Zarqawi Killed In Air Raid

[iceyspots 0]

1. Noone is claiming that the US military has killed more civilians than the insurgents. But the insurgents wouldn't be there setting the road-side bombs, more importantly Zarqawi wouldn't have been in Iraq if we hadn't gone to war and left the borders open for foreign militia fighters to stream in.

So, if we weren't in Iraq, Zarqawi would have been doing something benign like running a Barnes & Noble or a homeless shelter??

No, borders and starbucks would be better!

[ual777 0]

So far I have proved the following points WITH credible evidence and statistics.

1. The insurgents have killed more Iraqi civilians than the U.S. led coalition in Iraq and are currently killing them at a rate of 40:1 to 90:1 as compared to the U.S.

2. If you look at the death rates under Saddam Hussain as compared to the time period of the U.S. occupation, more people would have died under his rule than those that have died during OIF.

3. Zarqawi and his henchmen are in no way shape or form even comprable to George Washington.

4. The United States is not a 'terrorist' country as some have implied here.

Questions?

No questions, just a few comments:

1) Even if that was so, it doesn't justify a single Iraqi civilian death that the US has caused in the wake of it's illegal and unwarranted act of aggression against Iraq.

2) As I said before, all those numbers prove (if those numbers actually hold water which I won't even get into) would be that Saddam was three times the criminal, killing azzhole that George W Bush is.

3) I won't disagree on that point. I am no fan of Zarqawi or his followers while I do appreciate the contribution that George Washington made as the first president of this great nation.

4) Today, the US is as much a rogue nation as Iraq under Saddam was then. The US invasion into Iraq was as illegal an act of aggression as Saddam's invasion into Kuwait back in 1989/1990. The only difference is that the US has veto power in the UN Security Council which Iraq did not and does not have. Thus, there is no UN reprimand against the US while there was one against Saddam's Iraq.

1+2) The two points are linked. The numbers DO hold water or I wouldn't bring them on here. I will provide sources if requested. I look at the glass as half-full, while you look at it as half empty. I see it as appx. 60,000 lives saved, and you look at it as 38,000 killed so 1/3 of the deaths. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

3) Well at least we agree on SOMETHING

4) The US isn't a rogue nation. As I mentioned earlier, Saddam had broke the no-fly zone over 200 times since his surrender in 1990, and had broken something like 19 resolutions. It sounds fair to me, but then again the UN didn't approve it. However I WILL say this: short of someone nuking one of their capitals, the Europeans will not fight anyone. They do not have the stomach for it.

As I said in my first post, I do not like GW Bush, nor do I think that we should be in Iraq. I am merely trying to show the REAL picture because so many people today make outragous claims, and the media does not help. I also provided a strategy to WIN. I am seriously in fear for our great nation as I see some of the things that happen such as Senator Mertha faking his Purple Hearts then crucifying our Marines, Senator Byrd being in office for 50 years, and the constant flow of money that corporations and PACs send to Congressmen solidifying their position as incumbents. I have no idea who I will vote for in 2008. Hillary is a nutjob (sorry to our Democrats here) who along with her party (who is getting more left-wing by the day) will do no good for our country, and the Republicans are so out of touch with the U.S. population it makes me want to vomit.

I am a former Marine, and I lost a very good friend in Iraq after he was there for only 3 weeks. The overall issue and problem with this whole issue is radical islam and it is SO complex that we could talk for months.

I prefer that the US return to isolationism, and only help others or interve when asked.

That being said, the US has done some real help in countries like Colombia in fighting FARC. They also help in deterring madmen like Hugo Chavez from turning South America into a Communist block.

Questions?

[dalegg 143]

I think that would be an acceptable option if If the mess in your home included mold that was growing out of control and if I didn't clean up your house the mold would eventually come over to my house. But again- before I cleaned your house it would have to be on the condition that I was 100% sure the mold was coming to my house.

If you did that, however, it would not be acceptable but you'd be going to jail for breaking and entering. You just can't go into my house without a legal basis, my friend. No matter what might creep from my place to yours. A court order is the least you'd need to gain acceptable entry into my place.

Court order? Apparantly you don't know who I am! As the chief of police for this neighborhood, nobody is going to be able to do a damn thing about me going into your house. Besides, the court that is supposed to issue these warrants has failed to issue just warrants in the past when mold was growing out of control elsewhere in the neighborhood so why should I listen to them?

Besides, there was nothing creeping from Iraq into the US nor was there any danger of that happening despite the administrations claims to the contrary.

Point previously conceded.

[iceyspots 0]

[almaty 19]

yeap..that time again

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

4) The US isn't a rogue nation. As I mentioned earlier, Saddam had broke the no-fly zone over 200 times since his surrender in 1990, and had broken something like 19 resolutions. It sounds fair to me, but then again the UN didn't approve it.

So Saddam broke resolutions and no-fly zones. The US broke it's commitment as a signatory to the UN Charter. The latter is far more severe than the former. After all, if the Charter ain't worth a thing (which the US made clear it isn't) then the resolutions and no-fly zones mean nothing. The only meaning they ever had, they derived from the very UN Charter that the US disregarded and trampled on when it invaded Iraq. Can't have it both ways, my friend.

Edited June 12, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Ban Hammer 14,273]

4) The US isn't a rogue nation. As I mentioned earlier, Saddam had broke the no-fly zone over 200 times since his surrender in 1990, and had broken something like 19 resolutions. It sounds fair to me, but then again the UN didn't approve it.

So Saddam broke resolutions and no-fly zones. The US broke it's commitment as a signatory to the UN Charter. The latter is far more severe than the former. After all, if the Charter ain't worth a thing (which the US made clear it isn't) then the resolutions and no-fly zones mean nothing. The only meaning they ever had, they derived from the very UN Charter that the US disregarded and trampled on when it invaded Iraq. Can't have it both ways, my friend.

the no fly zones were put in to keep saddam from using air to chem and bomb the kurds. operation provide comfort, later on operation northern watch. i was on that one.

[Cassie 8]

Anybody that is anti-American and doesn't reside here can stay where you are and don't come here. Nobody is forcing you to come here and live.

I don't agree with everything my government does but I am not going to sit here and bash it. I love America and proud to be an American.

This thread just infuriates me with all the anti-American being thrown around.

Again I say, since when is criticism and/or questioning of your government "bashing" or automatically "anti-American"? I would think that holding your ELECTED officials accountable for their decisions a very American and democratic thing to do! And since when do elected officials have carte blanche to do anything and everything they want, without fear of repercussions? Give me a break.

To be very frank, it is this very "if you don't like it, leave" attitude from certain American citizens that made me pause for a second or two when we made the decision for me to immigrate here. In Canada, criticizing elected officials is like a national sport. Here, I knew I would have to keep my mouth shut. Freedom of speech, indeed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

4) The US isn't a rogue nation. As I mentioned earlier, Saddam had broke the no-fly zone over 200 times since his surrender in 1990, and had broken something like 19 resolutions. It sounds fair to me, but then again the UN didn't approve it. However I WILL say this: short of someone nuking one of their capitals, the Europeans will not fight anyone. They do not have the stomach for it.

What is a 'rogue' nation at the end of the day? Someone who does whatever the hell they like regardless of the consequences and against the broader consensus of international opinion.

Its all a question of perspective - part of the problem is the assumption by certain people that the US has some sort of God-given responsibility to solve the worlds problems on its own, to the extent that you can't even question the legality or ethicality of say, the Iraq war without being accused of being 'irresponsible' or somehow supporting or "emboldening" (the popular choice of reference) terrorists and dictatorial regimes. Is it really that clear cut?

They demand you show outrage for soldiers killed by guerilla fighters, but you're not supposed to question why they are there, what purpose their deaths are serving?

Again I say, since when is criticism and/or questioning of your government "bashing" or automatically "anti-American"? I would think that holding your ELECTED officials accountable for their decisions a very American and democratic thing to do! And since when do elected officials have carte blanche to do anything and everything they want, without fear of repercussions? Give me a break.

To be very frank, it is this very "if you don't like it, leave" attitude from certain American citizens that made me pause for a second or two when we made the decision for me to immigrate here. In Canada, criticizing elected officials is like a national sport. Here, I knew I would have to keep my mouth shut. Freedom of speech, indeed.

Same deal in Britain. I don't think people in the US are used to having their elected officials held to account, to that extent anyway. If you ever see a politician being interviewed on the TV, you often find that they are never really asked any difficult questions that require them to step out from the umbra of party political talking points.

I showed my wife's parents an edition of BBC Questiontime once, around the time of the last general election and they were actually shocked at how much aggressive the debate was. Personal faults aside, you have to admit that politicians in the US get a far easier time of it.

Here it seems every important issue is side-tracked by how apparently one-sided media coverage is against a particular party - to the almost total exclusion of the issue in question.

Edited June 12, 2006 by Fishdude

[*Robert* 2]

You know... the beauty of being an American, or a U.S. Citizen, is being able to enjoy the freedom of speech given to us by the Bill of Rights.

If people don't like what people have to say about this country, then don't listen.

People who wrap themselves in the U.S. Flag are as narrow-minded and arrogant as the religious zealots who claim their religion is the only true religion.

Our government is not perfect, and neither is our military. The U.S. does not have the corner on morality, but rather likes to dictate it to the rest of the world, while following a totally separate set of rules.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

4) The US isn't a rogue nation. As I mentioned earlier, Saddam had broke the no-fly zone over 200 times since his surrender in 1990, and had broken something like 19 resolutions. It sounds fair to me, but then again the UN didn't approve it.

So Saddam broke resolutions and no-fly zones. The US broke it's commitment as a signatory to the UN Charter. The latter is far more severe than the former. After all, if the Charter ain't worth a thing (which the US made clear it isn't) then the resolutions and no-fly zones mean nothing. The only meaning they ever had, they derived from the very UN Charter that the US disregarded and trampled on when it invaded Iraq. Can't have it both ways, my friend.

the no fly zones were put in to keep saddam from using air to chem and bomb the kurds. operation provide comfort, later on operation northern watch. i was on that one.

Doesn't change what I said.

So, I'll reapeat it for you: The only meaning [as in authority] they [the resolutions and no-fly zones] ever had, they derived from the very UN Charter that the US disregarded and trampled on when it invaded Iraq.

Court order? Apparantly you don't know who I am! As the chief of police for this neighborhood, nobody is going to be able to do a damn thing about me going into your house. Besides, the court that is supposed to issue these warrants has failed to issue just warrants in the past when mold was growing out of control elsewhere in the neighborhood so why should I listen to them?

Thank you for providing an excellent demonstration of the kind of arrogance the US displays in the world these days and the kind of arrogance that fuels the "enemy's" fire and keeps their recruiting intact. If this is part of the "strategy" to win the "war on terror" (whatever the ####### that is supposed to be anyway), we have already lost it.

Edited June 12, 2006 by ET-US2004

[incanada1234 0]

I cannot beLIEVE there are people on this thread that are angry at the U.S. for taking out known terrorists. It boggles my frickin mind!

What I'm wondering is - when IS war acceptable then? What do people have to do these days in order for the liberals to not get angry that we're at war? Obviously brutal dictators are fine, we should leave them alone. Planes flying into buildings killing thousands, oh well. Not a reason to stop holding hands and singing Kumbaya.

War has been around since the beginning of time. 6,000 years later you liberals still can't accept that???

[Princess_Damnit 0]

But the insurgents wouldn't be there setting the road-side bombs, more importantly Zarqawi wouldn't have been in Iraq if we hadn't gone to war and left the borders open for foreign militia fighters to stream in.

How the hell do you know where Zarqwi would've been? Were you his private travel secretary? And I guess you knew those poor people in the house that got blown up with him & that they were just having a friendly sit down dinner together.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What do people have to do these days in order for the liberals to not get angry that we're at war?

For starters? Play by the rules and don't break the law in order to get into one.

But the insurgents wouldn't be there setting the road-side bombs, more importantly Zarqawi wouldn't have been in Iraq if we hadn't gone to war and left the borders open for foreign militia fighters to stream in.

How the hell do you know where Zarqwi would've been? Were you his private travel secretary?

So, you would suggest that our invasion into and subsequent occupation of Iraq, our destruction of the entire government structure there, our failure to protect Iraq's border in the aftermath and Zarqawi's setting up shop in Iraq are purely coincidental? Do you really believe that? Edited June 12, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Ban Hammer 14,273]

I cannot beLIEVE there are people on this thread that are angry at the U.S. for taking out known terrorists. It boggles my frickin mind!

What I'm wondering is - when IS war acceptable then? What do people have to do these days in order for the liberals to not get angry that we're at war? Obviously brutal dictators are fine, we should leave them alone. Planes flying into buildings killing thousands, oh well. Not a reason to stop holding hands and singing Kumbaya.

War has been around since the beginning of time. 6,000 years later you liberals still can't accept that???

welcome to liberalville. if hitler was around, the apologists would be defending him too.