LOOK WHO YOU ARE GONNA KILL CAPPIES!

[truthaddict11]

TAKE A LOOK AT THEM! THESE ARE THE PEOPLE YOUR WAR WILL KILL. http://www.nationalphilistine.com/baghdad/index2.html

[Pete]

Is this like that Israel link? If so I do not want to open it.. *weeps*

[Anonymous]

You mean those are the people our war will liberate.

[Tkinter1]

TA,

What are you talking about...?

[Zombie]

tell those kids (http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraqi_torture.htm) about the benefits of 'liberation', DC.

Tkinter, i think TA was trying to show photos of normal Iraqi citizens having a good time, so the pro-war cappies would probably have seconds thoughts on the war... i dunno if i stand correct TA, but i don't think that would be enough to achieve just that... :confused:

[Tkinter1]

The goal isn't civilians, and the outcome of the war will benefit them in the long run(If the US keeps its promise).

on another note...

I find those pictures deeply disturbing, and I deplore DU. But it was not intentionally used on civilians as the article stated.

[knowledge]

Quote: from truthaddict11 on 9:51 pm on Mar. 21, 2003
TAKE A LOOK AT THEM! THESE ARE THE PEOPLE YOUR WAR WILL KILL. http://www.nationalphilistine.com/baghdad/index2.html


Don't you think your are stretching things a bit far?

[truthaddict11]

Quote: from knowledge on 8:12 pm on Mar. 21, 2003

Quote: from truthaddict11 on 9:51 pm on Mar. 21, 2003
TAKE A LOOK AT THEM! THESE ARE THE PEOPLE YOUR WAR WILL KILL. http://www.nationalphilistine.com/baghdad/index2.html


Don't you think your are stretching things a bit far?

No I dont I am sickened today when I heard people say "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out"

[Xvall]

You mean those are the people our war will liberate.

Droping thousands of bombs on a city is one hell of a way to 'liberate' it. I suppose you will liberate this nation, just like Vietnam, right? I understand what you are saying, and I do not support Saddam Husseins regime at all, but the United States has had a bad record of 'liberation'.

[Tkinter1]

They seem to be primarily focused on liberation this time, drake. I think this 'liberation' will be much more beneficial for the Iraqi's in the long run.

I sincerly doubt that saddam and his minions will 'leave' without the use of military force.

[Pete]

You do not liberate a country by bombing cities. That is how you kill thousands of innocents.

[Tkinter1]

"You do not liberate a country by bombing cities. That is how you kill thousands of innocents."

The US doesn't carpet bomb cities with unguided bombs as done in WWII. Civilian cassualites will most likley be minimal in this war, and I think you know that.

I really don't think you understand the surgical precision of these weapons. And do not bring up Gulf War statsitics, the weapons have changed drastically.

[Pete]

I will not. But so far the "surgical precision" has killed 1 comfirmed women, and the Americans will not let the redcross into the apartment building that was hit.

[Zombie]

Quote: from Tkinter1 on 10:08 pm on Mar. 21, 2003
They seem to be primarily focused on liberation this time, drake. I think this 'liberation' will be much more beneficial for the Iraqi's in the long run.


back it up.
last time i checked the first gulf war didn't do no fuckin' good to the Iraqi. Who and when did anyone asserted you that this time they talk liberation.
i say they should have removed those fuckin' sanctions in the first place, that's how you liberate them.
sorry but i'm just too pissed. you still have to answer me.

[Tkinter1]

"back it up."

How can I back up something they haven't finished yet? It's my opinion based on what i've heard the game plan is.

"last time i checked the first gulf war didn't do no fuckin' good to the Iraqi."

Good observation, considering the fact that they were the aggressor(invading Kuwait, gassing kurds, scud missiles at israel). And doin' good' for the iraqi wasn't part of the game plan at that time. It is now.

"Who and when did anyone asserted you that this time they talk liberation."

Are you kidding me? Did you watch any of Bush's(or other members of the adminstration) speech's, or watch any news source? What do you think, I'm pulling this out of thin air?

"i say they should have removed those fuckin' sanctions in the first place, that's how you liberate them."

Once they remove Saddam they will. Don't you realise that?

"sorry but i'm just too pissed. you still have to answer me."

ok...

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 5:55 am on Mar. 22, 2003)

[Tkinter1]

"But so far the "surgical precision" has killed 1 comfirmed women"

ONE! Out of hundreds if not thousands of bombs droped. Thats surgical precision. I admit more will probably come. But you have to admit, that is a lot better than carpet bombing a city with fire bombs which would kill hundreds instantly.

"and the Americans will not let the redcross into the apartment building that was hit."

Yeah probably to let the civilians burn right? Those marines love that.
In all sincerity, there's probably more to that story than, "the americans would not let the red cross in, becuase they didn't feel like it."

[knowledge]

Quote: from Tkinter1 on 3:22 am on Mar. 22, 2003
"You do not liberate a country by bombing cities. That is how you kill thousands of innocents."

The US doesn't carpet bomb cities with unguided bombs as done in WWII. Civilian cassualites will most likley be minimal in this war, and I think you know that.

I really don't think you understand the surgical precision of these weapons. And do not bring up Gulf War statsitics, the weapons have changed drastically.


^^this man is informed of what is true, and what is to be.

[Zombie]

And doin' good' for the iraqi wasn't part of the game plan at that time.

Bush Sr, said back when he was prez, and i quote, "Let me repeat, we have no argument with the people of Iraq. Indeed, we have only friendship for the people there" _november 15, 1990. contradictory with what you said isn't it?????

Did you watch any of Bush's(or other members of the adminstration) speech's

do u have any credible source?? ur argument doesn't stand ground.(if i used the expression correctly)

Once they remove Saddam they will. Don't you realise that?

so basically, 12 years of rutheless sanctions and ceaseless bombings on the Iraqi people, was actually to hurt Saddam....mmmm that is the most absurd thing anyone has ever told me. Sanctions don't affect leaders like Saddam! It hurts the core of the country, its people! don't you realise that?

[Tkinter1]

"Bush Sr, said back when he was prez, and i quote, "Let me repeat, we have no argument with the people of Iraq. Indeed, we have only friendship for the people there" _november 15, 1990. contradictory with what you said isn't it?????"

LOL. That doesn't contradict anything I said. I never said that bush hated the people of iraq and wanted them dead then... Liberating iraq just WASN'T an objective in the first Gulf War, THAT was my point.

"do u have any credible source?? ur argument doesn't stand ground.(if i used the expression correctly)"

What are you talking about? The question you asked was, and I quote "and when did anyone asserted you that this time they talk liberation." Now I answered that(taking a few minutes to fathom one of the most poorly worded sentences in history)by telling you exactly where I got my information from. And frankly, your opinions on the sources mean absolutley nothing to me, so don't ask for a 'credible' source, becuase you don't know what credible is.

The US is shipping 200,000 tons of wheat and rice to Iraq, and if needed, they have 400,000 more tons ready to go in. In addition, hundreds of millions of dollars have been prepared to go towards the rebuilding of Iraq. This rebuilding is said to be quote "the most massive rebuilding project since the Marshall Plan." http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/spec...al/iraq/1828629 (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/iraq/1828629)
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/032...build20-ON.html (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0320war-rebuild20-ON.html)

"so basically, 12 years of rutheless sanctions and ceaseless bombings on the Iraqi people, was actually to hurt Saddam....mmmm that is the most absurd thing anyone has ever told me."Sanctions don't affect leaders like Saddam! It hurts the core of the country, its people! don't you realise that?"

The sanctions were instated (in MY opinion) to create such extensive civil unrest in Iraq, that the people would be suffering so vastly and so needlessly, that they would organise and take down Saddam themselves.

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 7:45 am on Mar. 22, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Zombie on 4:52 am on Mar. 22, 2003

Quote: from Tkinter1 on 10:08 pm on Mar. 21, 2003
They seem to be primarily focused on liberation this time, drake. I think this 'liberation' will be much more beneficial for the Iraqi's in the long run.


back it up.
last time i checked the first gulf war didn't do no fuckin' good to the Iraqi. Who and when did anyone asserted you that this time they talk liberation.
i say they should have removed those fuckin' sanctions in the first place, that's how you liberate them.
sorry but i'm just too pissed. you still have to answer me.


Sanctions is also how you liberate saddam. You know little details like that.

[Invader Zim]

Any way you all know my stance on iraqi innocance after the innocents as you put it tortured Allied troops.

[Zombie]

LOL. That doesn't contradict anything I said. I never said that bush hated the people of iraq and wanted them dead then... Liberating iraq just WASN'T an objective in the first Gulf War, THAT was my point.

you said "doing good wasn't part of the program" or am i wrong? so basically bush doesnt hate (hmmm) the iraqis, but he still went on and fucked up their lives! great thinking he's got there.

by telling you exactly where I got my information from
yes u did i didn't doubt that,

And frankly, your opinions on the sources mean absolutley nothing to me, so don't ask for a 'credible' source, becuase you don't know what credible is.
"credible=worthy of confidence,reliable"
Now when you take Bush as a credible source, i think you don't know what credible is.

that they would organise and take down Saddam themselves.
now that intrigues me even more. The facts are that 12 years of sanctions totalled the deaths of ~1.5 millions iraqis lives over the decade and you got the balls to tell me it was for the good of the people.

the people would be suffering so vastly and so needlessly
you took the words out of my mouth, thank you.
that they would organise and take down Saddam themselves.
never happened did it. and now thx to ur invasion, never will, either. so there u go, 1.5 million lives lost for nothing.

[Zombie]

Quote: from AK47 on 3:33 am on Mar. 22, 2003
Any way you all know my stance on iraqi innocance after the innocents as you put it tortured Allied troops.

u got ur own pathetic thread to brag bout that. now GO AWAY.

[Tkinter1]

"millions iraqis lives over the decade and you got the balls to tell me it was for the good of the people."

The past effects were not good for the Iraqi people. But if the sanctions did some how 'work', and the iraqi's stood up and to took down Saddam, it would have 'worked' to bring down his regime. I'm not going to sit here and tell you I agree wholeheartedly with the sanctions. I can just see where they were coming from. Good intentions, for the future. It didn't work.

"Now when you take Bush as a credible source, i think you don't know what credible is."

What better source than the person spearheading this operation is going to know what the plan is?

"you took the words out of my mouth, thank you."
Oh good, your welcome. I'm glad you took that out of context. :)

"never happened did it. and now thx to ur invasion, never will, either."

Exactly... They couldn't do it, So now the US will help them.

"1.5 million lives lost for nothing."

How can that be if the US is successful in liberating/reconstructing Iraq?