Anybody with any interest in Iraq/US conflict, read this - U [Archive]

Capitalist Imperial

15th January 2003, 17:57

Quote: from mentalbunny on 5:26 pm on Jan. 15, 2003

Such collateral damage and other incidentals are unfortunate.

That's one way pf putting it, but I doubt you would ever see it as the rest of the world does, your vision is clouded by the continuing brainwashing you seem to undergo. It's quite incredible how people can really support the US, they must be blind. You should come to the UK and watch some tv here, then you will find out what we think of Bush and his administration, in fact eveb better, maybe he should come over himself, but I doubt he'd understand any of the witty jokes people come up with that point the finger and ol' monkey boy.

The UK wouldn't even be around today if it was not for the USA, so show some respect.

Besides, Americans don't really give a care what the UK thinks. You are our lap dog.

Anyway, I never understood how you think that we are "brainwashed" as you have said numerous times. We have as much freedom of infornation here, or more, as you do in the UK!!!

(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 6:00 pm on Jan. 15, 2003)

Hampton

15th January 2003, 22:48

Such collateral damage and other incidentals are unfortunate.

Funny, that's what I said on 9-11.

Capitalist Imperial

16th January 2003, 00:21

Quote: from Hampton on 10:48 pm on Jan. 15, 2003

Such collateral damage and other incidentals are unfortunate.

Funny, that's what I said on 9-11.

F*** you hampton, F*** you to death.

Those were direct attacks on unarmed, unsuspecting, unassuming civilians. Wholely different than collateral damage in the midst of legitimate military operations.

I bet if you ran your mouth like that out loud in Jersey, you wouldn't even be able to type right now.

(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 12:25 am on Jan. 16, 2003)

MEXCAN

16th January 2003, 00:29

Hey CI,what's your cultural backround ???Cuz you know,there is no such thing as just an American,they don't exist!!

Capitalist Imperial

16th January 2003, 00:52

Quote: from MEXCAN on 12:29 am on Jan. 16, 2003
Hey CI,what's your cultural backround ???Cuz you know,there is no such thing as just an American,they don't exist!!

To the contrary, Mexcan, an American is an american, whatever their ethnicity.

American has nothing to do with ethnicity, and everything to do with citizenship!

MEXCAN

16th January 2003, 00:56

it's off subject,but i'm still asking !?

Capitalist Imperial

16th January 2003, 01:08

Capitalist Imperial

16th January 2003, 01:09

Quote: from MEXCAN on 12:56 am on Jan. 16, 2003
it's off subject,but i'm still asking !?

Northern european, anglo, nordic, whatever you call it.

A mix of german, scandinavian, and british iles type stuff

MEXCAN

16th January 2003, 01:11

I'm sure,somewhere in history,the US probably violated some part of your heritage.And that's why you probably won't tell me !!!

Hampton

16th January 2003, 02:17

I bet if you ran your mouth like that out loud in Jersey, you wouldn't even be able to type right now.

Seems in Jersey there are people who are capable of hearing other people's opinions without wishing death upon them. Must be all the California smog that clouds your mind.

It's amazing how when someone is not horrified with the events of the 11th, they get called all these names and there is all this guilt which is forced upon them.

You seem to be able to justify in your mind when in the mist of war or some sort of conflict that civilians get murdered in some far away land it's okay because that's getting the American objective completed, by any means necessary. And that every country in the world should be grateful to the United States because they seemingly have helped each and everyone to be what they are today. If that's true than Americans should be eternally grateful to Africa for supplying the slaves that built this country when the lazy Southerners couldn't work in the hot sun.

When America bombs Afghanistan and kills civilians it's ok because we're fighting the evil Osama, who was our buddy in the 80's, and completing an objective to root them out. That's Bush's point of view. From Osama's point of view, he was just doing the same thing, as much as you or I may not agree with it, he was completing his objective.

I have no respect for a government that from 1968-1971 murdered 29 Black Panthers for no other reason than trying to better their people and bring awareness to what was going on in the "inner cities" as they are called.

Kapitan Andrey

16th January 2003, 07:08

Hey, men! What are you talking about!? Let's get back to topic!!!

I not so much like Saddam, but I HATE >(damn)bush<!!!

That's why I'm by Hussein's side!!! DIE >bush<!!! DIE >yankee<!!! DIE EVERYONE WHO'S AGAINST CHE and REVOLUTION!!!

truthaddict11

16th January 2003, 11:00

Quote: from Kapitan Andrey on 2:08 am on Jan. 16, 2003
Hey, men! What are you talking about!? Let's get back to topic!!!

I not so much like Saddam, but I HATE >(damn)bush<!!!

That's why I'm by Hussein's side!!! DIE >bush<!!! DIE >yankee<!!! DIE EVERYONE WHO'S AGAINST CHE and REVOLUTION!!!

do you have your head up your ass or something? The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.

kylie

16th January 2003, 11:33

null

mig1907

16th January 2003, 13:49

First of all, hi everybody.

Second:

"The UK wouldn't even be around today if it was not for the USA, so show some respect. "

Partially true. But then, you must show a lot of respect to Soviet Union, without which, I would have said Heil instead of hi.

"Anyway, I never understood how you think that we are "brainwashed" as you have said numerous times. We have as much freedom of infornation here, or more, as you do in the UK!!!"

funny, very funny. So you say you have the freedon of information there. The freedom of geovernmental information, maybe. And one more thing. In the socialist countries, the people had one freedom left: the freedom to think. Care to say the same about USA?

"Those were direct attacks on unarmed, unsuspecting, unassuming civilians. Wholely different than collateral damage in the midst of legitimate military operations."

God, how much ignorance! So the serbian school bus, or the churches, hospitals, or even the chinese embassy were perfectly normal victims. Not to mention those countries (over 40) bombed by the U S of A after WWII.

regards
mig

abstractmentality

17th January 2003, 04:49

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 8:54 am on Jan. 15, 2003
Such collateral damage and other incidentals are unfortunate.

i would like to ask if you would be saying this if another country were to pre-emptively attack the military stronghold in san deigo, and from this attack, a few thousand civilians, of which you had plenty of friends, become collateral damage? the civilian casualities in this case would be seen as collateral damage to them, but i highly doubt you would see it as that. the fact the one can speak so lightly of innocent death is alarming.

(Edited by abstractmentality at 8:51 pm on Jan. 16, 2003)

Sol

17th January 2003, 05:01

CI, I'd like to ask you what makes a military strike legitimate. Is it when one nation simply attacks another? Or do you have to be the 'good guys' to bloody the other guy's nose? Al Queda declared a Holy War on America and Americans. You could argue that the attack was legitimate. Hell, we even said we were treating it as an act of war.

I have a feeling you think every one of Uncle Sam's 200 or so military actions in the last half century were legitimate.

CompadreGuerrillera

17th January 2003, 06:05

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 4:54 pm on Jan. 15, 2003
Such collateral damage and other incidentals are unfortunate.

thats a little cold, and yet hampton posted a good point, u would never want harm to befall ur ppl and fellow citizens, i dont and im not even a citizen of america all lives that are casualties, and are considered "side effects" is cold ruthless ignorant evil shall i go on??
ALL DEATHS SHOULD BE MOURNED PPL ARE ALIKE EVERYWHERE, DESPITE RACIST' LIES TO THE CONTRARY. WE ARE ALL THE SAME WE WANT GOOD FOR OUR FAMILIES AND DONT WANT WAR
CI, TAKE A GOOD FUCKEN LOOK IN THE MIRROR, MAYBE U CAN SLEEP WITH URSELF, I KNOW I COUDNT WHAT IF UR FAMILY DIED?? WOULD IT BE A SIDE EFFECT OR MOURNING?? HUH UR DESCISION BASTARD

Michael De Panama

17th January 2003, 06:43

Quote: from Kapitan Andrey on 1:08 am on Jan. 16, 2003
Hey, men! What are you talking about!? Let's get back to topic!!!

I not so much like Saddam, but I HATE >(damn)bush<!!!

That's why I'm by Hussein's side!!! DIE >bush<!!! DIE >yankee<!!! DIE EVERYONE WHO'S AGAINST CHE and REVOLUTION!!!

I personally would love to see the U.S. get their ass handed to them by Iraq in this war our trigger happy bureaucrats are so eager NOT to avoid. In fact, I'm hoping it happens. It won't. But I'd sure laugh if it did.

That's not to say I'd support Hussein, or support killing someone with a different opinion than my own. Of course, what do I know? I don't have a big $5 anarchist "A" badge sewed on my High School backpack.

abstractmentality

17th January 2003, 06:45

just to add to what i wrote earlier, i heard a grad student that is in a few organizations on campus with me speak about her time as a possible piece of "collateral damage." She spoke on her terror when she was 9 years old in Lebanon in 1982, living through the Israeli attack. her, speaking on living in her bathroom for a few days because the family thought it to be the safest room, speaking on how she ran through area, covering her younger sisters eyes from the dead bodies on the ground, got me to the brink or crying. for anybody to call these people "collateral damage" is not exactly a great thing. nobody should be forced to live (that is, if they are not completely collateral damage and live) through that. and to all of those that have died as innocent civilians, calling them "collateral damage" is nothing short of horrific.

Capitalist Imperial

18th January 2003, 14:08

[quote]Quote: from mig1907 on 1:49 pm on Jan. 16, 2003
First of all, hi everybody.

Second:

""The UK wouldn't even be around today if it was not for the USA, so show some respect. "

Partially true. But then, you must show a lot of respect to Soviet Union, without which, I would have said Heil instead of hi."

I agre, but the US liberated western Europe, the soviets merely defended groung that they alreadt had. When they marched west the Nazis were already on their way down to defeat! The USA had a much tougher job of liberating occupied teritory!

"Anyway, I never understood how you think that we are "brainwashed" as you have said numerous times. We have as much freedom of infornation here, or more, as you do in the UK!!!"

"funny, very funny. So you say you have the freedon of information there. The freedom of geovernmental information, maybe. And one more thing. In the socialist countries, the people had one freedom left: the freedom to think. Care to say the same about USA?"

actually, unlike romania, our information DOES NOT come from the government, but from other sources!! It is your old soviet-style government that feeds you state-sponsopred information and censors your media!!! Socialist countries have freedom to think? That is what is funny! socialist countries are the ones with state controlled media and censorship! You are so ignorant that it is funny!!!!

""Those were direct attacks on unarmed, unsuspecting, unassuming civilians. Wholely different than collateral damage in the midst of legitimate military operations."

God, how much ignorance! So the serbian school bus, or the churches, hospitals, or even the chinese embassy were perfectly normal victims. Not to mention those countries (over 40) bombed by the U S of A after WWII."

I said they were accidents and unfortunate!

BTW Mig aircraft sucks, so do sukhois!

Comrade Daniel

18th January 2003, 14:17

Dumbass Capitalist Imperial,
at first if we go further back in history:
The US wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the Britains that they landed on what we now call the united states of agression.

You are brainwashed or not educated if you are a right-winged american.

our media isn't censored, they just also tell shitty things about the US, is that what you can't have?

(Edited by Comrade Daniel at 2:26 pm on Jan. 18, 2003)

CBC

22nd January 2003, 20:06

that thing about the 50cent tube just makes me sick...

Kapitan Andrey

23rd January 2003, 04:53

Did you hear about a demonstration is u.s.a. agains war in Iraq!?!?!

Even americans by them selves is against this war!!!
bush-DAMN MORON know's what is he doing!!!
As I think he is Third Hitler!!! I think he got plans of conquest the world!!!

And I hate >tony blair<!!! Damn fool, he is as little dog in bush's hands!!! Englang is not so evel country as u.s.a. , but blair want us to hate his country and all Englishmen!!!

Weatherman

23rd January 2003, 07:06

Hey CI, why was our attack legitimate? We purposely targeted civilians and their entire infrastructure. Within 24 hours we had taken out most of the running water and electricity. We attacked everyday living; The food too. Also no media was allowed in (dropping the illusion of freedom of the press). All of this is well documented. Watch Hidden War. They interview Ramsey Clark and the General who was in charge of the war. We killed a lot more people than the people who died on 9/11, so stop acting like a brainwashed cappie.

Try responding as a human instead of a capitalist. Keep in open mind and dont be afraid to be wrong. Hopefully you will take my humble advice, but probably you will defend your statments just because you dont want to be wrong.

Capitalist Imperial

23rd January 2003, 20:08

[quote]Quote: from Weatherman on 7:06 am on Jan. 23, 2003
"Hey CI, why was our attack legitimate? We purposely targeted civilians and their entire infrastructure."

We did not purposefully attack civilians, sir. There was collateral damage, but it was incedental.

"Within 24 hours we had taken out most of the running water and electricity. We attacked everyday living; The food too."

This is liberal propoganda. We did not purposefully attack civilian targets.

"Also no media was allowed in (dropping the illusion of freedom of the press). All of this is well documented. Watch Hidden War. They interview Ramsey Clark and the General who was in charge of the war."

It is well documented that US media was in the gulf. CNN was there. Some of the best gulf footage came from private media sources.

"We killed a lot more people than the people who died on 9/11, so stop acting like a brainwashed cappie."

Those deaths are ultimately the fault of Saddam Hussein, who had plenty of time to leave Kuwait under the Bush administrations ultimatum. We were liberating kuwait, who asked for our help. We did not attack for no reason. Stop thinking like a blind liberal ignorant of the big picture.

"Try responding as a human instead of a capitalist. Keep in open mind and dont be afraid to be wrong. Hopefully you will take my humble advice, but probably you will defend your statments just because you dont want to be wrong."

But I am responding as ahuman, a human who understands that a dictator that had used weapons of mass destruction in the past against ethnic kurds invaded a tiny country in an effort to usurp control of its resources, and the United States stepped in to force him out, after giving him plenty of time to leave under his own power. However, he chose to stay and face us. Any resulting collateral damage in Iraq is ultimately the responsibility of Saddam Hussein.

abstractmentality

23rd January 2003, 21:00

Quote: from abstractmentality on 8:49 pm on Jan. 16, 2003

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 8:54 am on Jan. 15, 2003
Such collateral damage and other incidentals are unfortunate.

i would like to ask if you would be saying this if another country were to pre-emptively attack the military stronghold in san deigo, and from this attack, a few thousand civilians, of which you had plenty of friends, become collateral damage? the civilian casualities in this case would be seen as collateral damage to them, but i highly doubt you would see it as that. the fact the one can speak so lightly of innocent death is alarming.

i just wanted to paste this here, as you, CI, have said nothing to it. i would like you to tell me how the "collateral damage" of iraqi civilians and the "collateral damage" mentioned above is any different, and how you would react to it.

PaulDavidHewson

24th January 2003, 14:50

I agre, but the US liberated western Europe, the soviets merely defended groung that they alreadt had. When they marched west the Nazis were already on their way down to defeat! The USA had a much tougher job of liberating occupied teritory!

You are mistaking, the soviets defeated the bigger part of the german army, and second of all it were the british that did the most work in defeating the germans in western europe throughout the war.
You are also forgetting that the soviets were already at war with the germans long before the USA intervened, They kept themselves out of the war even though the Soviets requested their aid.
Land-lease act of the USA was also a strange way to support the war against nazi germany.

"Anyway, I never understood how you think that we are "brainwashed" as you have said numerous times. We have as much freedom of infornation here, or more, as you do in the UK!!!"

fallacy - non sequitar.
freedom of propoganda, I recently watched CNN and I saw some reporter standing in Baghdad wearing a camouflage jacket as if the rockets were already blazing around him. And then the news shows on CNN:"Showdown with Iraque!!!" or "Showdown Lowdown or something like that.
The usa isn't interested in proof, they just want the war to start already.
CNN already sees it's profits soar once they can start reporting on a real media war again.
Also, the shows that criticise the "oncomming" war with iraque are placed real late at night when only a few people are watching.

"funny, very funny. So you say you have the freedon of information there. The freedom of geovernmental information, maybe. And one more thing. In the socialist countries, the people had one freedom left: the freedom to think. Care to say the same about USA?"

Somehow you seem to think the USA is the only country in the world with privatized news networks or something.

actually, unlike romania, our information DOES NOT come from the government, but from other sources!! It is your old soviet-style government that feeds you state-sponsopred information and censors your media!!! Socialist countries have freedom to think? That is what is funny! socialist countries are the ones with state controlled media and censorship!

In socialism unbiased news reporting can and does exist.

You are so ignorant that it is funny!!!!
Fallacy - ad hominem

Those were direct attacks on unarmed, unsuspecting, unassuming civilians. Wholely different than collateral damage in the midst of legitimate military operations."

I'm against the 9-11 attacks, but I can see reasons why people want to do this to the USA, it's a bit sad that you can't think of reasons why people did this.
If my familly ever got hit by "legitimate colleteral damage" I would not mind inflicting a little colletaral damage myself either.

God, how much ignorance! So the serbian school bus, or the churches, hospitals, or even the chinese embassy were perfectly normal victims. Not to mention those countries (over 40) bombed by the U S of A after WWII."

I said they were accidents and unfortunate!

don't forget the firebombings on dresden and such.

BTW Mig aircraft sucks, so do sukhois!

Fallacy - ad hominem

(Edited by PaulDavidHewson at 3:51 pm on Jan. 24, 2003)

Capitalist Imperial

24th January 2003, 15:10

Quote: from abstractmentality on 9:00 pm on Jan. 23, 2003

Quote: from abstractmentality on 8:49 pm on Jan. 16, 2003

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 8:54 am on Jan. 15, 2003
Such collateral damage and other incidentals are unfortunate.

i would like to ask if you would be saying this if another country were to pre-emptively attack the military stronghold in san deigo, and from this attack, a few thousand civilians, of which you had plenty of friends, become collateral damage? the civilian casualities in this case would be seen as collateral damage to them, but i highly doubt you would see it as that. the fact the one can speak so lightly of innocent death is alarming.

i just wanted to paste this here, as you, CI, have said nothing to it. i would like you to tell me how the "collateral damage" of iraqi civilians and the "collateral damage" mentioned above is any different, and how you would react to it.

yes, it would suck, it would be horrible, I agree, but that is what I said in my vry first post on this thread, COLLATERAL DAMAGE IS UNFORTUNATE!!!

What did you not understand about that?

Capitalist Imperial

24th January 2003, 15:21

Quote: from PaulDavidHewson on 2:50 pm on Jan. 24, 2003
I agre, but the US liberated western Europe, the soviets merely defended groung that they alreadt had. When they marched west the Nazis were already on their way down to defeat! The USA had a much tougher job of liberating occupied teritory!

You are mistaking, the soviets defeated the bigger part of the german army, and second of all it were the british that did the most work in defeating the germans in western europe throughout the war.
You are also forgetting that the soviets were already at war with the germans long before the USA intervened, They kept themselves out of the war even though the Soviets requested their aid.
Land-lease act of the USA was also a strange way to support the war against nazi germany.

"Anyway, I never understood how you think that we are "brainwashed" as you have said numerous times. We have as much freedom of infornation here, or more, as you do in the UK!!!"

fallacy - non sequitar.
freedom of propoganda, I recently watched CNN and I saw some reporter standing in Baghdad wearing a camouflage jacket as if the rockets were already blazing around him. And then the news shows on CNN:"Showdown with Iraque!!!" or "Showdown Lowdown or something like that.
The usa isn't interested in proof, they just want the war to start already.
CNN already sees it's profits soar once they can start reporting on a real media war again.
Also, the shows that criticise the "oncomming" war with iraque are placed real late at night when only a few people are watching.

"funny, very funny. So you say you have the freedon of information there. The freedom of geovernmental information, maybe. And one more thing. In the socialist countries, the people had one freedom left: the freedom to think. Care to say the same about USA?"

Somehow you seem to think the USA is the only country in the world with privatized news networks or something.

actually, unlike romania, our information DOES NOT come from the government, but from other sources!! It is your old soviet-style government that feeds you state-sponsopred information and censors your media!!! Socialist countries have freedom to think? That is what is funny! socialist countries are the ones with state controlled media and censorship!

In socialism unbiased news reporting can and does exist.

You are so ignorant that it is funny!!!!
Fallacy - ad hominem

Those were direct attacks on unarmed, unsuspecting, unassuming civilians. Wholely different than collateral damage in the midst of legitimate military operations."

I'm against the 9-11 attacks, but I can see reasons why people want to do this to the USA, it's a bit sad that you can't think of reasons why people did this.
If my familly ever got hit by "legitimate colleteral damage" I would not mind inflicting a little colletaral damage myself either.

God, how much ignorance! So the serbian school bus, or the churches, hospitals, or even the chinese embassy were perfectly normal victims. Not to mention those countries (over 40) bombed by the U S of A after WWII."

I said they were accidents and unfortunate!

don't forget the firebombings on dresden and such.

BTW Mig aircraft sucks, so do sukhois!

Fallacy - ad hominem

(Edited by PaulDavidHewson at 3:51 pm on Jan. 24, 2003)

OK, PDH, even if this is all true (except the logic fallacies you assigned to my faceteuos remarks, they are moot), and I don;tnecessarily agree that it is, then you of course must concede that any shoetcomings you perceive in America's timing were offset by the fact that we fought the empire of Japan almost all by ourselves in the pacific. Yes, there was very limited help near the end in indo-china, but in the pacific itself we were all by ourselves. There was absolutely no parity between US support in Europe and allied support in the pacific.

The US was the only nation to fully committ to both major theatres of WWII, and in one theatre we went it basically alone, and that itself should offset America's timing.

PaulDavidHewson

24th January 2003, 15:28

unfortunate is over simplifying things a bit.

It is not unfortunate, it's unnecessary and uncaring.

example:
a says:" that car might misses some parts and probably won't go anymore"
b says:" The car isn't missing some parts!! It's in goddamn ruins, it just exploded"
a says:"yes, like I was saying, it is missing some vital parts here and there."

colleteral damage isn't unfortunate, it has nothing to do with someone's misfortune or whatnot. It's nothing more but brute murder to bomb an area of a few squares miles, knowing that people live there, and then apologise and say you didn't mean to kill them.

it's like fireing a machine gun at a crowd hoping to shoot down your target and then apologise that you shot down the others, but heck at least we got the criminal, right? :P

(Edited by PaulDavidHewson at 4:30 pm on Jan. 24, 2003)

PaulDavidHewson

24th January 2003, 15:35

OK, PDH, even if this is all true (except the logic fallacies you assigned to my faceteuos remarks, they are moot), and I don;tnecessarily agree that it is, then you of course must concede that any shoetcomings you perceive in America's timing were offset by the fact that we fought the empire of Japan almost all by ourselves in the pacific. Yes, there was very limited help near the end in indo-china, but in the pacific itself we were all by ourselves. There was absolutely no parity between US support in Europe and allied support in the pacific.

The US was the only nation to fully committ to both major theatres of WWII, and in one theatre we went it basically alone, and that itself should offset America's timing.

Yes, the US did fight that war alone in the pacific. Nuking was not nessecary.
btw, colleteral damage from nuking, unfortunate?

I can totally agree with a US perspective to use a nuke in that case btw, but from a humane perspective(one wich I cannot shove aside) I must disagree to the fullest extend to nuking a country.

Capitalist Imperial

24th January 2003, 18:22

Well, statistical estimates dictate that we actually acheived a net savings of life by using the 2 A-bombs. The japaneze were going to use both military and civilians to stave off a mainland invasion of Japan by US forces. This, by all estimates, would have have cost more lives than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

Also take into consideration that the US did not want to rish risk even 1 more American life especially, and we acheived that end with the A-bombs.

As for collateral damage, perhaps "unfortunate", while a legitimate definition as it is broad, was a bit limited or over-simplified.

Let me go on record stating that I seek to minimixe any collateral damage that results from US or any other military operations, as such incidents are horrible tragedies.

Arkham

24th January 2003, 18:57

Well, if you want to get down to the US intentionally inflicting harm on civilians, one might address the casual leaving of many Depleted Uranium coated tanks, and thousands of Depleted Uranium coated shells all over Iraq, and Kuwait, and later Kosovo. After the gulf war, incidents of leukemia, skin cancer, and numerous other cancers rose by 22%. Independent scientists have verified the incredibly radioactive nature of DU, but we just abandoned our mess there, leaving children to find shells and play with them, and then, as if that wasn't enough, we cut off all medical supplies to the country.

Incidentally, when we tried the same thing in Saudi Arabia, they asked us to take all of the DU contaminated materials out of the country, and we complied. Guess it pays to have friends in the oil industry.

Capitalist Imperial

24th January 2003, 19:13

Quote: from Arkham on 6:57 pm on Jan. 24, 2003
Well, if you want to get down to the US intentionally inflicting harm on civilians, one might address the casual leaving of many Depleted Uranium coated tanks, and thousands of Depleted Uranium coated shells all over Iraq, and Kuwait, and later Kosovo. After the gulf war, incidents of leukemia, skin cancer, and numerous other cancers rose by 22%. Independent scientists have verified the incredibly radioactive nature of DU, but we just abandoned our mess there, leaving children to find shells and play with them, and then, as if that wasn't enough, we cut off all medical supplies to the country.

Incidentally, when we tried the same thing in Saudi Arabia, they asked us to take all of the DU contaminated materials out of the country, and we complied. Guess it pays to have friends in the oil industry.

Any alleged residual effects of DU munitions are ultimately the reponsibility of Saddam Hussein and his refusal to leave Kuwait under his own power as the Bush Sr. administration gave him ample opportunity to do.

Arkham

24th January 2003, 19:15

Wow, so if one person refuses to comply with US policy, we can go over and kill literally thousands of people with the careless, borderline criminal use of radioactive materials, and yet leave Saddam in power? That makes alot of sense. Surely, an unassailable position.

Whatever happened to personal responsbility?

Capitalist Imperial

24th January 2003, 19:30

[quote]Quote: from Arkham on 7:15 pm on Jan. 24, 2003
"Wow, so if one person refuses to comply with US policy, we can go over and kill literally thousands of people with the careless, borderline criminal use of radioactive materials, and yet leave Saddam in power?"

If you mean by a murderous dictator invading a tiny nation to usurp control of its resources, and the invadee asking the US for help when the US has economic and strategic interests at stake in the region anyway anyway, as "refusal to comply with US poilcy", then yes.

If by "killing thousands of people" you mean engaging willing enemy soldiers in legitimate combat, the yes

"That makes alot of sense. Surely, an unassailable position."

Liberating a tiny nation from a dictatorial regime? I agree.

"Whatever happened to personal responsbility?"

We took it when we freed kuwait.

BTW, removing saddam at the time was not an objective, as we wanted to avoid a power vaccum in an already unstable region

abstractmentality

24th January 2003, 21:56

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 7:10 am on Jan. 24, 2003

Quote: from abstractmentality on 9:00 pm on Jan. 23, 2003

Quote: from abstractmentality on 8:49 pm on Jan. 16, 2003

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 8:54 am on Jan. 15, 2003
Such collateral damage and other incidentals are unfortunate.

i would like to ask if you would be saying this if another country were to pre-emptively attack the military stronghold in san deigo, and from this attack, a few thousand civilians, of which you had plenty of friends, become collateral damage? the civilian casualities in this case would be seen as collateral damage to them, but i highly doubt you would see it as that. the fact the one can speak so lightly of innocent death is alarming.

i just wanted to paste this here, as you, CI, have said nothing to it. i would like you to tell me how the "collateral damage" of iraqi civilians and the "collateral damage" mentioned above is any different, and how you would react to it.

yes, it would suck, it would be horrible, I agree, but that is what I said in my vry first post on this thread, COLLATERAL DAMAGE IS UNFORTUNATE!!!

What did you not understand about that?

what im attempting to say is that if the above situation were to happen, you would be the last person to call all of these innocent lives as collateral damage. to reduce the killing of innocent civilians to "collateral damage" is inhuman, to say the least. when i speak to people that have known people that have become "collateral damage," i can barely hold in the tears. these people are not inanimate pieces of commodity, they are people, just as you are, just as i am.

Arkham

24th January 2003, 22:14

"If you mean by a murderous dictator invading a tiny nation to usurp control of its resources, and the invadee asking the US for help when the US has economic and strategic interests at stake in the region anyway anyway, as "refusal to comply with US poilcy", then yes. "

Wow, thats funny, as I recall, we supported Saddam, and actually encouraged him to invade Kuwait right before he did it. Then we trotted out Kuwaiti princesses to claim that the Iraqi's were killing their babies, an allegation that got challenged and withdrawn immediately thereafter. Again, you hit the nail on the head when you said "interests", though it should have read "Corporate/Business interests".

"If by "killing thousands of people" you mean engaging willing enemy soldiers in legitimate combat, the yes "

And, if you'll read above, thousands of civilians through the US denial of medicine, and willful exposure of radioactive material to the people of Iraq, who had nothing to do with the oil conflict in the region.

"Liberating a tiny nation from a dictatorial regime? I agree. "

Gee, we sure did a good job liberating them. Hey, how about the kurds in Northern Turkey/Southern Iraq? Ask them about how good a job we did liberating kuwait.

"We took it when we freed kuwait. "

Nice try, but you dodged the question. You tried to blame Saddam Hussein for our use of knowingly radioactive weapons in the gulf war that has led to the illness and deaths of thousands of civilians. Then you claim we took responsibility for it later. You were more right the first time, in that the US has never assumed responsibility for its actions that led to the deaths of all those people.

"BTW, removing saddam at the time was not an objective, as we wanted to avoid a power vaccum in an already unstable region"

But now, with less international support, it is?

-----
"...to secure peace is to prepare for war." Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan...not as dumb as our current president.

Capitalist Imperial

25th January 2003, 00:59

Quote: from abstractmentality on 9:56 pm on Jan. 24, 2003

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 7:10 am on Jan. 24, 2003

Quote: from abstractmentality on 9:00 pm on Jan. 23, 2003

Quote: from abstractmentality on 8:49 pm on Jan. 16, 2003

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 8:54 am on Jan. 15, 2003
Such collateral damage and other incidentals are unfortunate.

i would like to ask if you would be saying this if another country were to pre-emptively attack the military stronghold in san deigo, and from this attack, a few thousand civilians, of which you had plenty of friends, become collateral damage? the civilian casualities in this case would be seen as collateral damage to them, but i highly doubt you would see it as that. the fact the one can speak so lightly of innocent death is alarming.

i just wanted to paste this here, as you, CI, have said nothing to it. i would like you to tell me how the "collateral damage" of iraqi civilians and the "collateral damage" mentioned above is any different, and how you would react to it.

yes, it would suck, it would be horrible, I agree, but that is what I said in my vry first post on this thread, COLLATERAL DAMAGE IS UNFORTUNATE!!!

What did you not understand about that?

what im attempting to say is that if the above situation were to happen, you would be the last person to call all of these innocent lives as collateral damage. to reduce the killing of innocent civilians to "collateral damage" is inhuman, to say the least. when i speak to people that have known people that have become "collateral damage," i can barely hold in the tears. these people are not inanimate pieces of commodity, they are people, just as you are, just as i am.

I understand. Sometimes it seems that humans need to use hyperbole to address issues that are somewhat difficult to present and deal with.

PaulDavidHewson

3rd February 2003, 16:26

60% of the world oil in underneath iraq, only they cannot reach it because of quicksand, marshes etc, I'm sure the Us will find a way to get that oil once their pupper regime is in control.
The US said that after they """Liberated""" Iraq they(the usa) will stay in control untill a proper goverment has been installed. Why doesn't the UN take care of this? BEcause the USA wants the oil for themselves and their client-satelite state AKA GB will follow behind and take their own share.
The USA didn't do anything when there was apartheid in southern africa, I don't see the USA intervening in Ivorycoast or Eritrea or whatever ruined war torn country on earth and now suddenly the USA is scared of Iraq, the only reason they want Iraq is because UN analyst have made a rapport stating that the top 3 oil producing companies will make more profit, after the privitasation acts have been installed in Iraq, than any other company on earth. And it so happens to be that oil companies number 1 to 3 are american and british, FRance is 4th.

Sorry for the messy post, little time to write these days.

PaulDavidHewson

3rd February 2003, 16:29

And then there is that unofficial rapport stating that the USA sometimes targets civilian targets to motivate the population into rioting against the regime.
They did this in former-yugoslavia amongst others.

What's the word for intentional-colleteral damage?
Ah yes, Brute cold murder -->genocide?

Cassius Clay

3rd February 2003, 17:05

In History class a few years ago I remember seeing a Nazi newsreel in which the propaganda ministy explained 'that all neccesarry means had been used to avoid injuring the civilian population'. This was in October 1939 after the terror bombing of Warsaw.

Mr Capitalist Imperial you state that the U$ had to fight it alone in the Pacific. Wrong, infact twice as many Japanese Divisions were tied up fighting Communist partisans in China then were ever engaged fighting U$ marines. Also eight out of every ten Fascist soldiers died fighting the Red Army and by the time of D-Day the Red Army was allredy on the outskirts of Germany. A month after D-Day the Red Army captured an Entire Army Group. As for your claim that the UK wouldn't be here if it weren't for the U$, America entered the war 15 months after Britain defeated Germany in the Battle of Britain.

Oh and delibarte targeting of civilians, does Korea ring a bell?