weren't quite the Sunni he favored received the short end of the stick from him. A lot of the current power struggles and chaos happening within Iraq stems directly from the division of society that he created with his abusive policies.
He rule with an iron fist, but it is still better than now where everyone just die and there is no peaceThis is not to mention the number of disastrous wars he led his country into with Iran and Kuwait, his genocide of the Kurds and other nice little actions. Hundreds of thousands of people died needless deaths under his regime.
The war may not be solely started because of saddam himself. It is really border dispute tat has been ongoing many centuries before saddam rule. If u wanna look further into the history, it is really the british tat seperate the country at insensitive areas and leaving abruptly without settling any differences. Any diplomatic method were rendered useless in the meeting on UN.
Kuwait used to be part of iraq, when british etc encourage them to break away from iraq. It is really something like china and taiwan now. The only difference is china has a veto power in the UN
About chemical weopons, both iran and iraq countries use it against one another.Also he was playing a dangerous game of chicken with just about everyone else. Despite many calls for him to come clean with WMDs, he kept up this cat and mouse game that eventually gave his enemies a reason to invade him. His' bluff got played, and he lost. He made many statements that Iraqi had NO WMDs, however he played this dangerous game of brinksman ship that prevented this from actually being confirmed by constantly denying proper inspection.
Arr... but he did come clean and does tat help in anything ? Everybody thought he is playing a cat and mouse game and nobody believe him. Did he have WMD ? He say he do't and he really don't. But u all insist he do and say he is playing games etc. Wat is the difference between tis and framing ? Now North korea says he got WMD, a NUCLEAR WEOPON, with techology tat can even flew past japan, and wat does US do ? Please explain the double standardUnfortunately he hasn't been known to be the most rational of leaders to begin with, it is very likely he never had a sound plan to go on when he decided to play around with this UN Disarmament policyÂ… he played the game and his lost. Unfortunate for the Iraqi people who have traditionally suffered because of him. Other regimes in the Middle East may be oppressive, but at the very least their leaders made sound strategic decisions that kept the level of madness at bay. Saddam led Iraq into many nutty adventures to improve his stance in the Middle East at the cost of much Iraqi lives, and he has a great habit of pursuing policies that quite obviously put his own people as quite expendable to the ends.
U just claim he "play a game" "play a game" when he is serious and he really have no WMD. US itself had admitted Iraq have no WMD, they falsified records and exaggerate statistic to claim Iraq have WMD. The only people who play games r the US. They lie on almost everything on the war and now u push all the blame to the victim who had not lied anything about its WMD. If u claim he is playing a game, u have to prove it have WMD. Otherwise there is no game to play with, unless telling the truth is a game to u
Talking about rational leaders, North korea is far more irrational than saddam. Talking about playing games, north korea play it better by attending and not attending talk, committing and not committing promises wetc. Wat happened to him ? There r tons of other nations tat r far worse like myanmar, fiji or even nepal morachy. Do the US invade them ? Is irrational leaders by your own standard a reason for invasion ?As such I am not sure if the Iraqi people now are worse off. At the very worst it could be argued that with the way things are their plight now receives worldwide attention and is something that is not ignoredÂ… unlike Sudan, Somalia, Gronzy that all those other places which seriously need aid as well. And more importantly now they have the opportunity to shape the kind of Iraq that they want (unfortunately many different factions have different ideas on it).
Oh com'on nobody is even claiming tat lives r better now in iraq. Wat is the end result now ? Total chaos. Wat is it like in saddam time ? A little lack of diplomancy but peaceful. The wars etc happened much further in the past, before the first gulf war and they use tat as a rationale for the first gulf war. No authrocities happened between the first and second gulf war. Why attack them again ? It is like jailing a person 2 times over the 1 theft madeThe US may not have the most altruistic reasons for invading Iraqi, but I think it's a very big stretch of the reality to suppose that the Saddam regime is preferable to what is happening now. It is only preferable to the Sunni minority who prospered under him, that's for sure. Unfortunately there never was an easy solution for Iraq the moment Saddam took over all those years backÂ… given Middle Eastern politics one knows that no matter what route you take blood will be shed.
Lets put it tis way. The few years just before iraq was attacked, things r going well (compared to now). The only athrocities u mentioned happened before the first gulf war and saddam never did any wars etc after tat. Now he got attacked based on past charges and reasons from the previous war. Is tat even fair ? And worse still, US attack despite UN resistance. Is it even legal ?Is the whole war a mistake? It's a mixed bag. Removing Saddam is certainly the right thing to doÂ… however the US made a critical error in the days following his fall when they decided to bypass the tribal leaders that offered to control Iraq in his place, which would have cut down a lot on the infighting or even avoided it all together.
Removing saddam and wat ? Nobody is really controlling iraq now. Is tat better ? Tell me wat benefits does the war give ?To me it seems all the cons and no pros. -
Alamak.. sgForum war start again..
-
http://www.liveleak.com/?ogr=1
take alook, this is the new ogrish.com, still have alot of iraq thingy from a few years back till now[/url] -
moment i see that skeleton i close the page liao, too scared to watch it.
pukes*
-
yea especially ppl being ran over or executionsOriginally posted by MyPillowTalks:actually, if u visit orgish.com last time, they had release them every few days for a few years already
they also shown a dog being shot in iraq by these terrorist.
-
You take a very odd point of view on this subject. One could argue that the invasion of Iraq was an illegitimate war, but I have yet to see one attempt a whitewashing of SaddamÂ’s regime as a core argument for its illegitimacy. Even the Arabs themselves (unless you happen to be in the Sunni minority in Iraq) do not take this angle.
I mean there are plenty of other better angles to criticize the war on, that it was launched primarily because of oil, or that the UN was ignored or not allowed a large enough role, that the Americans did not factor in Iraqi culture before the implemented a post Saddam Iraq. I do not understand this insistence on Saddam.
Also, you said that he ruled with an iron fist but it is still better than now where everyone just dies and there is no peace… I wonder how that statement can even go down with the reality of his regime. The difference is this: while there was no chaos under Saddam, his regime was pretty much responsible for the murder and elimination of thousands of people for the narrowest of reasons. Those murdered under him had no recourse, choice or defense against whatever he dished out against them. I’m sure if you were on his hitlist, you might view the “iron fist” quite a lot differently.
If by peace you mean there’s no chaos or fighting and the thousands of targeted people peacefully accept their fate under the “iron fist” for the sake of some “peace”… that’s some screwy logic.
Most importantly, when you ask the Iraqis what they want… they have many ideas but making a country somewhat like Saddam’s days is never mentioned. I think one should leave it to the Iraqi people to say for themselves if they think “now” is worse then “then”.
In saying this you show an astounding lack of knowledge of the Iraqi disarmament crisis that led up to the war. The real crux of the issue was that Saddam never allowed the UN to properly verify his proclamations of having no WMDs, hence giving Mr. Bush all the excuses he needed to start a war. Had he not played turkey with the inspectors he would have avoid BushÂ’s attempts to start the invasion in the first place (or at least take the moral high ground)
And AFAIK, you need to reread the WMD commission report. There is more then one explanation for the lack of WMDs found, as opposed to them being totally absent. The truth of the matter is that the issue was never concluded because everybody (even the UN) was under the impression that Saddam was very well in possession of WMDs before the invasion (the UN opposed the invasion for diplomacy, but never though that WMDs were absent).
During his reign of several decades, he was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons. He constantly obstructed UN destruction of his WMD stockpile after the Gulf War in a long game of cat and mouse that eventually led up to the invasion. It is not as simple as you put it: where on a whim a reason was plucked out of the air. It was a very large and ongoing issue that lasted for over a decade. If you were a policeman who sees a person with a history of violence acting suspiciously, and uses your police powers to demand and inspection of him on that spot on for weapons, and he persistently obstructs your efforts protesting his innocenceÂ… what would be your reaction? I do not think Saddam could logically be said to invoke any pity that his comments were ignored, he did a good job of making them unbelievable. -
Things are going well (compared to now)? You ARE kidding. If you bothered to check a bit on the quality of life before Iraq was attacked, you would realize that they suffered from no lack issues that stemmed directly from SaddamÂ’s regime. His persistent efforts to hamper UN efforts to finish the WMD process prolonged sanctions that collapsed the economy and turned life into a mess for the commoner. While his people lived in poverty and starved his regime didnÂ’t hold off the murder of thousands of people not in line with him. His officials and family lived in luxury. LetÂ’s not even go into what his sons did with the ordinary womenfolk of his nation. No, his atrocities did not stop even after the first Gulf War, it just got a lot of the oomph taken out of itÂ… go ask any Kurd or ShiÂ’a.
Nobody’s controlling Iraq now? That’s what one gets from focusing from the “IED of the day” instead of how far reconstruction efforts have actually gone. There is one very important difference here: the Iraq people now can choose to form the nation in a way that has actual hope for them now. That was never possible under Saddam. The fact that 63 percent of them went out to vote on the new constitution goes a lot to show how much they believe in this.
I do not know why you like to draw such clear lines in a murky issue when the people closest to it are not even entirely clear on all the sides. Have you actually taken a serious look into this issue before jumping on the anti-Bush bandwagon? Shooting your mouth off on this isnÂ’t really going to work esp. when you take a stance that few Arabs would even touch with a 10 foot pole.
The truth is the issue on the ground is murky, because the Arabs both love and detest the invasion. The like Saddam, which was become a thorn in the region and a bane to his people removed at most costs, but they hate that the Americans are doing this. Also with Saddam removed everyone wants a say in the pie and often in the Middle East you get your way with force. Saddam got his way with force and many died under him, the difference now is that his force has been distributed to many.
But to say that the current situation is worse now is like saying that itÂ’s better to be on a sinking slowly sinking ship with no engine in the middle of the ocean then to be on a leaky ship that is harder to keep afloat but actually has an engine to get somewhere. The real issue is more of a catch 22, and while you may disagree with Bush, itÂ’s a bad fallacy of logic to go with Saddam on this one.
The greatest pro that the war caused is that it took the resources and power from one tyrant who was abusing it at the cost of it's people and redistributed it to the people of Iraq. Your over focus on the current instability strikes me as myopic and simplistic, missing the big picture. -
can keep ur essays below 100 words?
-
You take a very odd point of view on this subject. One could argue that the invasion of Iraq was an illegitimate war, but I have yet to see one attempt a whitewashing of SaddamÂ’s regime as a core argument for its illegitimacy. Even the Arabs themselves (unless you happen to be in the Sunni minority in Iraq) do not take this angle.
Arrr... but your whole argument is mainly on saddam. Throughout your reply, u never mention a word on any authrocities he made after the first gulf war to the present iraq war, yet iraq is still attacked again. Can you comment on the statement ?
I mean there are plenty of other better angles to criticize the war on, that it was launched primarily because of oil, or that the UN was ignored or not allowed a large enough role, that the Americans did not factor in Iraqi culture before the implemented a post Saddam Iraq. I do not understand this insistence on Saddam.
Secondly u never mention a word on the double standard to north korea. In this reply, WMD seems to be your main concern, but North korea HAVE WMD, They TEST it, they DECLARE it and US did not attack it like wat they do to Iraq. Is WMD such a concern ? If tat is the case why not do the same thing to north korea the same thing to do to Iraq ? All your argument just write "doubts" tat iraq have WMD despite rigourous check by UN who declare them with no weopons of mass destruction. The last checks before the war is throughlt clean and the inspectors do find them cooperating acceptably. THey even ask american to do their check which they refuse and just keep claiming they have WMD.Also, you said that he ruled with an iron fist but it is still better than now where everyone just dies and there is no peace… I wonder how that statement can even go down with the reality of his regime. The difference is this: while there was no chaos under Saddam, his regime was pretty much responsible for the murder and elimination of thousands of people for the narrowest of reasons. Those murdered under him had no recourse, choice or defense against whatever he dished out against them. I’m sure if you were on his hitlist, you might view the “iron fist” quite a lot differently.
And wat is the reason why american murdered hundred of thousands of people in Iraq why they invade Iraq ? As said before, there is a war, it is due to centuries of border conflict. But u seemed to ignore the reason but the end result where people died. Does US do any better ? They also killed most people, involve in most wars, carry the most number of WMD and the only nation to use an atomic bomb. These people r killed for the narrowest of reasons as well. Those tat r with him r friends, against him r enemiesIf by peace you mean there’s no chaos or fighting and the thousands of targeted people peacefully accept their fate under the “iron fist” for the sake of some “peace”… that’s some screwy logic.
Lets face it. If a country is in chaos, u need a leader tat ruled with an iron hand for some time until peace return and all grieviences forgotten before u can afford to give it democracy. If u look at history, most countries tat prospered well have a history where there is a leader tat ruled with an iron handIn saying this you show an astounding lack of knowledge of the Iraqi disarmament crisis that led up to the war. The real crux of the issue was that Saddam never allowed the UN to properly verify his proclamations of having no WMDs, hence giving Mr. Bush all the excuses he needed to start a war. Had he not played turkey with the inspectors he would have avoid BushÂ’s attempts to start the invasion in the first place (or at least take the moral high ground)
I think u r the one tat lack tat knowledge of iraqi disarmament just before the invasion. Han blix, the weapon inspector is personally attacked by cush administration etc because his report prove contrary to their falsified records. In the end he is proven right. NO WMD r found. Weapon inspectors from UN declare them to be WMD free. Bush had admitted their intelligence was flawed, and now u still wanna argue tat it is saddam fault for not being believe, and tat iraq deserves to be attack not because of faulty intelligence by US by because iraq, well, has just told the truth. The past years saddam is bitter and not let weopon have full access such as his palace, tat is true. But the last few months before the attack they have been very cooperative and where does it lead ? Nowhere. Talking about lack of cooperation, is tat a reason for an invasion ? Myanmar, Fiji, Thailand, North Korea, many countries in Africa all have not cooperate with US as well. SO shouldnÂ’t we attack them all ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix
Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the Bush administration, [6] and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC TV on 8 February 2004, Dr. Blix accused the U.S. and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein.And AFAIK, you need to reread the WMD commission report. There is more then one explanation for the lack of WMDs found, as opposed to them being totally absent. The truth of the matter is that the issue was never concluded because everybody (even the UN) was under the impression that Saddam was very well in possession of WMDs before the invasion (the UN opposed the invasion for diplomacy, but never though that WMDs were absent).
Cannot find means cannot find. Without evidence, all the possible reasons r worthless and mere speculations. They r as valid as suggesting UFO took them away one fine day. Even Bush himself admit he had err in intelligence, and now u r suggesting he is right all along ?Things are going well (compared to now)? You ARE kidding. If you bothered to check a bit on the quality of life before Iraq was attacked, you would realize that they suffered from no lack issues that stemmed directly from SaddamÂ’s regime. His persistent efforts to hamper UN efforts to finish the WMD process prolonged sanctions that collapsed the economy and turned life into a mess for the commoner. While his people lived in poverty and starved his regime didnÂ’t hold off the murder of thousands of people not in line with him. His officials and family lived in luxury. LetÂ’s not even go into what his sons did with the ordinary womenfolk of his nation. No, his atrocities did not stop even after the first Gulf War, it just got a lot of the oomph taken out of itÂ… go ask any Kurd or ShiÂ’a.
ComÂ’on, there r many countries tat lived in poverty while their leaders r rich. Even Indo or Myanmar or Vietnam or china or India or phillipines and heck, u can even consider Singapore whose leaders r rich while their peasants r suffering. Is Iraq even better off financially now compared to the past ? They r still poor, they r still jobless and now they do not even have peace and have great distrust with their neighbours who r from a different clan. U also claims tat his autrocities did not. Please specifically mention wat autrocities r u talking about.The greatest pro that the war caused is that it took the resources and power from one tyrant who was abusing it at the cost of it's people and redistributed it to the people of Iraq. Your over focus on the current instability strikes me as myopic and simplistic, missing the big picture.
U mean the money is taken from Iraq to America better than Iraq people to Iraq people ? Tat is indeed myopic and simplistic. Now they could possible go into civil war and nobody harvest any oil for many decades to come. Even Bush admit tat their strategy in Iraq is failing and they have to rethink and rethink and rethink and hopefully find a solution to it. -
Yeah! I agree with SIS that under Saddam, there was love, hope peace and prosperity! Saddam would travel to the Iraqi heartlands to carry babies and shake hands with his people. Only the americans rape and murder civillians! Saddam never did anything like that! I mean, he would never gass a whole lot of Kurds CIVILLIANS. Killing civillians is something only americans do.
Iraqis are a peace loving lot. I mean, its not as though they are killing each other due to a difference in tribes or faction right? They join hands every evening to sing "its a small world after all". But when the evil americans come in to rape, pillage, plunder and murder, the poor peace loving iraqis who have never touched any weapons or explosive devices in their lives were ruthlessly murdered.
According to SIS, Saddam also coorperated FULLY with the UN weapon inspectors. It was Bush all along who did not coorperated with Saddam. Saddam even poured drinks for the weapon inspectors when they were thirsty.
Korea is another different ball game. Why don't you run through a scenario in which USA attacks N Korea? Are you forgetting China, Taiwan, S Korea and Vietnam? You think it'll be a simplistic affair of USA vs N Korea? International politics is more murky than you think. -
And since countries like myammar and indon have leaders that live in luxury while their populace suffer in poverty, that makes it ok for every other country to do the same. I mean, we have to keep up with the joneses too right?
-
I don't think you understand me Stupidissmart, I am not so much arguing for the war as I am saying that the current situation in Iraq is pretty much inevitable the moment after the first Gulf War was concluded in 1991. Since then it has been a slippery slope towards the current Iraq we know today. My main argument is that if you want to find somebody to blame, Bush is a convenient straw man but if you really look at it there is plenty of blame to go around and to all parties.
As for the atrocities Saddam contained to commit after the Gulf War, a quick search on the internet will give you the information you need. I also advise you to read up on Sunni, Shi'a relationships, the Kurds, Iraq and Iran and the Byzantine middle eastern politics before you make any larger comments. On WMD also, please do read up.
But really, I find it hard to buy any story that the WMD was all made up by Bush. Firstly if all the reports were falsified by the Bush administration, it makes little sense for Bush not to follow through on the hoax but actually producing WMDs. Given Iraq had firmly fallen to the Americans and it was a simple matter for them to "produce" evidence of WMDs- they certainly had the means and know how to do so. Not to mention it would save Bush a lot of trouble with the current situation. Please read up on the issue, even Wikipedia would be good.
I appreciate you finding scraps and quotes to support you, but Hans Blix was not only the only voice in the slurry of opinion, he also made the telling precautionary statement at the end of his report that despite all this: "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance of the disarmament." He knew that there were plenty of ways for Saddam to circumvent the inspections, and saw signs of it. Unfortunately Saddam passed an order not to allow the UN to investiage if he had done soÂ… which later became a heated point.
As for why the US is not touching North Korea, I find it strange you can't see the obvious reasons. Firstly North Korea is a significantly more militarized nation and its makeup indicates by all means that it will be a bitter struggle to the end. More importantly getting into a war on NK will drag the Japanese, South Koreans and Chinese in with unpredictable results. This is not to mention that it is unlikely that the local region will give the US proper support in the war and it will be an effort many times the size of Iraq. Also tellingly, a successful regime change of NK does not give the US as much benefits as Iraq, there is no friendly regime with oil and a stake is not really driven into the heart of the terrorism they are trying to fight. All this not to mention the war will be more costly and long-fought as well with little gain. I think Mr. Kim knows this, why do you think he is making so much noise?
I never argued for moral high ground in US actions taken on Iraq, I think removing Saddam is the right thing and ultimately beneficial for Iraq, be the intentions altruistic or not. That bit is clear. A regime change in NK is far riskier and less feasible prospect not to mention one with less change. In practical politics, I think Saddam made his nation too inviting a target and that was that for him. He had reasons to resist disarming from WMD, given he didn't want Iraq to be viewed as toothless (even though that was already the case) esp. by Iran, but in retrospect he should have played along and let Iran become the bad guy. Too bad he didn't.Lets face it. If a country is in chaos, u need a leader tat ruled with an iron hand for some time until peace return and all grieviences forgotten before u can afford to give it democracy. If u look at history, most countries tat prospered well have a history where there is a leader tat ruled with an iron hand
The problem with Saddam is that he didn't really remove the chaos at all, he simply became the biggest boy in the playground, got his way with his nation by blood, and moved that chaos on the a great scale (wars and massacres). His regime was never one of peace for the Iraq people, and the grievances GREW instead under his regime. In either way I can only see his regime ending in chaos and death, because it never removed the chaos to began with, it simply state-sanctioned it and used it for his own ends. This is different from a country who goes into martial law to restore the peace, Saddam took over the nation for his own ends. Peace for his people was hardly on his agenda, nor something he intended.
It's different if he killed the Kurds or Shi'a because they were threatening to destroy or fragment the nation... he simply killed them because they were... well, Kurds or Shi'a. Many of the things he did were hardly to keep the peace in his nation or to remove the hate in the populace, that's for sure.Cannot find means cannot find. Without evidence, all the possible reasons r worthless and mere speculations. They r as valid as suggesting UFO took them away one fine day. Even Bush himself admit he had err in intelligence, and now u r suggesting he is right all along ?
Hmm, I am not suggesting anything. What I am point out is that your assessment of the WMD issue is simplistic and ignoring the true scope of opinion and evidence on the issue. Firstly I never said Bush was correct, just that Saddam never bothered to beat Bush at his own game (which he could have easily done so), had he WMDs or not and he paid for it by being disposed. Also, if you explore all the theories behind the lack of WMDs found, you will find that the verdict is still open out there, as I said earlier. I would point out that the "there were never WMDs to begin with" is very much a speculation in itself. -
I am used to SIS's heated, drama queen way of argument, but I'm afraid they cut little ice with the situation in Iraq. As I am trying to point out whoever is in the wrong or right, the situation in Iraq now is very different from the simplistic issue you make it out to be. The current violence and chaos is mixture of International and Arab politics, mixed in with Tribal feuds, and resentment fostered under Saddam's regime, and the problem is not solved by avoiding the war and keeping Iraq under Saddam, it just sweeps it under the carpet.
As much as I appreciate anti American stances and attempts to pull this into yet another round of why we should listen to SIS, I feel the original intent of this thread was to investigate the real reasons behind the current violence in Iraq, and as anybody can see it has little to do with Bush and a lot to do with the complexities of Middle Eastern politics and history. The westerners simply waded into it. Even if Bush had not started, I doubt Iraq would have been spared chaos eventuallyÂ… the difference here is at least the international community has the spotlight of scrutiny on it. In that respect the Iraqis are fortunate, if you consider how a similar war like Kosovo was largely forgotten and ignored simply because it was an "inside" thing.
Also, I think questions about how it's unfair to help this nation or that nation largely irrelevant, if you realize that in the end it's all about politics. In an ideal world we could remove every Tyrant in all nations in wars that go and end smoothly... but this is the real world and we make do with what we have. I don't agree with all of the US motives and actions behind Iraq, but on the fundemential level it did a service to the Iraqi people... wars are not started simply by a guy called Bush or Saddam... they are caused by the interaction of many different factors between nations and cultures that often make things a lot more complex then they will be.
Some Americans are in the fight because they believe they are fighting terrorism, others want the oil. Some Iraqi insurgents are fighting for their faith, others are just criminals wanting to cash in on keeping the chaos going as long as possible. In the end you will find many different motives and people and the right and wrong is never really clear... not at least until quite far in the future.
10 years from now will the Iraqi people be better of then under Saddam? It's only then we can see. That's why I suspect anybody trying to hold a strong opinion on Iraq is often a jackass who thinks he knows all about war but never actually been in one... or that he has an adgenda to push without regard to the people actually involved or affected. Tellingly, if he went on an Iraqi forum and told the people there that they were better off under Saddam... what would be their reaction?
I dunno, what would be our reaction if a Japanese guy told us in 1969 we were better off under the Japanese empire instead of having to worry about building our nations and racial riots?
I think SIS is trying to draw black and white into an issue that is very grey. If the common idea in MOST americans was that they OWN iraqi oil and that was really their reason for Iraqi... that would be a different issue and a lot more clear. -
Curious thoughts by Max Cryer.Older man declare war, but its the youth who must fight and die.
-
agreeded... it's a tragedy of great sorts.Originally posted by sand king: