War in Iraq (2 Viewers)

[HotShot]

no i dont think nukes are the solution to everyones problems, ernesto was horribly wrong in this regard. if everyone having nukes reduces security threats because leaders dont want to do anything silly that might bring on foreign attack, then how is it different from everyone not any nukes whatsoever?

Well the current situation is that a few countries do have nukes. Since this is the case nukes are the solution to everyone's problems. If every country has a nuke this will reduce security threats. Hence why North Korea is developing nuclear weapons.

 

[Sparcod]

Can you tell me where US had to kill more people to end genocide? Very very few people were killed by US bombing of Yugoslavia to force serbs out of Kosovo, most air strike were done with Surgical precision. Like wise in Iraq and Afghanistan, casualties of US bombings were negligible.

If you don't mind me asking, what did you mean by "negligible"?

The sufferings go beyond the deaths and these include: mental and physical scars, lost families, homes and so on for those who did survive.

The point was America was and is always the biggest donor to all international Aids, grants. regardless of your calculations to trump up the stingy donation by Australia ( a mere 2 billion compared to 22 billion by USA) . One dollar does not feed anyone while 1 trillion feeds billions and that is what matters to the people who were in need of help. Which one makes more difference to poor people 2 billion or 22 billion dollars?

I do feel that Australia is more generous than you think. In my opinion, if a country gives out most money on a per capita basis is the most generous, regardless of how much the whole population puts out as a whole.

USA has a population size of over 14 times that of Australia but has only given out 11 times as much.

Personally I believe that the U.S. should have invaded and taken out Saddam during the first Gulf War and this would have stopped a lot of blood from being spilling today, this is because he had the Iraqi people's support (he still has but not as much).

I guess that could've and should've happened. You hava a good point there.

 

[YankeeChica]

If you don't mind me asking, what did you mean by "negligible"?

The sufferings go beyond the deaths and these include: mental and physical scars, lost families, homes and so on for those who did survive.

See how you completely avoided your previous assertion that US had to kill more people. Those sufferings were caused more by the regimes that the US internvention changed, especially Serbian rule in Kosovo and Saddams rule in Iraq.

By negligible I mean the numbers of people killed by US and NATO forces bombing of Yugoslavia which at most amount to 1500 according to NATO source , even Human Rights organization can only confirm 488 and that is NOT genocide. Even inside Iraq, very few people were killed by US military bombings and needless to say MOST people were killed by either Shia/Sunni insurgents and foreign fighters. Compare those numbers of people killed by US military versus the number of people who were killed which amounts to tens of thousands in kosovo by serbs forces and hundreds of thousands by Saddam Hussein and the people who would be killed without US military intervention. 488 lives lost is negligible compared to 12000 people killed by serbs forces in its ethnic cleansing and almost a million refugees forced out from kosovo.

I do feel that Australia is more generous than you think. In my opinion, if a country gives out most money on a per capita basis is the most generous, regardless of how much the whole population puts out as a whole.

USA has a population size of over 14 times that of Australia but has only given out 11 times as much.

Yes I noticed that the only way any other country can match unprecedented and enormous amounts of donations by US to the world's poor is to calculate it on per capita basis where 1 dollar donor can appear as highest per capita donor is nt it? If that makes you feel generous, it suits you right. to me 22 billion is more generous than 2 billion. High per capita donation does not make a difference to starving people it is High absolute amount of donations, which feeds and helps more people; that makes the difference and brings smiles to the people's face.

 

[ObjectsInSpace]

 

[MaNiElla]

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/dunno-bout-u-guyz-but-is-ready-for-the-nuclar-warz.jpg

lol, at this rate it sure will..

 

[tempco]

US Marine admits urinating on dead Iraqi

Source

Angered that a beloved member of his squad had been killed in an explosion, a US Marine urinated on one of the 24 dead Iraqi civilians killed by his unit in Haditha, the Marine testified.

Sergeant Sanick Dela Cruz, who has immunity from prosecution after murder charges against him were dismissed, also said he watched his squad leader shoot down five Iraqi civilians trying to surrender.

In dramatic testimony in a pre-trial hearing for one of the seven Marines charged in the November 2005 Haditha killings and alleged cover-up, Dela Cruz described his bitterness after a roadside bomb ripped Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas, known as T J, into two bloody pieces.

"I know it was a bad thing what I've done, but I done it because I was angry T J was dead and I p****d on one Iraqi's head," said an unemotional Dela Cruz in a military courtroom in Camp Pendleton, north of San Diego, California.

Dela Cruz also said he watched squad leader Sergeant Frank Wuterich shoot five men whose hands were tied up near a car.

The Marine said he also shot the five men as they laid on the ground.

Wuterich "walked to me and told me that if anybody asked, they were running away and the Iraqi Army shot them," Dela Cruz testified.

Three Marines have been charged with murder, and four officers have been charged with dereliction of duty and obstructing the investigation.

Disturbing testimonies. Makes you wonder what really happens in Iraq, where the US military have pretty much free rein on how it conducts its operations and what events its officers report.

On that note:

US troops say torture of Iraqis is acceptable

Source

One in 10 of the US soldiers in Iraq mistreats civilians or damages their property, according to a survey published by the Pentagon last night. The report said the mental health of soldiers and marines deteriorated significantly as a result of extended or multiple deployments.

The study confirms the extent to which the US military is being strained by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The survey into the mental health of the soldiers and marines was requested by US commanders in Iraq and carried out by the office of the surgeon-general in August and October, with 1,300 soldiers and 450 marines interviewed.

The report says: "Approximately 10% of soldiers and marines report mistreating non-combatants (damaged/destroyed Iraqi property when not necessary or hit/kicked a non-combatant when not necessary).

"Soldiers that have high levels of anger, experienced high levels of combat, or screened positive for a mental health problem were nearly twice as likely to mistreat non-combatants as those who had low levels of anger or combat or screened negative for a mental health problem."

The report also found that fewer than half of all soldiers and marines would report a team member for unethical behaviour, and more than one-third believed torture should be allowed to save the life of a fellow soldier or marine.

* 10% of soldiers and marines report mistreating non-combatants

* Less than 1/2 would report a team member for unethical behaviour

* More than 1/3 believed torture should be allowed to save the life of a fellow soldier or marine

 

[MaNiElla]

thats just sick, sad, and disgusting, but hey!, thats bush's way in fixing up iraq.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

US Marine admits urinating on dead Iraqi

Source



Disturbing testimonies. Makes you wonder what really happens in Iraq, where the US military have pretty much free rein on how it conducts its operations and what events its officers report.

On that note:

US troops say torture of Iraqis is acceptable

Source

Huh I do not think urinating on a dead iraqi is all that offensive especially if he was the one who killed those marines' friends.

 

[MaNiElla]

whether they killed anyone or not, urinating on a dead body is offensive.

 

[Atilla89]

thats just sick, sad, and disgusting, but hey!, thats bush's way in fixing up iraq.

Actually Bush's way of fixing Iraq was to take out a dictator who killed his own people and then start building up the infrastructure. However what was described in this report was disgusting and the only good thing about it was that these people were sent to military tribunals to be charged.

 

[onebytwo]

Huh I do not think urinating on a dead iraqi is all that offensive especially if he was the one who killed those marines' friends.

if you even read the article you quoted you would realise the person urinated on was one of 24 killed civilians.

 

[onebytwo]

Actually Bush's way of fixing Iraq was to take out a dictator who killed his own people and then start building up the infrastructure. However what was described in this report was disgusting and the only good thing about it was that these people were sent to military tribunals to be charged.

no that only became his goal when they realised there were no WMD, so instead of making themselves look like complete fools, they decided sadam was a worthy target

 

[Atilla89]

no that only became his goal when they realised there were no WMD, so instead of making themselves look like complete fools, they decided sadam was a worthy target

Actually there was quitea few goals for invading Iraq, however I do agree that the main was taking out his allaged WMD's. Saddam was always a worthy target hence why he was named with part of the axis of evil before the invasion.

 

[banco55]

sorry, but arabs have been around for thousands of years, and living without democracy today isnt about to threaten their existence. if we are going to support the US into going around bulling other nations and creating more post-03 iraqs, then were better off having no part of it, particularly when we have severe problems here at home.

You're right it was stupid to think that a people as barbarous and backward as the arabs could cope with democracy.

 

[onebytwo]

Actually there was quitea few goals for invading Iraq, however I do agree that the main was taking out his allaged WMD's. Saddam was always a worthy target hence why he was named with part of the axis of evil before the invasion.

aren't you outraged that you were lied to?

You're right it was stupid to think that a people as barbarous and backward as the arabs could cope with democracy.

of course, so you dont support the iraq war anymore?

 

[Atilla89]

All intelligance pointed to the fact that Saddam had WMD's. He didn't but he was close to getting them. Know to the lieing part, Bush made a mistake, he thought they were there and was mistaken, that's not lying. He believed the CIA, etc (as you do - I am sure Howard believes what ASIO tells him) and it turns out they were wrong. If a report came out that Bush knew that there was no WMD's and this report was validated by FACTS then I would be outraged.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

All intelligance pointed to the fact that Saddam had WMD's.

I'm pretty sure that it didn't. Isn't that the basis for all of this hubbup about the CIA and such these days? I mean, even if it were reliable, let us not forget that Bush is on record saying that if he knew what he knows today, he would still invade Iraq. Obviously, the existence of WMD's, or lack thereof has no bearing on Bushs opinion.

 

[Atilla89]

Maybe Bush and Howard genuinely believed their incompetent intelligence agencies and they were acting with totally sound intentions. But we will never know (or at least not for many years) because of course most of this information cannot be release because of national security.

True that.

However, if we look at the quality of the evidence that has been made available much of it is disturbingly weak, and reaks of fabrication. For instance, the British report on WMD relied upon by the US that was plagerised from a uni students paper.

Can you give me a link for that please?

"Can you cite any example of evidence supporting Iraq's WMD capacity that would be persuasive enough to justify invasion?"

Some experts, such as former Pentagon investigator Dave Gaubatz, allege that not all of the potential sites that may have WMDs have been searched. On February 12, 2006, he appeared on Fox News Channel and claimed he and fellow military investigators identified four underground bunkers with five foot thick concrete walls in southern Iraq believed to hold WMD. Iraqi informants had brought these sites to the attention of Gaubatz and his colleagues. Gaubatz claims that, for various reasons, these sites have never been inspected by the Iraq Survey Group or the CIA, and made a plea the sites be inspected.[67] Gaubatz also reiterated his claims in a telephone interview with The New York Sun.[68]
On August 14, 2005, The Washington Post published an article reporting a raid on a suspected chemical weapons facility in Iraq where (according to the US military) chemical weapons had been uncovered and were now in the process of being classified. The Post reported that "the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003."[69]
The Washington Times editorialized on a moment on the "Saddam tapes" that revealed "Saddam was actively working on a plan to enrich uranium using a technique known as plasma separation. This is particularly worrisome because of the date of the conversation: It took place in 2000, nearly five years after Iraq's nuclear programs were thought to have stopped."[70]

It's been repeated so much its become a cliche but I'll say it anyway: Atilla, Given Iraq's oil reserves, do you really believe that Bush was not motivated to find a pretext to invade Iraq for economic and strategic gain?

I've heard that one many times as well Here's my reasoning, if Bush really wanted Iraq's oil why did he bother with the north part of Iraq, with Baghdad and with all the other uselless towns and villages? The U.S. Military is trained to do many things but most specifically it is trained to take and hold. All they would have needed to do is to take and hold the oil reserves establish a huge presence of warships in the Perisan Gulf and just start shipping. Why does the U.S. bother with hunting terrorists or trying to protect civilians or patrolling area's which have no oil? Why is it still expensive to buy oil (I am talking in America not Australia)? Makes no sense what so ever IMO. That is why I believe that he did not invade for oil.

 

[HotShot]

You do realise they weapon inspections prior to the invasion to search for any WMDS - and that Hans Blitx was bribed to say yes - and then later during the invasion when they couldnt find any WMDs he confessed that there never was any WMDs in IRaq.

Intelligence can say anything but the fact is it was all made up.

 

[Atilla89]

"Securing oil is a little more complicated than simply holding sites. If you focus only on the sites that actually have oil and do not secure the rest of the country, how do you transport the oil out of country through unsecured territory full of beligerent forces? It is not as simple as the US wanting to invade Iraq and take their oil."

The oil site are mainly in the south correct? It is really easy to control certain paths down from the sites into the Persian Gulf, from there on terrorists/insurgents can do nothing. Once you've established corridors of no go zones for terrorists, it is almost impossible for them to disrupt the process, this is because there is such a limited area to defend.

"They want to establish a politically favourable regiem in Iraq to help ensure their long term supply of oil."

Why would they need a favourable government? Seriously, what do you think Iraq is going to do if that had ever happened, try and stop them, with what exactly, their almost no existant military?