The War In Iraq - OPINIONS ONLY - Page 6

Rellevart · Mar 26, 2003, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted By MonaMe577:
Oh, I get it. If we read something positive about the war, then it's "slanted, government-sponsored" propaganda, but if it's something negative about the war, then it must be true... [img]graemlins/images/icons/confused.gif[/img]

Good points all around, Mona. There's propaganda on both sides here and if someone believes in the war (or doesn't), it's not fair to say that they're just a victim of propaganda. We do know enough not to believe everything we see/read and to form our own opinions and not just be blindly led by the media OR our leadership.

Drumhead15 · Mar 26, 2003, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted By Harbidge:
Here's a list of the current toll of war casualties...

<ul type="square">[*]US Military in Combat[*]March 20 - 1 death[*]March 21 - 1 US Marine[*]March 23 - Iraq states that 25 US bodies were found on the battlefield at Nassiriyah. 8 of which are shown on Iraqi TV.[*]March 24 - The battle at Nassiriyah claims 10 more US soldiers.
.
Iraq Military in Combat[*]March 23 - 70 Iraqis were killed during the battle of Najaf.
.
Iraqi Civilians[*]March 22 - 3 civilians die during air raids.[*]March 23 - Iraqi reports that 77 civilians were killed, mostly by cluster bombs. The airstrikes on Tikrit also claimed 4 civilians.[*]March 24 - Iraq says that 62 civilians had been killed by US forces. In the south of Baghdad, another 30 were killed while Basra had 14 civilian deaths.
.
Non-Combat Deathsi.e. Friendly Fire[*]March 21 - 8 British soldiers and 4 US marines were killed when their US Marine CH-46E helicopter crashed in Kuwait.[*]March 22 - 2 Royal Navy Sea King helicopters collided with each other, killing all 7 crew.[*]March 23 - A US patriot missile destroys a British Tornado fighter jet near the Kuwaiti border killing the crew of two.[*]Americans roll grenades into tents of the 101st Airborne Division. One person was killed.[*]A vehicle accident killed 1 US soldier in Kuwait.[*]March 24 - It was announced that 2 US soldiers had been killed in seperate accidents in Iraq.
.
Journalists[*]March 22 - An Australian cameraman was killed in a car bomb explosion in Northern Iraq.[*]March 22 - Terry Lloyd (an ITN news reporter) was killed when his vehicle came under heavy fire by British troops on his way to Basra.
.
Non Iraqis[*]March 20 - A Jordanian taxi driver was killed during the first US missile strike.[*]March 23 - A US warplane fired a missile at a busload of Syrians which were leaving Iraq to go home. 4 were killed.
.
Missing[*]March 23 - 2 ITN journalists (who were with Terry Lloyd) fled as their vehicle came under fire.[*]March 24 - 2 British soldiers missing after their vehicle came under heavy gunfire.[/list]

Thanks for posting that Harb. It's interesting to see it in that light.

SleepyHead · Mar 26, 2003, 06:16 AM

The one argument against this war that has absolutely no place in it is "the US/UK is killing innocents".

War or no war, innocents are dying over there. One of the aims of this war is to PREVENT as many dying as is probable left under the TLC of the Ba'ath Party.

This is indisputable - Hussein and his backers actively kill men, women and children every day of the week and twice on Sunday for all varieties of reasons. Their regime began that way, and has continued that way, and has earned world-wide condemnation for almost 30 years because of it.

To actually say that to support a war to remove from power some jackass who is a well-documented killer of innocents numbering higher than any local serial killers we all cheer the police on to "get, dead or alive" is to support the "collateral damage" (a phrase I loathe almost as much as "unsalvageable fetuses) that comes with it (always has, and always will - one of the reasons I hate war) defies logic.

Innocents are being killed, and will be killed either way you go. Only, this time the serial killer kills in the name of religion and politics, and he's not in your backyard, so maybe it doesn't seem so vital to you.

In our papers right now the Louisiana public is giving the government and police forces holy hell for not yet catching the serial killer of South Louisiana.

He's only known to have killed 5 times.

How ironic that scenes like these are played out on national tv and across newspapers nationwide every year, while the public gets into a public frenzy because the perpetrator isn't caught quickly and dealt with, no matter how much force is needed - but when millions of Iraqi civilians die under that hand of yet a bigger serial killer, we're "content" to let the UN keep "asking" and "inspecting" in the name of peace.

If a known felon bought so much as one gun here in the states, the police would be all over him like white on rice, to the cheers of the public.

If an officer was killed in doing his solemn duty trying to bring down a local monster, his face would be paraded on internet sites, television broadcasts, and in the banner stories of all the pertinent papers.

My own Catholic church is still being castigated in national papers for failure to turn over child-molesters to the proper authorities.

I guess the difference is that all these assholes' victims live right here, and stand a better chance of being us next time, even though numbers and statistics tell us otherwise.

So, admit it, why don't you. You've all admitted that Hussein has to go, that he's a diabolical evil the world would be better off without. But because you can't envision him coming to your home and doing anything to you, you say "No war - Bush is killing innocents". This country, and the others represented by the UN are as guilty as any cop we've ever called Internal Affairs on for failure to follow through on reliable information that the serial killer he's investigating can be found such-and-so. When found guilty, he gets a second degree murder charge for every death afterwards that MAY have been prevented had he done his sworn duty.

We've aided and abetted this monster for the very last time. The deaths of each and every civilian, and each and every non-willing Iraqi soldier, are upon the heads of all peoples of all countries who failed to do their duty the very first time he thumbed his nose at UN resolutions - because we knew what he was capable of, we knew what he'd done before, and we knew he'd continue doing it.

Or maybe you feel no guilt at all. After all, he is halfway around the world from us.

SleepyHead · Mar 26, 2003, 06:44 AM

Oh, and by the way, while you guys are actually watching the publicly degrading footage of the US POWS, pay close attention to the equally sick footage of the dead in uniform - those are bullet holes in their heads.

Are they really US soldiers who've been murdered in such an atrocious manner (or, who knows, maybe the Iraqi army is better at focusing on the enemy)? Or are they Iraqi civilians dressed up in US military apparel, paraded across TV to get the message across that the hellish regime is still in complete and utter control?

Does it matter?

Either way it goes, it's sickening.

And to allow someone to get the news of his loved one's death in this manner is grossly inhumane.

SleepyHead · Mar 26, 2003, 06:50 AM

U.S. grenade attack suspect moved
Second victim dies of wounds
Wednesday, March 26, 2003 Posted: 6:34 AM EST (1134 GMT)

MANNHEIM, Germany (CNN) -- Military officials say a second serviceman died Tuesday of wounds suffered in a grenade attack blamed on an Army sergeant.

The victim was identified as Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone. He was a member of the Idaho Air National Guard based in Boise, the guard has confirmed. Capt. Chris Seifert, 27, of Easton, Pennsylvania, also died in the attack.

The soldier suspected in the attack that also left 14 others wounded in Kuwait arrived Tuesday at a military confinement center in Germany to await formal charges, U.S. military officials said.

Sgt. Asan Akbar, 31, of Fort Campbell, Kentucky, a combat engineer with the 326th Engineer Battalion of the 101st Airborne Division, is accused of lobbing four grenades -- three of which exploded -- at tents of the division's 1st Brigade early Sunday. He also is suspected of firing on soldiers as they fled the tents after the explosions.

After reviewing the evidence, a military magistrate Monday found probable cause that Akbar committed the crime, the Army said in news release Tuesday.

In the statement issued by the 101st Airborne Division's 1st Brigade, the Army said the military magistrate "found that a crime was committed, that it is probable that the accused soldier committed that crime."

The Army further stated, "The command emphasizes that this soldier is innocent until proven otherwise, and cautions all interested parties to avoid jumping to conclusions or making statements that they might later regret."

The magistrate also determined that Akbar must remain in custody pending an investigation and military trial.

The soldier was brought to the Mannheim Confinement Center, a maximum security facility at the far end of Coleman Barracks Army Airfield, about 60 miles south of Frankfurt, Germany.

The facility -- officially known as the U.S. Army Confinement Facility-Europe -- is the largest U.S. military confinement center outside the United States. It houses military personnel from the European theater and Middle East suspected of crimes.

Officials have not determined whether Akbar will remain in Germany or brought back to the United States for proceedings.

The confinement center where he is being housed is surrounded by an 8-foot-high chain-link fence topped with barbed wire. Arriving prisoners usually are placed in a 6-foot by 8-foot cell for the first 72 hours of confinement, according to the Web site globalsecurity.org, an international security organization. The cell is usually equipped with a bed, toilet and sink, the site said.

In the first three days of confinement, prisoners must remain in a cell for 23 1/2 hours each day under camera surveillance, the Web site said. If a prisoner wants to flush the toilet or run water, they must call a guard, who controls these functions from outside the cells.

A doctor, chaplain and social worker are allowed to visit. Once 72 hours are completed and if a prisoner is no longer deemed a concern, the Web site says, they can then be transferred to a larger cell and allowed to call home at their own expense.

The Army said "many" of those injured in the attack returned to duty within 24 hours and others will return "within days." Five of the most seriously injured were transported to Landstuhl, Germany, for additional care.

The FBI has said its agents searched Akbar's apartment at Fort Campbell, where the 101st Airborne is based, and questioned his neighbors. Federal agents are also tracking down information on his life in California, where he attended college and a Los Angeles Islamic Center, the FBI said.

glory · Mar 26, 2003, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted By jtal909:
I agree with you that this topic goes in circles as the two sides, although crystal clear to themselves, will never agree with each other.
I also vowed to stop participating in this discussion but the anti-American sentiment angers me.

Nobody wants war. Who could possible want to kill innocent people (with the exception of Muslim extremists)?
In this case it is a means to an end. You cannot imagine what it is like to have your country attacked in the treacherous way that 3,000 innocent civilians perished on 9/11. Im not saying that Iraq was directly responsible, but it has become a different world since then, and we need to protect ourselves.

Iraq has defied UN resolutions to disarm. They agreed to disarm while negotiating a surrender in th Gulf War. Too bad the world believed them at the time. Without a doubt, these weapons need to be taken out of outlaw hands.
The tremendous side benefit is the liberation of the oppressed Iraqis.

What about the anti-French sentiment?

glory · Mar 26, 2003, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted By leonardobeat:
TADA MR. BUSH!! I'm back.

Well, I'm back but I'm going at once.
I get sick everytime I try to explain why the war is bad, always bad, don't matter the words and the excuses you use to justify it.

The blue is blue, simple, the war is war. Could be there lots of blues but they all are blue. Same thing about the war, could be there "legal" or "ilegal" wars, "good" and "bad" wars, even "Star Wars".

I've noticed that a couple of people in here use what they watch in TV to post their opinions about this. Seems like if they only copy and paste what is in the newspapers or something.

Well, everybody knows Bush bought the TV, the TV in the US is showing what BUSH wants you to watch with the excuse of the soldiers who are prisioners. The big thing in here is that all the rest of information is forbidden as well. All those images of dead children, iraqui people fighting for Hussein (women, children etc).

Yesterday, the mexican TV who has channels in the south of USA directed to the hispanic community was kicked off of the air. Why?? Just because they showed images of prisioners and children dead.

Do you call that freedom? Democracy?

If I were you I wouldn't watch TV there, is almost like if I were watching nothing. I'll advice you to check the web sites of other countries, you'll find the answers that you need to decide if this war is good or bad.

JTAL, I know we aren't talking about North Korea but why don't we do?? Aren't they another menace? Haven't they mass destruction weapons? Aren't they more dangerous than Iraq?

I already made a topic about that but no one answered my question- Everybody started to talk about Iraq.

This is the last thing that I say about this war since I can't understand your reasons and you can't understand mines. We are walking on circles.
I hope I haven't ofended no one, I just was talking about the US government and not about the people.

I don't want the children that I haven't yet to be embarassed about their father. I'm always for peace and good people, I don't want monsters whoever they are. I'm sure this war has a solution yet, but we don't want to think of real solutions since the war is the faster one.

Cheers Leo! Stand your ground!

glory · Mar 26, 2003, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted By SleepyHead:
Let me repeat - without the support of Congress, Bush couldn't have declared the war. Period.

Without the support of their constituents, Congress couldn't have supported Bush. Period.

What part of "we are behind Bush" have you failed to grasp?

The vocal minority have never yet, and never will overcome the will of the silent majority.

You can listen to rhetoric all you want to, but the facts are clear - the United States is behind their President.

This isn't about Bush - it's about being American. We fight for what we believe in.

We believe that Democracy is the only way.

Democracy has made us the richest country in the world.

Democracy has made us the strongest country in the world.

These are being thrown in our face constantly, how rich and how strong we are.

We don't have to fight to prove it - we are.

Our very government itself is set up to prevent any other type of government from being able to take it over.

And don't let anyone fool you - like the President, or hate him, each and every citizen of these United States would take up arms to prevent that office from being overrun.

When we REALLY want change, we get it. We send our money, sometimes out of our grocery budget, to those who will see to it.

And when push comes to shove, we shove back.

The regime in Iraq has been pushing effectively for over 12 years now. "Yes, yes, I know we can't buy these arms" they've placated UN members as they quietly buy arms from Russia and France and China.

"Yes, yes, they are trying to disarm" say Russia and France and China as they continue sending shipments of armaments of war to Iraq, and adding to their coffers from Iraqi oil money.

They've pushed, and they've pushed, and they've pushed for the very last time.

For better or for worse, we have gone in, and we will rid Iraq of the Hussein-headed Ba'ath party of people killers, spouters of rhetoric, buyers of arms they've been told they cannot have, users of armaments they've told the world they did not have as late as 21 March 2003, users of arms they were ordered by the UN to destroy in 1990 after they'd used those and similar arms to invade and try to take over Kuwait.

And if the UN survives this absolute debacle they've allowed themselves to author by their very lack of action is a question we cannot answer right now.

Nor does it matter. You see, when it comes down to brass tacks, this world runs on the word of those who sign the treaties. If they're as good as their word, so be it. If they're lying, nothing they've signed is even worth the 3 cents of paper they signed their name to.

Iraq has repeatedly proven that it never tried to honor it's word - nor has it really meant to do so.

The UN has a pretty good rep for honoring it's word, for the most part.

Until now.

Because 2 of the 5 members with veto power have repeatedly joined with the other nations in condemning Iraq while continuing to do active business in armed weaponry with them.

And to get really nasty, anyone whatsoever who aids and abets a terrorist is also condemned as a terrorist. Iraq is a world-wide acknowledged harborer and fomenter of terrorists. By selling arms of war to Iraq, France and Russia and China are at the head of the list. They've profited from the food taken from Iraqi children's tables long enough.

Forget this war - which we will win. You'd best start praying that the UN survives, and that it's members start keeping their word and enforcing it, or we truly are facing Armageddon.

You've learned your lesson by rote, eh?

Tim · Mar 26, 2003, 11:24 AM

Quite a few points to make:

1. UN Resolutions: If it is so evil that Iraq does not follow UN Resolutions, then why does the US Government applaud when Isreal defies them? If shock and awe are needed to enforce 1441 should not therefore Jerusalem be pounded with Shock and Awe to force it to abide by the several UN resolutions from 1967 on condemning it for atrocities commited by them against the Palestinians?

2. Why is it 'degrading' to see USA POW's but when Bush,etc. had the Afghanis POWs paraded around for TV, it was OK?

3. I am sure more Iraqis would rather die for Saddam than be put under US Military rule/colonialism. They may hate Saddam,but he is theirs and not a foreign power ruling over them.

Tim · Mar 26, 2003, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted By SleepyHead:

And to get really nasty, anyone whatsoever who aids and abets a terrorist is also condemned as a terrorist. Iraq is a world-wide acknowledged harborer and fomenter of terrorists. By selling arms of war to Iraq, France and Russia and China are at the head of the list. They've profited from the food taken from Iraqi children's tables long enough.

Forget this war - which we will win. You'd best start praying that the UN survives, and that it's members start keeping their word and enforcing it, or we truly are facing Armageddon.

On to the first part:Sleepy, do you therefore accept that The Roman Catholic Church (to be more specific several parishes in the Archdiocxes of Boston and New York) are therefore terrorists...or are you one of these who beleives that the Irish Republican Army is not a terrorist organization? Or they are good terrorists since they are not Moslems and have not (yet) killed an American?
In the 70's and 80's here in Detroit we wpould in the Roman Catholic Church take uop collections "for the oppressed of the faith in Ireland"...so the Archdiocese of Detroit can therefore said to be terrorist, also for supporting the contras in nicaragua.

As for the UN, it is hypocritical that Iraq must follow orders, but to the USA it is OK to have more and more Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip,when the UN has ordered Isreal to get rid of the settlements. Then should not US troops be sent to Isreal to force them to comply?

leonardobeat · Mar 26, 2003, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted By Tim:
Quite a few points to make:

1. UN Resolutions: If it is so evil that Iraq does not follow UN Resolutions, then why does the US Government applaud when Isreal defies them? If shock and awe are needed to enforce 1441 should not therefore Jerusalem be pounded with Shock and Awe to force it to abide by the several UN resolutions from 1967 on condemning it for atrocities commited by them against the Palestinians?

2. Why is it 'degrading' to see USA POW's but when Bush,etc. had the Afghanis POWs paraded around for TV, it was OK?

3. I am sure more Iraqis would rather die for Saddam than be put under US Military rule/colonialism. They may hate Saddam,but he is theirs and not a foreign power ruling over them.

Well said Tim, finally someone got the whole point.

Who the hell is US (or Bush) to be meddler in Iraq??

Tim · Mar 26, 2003, 11:44 AM

Another thing about this American Patriotism is all the nice good Christians who are mad because police are protecting mosques, in the good Christian view that we must cripple Islam.

Also the anti-French stuff (i.e. 'freedom' fries, 'patriot' toast,etc.) just proves that under the skin,the USA is still a WASPish racist people.

I'm sorry,but that ois how it is in conservative America....

leonardobeat · Mar 26, 2003, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted By MonaMe577:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />Originally Posted By leonardobeat:

Question: Why many countries (40, when there are more than 200) supports the war?

Answer: Because they think Bush is right? Please, you're not serious.
They support the war because the big most of them are unknowed countries who expect an economic help from you. That's why the sell their votes.

Unknown countries, huh? You're right, I've never heard of a country called Spain, or Portugal, or Australia, or the Phillipines, or Denmark, or Costa Rica, or Italy...

All that Australian foreign aid...sure takes a big chunk of the budget...<hr /></blockquote>First, I ask you to read word by word of my posts.

I said THE BIG MOST, and yes, I know Italy, Spain and Costa Rica and all of those BUT......

that doesen't mean they aren't interested in $$$$.
Specially Spain. They want to be the new favourite sons of USA.

Do you really think that all those countries follow you because they respect you? Because they think you're right?

Do you think they are not interested in money?? [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img] *Geez...ok.

Rellevart · Mar 26, 2003, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted By Tim:
Also the anti-French stuff (i.e. 'freedom' fries, 'patriot' toast,etc.) just proves that under the skin,the USA is still a WASPish racist people.

I've never even HEARD of anybody talking this way, so please, don't act like all people in the US say this kind of thing and act like this. We DON'T.

leonardobeat · Mar 26, 2003, 01:33 PM

I just read some stupids words of someone who says that the Anti-war protestors are criminals who only make riots and stuff like that.

Those kind of people, "protestors", only want 5 mins of fame. They don't want peace or nothing but not all of them are like this.
The most of protestors are people who really wants the peace, a good solution not only stupid wars.

Many of the victim's familiars of S/11 are protestors.
So...

jtal909 · Mar 26, 2003, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted By MissusLennon:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />Originally Posted By jtal909:
Were you just listening to Imagine or something?

[img]graemlins/images/icons/rolleyes.gif[/img]

No, I wasn't, actually, but I don't understand why that's a roll-eyes thing to do anyway.
Oh I forgot, if there's no weapons, then the United States government can't bully the rest of the world anymore.

Thanks for the support Tim!<hr /></blockquote>You must mean protect the rest of the world.

jtal909 · Mar 26, 2003, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted By leonardobeat:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />Originally Posted By MonaMe577:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />Originally Posted By leonardobeat:

Question: Why many countries (40, when there are more than 200) supports the war?

Answer: Because they think Bush is right? Please, you're not serious.
They support the war because the big most of them are unknowed countries who expect an economic help from you. That's why the sell their votes.

Unknown countries, huh? You're right, I've never heard of a country called Spain, or Portugal, or Australia, or the Phillipines, or Denmark, or Costa Rica, or Italy...

All that Australian foreign aid...sure takes a big chunk of the budget...<hr /></blockquote>First, I ask you to read word by word of my posts.

I said THE BIG MOST, and yes, I know Italy, Spain and Costa Rica and all of those BUT......

that doesen't mean they aren't interested in $$$$.
Specially Spain. They want to be the new favourite sons of USA.

Do you really think that all those countries follow you because they respect you? Because they think you're right?

Do you think they are not interested in money?? [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img] *Geez...ok.<hr /></blockquote>Do you not believe that France and Russia have based their anti war stance on their huge economic interests in Iraq?

jtal909 · Mar 26, 2003, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted By leonardobeat:
P.S.

THANKS JTAL AND MOTHER TERESA FOR MAKE FUN OF MY OPINIONS.

You really should look at some of the things that you write about here.

And by the way, have you ever seen or read about what comes out of the Iraqi media?
Also, there was a French program director on a news show last night admitting that of course they slant the news to their political views.
The United States is as objective as you're gonna get in this crazy world, my friend.

leonardobeat · Mar 26, 2003, 04:26 PM

When I said "He bought the TV" I meant he controls what you see or not. I never said that literally. I hope you understand this time, I'll get better my english, I promise.

Many countries including Mexico, have reporters in Baghdag or whatever you spell it, obviously there's no comparation between US media and the media of the rest of the world. You are with the eyes closed, better said, they closed your eyes. And yes, I've seen and heard US news, I don't talk just for talk.

About the hing of France and Russia, I know they are interested in the Iraqui richness. Who not? US is not interested? US governement wants their safety and their freedom?

OK, Bush wants that. God bless him. I've been so cruel with the "Tomahawck boy". He's a good example to all the criminals, excuse me, politicians of the world.

What makes me doubt about politicians if they are good guys???

I must be crazy.

jtal909 · Mar 26, 2003, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted By leonardobeat:
[QB]When I said "He bought the TV" I meant he controls what you see or not. I never said that literally. I hope you understand this time, I'll get better my english, I promise

QB]

Oh, you were understood allright. It's just that it is such a ludicrous and unsubstantiated notion that a joke seemed appropriate.
Again, the US media is probably as objective as you're going to get. In America, we are allowed to speak our minds.

there is no debate here, only anti American hatred, ranting and ravings. It is hard to take seriously anymore.

[img]graemlins/rocknroll1.gif[/img]