"saddam Hussein Dead"

[fargo]

@Epicenter, people used to hear arguments like yours about Iraq back in 2003 and 2004. Nobody now believes in what you said.

See, Egyptians heard similar claims from France on 1798. Iraqis heard similar things in 1920s from British. Same thing goes for Syria, Palestine, Algeria, etc. Please, read history and try to discover the other side of the story!

 

[Fishbong]

Ok, so killing your fellow men and trying to destroy every last bit of public order in your own country makes you a patriot? Destroying a country´s chances for peace and reconstruction is honorable? Or did i miss your point? Where you live, does patriotism mean killing people at random for a political or pseudo - religious ideal?

:lol: So, this is the image you have in your mind about Iraqi resistance?! I'm sure you also think the "invading power" is the one that builds the country and liberate the people!

Please, don't tell me you are not brainwashed!

Look, Fargo. There are certain facts. You can decide how to interpret them, but you cannot just ignore them.

1. Most of the victims of the "Iraqui resistance" are Iraquis themselvees. They are policemen, recruits of the new Iraqui army, civil employees of the US and British forces. They are being killed because they are considered to be collaborators of the occupating army, to frighten the population and also because they are far easier to kill than soldiers.

2. Epicenter already mentioned it. The "Iraqui resistance" mainly consists of foreigners who want (and are paid to) to fight their war on the back of the actual population.

3. You may think what you want about the rebuildment of iraq, but who do you think hinders it more? US soldiers or terrorists?

On a sidenote: The fact that Iraq has to be rebuilt is worse enough. This war should never had happenened and i visited various demonstrations to help prevent it. It brought nothing good, the present turmoil in the region proves that. But it happened. Now what do you think should happen?

 

[NoidZ]

And yes, the "invading power" is responsible for establishing the new government and helping to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. What do you think coalition forces are doing there, exactly-- shooting all the men, raping all the women and then carpet-bombing the cities? What do YOU watch on TV?

News which broadcasts the US; shooting all the men, raping all the women and then carpet-bombing the cities.

Ofcourse they are "trying" to create world-peace, at least I think they try to do that, leaving all the consiracy theories out (which sound very realistic to me though) ,but there is allot of terrible stuff going on back there. Not only from the Iraq, but from the US too. Look how much innocent people where killed back there and look how much really did something and had to be shot-down for safety. I think maybe 30% was ok to shoot down and for about 70% innocent people.

Ofcourse I don't have any statistics here, but how the hell could Osama has so much influence to all those people who where shot down (and so had to be terrorists)?

Yup, impossible..

 

[daclassicgamingmaster]

Damn epicenter is ripping asshole in this thread.

Pure pwnage.

 

[fargo]

Look, Fargo. There are certain facts. You can decide how to interpret them, but you cannot just ignore them.

1. Most of the victims of the "Iraqui resistance" are Iraquis themselvees. They are policemen, recruits of the new Iraqui army, civil employees of the US and British forces. They are being killed because they are considered to be collaborators of the occupating army, to frighten the population and also because they are far easier to kill than soldiers.

How can you identify soldiers and employees who support and mingle with them in a battle field?! Ok, giving that you can identify them, what make them illegal targets? Suppose that USA invaded your country and brought civil employees as drivers to carry weapons, foods, etc. to the soldiers. Would you target them and cut supplies from your enemy?

The same thing can be said for Iraqi policemen, which are Shei't mostly. In addition, it is considered a big mistake when you invade a country before studying its culture well. People in mid-east consider anyone who work or cooperate with invaders as traitor. And you know what traitors deserve.

2. Epicenter already mentioned it. The "Iraqui resistance" mainly consists of foreigners who want (and are paid to) to fight their war on the back of the actual population.

Very incorrect! It is almost impossible for non-Iraqis to enter Iraq. Iraqi resistance mainly consists of Iraqi Sunni and everybody knows this! Also, by knowing the local culture in that area, it is hard to find mercenaries especially for this war.

3. You may think what you want about the rebuildment of iraq, but who do you think hinders it more? US soldiers or terrorists?

This is really difficult to answer! On one hand, it is to the US' advantage to stabilize Iraq in order to take over its natural resources and establish military bases there (through contracts with a puppet government). On the other hand, the US does very stupid things to unstably the region. One of these stupid things is hanging Saddam in Eid (Muslim's Holy Day)

On a sidenote: The fact that Iraq has to be rebuilt is worse enough. This war should never had happenened and i visited various demonstrations to help prevent it. It brought nothing good, the present turmoil in the region proves that. But it happened. Now what do you think should happen?

I agree with you here.

 

[Alex.]

we test our weapons in the middle of nowhere, like nuclear weapons in empty desert areas in New Mexico. Not on innocent people.

WRONG.

Did you forget about the depleted uranium weaponry used by your troops in the former Yugoslavia? How come CNN and Fox News don't cover all the cancers and birth defects that sprouted in that region after your love-bringers paid their visit? Give me a break.

- Alex

 

[NoidZ]

Very incorrect! It is almost impossible for non-Iraqis to enter Iraq. Iraqi resistance mainly consists of Iraqi Sunni and everybody knows this! Also, by knowing the local culture in that area, it is hard to find mercenaries especially for this war.

Nope you're incorrect here. I saw this television show about a woman running a company there. She said it's definitely not impossible to work/get there (and she's from the Netherlands)

It's not like Iraq is dangerous everywhere, just in a couple of areas.

This is really difficult to answer! On one hand, it is to the US' advantage to stabilize Iraq in order to take over its natural resources and establish military bases there (through contracts with a puppet government). On the other hand, the US does very stupid things to unstably the region. One of these stupid things is hanging Saddam in Eid (Muslim's Holy Day)

100% Correct Fargo. Hanging Saddam is stupid anyways and the US does stupid things all the time. I didn't expect something smart/humain either and now, I won't anymore ever.

EDIT:
The reply above mine is correct too

 

[Epicenter]

we test our weapons in the middle of nowhere, like nuclear weapons in empty desert areas in New Mexico. Not on innocent people.

WRONG.

Did you forget about the depleted uranium weaponry used by your troops in the former Yugoslavia?

Did you just compare a depleted uranium shell to a nuclear weapon? :lol: This is getting great. There's a slight difference between a small quantity of uranium with very low radioactive properties, and a massive explosion that covers a radius around it for MILES with highly-radioactive fallout. The types of radioactive particle involved aren't even the same. If depleted uranium is even capable of causing significant birth defects or cancers without giving yourself a spongebath with shells has yet to be proven. Do a little research.

Oh, and I negelcted to mention, that wasn't "testing weapons on civilians". It was use of a weapon in a war that was later questioned to 'perhaps' cause birth defects/cancer after the fact... That's not quite the same thing as bombing villages with chemical weapons to see if they work. You've got some serious perspective problems.

How come CNN and Fox News don't cover all the cancers and birth defects that sprouted in that region after your love-bringers paid their visit? Give me a break.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/...nium/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89434,00.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/...m.02/index.html
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0101/10/i_ins.00.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/01/11/uranium.03/

There's more articles here. Far too many for me to post here.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=s...G=Google+Search

I must know. Do you think before you speak?

 

[NoidZ]

I thought all the chemical weapons cause cancer and disturbed chromosomes :huh:

 

[Alex.]

we test our weapons in the middle of nowhere, like nuclear weapons in empty desert areas in New Mexico. Not on innocent people.

WRONG.

Did you forget about the depleted uranium weaponry used by your troops in the former Yugoslavia? How come CNN and Fox News don't cover all the cancers and birth defects that sprouted in that region after your love-bringers paid their visit? Give me a break.

- Alex

Did you just compare a depleted uranium shell to a nuclear weapon? Ahahahahaha!! This is getting great. There's a slight difference between a small quantity of uranium with very low radioactive properties, and a massive explosion that covers a radius around it for MILES with highly-radioactive fallout. The types of radioactive particle involved aren't even the same. If depleted uranium is even capable of causing significant birth defects or cancers without giving yourself a spongebath with shells has yet to be proven. Do a little research.

Oh, and I negelcted to mention, that wasn't "testing weapons on civilians". It was use of a weapon in a war that was later questioned to 'perhaps' cause birth defects/cancer after the fact (depleted uranium's use has been discontinued by the US, if I am not mistaken) ... That's not quite the same thing as bombing villages with chemical weapons to see if they work. You've got some serious perspective problems.

I never referred to nuclear weaponry, those were your own words. The quantities weren't exactly small, and if they were, they must have been REALLY harmful. People die to this day in that region due to this cause, and here you are spewing more lies.

Who the fuck are you, the marketing guy? PERHAPS may cause cancer and birth defects? PERHAPS? What is this, a Vi@gra commercial? This is people's lives we're talking about.

You yourself said that the US army stopped using depleted uranium. Why do you think they did so? PERHAPS it may be cancerous? Well of course it is. Just because CNN didn't have a field day talking about this doesn't mean that the fact isn't there.

You keep saying that being in the military didn't warp your thought process, but the more you defend your organization's international atrocities, the more one thinks otherwise. Your views on these world issues all come from the same place, and while it may not be entirely your fault, you should be more open to other's takes on it.

- Alex

 

[Epicenter]

You keep saying that being in the military didn't warp your thought process, but the more you defend your organization's international atrocities

International atrocities. Hahahah. That's not something I'd call what the US has done thus far. But well-established domestic atrocities like killing your own people with chemical weapons are completely OK. Way to sidestep the issue at hand.

Your views on these world issues all come from the same place,

I'd love to see you prove that one. How would you have any concept of where I obtain my views of the world and what goes on in it? Do explain. :lol:

It's funny how it doesn't work both ways though-- because you support the opposing viewpoint, you won't tell persons like OMars or Fargo to broaden THEIR horizons. Your claims that my mind is warped by the military is irrational scapegoating based on a desire to expand your own existing disdain rather than accept I have a viewpoint divergent from your own.

By the way, just because I'm from the US doesn't mean I watch CNN and Fox and take everything they say as gospel. Now THAT is a closed-minded, short-sighted statement if ever I've heard one. It just so happens I get more of my news from the BBC than anywhere, and even watch Al-Jazeera from time to time on TV to get the widest angle of what's going on in the world, not one person's take on it.

 

[Alex.]

*double post, please delete*

 

[Alex.]

You keep saying that being in the military didn't warp your thought process, but the more you defend your organization's international atrocities

International atrocities. Hahahah. But domestic atrocities like killing your own people with chemical weapons are completely OK. Way to sidestep the issue at hand.

I never said that what Saddam did was ok. If that was indeed him who was executed in that video, then good riddance. What you said here worries me a bit though. You should know that just because I don't agree with some things concerning the US military it doesn't mean that I agree with what their enemies are doing. All of a sudden you painted me as a fan of psychopaths that kill their own. How about your president then, who sends hundreds of thousands of his own to death in a faraway country? Does he not kill his own?

It's funny how it doesn't work both ways though-- because you support the opposing viewpoint, you won't tell persons like OMars or Fargo to broaden THEIR horizons.

I'm not going to argue with OMars, that's the last thing I need. He seems to favor rebellion and all that comes with it, yet he's sitting comfortably in his US home and obviously wouldn't put his life on the line like the ones he so much admires (???) do. I really don't want to get in an argument about this, he seems to be all for patriotism and dying for his country, things that I try to distance myself from. To each his own I guess, although his views on life seem narrow-minded and too limited for my liking.

- Alex

 

[Epicenter]

I'm not going to argue your points as I see where you're coming from; your heart's clearly not in this argument. Honestly neither is mine. I can see from this most recent post of yours however you do walk a line between viewpoints as extreme as OMars and your stereotypical deluded individual who takes Fox News as gospel. The frankness of your argument had made me think otherwise.

While I'm not much a fan of political argument, I do feel a need to reply to some of the things posted in this thread that are so blatantly false they make me do a double-take. The pervasiveness of disinformation is an astonishing thing. I seem to get more shit on this forum for diverging from the 'collective popular opinion' than anything else. It's quite disturbing.

Without meaning to start anything with you-- The media is inherently imperfect no matter who is doing the reporting. But since one man can't be everywhere at all times, some source of outside information is essential to build a comprehensive world view. I would like to know who you would view as an 'objective and reliable news source' since you define them all as 'nuts from the same tree'.

 

[Orkie]

It does seem a bit strange to claim that Epicenter is fed his opinions by the military, just because some of his match the 'official' ones - would he be in the military in the first place if he hated what it said/did?

 

[krosfyah]

I know I'm not a mod but in the absence of any interjection from a real mod I feel the need to post like one here..

Can you guys please refrain from the personal attacks? It tends to turn an otherwise interesting and enlightening debate into a big ugly mess.

Cheers.

 

[OMars]

My points in this argument:

1. Saddam bombed the kurds as punishment for leading Irannis in Iraq during the Iraq-Iran conflict. He kind of took it really far, but he even sent out messengers and crap to tell them to get out. It doesn't make sense why they didn't flee.

2. Propaganda can be good or bad information, but it is always to spread and strengthen the propagaters' cause. That means that everybody on this planet spreads propaganda in one way or another. But there are higher levels of this.

3. Epicenter had this to say:

And yes, the "invading power" is responsible for establishing the new government and helping to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. What do you think coalition forces are doing there, exactly-- shooting all the men, raping all the women and then carpet-bombing the cities? What do YOU watch on TV?

You are such a moron, there several instances of each of those things you mentioned. :lol: White phosphurs bombings, executions in homes, and rapings.

4. I am not in Iraq, because I must finish my education in America(great educational system, bad government).

5. Saddam was not a very good person, but he had immense support from throughout the world(there were even protests in India about his death). Well it is the opposite for Bush. In fact it seems as if there are more people that like dictators then they do Bush. Let's wait and see what happens.

6. The freedom fighters in Iraq, contrary to what dog Epicenter would have you believe, don't get payed. It is quite clear that they lack the funds to pay hundreds of thousands of men and even some women and children. They are considered freedom fighters, because they want to get rid of the people who put Sunni Persecuting-Irannis in power, which unfortunately are the Americans. They also are mostly nationalists, which would mean they like Iraq, their country, which means that they are Iraqi. Al-quaeda is only one of a few terrorists groups that have no point to be in Iraq. Why they go in there and blow up bombs in markets. I don't know either.

It took one million martyrs in Algeria to make the French give up. Iraq has more than enough freedom fighters.

7. Americans are having so much trouble in the Middle-east, that they are even developing new weapons to deal with it. They are making new tanks that fire rockets at incoming fire(rpg's are fired at americans everyday in Iraq). They are making cave busting bombs(Osama). And Israelis are making a new round-the-corner gun for urban areas(they are afraid armor isn't enough).

Why would they make these if Iraq was such a tremendous success? Why would they make these if they have made milestones in Iraq and Afghanistan? Simply because they are not. Even with satelites and advanced electronics, they can't beat some guy with a turban wrapped around his face firing at them with some early 1900's rifle. This is because they do not understand our culture. It is not a problem to die for your cause. 3000(u.s. citizen)Americans died and everybody in America is pissed about the war. Well this war is much like vietnam(I believe 50,000 died in that war). Hundreds of Iraqis die every day, yet their cause is strong(even getting stronger).

-OMars

 

[Epicenter]

1. Saddam bombed the kurds as punishment for leading Irannis in Iraq during the Iraq-Iran conflict. He kind of took it really far, but he even sent out messengers and crap to tell them to get out. It doesn't make sense why they didn't flee.

If that even happened, a messenger is hardly a reliable form of communication. 'Hay guys you all better leave or Saddam's going to kill all of you'. And I'm sure all those civilians were involved in rebellion against Saddam. Like all those dead women and children. You don't listen do you?

You are such a moron, there several instances of each of those things you mentioned. :lol: White phosphurs bombings, executions in homes, and rapings.

Harm to civilians is in the minority in the case of the US, and the persons responsible for things like murder of civilians or rape (quite rare incidences) are prosecuted and punished for their actions. You clearly ignore all the news that doesn't support your views. Whereas, attacks by the insurgency and foreign fighters you love so much kill hundreds of times, or more, civilians than genuine valid military targets.

4. I am not in Iraq, because I must finish my education in America(great educational system, bad government).

So it's OK for you to be defaming the US while using it to your benefit-- and it's perfectly OK for you to believe in the insurgency in Iraq, but not be there to support it. And yet, you defame ME for helping my nation's cause, because I am not personally in the only conflict in the world you care about. Your head's not screwed on very straight, is it? I hope you're hitting those books hard. It might take all the effort you've got.

5. Saddam was not a very good person, but he had immense support from throughout the world(there were even protests in India about his death). Well it is the opposite for Bush. In fact it seems as if there are more people that like dictators then they do Bush. Let's wait and see what happens.

Gee, this fellow killed so many people, but he was just so darn POPULAR. We can't stay mad at him! .. Funny how you mentioned O.J. Simpson, who was a murderer, yet got off the hook because he was popular. So Saddam, who murdered hundreds of times more people (or thousands of times more) should live? You're talking in circles.

6. The freedom fighters in Iraq, contrary to what dog Epicenter would have you believe, don't get payed.

Horseshit. There is nothing true about this statement and that's all I need to say.

By the way, 'dogs' are what Saddam called the innocent Kurdish civilians he had murdered with chemical weapons. Your credibility went out the window a long time ago. Now it's orbiting Venus. How's the view out there?

7. Americans are having so much trouble in the Middle-east, that they are even developing new weapons to deal with it. ... They are making cave busting bombs(Osama). And Israelis are making a new round-the-corner gun for urban areas(they are afraid armor isn't enough).

Bunker-buster bombs have been in use since World War II and were developed further in response to the need presented by the Gulf War. They were not in response to any recent conflict, and development of such a weapon from scratch would take significantly longer than 5 years. :rolleyes: 'round-the-corner guns' (nice technical terminology there) have been in development for at least 7 years now. Probably much longer.

Why would they make these if Iraq was such a tremendous success? Why would they make these if they have made milestones in Iraq and Afghanistan? Simply because they are not. Even with satelites and advanced electronics, they can't beat some guy with a turban wrapped around his face firing at them with some early 1900's rifle. This is because they do not understand our culture.

They already existed, see above. It's not difficult to fight 'some guy with a turban wrapped around his head'. It's difficult to find 1 or 2 critical persons hiding out from capture/assassination like Osama bin Laden or other key Al Qaeda members-- such a war is difficult to fight because it is nontraditional. You aren't at war with a country, you're at war with certain people within a country. When you are not even at war with a GOVERNMENT, just a network of people hiding out across a region, attacking and fleeing, or blowing themselves up rather than mounting organized offensives, the situation is far more complex. The coalition forces have already demonstrated they're more than capable of handling all-out war. The only thing your 'culture' complicates is peacekeeping. I assume by 'culture' here, you mean fanatical indiscriminate murderous tendencies, because there's nothing in the Koran about killing innocent people for your own political gains.

On a side note, 'early 1900s rifle'? Last I checked the most common weapon in use was an AK-47. A Soviet weapon from ... you guessed it, 1947.

everybody in America is pissed about the war. Well this war is much like vietnam(I believe 50,000 died in that war). Hundreds of Iraqis die every day, yet their cause is strong(even getting stronger).

Everybody, eh? :rolleyes: I love how you think 'Iraqis' in general all hate the US/Coalition and everything they stand for, when in actuality, the persons fighting against the new government's success are an oppressed minority.

Everything you say is obnoxious diarrhea of the mouth. Noise pollution in its purest form. Please shut up and stay that way.

 

[Goity]

I'll disagree with you all!
I love Bush, he is very witty and has helped oil companies no end. He shows that even stupid people can gain power in the amazingly free place that is america.

God bless you, America!

 

[TelcoLou]

I'm playing Final Fantasy VII on PSP, that clearly makes me the winner.

I won that trophy before you :lol: :

Uh... celebrate?

I've been celebrating ever since I got FF7 running on my PSP :lol: :lol: :lol:

... with many thanks for your help, of course