Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jezeera

[No Limit]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051123/ts_nm/britain_usa_jazeera_dc

And now the british government is trying to stop all media organizations from reporting this fact. Tell me neocons, what will it take for you to finally stop supporting this maniac? I am dying to know.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

Bush has done it again , won't this guy ever fall over and die?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

And now the british government is trying to stop all media organizations from reporting this fact. Tell me neocons, what will it take for you to finally stop supporting this maniac? I am dying to know.

Well, I dunno what to say. I mean, its Yahoo, not CNN or Fox ...

 

[CptStern]

the US bombed al jazeera a few times


http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,597067,00.html


of course they claimed it was an "accident" ...you see "smart" bombs arent all that smart ...they have a tendency to veer off their course by hundreds of miles and inexplicably hit targets like media organizations, hospitals or wedding parties

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Wedding parties?! You mean your still following Michael Moore's propaganda from Fahrenheit 9/11? Can't you think for yourself man?

 

[CptStern]

ya ...propaganda:


""The bombing started at 3am," she said yesterday from her bed in the emergency ward at Ramadi general hospital, 60 miles west of Baghdad. "We went out of the house and the American soldiers started to shoot us. They were shooting low on the ground and targeting us one by one," she said. She ran with her youngest child in her arms and her two young boys, Ali and Hamza, close behind. As she crossed the fields a shell exploded close to her, fracturing her legs and knocking her to the ground.

She lay there and a second round hit her on the right arm. By then her two boys lay dead. "I left them because they were dead," she said. One, she saw, had been decapitated by a shell. "


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1221658,00.html

 

[dream431ca]

Looks like it's starting again...why is Canada so close to Bush?? I vote we seperate Canads's land mass and drift towards Japan.

And No-limit, and other americans are welcome to come too.

 

[Ennui]

Wait up a bit first so I can jump on

 

[dream431ca]

Wait up a bit first so I can jump on

OFF-TOPIC: OMG LOOK AT YOUR POST NUMBER 6,666!! YOU THE DEVIL LOL!! :rolling:

 

[Solaris]

Omg It Is!!!

 

[Jandor]

ya ...propaganda:


""The bombing started at 3am," she said yesterday from her bed in the emergency ward at Ramadi general hospital, 60 miles west of Baghdad. "We went out of the house and the American soldiers started to shoot us. They were shooting low on the ground and targeting us one by one," she said. She ran with her youngest child in her arms and her two young boys, Ali and Hamza, close behind. As she crossed the fields a shell exploded close to her, fracturing her legs and knocking her to the ground.

She lay there and a second round hit her on the right arm. By then her two boys lay dead. "I left them because they were dead," she said. One, she saw, had been decapitated by a shell. "


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...221658,00.html

I don't believe the American version one bit, those soldiers in there army obviously just love shooting and bombing Iraqis for fun. It's sick

 

[Solaris]

Wedding parties?! You mean your still following Michael Moore's propaganda from Fahrenheit 9/11? Can't you think for yourself man?

Go ahead.
You called something propaganda, and that stern can't think for himself. He then pwned you with his source.
I'm eagerly waiting for a reply here

 

[CptStern]

oops wrong thread

 

[kirovman]

Smart bombs are exactly what they say: They are smart bombs. It's very rare a guidance system will misfunction so much that your bomb will hit the red cross instead of the terrorist training grounds. As rare as your conceptraceptive device being viagra by mistake.

Their smartness depends on the dummy firing them.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Not surprised really.

 

[No Limit]

Well, I dunno what to say. I mean, its Yahoo, not CNN or Fox ...

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain has warned media organizations they are breaking the law if they publish details of a leaked document said to show U.S. President George W. Bush wanted to bomb Arabic television station Al Jazeera.

It's Reuters, a wire source used by pretty much every news organization out there including CNN, Fox, and in this case Yahoo.

 

[Polaris]

They must be really paranoid....
OMG Bush is terrorist

 

[CptStern]

al jazeera is one of the few media outlets in iraq that isnt embedded or doesnt have to submit their stories to the pentagon ...the media in iraq is a tool just like any other ...a very effective PR tool ...I dont go a day without seeing some human interest story in iraq where it pretty much amounts to "everything is A-ok, continue supporting our troops, this is not a drill" on CNN

 

[Bait]

Goddamn............

For God's sakes someone defend this guy idea before I go and get the idea that Bush was and is completly and utterly ****ed up and is ****ing stupid for the first time ever.

 

[VictimOfScience]

This doesn't surprise me at all, especially given how much of a mouthpiece Al-Jazeera has been for Al-Queda in the past. Plus, does anyone think that American forces (meaning Bush and the whole of the Armed Forces involved in the conflict) want all that bad press getting around about them over there? Of course not. Thats what our psychological warfare leaflets are for. :hmph:

A great way to kill the will of the people is to disrupt their media services so that they get no news--good or bad. How do you think so many governments (like N. Korea) keep their population in check so well? If you control the media, you control the people--especially in wartime. Bombing Al-Jazeera makes sense if you think about it in these terms, though I am not condoning such actions.

 

[SAJ]

This doesn't surprise me at all, especially given how much of a mouthpiece CNN has been for George.W.Bush in the past. Plus, does anyone think that insurgent forces (meaning Al-Zakawi and the whole of the Armed Forces involved in the conflict) want all that bad press getting around about them over there? Of course not. Thats what our psychological warfare leaflets are for. :thumbs:

A great way to kill the will of the people is to disrupt their media services so that they get no news--good or bad. How do you think so many governments (like U.K) keep their population in check so well? If you control the media, you control the people--especially in wartime. Bombing CNN makes sense if you think about it in these terms, though I am not condoning such actions.

 

[Glirk Dient]

Goddamn............

For God's sakes someone defend this guy idea before I go and get the idea that Bush was and is completly and utterly ****ed up and is ****ing stupid for the first time ever.

I'm interested to see if Bush has done anything right...

Really the only thing I agree on that he was done is going over to Iraq to get sadam out of there and get a new government in. He went about that all wrong and the war has been nothing but trouble since. I will be interested to see where this country goes from here and if it gets better/worse when he leaves office.

 

[Adabiviak]

It's like Lord of the Flies over there or something.

 

[gick]

'Yeah, we're spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world, but if you disagree with us then WE WILL BOMB YOU!!!'

 

[Skar]

In order to 'win' an occupation of a country, you must win the hearts and minds of the people. If I were trying to win in Iraq, I'd bomb Al-Jazeera to hell in a heartbeat.

You may be very right that it is hypocritical in nature to bomb a media that does not support you, while claiming to be bringing freedom at the same time. However, it is a necesarry evil in many cases. Mass media is an amazingly powerful force, capable of swinging people's views in any direction.

The United States is battling a massively negative image in the Middle-East, and had been doing so before 9/11. Al-Jeezera has not exactly been 'supportive' of the US image, and have often been the source of the extremist messages. They play up smaller issues and generally give people in Iraq a reason to not support the new government under the US quite often. They are against us in the battle for hearts and minds.

An insurgency can exist in any significant form, without the support of people. In order to make more people support the US, I'd bomb Al-Jeezera too. The people may see the intent, and be unhappy, but over time the loss of a constant stream of reasons to not like America would be much greater in its effect, than any back lash.

When the country is on its feet on its own, then you establish a completely free society. It's like hurricane disasters areas where you declare martial law. You are taking away people's freedom temporarily, but it's so that you can clean up the mess, before things go back to normal.

 

[CptStern]

In order to 'win' an occupation of a country, you must win the hearts and minds of the people. If I were trying to win in Iraq, I'd bomb Al-Jazeera to hell in a heartbeat.

over 27,000 iraqi civilans killed because of the occupation ...how is that "winning the hearts and minds of the people" not too mention destruction of the infrastructure, torture, indescriminate arrests etc ...they're not exactly endearing themselves to the iraqi people

You may be very right that it is hypocritical in nature to bomb a media that does not support you, while claiming to be bringing freedom at the same time. However, it is a necesarry evil in many cases. Mass media is an amazingly powerful force, capable of swinging people's views in any direction.

sure is

The United States is battling a massively negative image in the Middle-East, and had been doing so before 9/11. Al-Jeezera has not exactly been 'supportive' of the US image, and have often been the source of the extremist messages. They play up smaller issues and generally give people in Iraq a reason to not support the new government under the US quite often. They are against us in the battle for hearts and minds.

and they shouldnt be? you've invaded a nation based on lies how can you sit there a condemn a media outlet from reporting what's really going in? The american media isnt going to do it so who else will?

An insurgency can exist in any significant form, without the support of people. In order to make more people support the US, I'd bomb Al-Jeezera too. The people may see the intent, and be unhappy, but over time the loss of a constant stream of reasons to not like America would be much greater in its effect, than any back lash.

they have plenty of reasons for disliking america

When the country is on its feet on its own, then you establish a completely free society.

by rewriting trade agreements that are favourable to american corporations? by propping up puppets that'll have the US' best interests in mind?

It's like hurricane disasters areas where you declare martial law. You are taking away people's freedom temporarily, but it's so that you can clean up the mess, before things go back to normal.

no it's absolutely nothing like the hurricane .. it's just revisionist history bullshit ...there was only ever ONE justification: WMD. (the rest were just window dressing and lip service) You dont care about the iraqis, you never did ...they're a hinderance, expendable, a necessary hurdle in achieving YOUR goals in iraq. Nothing more nothing less

 

[K e r b e r o s]

over 27,000 iraqi civilans killed because of the occupation ...how is that "winning the hearts and minds of the people"

No, he said he'd bomb Al-Jazeera ... not 27,000 Iraqi civilians.

how is that "winning the hearts and minds of the people" not too mention destruction of the infrastructure, torture, indescriminate arrests etc ...they're not exactly endearing themselves to the iraqi people

Then how come roughly 70% of the country approves of them being there?

They're not afraid -- the suicide bomber's have proved that fear of death and torture are not hindering factors in their campaigns of terrorism and so-called wantonly criminal versions of, "liberation".

sure is

It's an old, tired thing to do; pointing one's fingers at the most abismal news force on the planet. It's not just them Stern, everyone contributes to the stew of lies.

The american media isnt going to do it so who else will?

Actually, everyone reports a little bit of truth. Al-Jazeera, Fox News, and CNN are not the Spotlights of ultimate revelation for this conflict.

they have plenty of reasons for disliking america

According to you, the whole country should be chasing us out. Yet, why is it not? I know why, but I'd like you to explain the old backwash arguement of, "BECAUSE OF TEH TORTURE!!1"

by rewriting trade agreements that are favourable to american corporations? by propping up puppets that'll have the US' best interests in mind?

Actually, it was the other way around when the Baathist regime was in existence. It's a perfect flip-around; and now we no longer rest our power in the hands of someone 7,000 miles accross the globe.

it's just revisionist history bullshit

People revise history to test their truths -- and new things are found because of revisionists. You can't hate them all for the things they've done.

 

[CptStern]

No, he said he'd bomb Al-Jazeera ... not 27,000 Iraqi civilians.

you miss the point

Then how come roughly 70% of the country approves of them being there?

care to provide some sources? no? here's mine; it completely contradicts your statement:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Iraq_When_To_Go.html
http://usliberals.about.com/b/a/217298.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5431131,00.html
http://www.militaryproject.org/arti.../s/ap/20051120/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_when_to_go

It's an old, tired thing to do; pointing one's fingers at the most abismal news force on the planet.

fox"news"?

It's not just them Stern, everyone contributes to the stew of lies.

lies? what lies? you mean like this:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/31/1616226

or this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82923,00.html


you dont seem all that concerned that your president lied and that it led to the deaths of more than 2000 americans ...welcome to HypocrisyVille, population: you :E

Actually, everyone reports a little bit of truth. Al-Jazeera, Fox News, and CNN are not the Spotlights of ultimate revelation for this conflict.

not that that makes much sense but I get the gist of it ...yes I agree ...news media that have to submit their stories to the pentagon for approval couldnt possibly claim to be "fair and balanced" they're nothing more than mouth pieces for the military

According to you, the whole country should be chasing us out. Yet, why is it not? I know why, but I'd like you to explain the old backwash arguement of, "BECAUSE OF TEH TORTURE!!1"

you really have a hard time getting your thought across ...again that makes little sense. Oh and the MAJORITY of iraqis want you OUT

Actually, it was the other way around when the Baathist regime was in existence. It's a perfect flip-around; and now we no longer rest our power in the hands of someone 7,000 miles accross the globe.

so you admit that your little trip to Iraq was self-serving

People revise history to test their truths -- and new things are found because of revisionists. You can't hate them all for the things they've done.

you cant handle truths, no truth handler be you


seriously what the hell did you just say, makes NO sense whatsoever ...my advice, just use conversational language, I cant understand you when you try to sound intelligent

 

[Sulkdodds]

If, for example, the EU formed a huge army and invaded the USA, citing as their reasons the following:

(they claim that)

- the USA breeches basic human rights (Guantanamo Bay)
- the USA hordes WMDs
- the USA shows aggression towards other countries
- the USA meddles in foreign affairs to negative effect
- the USA harbours terrorists and supports opressive, brutalistic regimes

(all of these things are arguably true)

...you wouldn't be very happy, would you? In fact, I don't think it would take any news service to piss you off, would it?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

seriously what the hell did you just say, makes NO sense whatsoever ...my advice, just use conversational language, I cant understand you when you try to sound intelligent

Thanks, you usually do this to me ... and seeing as their's been no change to how I post, even over the months you've berated me, do you think its useful to confront me about it now?

so you admit that your little trip to Iraq was self-serving

Am I ... Bush, to you?

Oh and the MAJORITY of iraqis want you OUT

To you, Stern. Thats just your interpretation of it.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

...you wouldn't be very happy, would you? In fact, I don't think it would take any news service to piss you off, would it?

Are you replying to me, or Herr Stern?

 

[CptStern]

Thanks, you usually do this to me ... and seeing as their's been no change to how I post, even over the months you've berated me, do you think its useful to confront me about it now?

omg I"M NOT BERATING YOU!!! I'm saying this because I really dont understand what you're getting at

To you, Stern. Thats just your interpretation of it.

did you even bother to look at the links I prvided? the numbers are based on numerous POLLS ..not my opinion

 

[Sulkdodds]

Are you replying to me, or Herr Stern?

Kinda to Skar who was arguing that Al Ja-can't-spell-it was inciting insurgency. That situation there seems ridiculous, but it's pretty much what was done to Iraq.

 

[Skar]

Kinda to Skar who was arguing that Al Ja-can't-spell-it was inciting insurgency. That situation there seems ridiculous, but it's pretty much what was done to Iraq.

I'm not saying that Al-Jaazera is pro-insurgency. I'm saying they're much more radical in their reporting and more widespread than other organizations. Similar to how many people view FOX and CNN here. The news channel is the first to play the various terrorist videos and is thus a mouth piece for the insurgency. It also tends to make just as huge deals over things like the Abu-Graihb (however the hell it's spelled) prison scandal. In doing so they give new and fresh reasons to resist the occupation of Americans. And thus, people are much less likely to dissaprove of the insurgency. Which translates into them harboring terrorists, withholding information, and such things.

If the EU decided to invade the United States based on your reasons (which could be argued for many western counties) and won:hmph:. Then no it would not take a news channel to make me mad. However, lets look 10 years down the line. Or much less than that. I've grown complacent with the change, as have many with me. Violence still rages in the street from time to time, but in many ways my life has improved. I, and most importantly, my children, become less and less resistant to the EU occupation. It's just the nature of people.

However, should there be a news channel, or any other kind of media or communication, that is constantly showing me brutality of my fellow men and women, revolutionist speaches reminding me of the invasion, etc... I will have the idea of resistance much more foward in my mind. I might be much less inclinded to point the direction where the last batch of rebels ran, even if they happened to kill a fellow innocent.

Maybe I'm completely wrong, but I think this is the nature of people. And it's why I'd bomb Al-Jaazera, or CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc... if I was invading the US.

And to Stern, I'm assuming that 27,000 number of Iraqi civilian dead includes only deaths as a result of the US Military. That figure is amazingly regretable, as believe it or not, the US does not want to butcher civilians nor do they try to. They may be killed in blasts intended for other people, or have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's not 'okay', and we do our best to avoid it. The insurgency, however, the ones who are the 'freedom fighters' against our evil occupation are a different sort all together. I believe I've seen many reports of total civilian casualties being well over 100,000 people. That would certainly imply that 83,000 people at least have been killed by insurgents who MEANT to kill them.

For whatever reason we went into Iraq in the first place, I feel (yes, it is my opinion) that this is a primary reason why we must stay and hunt down the SOBs. As much as you may dislike the United States, the alternative ain't any better.

http://fallujah.us/download.php?f=www.fallujah.us-Marines-shoot-at-Insurgents-in-a-bus.avi

This video kind of epitomizes my image of the troops over there. It's 130mb and the footage is kind of choppy. And be warned there is some real gore in a specific sequence. For those who don't care to download the video, it basically shows a bus that harbors a couple of insurgents get shot to ribbons, and light on fire. As the insurgents try to make their escape, one is killed, and others are injured. The American soldiers run up to a raging inferno, and drag the wounded insurgents away, and then treat their wounds. I realize this does not cover every situation, but it is the spirit in which we fight.

 

[CptStern]

And to Stern, I'm assuming that 27,000 number of Iraqi civilian dead includes only deaths as a result of the US Military.

yes and no ...the invasion is responsible for the deaths of from 27,000 to 100,000 iraqis ..the invasion was based on lies therefore they are directly/indirectly responsible for every death in iraq

That figure is amazingly regretable, as believe it or not, the US does not want to butcher civilians nor do they try to.

they're expendable: a means to an end, nothing more

They may be killed in blasts intended for other people, or have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's not 'okay', and we do our best to avoid it.

no you dont, in fact you're indescriminate ...7000 iraqi civilians died during the initial invasion ...every last one of them due to coalition bombing

The insurgency, however, the ones who are the 'freedom fighters' against our evil occupation are a different sort all together. I believe I've seen many reports of total civilian casualties being well over 100,000 people. That would certainly imply that 83,000 people at least have been killed by insurgents who MEANT to kill them.

the insurgents werent there prior to the war

For whatever reason we went into Iraq in the first place, I feel (yes, it is my opinion) that this is a primary reason why we must stay and hunt down the SOBs. As much as you may dislike the United States, the alternative ain't any better.

shouldnt you be looking for bin laden instead of the extending the war into new fronts and territories? This was planned before 9/11, you're not there to "liberate" the people of iraqi ...you're there to liberate iraq for your own good, not for the good of the people

This video kind of epitomizes my image of the troops over there. It's 130mb and the footage is kind of choppy. And be warned there is some real gore in a specific sequence. For those who don't care to download the video, it basically shows a bus that harbors a couple of insurgents get shot to ribbons, and light on fire. As the insurgents try to make their escape, one is killed, and others are injured. The American soldiers run up to a raging inferno, and drag the wounded insurgents away, and then treat their wounds. I realize this does not cover every situation, but it is the spirit in which we fight.

yes that's a nice little incident but I can post videos of americans doing the exact opposite

 

[Skar]

Out of curiosity, what do you believe the American 'end' is? What are we after that you believe we are casually slaughtering innocents left and right for? Oil?

You seem aweful determined to believe that American Soldiers don't care in any way for Iraqi's. Are there some that don't? Yes. Some people in the military are in there nature uncaring about civilians, but they represent a very very small fraction of the military. Americans are people to. We feel remorse, sorrow, and care for human life. We don't try to kill innocents, nor do we 'not' care when they die.

The line is very cliche, but it must be said: it is a war. Not a war were you can identify a soldier by his uniform, but one where the enemy hides among the people. I most certainly do not believe 7,000 dead is a horrific number indicative of mass negligence on the part of the coalition. Consider that we were fighting a war at that point versus a traditional army. We were blitzing across the desert and into cities, bombing military positions in those cities. This is a country of over 26 million people. Those 7,000 dead represent some .00269% of the population. That by no means makes their deaths less significant, but if take a purely statistical look, it isn't a complete disregard for Iraqi innocent. The Allies (and Axis) during WWII leveled entire cities of innocents in the name of winning a war.

Surely, you don't believe that the insurgents are justified in their killings of innocents simply because the US invaded? Do you think the US made them kill innocents? Do you think the blood of people who they killed is on the hands of the US? Yes, you could say that 'indirectly' we are responsible. But ultimately, the person who did the killing was responsible, and in the case of Insurgents, it wasn't the US. And in any case, would you have us leave the country to people such as the Insurgents.

The justification of the war is just a big cesspool. Maybe Saddam didn't have WMDs. He did use them on the Kurds without regard to innocent lives, though. And he did fight the UN and its inspectors as much as he could on the issue. Bush may well have 'lied'. Indeed, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and that would make Bush's big justification false. However, I honestly doubt he 'intended' to lie or was purposely planning an invasion since he came into office. A president is fed information by tons of people, and he alone should not be held responsible. Additionally, the intention of disarming Iraq was a 'good' one if you will. Removing Saddam from power is a 'good' thing if you ask me. Was the United States wrong? Yes, probably. But to be absolutely certain is rather hard when Saddam refuses to let your inspectors in.

But all of that DOES NOT MATTER. We are already in Iraq, and while we're all welcome to bitch to our heart's content, it won't matter why we went in. It is the future that must be focused. And I hope that through the combined efforts of the Coalition and the Iraqis, we can make their country into something akin to what Japan became after being defeated in WWII.

 

[CptStern]

Out of curiosity, what do you believe the American 'end' is? What are we after that you believe we are casually slaughtering innocents left and right for? Oil?

I answered your statements why must you pose new ones instead of answering mine? it's far nore complex than just oil, but yes oil is a motivating factor.

hospitals looted

spoils of war




Read this, it may help. Notice the signatories at the bottom

You seem aweful determined to believe that American Soldiers don't care in any way for Iraqi's.

no, not the soldiers, the government

Are there some that don't? Yes. Some people in the military are in there nature uncaring about civilians, but they represent a very very small fraction of the military.

I'm not so sure ...70% of US soldiers going into this war believed saddam was responsible for 9/11 ...that's got to breed a lot of animosity

Americans are people to. We feel remorse, sorrow, and care for human life. We don't try to kill innocents, nor do we 'not' care when they die.

sorry but you dont care about iraqis ...you cant possibly (not as a whole but those that support the war) had you cared about the people of iraq you would never had agreed to this war, the evidence was shoddy at best ...and even when ALL justifications were proven to be orchestrated lies YOU VOTED FOR THE SAME GUY AGAIN ...if that doesnt smack of apathy then the alternative is far worse: pure and unmitigated idiocy

The line is very cliche, but it must be said: it is a war.

no it's NOT war it's a turkey shoot ..during desert storm 148 colalition troops lost their lives while over 100,000 iraqi soldiers lost their lives

Not a war were you can identify a soldier by his uniform, but one where the enemy hides among the people.

it's NOT A WAR, it's an occupation. You're occupying THEIR land (not all as you opened the floodgates to foreign terrorists bent on staking claim on iraq when you invaded. Saddam had them in check)

I most certainly do not believe 7,000 dead is a horrific number indicative of mass negligence on the part of the coalition. Consider that we were fighting a war at that point versus a traditional army. We were blitzing across the desert and into cities, bombing military positions in those cities. This is a country of over 26 million people. Those 7,000 dead represent some .00269% of the population. That by no means makes their deaths less significant, but if take a purely statistical look, it isn't a complete disregard for Iraqi innocent. The Allies (and Axis) during WWII leveled entire cities of innocents in the name of winning a war.

7000 is still a high number considering it occurred in 3 weeks ..oh and this isnt 1942 we have guided missles, "smart bombs" satalite communications etc

Surely, you don't believe that the insurgents are justified in their killings of innocents simply because the US invaded?

bingo

Do you think the US made them kill innocents?

in a way ...yes ...you let them in by invading. You created the insurgency because you're occupying iraq. It doesnt matter their individual motivations ..all that matters is that they're there because you're there

Do you think the blood of people who they killed is on the hands of the US?

yes, every last one of them ..specifically on the hands on all those that support bush the war and american imperialism

Yes, you could say that 'indirectly' we are responsible.

had you thrown your amrs up and said "we've been duped, lets impeach him" I can see how you'd escape responsibility ...but there's still many of you who support bush/war

But ultimately, the person who did the killing was responsible, and in the case of Insurgents, it wasn't the US.

you seem to think that after the invasion killing of iraqi civilians by coalition forces ceased ...when that isnt even remotely true ..there's al least 22 confirmed cases of prisoners murdered (yes murdered because that was the coroners conclusion)

And in any case, would you have us leave the country to people such as the Insurgents.

no, in a perfect world you wouldnt have supported saddam for 20 years, you wouldnt have sold him wmd and helped him when the rest of the world was condemning him.

The justification of the war is just a big cesspool. Maybe Saddam didn't have WMDs.

there's no "maybe" ..bush and co. KNEW there were no WMD

He did use them on the Kurds without regard to innocent lives, though.

with US help ..incidentily during the Anfal campaign saddam used White phosphorus shells which at the time the US had cassified as a chemical weapon ...yet they've recently admitted the used the same thing in falluja

And he did fight the UN and its inspectors as much as he could on the issue.

jeez, I wonder why :upstare:

Bush may well have 'lied'.

there is NO doubt in my mind and the minds of millions perhaps billions worldwide that Bush lied his way into iraq

Indeed, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and that would make Bush's big justification false. However, I honestly doubt he 'intended' to lie or was purposely planning an invasion since he came into office.

yes his lie was purposeful


"[Terrorism adviser, Richard] Clarke says that as early as the day after the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.

Clarke suggests the idea took him so aback, he initally thought Rumsfeld was joking."

source

A president is fed information by tons of people, and he alone should not be held responsible.

he should have listened to his advisors

he shouldnt have taken intel from a CIA paid terrorist and murderer who coincidentily became interim Prime minister of Iraq after the war


they shouldnt have used the intel of an informant that the CIA called 'crazy' a 'congenital liar' and an alcoholic. Curveball as he was called by his CIA handlers provided the key intelligence that Colin Powell used when stating his case for war to the UN security council, something even Powell regrets


"Curveball's description of mobile laboratories provided one of the highlights of Colin Powell's address to the UN security council on February 5 2003, in which the then US secretary of state laid out the justification for the invasion


"Assertions that Iraq was cooking up biological agents in mobile labs to elude international inspectors and Western intelligence services -- based almost exclusively on Curveball's information -- became what the report called one of the "most important and alarming" assessments in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate cited by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in justifying the war."


source

Additionally, the intention of disarming Iraq was a 'good' one if you will.

disarming him of what exactly? as I've already proved bush and co. KNEW he had nothing

Removing Saddam from power is a 'good' thing if you ask me.

you orchestrated his rise to power and when he finally did wrest power you helped him consolidate power by providing the names of 2000 conspirators who saddam then summarily executed. You helped his grow in power by helping saddam in the war against Iran (you also sold weapons to iran at the same time). You are not fit to police the globe

Was the United States wrong?

I cant stress this enough ..it is NOT a mistake, it was purposeful

Yes, probably. But to be absolutely certain is rather hard when Saddam refuses to let your inspectors in.

bullshit, saddam complied with every request right down to the end ..he may have grumbled a lot but ultimately he was following the UN mandates ..when you saw he was cooperating you seized the chance to invade while the public was still on your side

But all of that DOES NOT MATTER. We are already in Iraq, and while we're all welcome to bitch to our heart's content, it won't matter why we went in.

you're a defeatist ..IT DOES MATTER because if you arent held accountable for your actions you'll just do it again and again and again

It is the future that must be focused. And I hope that through the combined efforts of the Coalition and the Iraqis, we can make their country into something akin to what Japan became after being defeated in WWII.

you have failed your fellow americans almost to the point of treason ..2000 american soldiers lost their lives because of lies and you would wash your hands of it? DEMAND your government be held accountable for the lies that led to the deaths of over 100,000 people. Demand that this never happens again. Stand up for your fellow citizens and do what's right ffs. Mark my words in the near future you will once again elect a neo-con with imperialism on his mind and you will have learned nothing from all this. If 9/11 was "blowback" (cia term for when their actions may have future reprecussions) for attacking of training camps the blowback from the invasion of iraq and afghanistan will breed a thousand 9/11's ...you only have yourselves to blame. You have awakened the hornets nest and there's no turning back now

 

[Solaris]

Hmm posted twice, but for truth imo.
Gj stern!

How can anyone justify bombing aljazera, to help free Iraqis. Bombing free media, is removing the right to free speech, so youre removing freedoms to make freedoms, which is double think and complete bs.

 

[dream431ca]

Wow Stern..that was a good responce...yes and I totally agree with you...how long did that take you anyway?

Research FTW! :thumbs:

 

[CptStern]

about an hour or so ...I'm at work ..so I write small chunks at a time and get back to it when I have a minute ...I lose a lot of posts this way as I sometimes close the window by accident


oh and the reseach is already done, most of the info contained above is filed awayy in my head