Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Meanwhile it became obvious that the reasoning for the war on Iraq (weapons of mass destruction) was a fake produced by interested person in the intel.

Did the war on Iraq helped fighting the terror? Not at all! It created more terror. This war was fuel for the hatred of the arabians against the U.S. and it created only more volunteers for Al Quaida and other terror groups and delivered arguments for them to stir up more hatred.

Did the war on Iraq free the people from a cruel dictator? Yes it did. But a significant percentage of the people in Iraq are not glad that the U.S. have occupied their country. They are living in anarchy now.

Did the war on Iraq provide free elections? Yes it probably will. And the people in Iraq will reward your efforts by voting for a regime of mullahs like it is in Iran.

The result of this war is that the s.h.i.t has hit the fan.

It would have been better to take a look at Israel before you have started this war. The guys there would have told you how easy to handle the arabians are....

Who should clear away this mess now?
-----
Beware of Commies and Mutts!

Meanwhile it became obvious that the reasoning for the war on Iraq (weapons of mass destruction) was a fake produced by interested person in the intel.

So you think the French, Chinese, German, Russian, British, U.S., etc., etc., intelligence agencies all believed in the existence of WMDs because they were faking it? Why would that be so, when the French and Germans were so against this war? Your statement is obviously wrong! In fact, it looks like more liberal nonsense, than just being "simply" wrong!

Did the war on Iraq helped fighting the terror? Not at all! It created more terror. This war was fuel for the hatred of the arabians against the U.S. and it created only more volunteers for Al Quaida and other terror groups and delivered arguments for them to stir up more hatred.

Yes, it did. Saddam is known to have given 30 million to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. That is one thing that it has stopped! It also stopped the terrorism against the Iraqi people--500,000 found in mass graves! Remember that little fact?
Why do the Arabs kill each other so easily? If the U.S. hated the Arabs so much, why did we try so hard, and put our troops at much greater risk, to prevent collateral damage? Why are we rebuilding the country, at great expense, if we hate them so much? Why didn't we just drop a large bomb (a nuke), and get it over with, if we hated them so much?--again, liberal nonsense!
The Arab hatred of anyone different from them has existed long before the war on Iraq. And if it stirs up a few extremists, so they can be eliminated before they commit some future terrorist acts, so much the better. We are all safer for that.

Did the war on Iraq free the people from a cruel dictator? Yes it did. But a significant percentage of the people in Iraq are not glad that the U.S. have occupied their country. They are living in anarchy now.

Why did you ignore the fact that the vast majority of Iraqis support our actions? Why did you ignore the fact that the "significant percentage" you are talking about are the ones who were benefiting under Saddam, at the expense of all the other people in Iraq?

Did the war on Iraq provide free elections? Yes it probably will. And the people in Iraq will reward your efforts by voting for a regime of mullahs like it is in Iran.

It would have been better to take a look at Israel before you have started this war. The guys there would have told you how easy to handle the arabians are....

Yes, look at Israel. A tiny country that has made something of itself. A country that has exercised amazing restraint when dealing with an uncivilized enemy--targeting terrorists and not going after innocent civilians like the Arabs do. A country that the surrounding Arab states only wish they could create. A country surrounded by uncivilized Arab states that support terrorism, and yet it has survived and prospered, even with all the Arab terrorist bombings, while those Arab states do not prosper without having to deal with terrorist attacks.--good example. If it wasn't for the west, creating their oil fields, and buying their oil, there is nothing of value that the Arabs have, or have done, in the last many, many, centuries. -LOL

Who should clear away this mess now?

Take a look, we, the U.S., are clearing it up! It takes time, but it is getting better.

Rodney

My posting has nothing to do with liberal. Just with reason.
Saddam was a cruel dictator and he tortured his people. I agree with you. But similar things happens in many countries all over the world (especially in Africa and Asia).

But to take a big club and beat the hornets nest is stupid. In doing so you make the hornets aggressive and they sting even more than before. And they will fly all over the area and look for other victims.

We both mentioned Israel. Would you like to life in this country? You can not go for eating a pizza out or waiting on the bus station without the fear to be blown up.
And: This country can only exist because of the cash flow from the U.S. and the Jewish people in the U.S. Otherwise Israel would long have gone bankrupt.

What government do you expect after the first free elections in Iraq? Do we agree that it will be Mullahs? If so, do you think they will be grateful?

And: Has this region become more stable now? Surely not. Do you really expect the U.S. army to contend with the situation there?

NOTICE: You can not overcome puerillas and partisans. Even Hitlers method to kill all men of a certain village after every partisan attack failed.
-----
Beware of Commies and Mutts!

My posting has nothing to do with liberal. Just with reason.
Saddam was a cruel dictator and he tortured his people. I agree with you. But similar things happens in many countries all over the world (especially in Africa and Asia).

Yes, liberal! That's exactly what I meant, that's why I said it! Why did you not look at the big picture? Why did you misrepresent the situation when you said a "significant number of the Iraqi population don't want us there" when polls done by Baghdad University show the vast majority of Iraqis want us there and support the war? Why did you say the evidence was "made up" and ignore the fact that every single major intelligence agency said they had WMDs? Why did you ignore the fact that the UN voted unanimously for 1441-(that there would be extreme consequences if Iraq didn't comply)? Why did you ignore the fact that Iraq invaded Kuwait and signed a peace treaty, that it has been violating for 12 years, thus making it totally different from all those other countries in the world you are talking about? Legally, we had a right to invade Iraq, but we don't have peace treaties that are being violated by all those "other countries". Sure, I'd like to see us stop those atrocities in those other countries, but we really don't have that right. Ignoring all the major points to try and knit pick about very minor ones is a very liberal view in my opinion. I, personally, can't ignore all the major points.

But to take a big club and beat the hornets nest is stupid. In doing so you make the hornets aggressive and they sting even more than before. And they will fly all over the area and look for other victims.

The hornets nest was already riled up! We are trying to getting rid of the hornets instead of just letting them sting us again and again. Frankly, in my opinion, it is stupid to let the hornet nest grow and prosper when you are getting stung by it all the time. It's much better to get rid of it, or at least make it smaller and less effective.

We both mentioned Israel. Would you like to life in this country? You can not go for eating a pizza out or waiting on the bus station without the fear to be blown up.
And: This country can only exist because of the cash flow from the U.S. and the Jewish people in the U.S. Otherwise Israel would long have gone bankrupt.

I'd much rather live in Israel than Palestine, or Iraq, or ..... We are very in lucky in the U.S. that we live so far away from middle east. There is no doubt that we would be living just like Israel if we did live in close proximity to them.

What government do you expect after the first free elections in Iraq? Do we agree that it will be Mullahs? If so, do you think they will be grateful?

I don't really know, probably, but if it reduces terrorism in the mean time, and in the future, then that's fine with me.

And: Has this region become more stable now? Surely not. Do you really expect the U.S. army to contend with the situation there?

There is always instability after and during a war. The attacks seem to be subsiding, there is evidence that the Saddam loyalists are getting desperate, and considering we have only lost about 500 soldiers in a time of war over a period of many months (1/6th the number dead in the twin towers during peace, or about 1/6 the number of dead Iraqi civilian every month under Saddam--also during peace) that is an extremely small price to pay.

Rodney

One can have different opinions as to a matter. But to claim the number of attacks is subsiding is ridiculous.

Even a blind man can see that the violence in Iraq increases from day to day. Meanwhile even organized attacks with a significant number of armed persons occur.

And don't mingle 9/11 with the war on Iraq. The terrorists have been Saudi Arabians citizens and not Iraqis. There is absolutely NO connection between the two events except that they are muslems.

9/11 is no licence for the U.S. to start a war on every suitable place all over the world when they feel like it.
-----
Beware of Commies and Mutts!

>>There is absolutely NO connection between the two events except that they are Muslims.

And thats all it has to be. Without a doubt religion plays such a HUGE part in all this.

this administration being overtly religious. Bush sees Muslims and Jews as spiritually inferior.

The only reason they back Israel is so that the Jews are in their right place for the 2nd coming of Christ.

Bush has stated publicly that god has made him president. I wonder what god that would be?

Even the most skeptical among us could see clearly Bush's religious overtones in his recent address where he basically wants gay marriage to be illegal due to his RELIGIOUS beliefs

I thank God for the president's religious beliefs & I too believe that he was placed in office by God. I am just one of MANY who prayed diligently in 2000 for God to put in office the man that "HE" wanted there, even if it was Gore. Well, you see who's there, it's George W. Bush!
I am so thankful that he has morals & is willing to take a stand against gay marriage. Only a gay or a liberal (the same thing many times) would support gay marriage!

Eric

First, this is a war on terrorism. We were attacked by terrorists, not a particular country. We are fighting terrorism, and Saddam and his regime supported terrorism! Period!

We had an excuse to go after Saddam. He violated the Gulf War peace treaty and the UN resolutions that have been going on for 12 years. He supported terrorism, plus, every intelligence agency in the world thought he had WMDs, not just us.

One can have different opinions as to a matter. But to claim the number of attacks is subsiding is ridiculous.

Well, I heard on the local news a couple of day ago, that the attack rate on our troops has gone down from 24 a day to 17 a day in just the past week. I agree that is a pretty short time frame, but ridiculous to claim the attack rate is subsiding, it is not!

Even a blind man can see that the violence in Iraq increases from day to day.

I haven't seen that, and I have 20/20 vision! It seems to be pretty consistent to me, and if I hadn't heard that "subsiding attack" report, I wouldn't have know that either.

And don't mingle 9/11 with the war on Iraq. The terrorists have been Saudi Arabians citizens and not Iraqis. There is absolutely NO connection between the two events except that they are muslems.

Absolutely wrong. You are the one who is mingling a war on terrorism with a war on a particular country. Again, this is a war on terrorism, not a war on a particular country. There is a reason we only went after the regime, and not the entire country. It just so happens, this regime did support terrorism, and we had a reason we could use to go after them. So what if they weren't linked to 9/11? 9/11 was done by terrorists, and Saddam supported terrorists. Interestingly, Osama bin Laden was from Saudi also. He was kicked out of the country for being too radical. I wonder if the Saudis responsible for 9/11 were his friends in Saudi Arabia before he got kicked out? Or when was the last time that they were even living in Saudi? Just because they were Saudi citizens doesn't mean Saudi Arabia was behind 9/11.

Using that kind of logic, you could argue that Timmothy McVeigh was a citizen of the US, so his attack on the federal building was sponsored by the US? I don't think so!

9/11 is no licence for the U.S. to start a war on every suitable place all over the world when they feel like it.

No, its not a license, but it is a reason to consider attacking terrorists and regimes that support terrorism. Fortunatley, Saddam gave us every reason imaginable to attack his regime.

I guess that means, in your opinion, we can't fight back against anyone unless they are acting on behalf of a particular country? Terrorists have free reign in your perfect world, and nothing can be done to prevent them from acting?

Rodney

The number of attacks in the Iraq increases. The only difference is that weaker targets are the victims now (first Iraqis and then the well-armed US soldiers, hence the decrease of the number of attacks on US soldiers). As a matter of fact the resistance or terrorists (whatever you call them) has modified their tactics.

Again, the US made a big mistake. I haven't heard yet a statement from you as to the prospect of a Mullah regime after the first free elections.

I am also curious as to your statement when the whole Iraq thing is completely crashed against the wall and one of the next US presidents orders to leave in a hurry like you did in Vietnam.
-----
Beware of Commies and Mutts!

Lets look at Israel. A nation of immigrants that was founded developed and maintained through terrorism against, and the dispossession of the indigenous people of Palestine. Israel commits most of the same crimes against Palestinians that the Nazis committed against European Jews and Roms etc. The United States was in a similar position as the Palestinians (faced with oppressive occupation) and we used thermo-nuclear weapons against population centers. Israel is also in violation of more UN Resolutions than Sadaam was. Israel also has the largest stockpile of WMD's in the Middle east. Syria introduced a resolution into the UN Security Council calling for the Middle east to be a region free of MWD's. The United States vetoed it. The region we are having trouble in Iraq is because we lack credibility in the region. The reason we lack credibility is because our foreign policy is driven by only two paradigms. Corporate interests and Zionism. No entity has ever been in the position that the Palestinians are in without fighting back, even to extreme and unacceptable tactics. The way to stop the terrorism is to provide avenues for justice and self determination, i.e. the US quits using its UN veto, its military support, and its political shielding to protect Zionist aggression and instead address the Middle east with unbiased arbitration. Terrorism is an evil force but no one is doing anything to Israel that Israel did not initiate itself. Israel is one of the world's prime sponsors of terrorism. Zionism (Israel) is another form of Nationalist Socialism, i.e. Nazism, Milosovic, Sadaam etc. Just look at its legal system.

With liberty and justice for ALL

terrorism!

Yet its not as bad as Democratic Capitalism! Which in its self is a oxymoron. If you quit listing to rush for 10, and picked up a history book, you would realize what country has been at the fore front of Terrorism. The U.S. has by far been involved with more terrorist activity's since the 1940's then ANY other country.

And I'm sorry but you sound like a RELIGIOUS FANATIC! I place you in the same category with all religious fanatics. One not being better then the other. You silly pagan nuts try to push your beliefs on others, and deem those who do not share your views as wrong, or being lesser of a person.

I take it your a good Christian who believes they know whats better for people? More then those people know whats better for them selves. Get real!!!

Yet its not as bad as Democratic Capitalism! Which in its self is a oxymoron. If you quit listing to rush for 10, and picked up a history book, you would realize what country has been at the fore front of Terrorism. The U.S. has by far been involved with more terrorist activity's since the 1940's then ANY other country.

1)you are just a sad misinformed individual

And I'm sorry but you sound like a RELIGIOUS FANATIC! I place you in the same category with all religious fanatics. One not being better then the other. You silly pagan nuts try to push your beliefs on others, and deem those who do not share your views as wrong, or being lesser of a person.

2)Thank you for recognizing that I am a man of faith!
I may be nuts (at times) but, I am not a pagan. Perhaps you are?

I take it your a good Christian who believes they know whats better for people? More then those people know whats better for them selves. Get real!!!

3) I am a Christian; and yes, we do know the truth. However, we don't think we know whats better for the people than they do themselves. That is what you liberals think. Why else would your leaders put fourth such ridiculous welfare & entitlement programs? It's because you believe that you know what's best & that you can think for us & that you want people to depend on you. You prey on the week, the lazy, the elderly & the minorities. You should be ashamed of yourselves!

>>1)you are just a sad misinformed individual

Its funny you should choose to use the word "Misinformed". Your religion has "Misinformed" its followers for decades. Need I bring up the witch hunts?

>>3) You prey on the week, the lazy, the elderly & the minorities. You should be ashamed of yourselves!

OMG I know you did not just say that..lol Who goes around the world promising food to impoverished peoples, only if they convert? 99% of drug out reach programs are run by churches. Y'all are the biggest predators to society Barr none.

The thing I find funny is, every time someone makes sense, they are labeled as a religious freak!

I am an atheist, and I can clearly see that Bush is correct in taking this action.

It seems to me, that the Bush haters in this world will do anything to attack Bush, even ignore logic.

They say he lied, but they have no evidence of this.

They say he stole an election, but still no evidence.

They complain about the dead from this war, but ignore the fact that many more times that many would have been killed under Saddam, in the same time period, during peace, if we hadn't taken any action!

They ignore things like Libya stopping it's WMD programs, or try to claim it is unrelated to the Iraq conflict.

They ignore the fact that Iraq invaded Kuwait and violated both it's peace agreement and multiple UN resolutions.--all the while stating there are other countries that are worse than Iraq, that we haven't invaded. Ignoring the fact that those other countries didn't violate peace agreements or UN resolutions.

They ignore proof that Iraq had illegal weapons, and focus on just WMDs not being found.---yet!

They ignore every intelligence agency in the world saying the same thing, and cling to "someone said the intelligence was wrong"

etc, etc.

The true fanatics are those that can ignore anything, if that is what it takes to bash Bush. Bush has done a few things I don't like, but this war is not one of them! As a non-fanatic, it is equally easy for me to say both of these things. Try to find a Bush basher that can say anything good about Bush!

It's just so sad! Especially when you think how much money is spent on our public schools, and how people like this can come out of them.

Rodney

As Iraq slips closer to a civil war, the only ones who currently benefit from this are American corporations who profit off war.

You can use the argument that several other countries gave us Intel on Saddams WMD program, But several countries told us this was fabricated, even members of our own CIA. But the administration choose to ignore those reports that went against their grain.

Yes Bush was given permission from congress, but Bush/Powell/Chaney/Rice/Rummy all stood before the world guaranteeing these weapons were there. Well they were not.

It has been brought to attention that Bush Jr. was going to war regardless, and he choose what intel to use to plead his case, knowing that it some of it was false, and out of date.

Bottom line Bush LIED to the American people, and the world, THEIR WAS NO IMMINENT THREAT! He should be held accountable.

But the right with their typical jingoism turns a blind eye, and justifies his actions.

Regardless if this was the right thing to do, abusing, and manipulating public opinion to peddle a war is a CRIMINAL ACT!!

http://www.costofwar.com/

As Iraq slips closer to a civil war, the only ones who currently benefit from this are American corporations who profit off war.

What? You mean to tell me the Iraqi people aren't benefiting from this? The 500,000 dead civilians found in mass graves, and the fact that those graves aren't being filled anymore, doesn't benefit Iraqis? The end of the torture chambers and rape rooms doesn't benefit them? The cities that didn't have power because Saddam didn't like them? The schools' disrepair? etc. etc. The main people that aren't benefiting from this are the French--since they are no longer illegally selling arms to Saddam, after they signed a treaty not to. -And Syria since they were illegally buying oil from Iraq. Who cares if a legal corporation profits or not? What kind of corporation doesn't make profits? You are saying that any corporation, who's products you don't like, are evil? I am happy those corporations make weapons that greatly reduce collateral damage. Frankly, I am happy when any corporation employs people and makes a profit legally.

You can use the argument that several other countries gave us Intel on Saddam's WMD program, But several countries told us this was fabricated, even members of our own CIA. But the administration choose to ignore those reports that went against their grain.

Several countries told us it was fabricated? Who? The Iraqis? Do you really think that the reams on info. that there were WMDs should be over looked by a couple of rumors from a couple of people in the CIA? 1441 was voted for unanimously by the UN. Why would ALL those countries do that if they thought it was fabricated info.? Why would ex-pres. Clinton say, as recently as a month ago, that he was amazed that WMDs were not found, as he was sure they were there? Is he lying to make Bush look good? Is his lie helping him in some way? I think Clinton is telling the truth about this since I see no benefit for him to lie. And what about all the other illegal arms that were found? What about the programs that were illegal for Iraq to engage in? Long range missiles were illegal for Iraq to have also. Why focus on WMDs when there were so many other violations? ANY violation is a violation! Just because one part of the peace treaty and the UN resolutions may have been complied with doesn't make Saddam's regime innocent! Look at how illogical that argument is! What about Iraq not complying with 1441? They were supposed to provide the UN with proof, the inspectors weren't supposed to have to go into Iraq to find proof!

Picture this. A criminal is charged with rape, murder, and robbery. Because rape and murder can be proved, and robbery can't be proved, no action can be taken against him by the courts? Because someone charged the police about lying about the robbery since it hasn't been proved, the rape and murder charges are ignored?

Yes Bush was given permission from congress, but Bush/Powell/Chaney/Rice/Rummy all stood before the world guaranteeing these weapons were there. Well they were not.

2 problems with that argument.

1) Just because we haven't found them, doesn't mean we won't in the future.

2) Just because we haven't found them, doesn't mean they weren't moved, and that they weren't there when we said they were.

So, maybe they were all wrong about WMDs because some of the intel. was wrong. Other intel has been proven to be right, and proved that Iraq was in violation.

It has been brought to attention that Bush Jr. was going to war regardless, and he choose what intel to use to plead his case, knowing that it some of it was false, and out of date.

Bottom line Bush LIED to the American people, and the world, THEIR WAS NO IMMINENT THREAT! He should be held accountable.

It has been proven "that Bush Jr. was going to war regardless"? I know it has been charged by many Bush haters, but when was it proved? By whom? What does " brought to attention " mean if you aren't trying to say it was proven? Sounds like more allegations to try and mislead the public and hope something "sticks"!

I think you need a dictionary! Go look up the word "lied"! You can easily find one on-line. At worst, he was wrong about something. A lie, is only a lie, if you know it is not true! There is absolutely no evidence of this!

I think Bush should be held accountable for trying to make the world a safer place. I will personally reward him for his efforts with my vote this year!

Unless he really does something I disagree with. He has done a couple of things I don't like, but he right on the money about terrorism. At this point, that is the most important thing to me.

Regardless if this was the right thing to do, abusing, and manipulating public opinion to peddle a war is a CRIMINAL ACT!!

I'd agree with that, if there was some credible evidence that this was done. Until then, I'll support him.

Rodney

Oh, Jesus.....not the "rape rooms" crap. If this term doesn't scream "yellow journalism", then what the heck does? Come on, there were no designated "rape rooms" with a big sign above them labeling them as such. If they wanted to rape someone, they'd do it anywhere they wanted to. It's a silly idea that the media fabricated to boost US morale for the war. Take a few steps back and look at this issue from an objective point of view, and you'll see that this is nothing more than another part of the "pep rally" for this war.

While I don't doubt that the Iraqi secret police could do that anywhere they wanted, are you trying to tell me that the rape rooms in police stations that contained video equipment to record the rapes, and beds didn't exist? Even after those rooms were shown on the news? Even after our troops were interviewed on the news and they said they found such room in virtually every police station in the country? The same news, that is so biased, that it has been consistently against this war showing protests continually and rarely covering pro rallies? The same news that shows interviews of the U.S. public at ratios of about the 95% against to 5% for this war, when it was more like 85% for and 10% against in the beginning? That's what I'd call yellow journalism. The last I heard, the majority of the U.S. population is still for this war, and when was the last time you saw someone interviewed on the news that is for it? Are you trying to tell me that all the testimony of Iraqis about the rapes being videoed and then sent to all the victims friends and relatives didn't occur? We are not just talking about rape, we are talking about government institutionalized rape for the purpose of intimidating and controlling the populace. And what about the tortures? Public beheadings, iron maidens, etc. Yellow journalism? Sometimes even the liberal biased news will show things as they truly are. It's pretty hard for the liberal broadcast journalists to spin the testimony of the Iraqis and the pictures.

It's sad when the truth is called "demonizing" your enemy or "yellow journalism". Most of the "demonizing" I have seen in the past year has been against Bush. Lots of allegations with nothing to back it up. Even ignoring or down-playing the facts because that might somehow make Bush look better in the public's eye.

Rodney

Let me tell you that in every prison cell of a police station is a bed. And there is also video monitoring.

So you can surely find such "rape rooms" in every police station also in advanced countries.

Next story you will probably dish up will be the one of the babies hauled out of their incubators by bad Iraqis (that was the fake story that supported the first war on Iraq).

Do you know what the worst thing is? That the unscrupulous politicians that has started this war don't have to risk their lives. They send others who have to die.
-----
Beware of Commies and Mutts!

Thank you! I was going to make that very valid point about there being a bed and video surveillance in every police station in the US, but it looks like you beat me to it!

Oh, one other thing, Rodney. If you're going to cry about the public be-headings and torture, then think about this. Rodney King--an example of a very publicised incident of our own U.S. police torturing a detainee. Someone from another country might interpret the video as "the norm" in the U.S.-- This could quite possibly be the same scenario here concerning Iraq's "torture rooms".

Is public execution so bad? The United States practiced this in it's fledgling years, but we used a method even more heinous---hanging: a procedure which was not always a success; sometimes requiring the executioner to shoot or even re-attempt the hanging. So what's the problem with Iraq's method of execution?

First, many of the police stations you mentioned had holding cells, rape rooms and what were described as "rape preparation" rooms.

Frankly, I don't think that the inspectors from the UN and other humanitarian organizations were unable to tell a holding cell from a rape room.

And then, you would still have to discount all the testimonies of the rape victims and their families!

Second, I don't have a huge problem with public executions. I do have a problem with forcing family members to watch them as a way of controlling the publics view. I have a huge problem with executing people just because they don't agree with a dictator. Just think. If you lived in Iraq, you could all be exocuted just because you disagree with this war! I also have a huge problem with 3,000-6,000 a month! I also have a huge problem with people that complain about possibly 10,000 dead in a war, when Iraq was loosing this many people every month-6 weeks in a time of peace.

Anyone who is complaining about 10,000 dead from the war should realize that in one year (about the period of time this war has gone on), using the lowest estimates available 12 months times 3,000 dead = 36,000 dead from Saddam during peace minus 10,000 dead from the war = 26,000 lives saved from this war!!! using the higher estimate would give you 62,000 lives saved!!! And that isn't taking into account the UN stating that things in Iraq were far worse than they estimated!

Wassa matta wit you? Didn't any of you liberals take math?

Rodney

>>I also have a huge problem with people that complain about possibly 10,000 dead in a war, when Iraq was loosing this many people every month-6 weeks in a time of peace.

Where did you get this info? please share your source.

Remember that we NEVER stopped bombing Iraq after the gulf war.

We put sanctions on this country, preventing any one else from administering aid to the civilian population.

Our "the US" hands are very dirty with Iraqi blood.

-->Why do you refuse to go to the root of the problem??

-->Who kept Saddam in power? The US!

-->Who gave him the WMD that he used on his own people? The US!

-->Who did not take him out of power when given the chance in the early 90's The US!

-->Who turned their backs on the Iraqi population, when they organized a uprising, after the 1st gulf war, leaving them to be killed by Saddam at his discretion? The US!!

WE "THE US" ARE BY FAR MORE RESPONSIBLE FOR IRAQI DEATHS THEN YOU GIVE US CREDIT FOR!

Place the Blame where its due!!

Wow, that whole spiel sounds like a bunch of garbage you made up! Whassa madda wit you?? Didn't you ever learn how to site references??

Well, if you want to do a little math, here you go.

Officials said the 3,000-plus bodies the mass grave contained are just the tip of the iceberg. In the Mahawil area alone, officials estimate that 15,000 Iraqis probably are buried. In all of Iraq, some officials estimate Saddam killed more than 350,000 Iraqis since he took power in 1979. Other estimates put the number at 500,000, and still others at 1.3 million.

URL http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2003/n09062003_200309061.html

So, let's see. 1979 to today is about 25 years. 25 years times 12 months in a year gives you 300 months since Saddam was in power. Using the small estimate of 350,000 gives you a little over 1000 dead every month, and using the higher estimate gives you around 4333 dead every month.

Then, take into consideration that Saddam has gotten worse as time goes on, and you can clearly see that the early regimes lower death rate offsets the more current regimes much higher rate, so estimates of 3000, to 6000 deaths a month is very reasonable.

Comparing that to estimates of Iraqi deaths, Iraq Body Count (IBC), a volunteer group of British and US academics and researchers, compiled statistics on civilian casualties from media reports and estimated that between 5,000 and 7,000 civilians died in the conflict makes my statement true, as far as I can tell.

As for the death rate on the war in Iraq increasing, this chart clearly shows it is pretty consistent, to slightly slowing down. As you can clearly see from the titles in the graph, this came from a Bush bashing site. Notice how there was no noticable increase when Bush said "Bring it on!" unlike what we were told by the liberal "Bush bashing" media.

As for the rape rooms, just do a search using "Amnesty International" and "Iraq" or "rape rooms" and you will find many articles about them. I could quote a number of them for you, but you are more likely to regard them as credible if you pick one from a source you trust.--like a liberal newspaper or a liberal university.

Rodney

>>What? You mean to tell me the Iraqi people aren't benefiting from this?

Well yes and no. It depends on how define "Benefiting"
Its a well known fact that most of Iraq still lacks even the most basic of necessities, such as power, and clean water. Things they Did have under Saddam's regime. The true winners here are the American owned corporations that win the big contracts.

>>The 500,000 dead civilians found in mass graves, and the fact that those graves aren't being filled anymore, doesn't benefit Iraqis?

WRONG!! Those graves are still being filled.

"the number of Iraqi civilians killed since the invasion reached as high as 10,000. That number is the most authoritative estimate available, since the occupying authorities in Iraq refuse to keep statistics on civilian deaths. It comes from Iraq Body Count, a group of respected British and U.S. academics who base their figures on cross-referenced reports from journalists and human-rights groups in the field."

This war has NO END IN SIGHT, and the death toll will continue to rise. Please Rodney I'd like you to tell me how many Iraqi civilians have died due to the U.S. Please take into consideration the Gulf war, and the 10 years of sanctions imposed on this nation by us. Please keep in mind the WMD Saddam used on his people were purchased from the U.S., and that Saddam's regime survived the deal with Iran due to U.S. intervention, and armament. Once you look at the BIGGER PICTURE you'll see who is RESPONSIBLE!

>>The end of the torture chambers and rape rooms doesn't benefit them?

If this is your justification for war, their are by far many other countries who are involved in such acts. I dont see us putting any sanctions on Saudi Arabia.

>>Who cares if a legal corporation profits or not?

Well when those corporations influence foreign policy, are linked to the administration in many ways, and are overcharging the Pentagon millions, WELL I CARE!!!

>>What about the programs that were illegal for Iraq to engage in?

What about all the Treaty's, and missile test bans we break all the time? Double standard?

>>Long range missiles were illegal for Iraq to have also.

Why is it legal for us to produce these weapons on a un precedented scale, yet tell every one else they can not? Double standard?

>>What about Iraq not complying with 1441? They were supposed to provide the UN with proof, the inspectors weren't supposed to have to go into Iraq to find proof!

I have read plenty of info on both sides. Iraq was complying with many orders. The inspectors were going to go in anyway. We all know this. Its part of INSPECTING..lol They were denied full access to some of Iraq's "sensitive areas". Would the U.S. let foreign inspectors inside Area 51? Double standard?

>>It has been proven "that Bush Jr. was going to war regardless"? I know it has been charged by many Bush haters, but when was it proved? By whom?

Ahh the right and their little names Soccer moms, NASCAR dads, bush haters, you guys crack me up..lol Please read this, it shows the "intent" of the administration on this subject. Call it proof, or what ever you like.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html

>>I think you need a dictionary! Go look up the word "lied"!

For the sake of your weak argument I did

Lie: n 1: Deliberate telling of an untruth 2 : to create a false impression. 3: something that misleads or deceives.

take your pick Rodney. Bush&Co. LIED! I think you need to turn off Rush for 10 mins, and look at this administration for what it really is..

>>I think Bush should be held accountable for trying to make the world a safer place.

The question though is it? According to the right it is, but the rest of the world have to live in reality. You know your house of cards is looking shaky when even Bill o'Riley says Bush lied..lolol

?'s for you Rodney.

Is America better then everyone else?

Should America be given rights other countries are denied?

Should certain social elite be given more opportunities then other Americans?

Do we live be a Double standard?

And how do you feel about us going in to Haiti now?

...
-----
Beware of Commies and Mutts!