Iraqi's owe much gratitude to the US
 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Webby
theKing:
The UN is not a "debating society" - it IS the international community, whether you like this or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well...as I have pointed out and as you have chosen to ignore...that "international community" viewed Iraq as being a threat for 12 years...thus the sanctions (that may have caused the death of up to 1,000,000 "innocent" Iraqi's) and the 17 Resolutions imposed against Iraq by the UN.

That is a loss of approximately 80,000 "innocent" Iraqi lives per year caused by the the UN. Since the invasion the US has convinced the UN to drop the sanctions...and if the loss of lives due to combat action on either side...falls short of about 80,000 per year (and at this point it is way below 80,000 per year) then in fact the invasion has thus far saved Iraqi lives.

There is currently more hospitals...with more medical equipment and supplies...pre invasion. There is currently more drinkable water in more locations than pre invasion... and as far as I know food is plentiful.

Thus I conclude that the Iraqi people owe the US much gratitude for saving them from the yoke the UN had imposed upon them.

I forgot to mention...more electricity is available in most locations...than pre invasion. In addition...more and better schools...than pre invasion. Yes indeed...they owe a debt of gratitude to the US...for removing the opressive yoke that the UN had imposed on them for 12 years,

... seriously, one individual can't be that fucking dumb just by himself. did you get a hand from your hometown when posting this shit ??

wow, and to think for all this time everyone thought the UN were the good guys.

The electricity was fine before USA dropped a shitload of bomb's against their better judgement and took out all the power grids. yes, they may owe a debt of gratitude, but USA owes even a bigger apology. Bullying another country and giving the finger to the rest of the world really has made USA and Bush appear as bad as terrorists, but thanks to Bush - you guys are way in over your heads in debt that you are not going to be able to get out of. congradulations, pretty soon you'll be the third world country and will be like Iraq pre invasion.

:1orglaugh so sad but true

:1orglaugh

Only one answer to a stupid drunk declaration by TheKing:

PIGSHIT

Yeah, Things are going very very well in iraq. You should move there with your family.

key word here.... 'invasion'

justify it how you wish, an invasion is still an invasion.

what a fucktard.

:1orglaugh

So true!

Another political thread... people always go to far right or to far left :2 cents:

so true :thumbsup

Hasn't been that long since I heard a news report the electricity infrastructure over there is abysmal.

That is because people that have strong views are the ones mostly likey to feel confident enough to argue a case. Middle of the road people just tend to muddle through it without really wanted to stick their neck out.

:winkwink: ordered last night

You are very smart. Want to do my taxes?

You must have been eating spacecake while watching Fox news

"Iraqi's owe much gratitude to the US"

Yup, and they will pay it back greatly with their natural resources. :winkwink:

US has always been an expert on making war profit

Where do you get your info from? CNN?

I also forgot to mention that Iraqi's are now allowed to practice religious ceremonies that was denied to them during Saddam's tenure. In addition Iraqi's now have freedom of speech...freedom of the press (it is my understanding that there are a ton of news papers in business)...instead of state controlled news media. Also they now have satalite dishes...access to the internet...more cars are on the roads than pre invasion.

Yes...the Iraqi's owe much gratitude to the US for not only removing the oppresive yoke the UN had imposed on them for 12 years...but also for removing the oppressive yoke of Saddam and his Baathist party.

And freedom to kill as many Americans as they can.

Tis true. The majority of Iraq is thankful for the ousting of Hussein by the Coalition Forces. Unfortunately, Iraq is comprised of numerous religous and political factions (not to mention barbaric insurgents) who are all vying for power and control of the country. It's the closest thing to civil war over there right now without actually calling it a civil war.

If we (the US, UK, Italia, etc.) leave now - full blown civil war would certainly break out, not to mention genocide.

More deaths and car bombs are available too!
It's so great that they built a few schools so that a few kids brave enuf to go out can sit in the class room and wait for the teacher to show and teach them why they should hate the U.S.!

:1orglaugh no kidding

First we starve you with sanctions.
Second we make up a story about WMD's
Third we invade and drop bombs on you
Fourth we'll install a government for you (puppet)
Fifth we will seize your only cash crop, oil

Now you should thank us.

If the same thing happened to us we'd be pissed. If Europe decided the US was a threat and invaded us and removed Bush, installed their own President for us, killed innocent Americans in the process, and took ownership of every McDonald's I'm sure we'd be happy about it. lol

hehehe that's crazy:1orglaugh

We could learn a thing or two from Saddam. He was actually able to keep all these factions from killing each other and from killing him, even though they hated him.

Oh yeah..more ceremonies where they can hate the US!
Yep..that's what Iraq needs..more Mullahs out there recruiting their own militias!

Hey..they ARE greatful for that!

Together the US and the UN decided Iraq was a threat, lol. The UN is as impotent as my 100 year old grandfather. We went to war without the UN's approval and without Congress declaring war. The UN can't do jack about it. In one full swoop America made the UN explicitly irrelevant (it was always irrelevant, but now it's clear for everybody to see).

Actually, a dictator who forces you to love him, or he'll kill you... is still a loved dictator.

The methods are questionable, but they still loved him. That's kinda how a dictator works.

Take him away, and you get what's happening now... whether the rest of the world loved or hated him, doesn't matter to them.

That was a stunning reply. Your arguments are air tight! :thumbsup

this war is fucking pointless, radiation from bombs is killing and deforming thousands, cancer rate is up like some 600%, waste of money and human life, fuck george bush

That's not a slippery slope or anything.

Please provide some proof that we've stolen any oil. Otherwise your naked assertion falls flat on its face.

and the FIRST reason we went to war was becuz we were in immediate threat from WMD wich powell in early 2001 said didnt exist, now bush claims were 'liberating" iraq, no WMD, iraq is a terrorist haven, the january elections are bull shit and wont happen successfully, bush lies and theking believes the coke head

No declaration of war was needed because the first gulf war never ended, we were just in a period of cease fire. Of course, during that cease fire Saddam saw fit to regularly shoot at our military with his toys. IMHO, that's enough reason to go take his ass out.

So far there has not been squat for a counter argument to the original post, just a bunch of name calling, which is the refuge of those who have no argument.

When you have the truth, pound the truth.
When you have the facts, pound the facts.
When you have neither the truth nor the facts, pound the table.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/me...ate=2004-09-22 bush is a fucking flop

if u read that link, thats all the argument anyone needs for this pointless war

Do you have a counter argument, or just insults and rhetoric?

Are you honestly using that lying POS propogandist as a reliable news source? Admittedly it's better then what anyone else has posted so far, which is nothing, but I would trust Air America or News Max to be fair and balanced before I believed anything Moore said.

This is a scary thought and I see signs of it but I hope it doesn't become a reality.

First all the low paying jobs went (shoe factories), and hence the sweat shops in Asia where Nike manufactures its shoes and ships them back to the US and charges $200-$300 for a shoe that cost $2 to make.

We didn't care about those jobs going.

Now it's the high tech high paying jobs and companies that are moving overseas. It's for profit, to increase profit margins. The government seems to think it's ok that things like steel (you know the thing we make guns and bombs out of) are now largely manufactured outside of the US. Same with computer jobs and so on. As long as you let companies dictate policy without any type of regulation this is going to continue at alarming rates.

In the future we will end up buying things from China that used to be produced in the US and we'll have to pay a premium for it because it's a foreign import. Companies get wealthier, the typical American citizen will bear the financial burden.

Let alone when China becomes the largest economy, not only will you see tech jobs go where all the low paying jobs have already gone, you'll see professionals like lawyers and doctors get educated in the best US universities leave for China because they'll make more money there (the same way Canadian doctors cross the boarder to the US for bigger US dollars).

It's as if the writting is on the wall.

Ironic thing is that's correct. Through fear, intimidation, and murder, his regime was able to supress the Sunni population. Now that he's gone - they look at this situation as their best opportunity to eradicate the Kurds and turn Iraq into a state of Islam.

Ergo, Iran II

the resources are right there, washington post, wall street journal, look it up http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/oped...wsj_071002.htm

?I--I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president [Al Gore] and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I--I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. And so I take my--I take my--my responsibility seriously.? --October 3, 2000 george w. bush

Powell: ?We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they have directed that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was 10 years ago when we began it. And frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.? --February 24, 2001

I said "we'll seize your oil". Therefore it hasn't been done yet. When it is, I'll post the evidence.

Also, it's not up to us to prove the WMD's didn't exist. It's up to the Government to prove they DID exist. Otherwise any country can make a claim, start bombing other countries, and when the claim is false, they can say, sorry we killed your civilians, but while we're here well change your regime around for ya. Hope that will make it better and we can be friends again.

If you think we're to change it into a democracy, one has to ask, out of all the dictatorial countries in the world, why did we choose Iraq?

did i mention bush to be the first president with a criminal record

Just for S&G:

At the time we had no quarrel with Iraq. If they wanted to fight their neighbors, that was their business.

Kuwait petitioned the UN to save their butts. The UN agreed and the US, as almost always, was the major work horse for this operation.

The declaration of war and our mission was to liberate Kuwait, that's it. There was no talk of toppling Saddam by the UN or any US officials.

There were letters written by democrats saying the same thing.

• · "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
  · "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
  · "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
  · "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.
  · "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
  · "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of Mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
  · "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
  · "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
  · "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
  · "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
  · "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
  · "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."_ Senator Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
  · "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
  · ?I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.? Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
  · "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."_ Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
  · "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."_ Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
  · "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY),_ Oct 10, 2002,
  · "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
  · "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."_ Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
  · Jacques Chirac warned as late as February 2003 about, "The probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq" and declared that the "international community is right ._._. in having decided Iraq should be disarmed."

Interesting interpretation of how war is legally supposed to be conducted. Shooting at our military with his toys? His 'army' is nothing more than a bunch of bandits with guns, that's why they were defeated within days. Saddam was a threat to his people and perhaps his neighbors, nobody else.