Don't mean to start another Iraq thread but this is pretty atrocious

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: SOSTrooper

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: SOSTrooper

Originally posted by: DaZ
Why does she have 8 kids if she cant feed them?

Thats how life is in the middle east. And we're set out to bomb innocent people.

Ummm....we're going to be targeting military targets - military vehicles, military installations, military personnel....not innocent people

You actually think no innocent people will die? That's uhh, pretty funny.

There's A HUGE difference between targeting valid military objectives and having the very unfortunate side effect of innocents dying and PURPOSEFULLY targeting innocent civilians. If you think the U.S. truly does not care about avoiding civilian casualties at all costs, why the hell does our military spend countless millions of dollars on researching, developing, and producing precision-guided weapons and why the hell does Saddam favor using human shields?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
It would certainly be easier to take care of 8 children if you weren't being set on fire by soldiers.

It does help.

Maybe she shouldn't have 8 children but it has no bearing on the fact that these people set her ablaze. Come on now funny is funny but

Sorry, but you gotta stick stupid where stupid starts.

that isn't funny.

We need to remember that while things like this don't happen to us, and won't in our society there are people that are treated like this on a continual basis. Across the world people are treated like animals, though of course no animal deserves what she received. The people hate their leaders so the leaders keep in power with a cruel hand.

 

[Hoober]

Originally posted by: DurocShark
C'mon guys... In some situations, you're so poor that all you have to do is boink.

Wait, I nominate this one for stupidest post of the year.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Gee, maybe she forgot to go to the Desert Camel Apothecary next to the Starbucks when she went for her latte.

As far as these guys go, they are a waste of protoplasm.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Of course innocent people will die. Lots of them. But its all for the security of the US.

Again...

I can tell you're one of those types that no matter how things are explained, you will stick to your simple-minded one-liners and biased opinions.

War is hell...no one argues that. But to remove Saddam from power and free the Iraqi population from tyranny will have many more benefits than allowing the Iraqis to suffer decades more of torture and repression.

 

[Beau]

Originally posted by: Hoober

Originally posted by: DurocShark
C'mon guys... In some situations, you're so poor that all you have to do is boink.

Wait, I nominate this one for stupidest post of the year.

Why? It's true.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: brxndxn
Eight hungry children?

Sorry, but you gotta stick stupid where stupid starts.

OK. brxndxn=stupid.

I nominate brxndxn as Troll of the Year.

 

[Hoober]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: SOSTrooper

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: SOSTrooper

Originally posted by: DaZ
Why does she have 8 kids if she cant feed them?

Thats how life is in the middle east. And we're set out to bomb innocent people.

Ummm....we're going to be targeting military targets - military vehicles, military installations, military personnel....not innocent people

You actually think no innocent people will die? That's uhh, pretty funny.

Of course innocent people will die. Lots of them. But its all for the security of the US.

Man, you're about as sharp as a doorknob.

 

[Hoober]

Originally posted by: Beau

Originally posted by: Hoober

Originally posted by: DurocShark
C'mon guys... In some situations, you're so poor that all you have to do is boink.

Wait, I nominate this one for stupidest post of the year.

Why? It's true.

Beau, if that pretty fiance of yours ever winds up on here with Mrs. Skoorb and MTG the three of you are gonna be hurting.



And I'm gonna laugh.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: SOSTrooper

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: SOSTrooper

Originally posted by: DaZ
Why does she have 8 kids if she cant feed them?

Thats how life is in the middle east. And we're set out to bomb innocent people.

Ummm....we're going to be targeting military targets - military vehicles, military installations, military personnel....not innocent people

You actually think no innocent people will die? That's uhh, pretty funny.

There's A HUGE difference between targeting valid military objectives and having the very unfortunate side effect of innocents dying and PURPOSEFULLY targeting innocent civilians. If you think the U.S. truly does not care about avoiding civilian casualties at all costs, why the hell does our military spend countless millions of dollars on researching, developing, and producing precision-guided weapons and why the hell does Saddam favor using human shields?

But you know for a fact that thousands of Iraqis will die from our bombs. Our "shock and awe" plan will send 3000 bombs in the first 2 days of the war.
The lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are worth it though, right??

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: SOSTrooper

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: SOSTrooper

Originally posted by: DaZ
Why does she have 8 kids if she cant feed them?

Thats how life is in the middle east. And we're set out to bomb innocent people.

Ummm....we're going to be targeting military targets - military vehicles, military installations, military personnel....not innocent people

You actually think no innocent people will die? That's uhh, pretty funny.

There's A HUGE difference between targeting valid military objectives and having the very unfortunate side effect of innocents dying and PURPOSEFULLY targeting innocent civilians. If you think the U.S. truly does not care about avoiding civilian casualties at all costs, why the hell does our military spend countless millions of dollars on researching, developing, and producing precision-guided weapons and why the hell does Saddam favor using human shields?

But you know for a fact that thousands of Iraqis will die from our bombs. Our "shock and awe" plan will send 3000 bombs in the first 2 days of the war.
The lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are worth it though, right??

Well since you asked.. Yeah!

 

[StageLeft]

But you know for a fact that thousands of Iraqis will die from our bombs. Our "shock and awe" plan will send 3000 bombs in the first 2 days of the war.
The lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are worth it though, right??

That number will be significantly inflated by Saddamn using his own people as shields in and around valid military targets. If that's a reason not to attack the guy - because he uses his own people as forced human shields - well that's not a very good one. If anything it speaks volumes about his leadership and what his people have to go through from day to day.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: brxndxn
Eight hungry children?

Sorry, but you gotta stick stupid where stupid starts.

OK. brxndxn=stupid.

I nominate brxndxn as Troll of the Year.

Nope that is jahawkin and hagtard.

 

[Hoober]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: SOSTrooper

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: SOSTrooper

Originally posted by: DaZ
Why does she have 8 kids if she cant feed them?

Thats how life is in the middle east. And we're set out to bomb innocent people.

Ummm....we're going to be targeting military targets - military vehicles, military installations, military personnel....not innocent people

You actually think no innocent people will die? That's uhh, pretty funny.

There's A HUGE difference between targeting valid military objectives and having the very unfortunate side effect of innocents dying and PURPOSEFULLY targeting innocent civilians. If you think the U.S. truly does not care about avoiding civilian casualties at all costs, why the hell does our military spend countless millions of dollars on researching, developing, and producing precision-guided weapons and why the hell does Saddam favor using human shields?

But you know for a fact that thousands of Iraqis will die from our bombs. Our "shock and awe" plan will send 3000 bombs in the first 2 days of the war.
The lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are worth it though, right??

Well since you asked.. Yeah!

Think of all the other happy Iraqis when they realize that they're free. They'll have a parade!

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Of course innocent people will die. Lots of them. But its all for the security of the US.

Again...

I can tell you're one of those types that no matter how things are explained, you will stick to your simple-minded one-liners and biased opinions.

War is hell...no one argues that. But to remove Saddam from power and free the Iraqi population from tyranny will have many more benefits than allowing the Iraqis to suffer decades more of torture and repression.

Here's a list of countries that the US has bombed since WWII. You tell me how many of them are democratic nations today, and became that way as a direct result of US military action.

1. China 1945-46
2. Korea 1950-53
3. China 1950-53
4. Guatemala 1954
5. Indonesia 1958
6. Cuba 1959-60
7. Guatemala 1960
8. Congo 1964
9. Peru 1965
10. Laos 1964-73
11. Vietnam 1961-73
12. Cambodia 1969-70
13. Guatemala 1967-69
14. Grenada 1983
15. Libya 1986
16. El Salvador 1980s
17. Nicaragua 1980s
18. Panama 1989
19. Iraq 1991-2003
20. Sudan 1998
21. Yugoslavia 1999
22. Afghanistan 1998, 2001-2002

 

[Hoober]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Of course innocent people will die. Lots of them. But its all for the security of the US.

Again...

I can tell you're one of those types that no matter how things are explained, you will stick to your simple-minded one-liners and biased opinions.

War is hell...no one argues that. But to remove Saddam from power and free the Iraqi population from tyranny will have many more benefits than allowing the Iraqis to suffer decades more of torture and repression.

Here's a list of countries that the US has bombed since WWII. You tell me how many of them are democratic nations today, and became that way as a direct result of US military action.

1. China 1945-46
2. Korea 1950-53
3. China 1950-53
4. Guatemala 1954
5. Indonesia 1958
6. Cuba 1959-60
7. Guatemala 1960
8. Congo 1964
9. Peru 1965
10. Laos 1964-73
11. Vietnam 1961-73
12. Cambodia 1969-70
13. Guatemala 1967-69
14. Grenada 1983
15. Libya 1986
16. El Salvador 1980s
17. Nicaragua 1980s
18. Panama 1989
19. Iraq 1991-2003
20. Sudan 1998
21. Yugoslavia 1999
22. Afghanistan 1998, 2001-2002

Now you tell me how many of those contries the United States invaded and deposed the current regime and how many are democratic today.

I can't tell you how idiotic people on this board sound when they compare apples to oranges.

 

[Beau]

Originally posted by: Hoober

Originally posted by: Beau

Originally posted by: Hoober

Originally posted by: DurocShark
C'mon guys... In some situations, you're so poor that all you have to do is boink.

Wait, I nominate this one for stupidest post of the year.

Why? It's true.

Beau, if that pretty fiance of yours ever winds up on here with Mrs. Skoorb and MTG the three of you are gonna be hurting.



And I'm gonna laugh.

Ain't that the truth! :Q

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Of course innocent people will die. Lots of them. But its all for the security of the US.

Again...

I can tell you're one of those types that no matter how things are explained, you will stick to your simple-minded one-liners and biased opinions.

War is hell...no one argues that. But to remove Saddam from power and free the Iraqi population from tyranny will have many more benefits than allowing the Iraqis to suffer decades more of torture and repression.

Here's a list of countries that the US has bombed since WWII. You tell me how many of them are democratic nations today, and became that way as a direct result of US military action.

1. China 1945-46
2. Korea 1950-53
3. China 1950-53
4. Guatemala 1954
5. Indonesia 1958
6. Cuba 1959-60
7. Guatemala 1960
8. Congo 1964
9. Peru 1965
10. Laos 1964-73
11. Vietnam 1961-73
12. Cambodia 1969-70
13. Guatemala 1967-69
14. Grenada 1983
15. Libya 1986
16. El Salvador 1980s
17. Nicaragua 1980s
18. Panama 1989
19. Iraq 1991-2003
20. Sudan 1998
21. Yugoslavia 1999
22. Afghanistan 1998, 2001-2002

STOP

how many of those were unilateral?? how many of those were with the approval of most of the then free world?

the only way you could make your point is if you chose instances of US acting unilaterally only.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
But you know for a fact that thousands of Iraqis will die from our bombs. Our "shock and awe" plan will send 3000 bombs in the first 2 days of the war.
The lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are worth it though, right??

That was one the attack plans that have been leaked to the media. Are you positive that is the one that is going to be used? It may just be a bit of psychological warfare on our part to make the Iraqi military shake in their boots some.

Where does it say that the shock and awe plan damage assessment is hundreds of thousand of Iraqis?

How many Iraqi civilians died in the last Gulf War? 2300 according to Iraq...I imagine that was inflated some (JMO). A good portion of those occured when an Iraqi muckey-muck was spotted going into hiding in a bunker. It was unknown to our military that the Iraqi leaders also placed a couple of hundred Iraqi civilians in that same bunker.

So again, if we so devalue human life, why do we spend so much money on precision guided weaponry while Saddam uses human-shields?

 

[LH]

Most civilains that die will be human sheilds. Our missles are accurate to 1 meter. Will we hit wrong buildings purposely no. Will we hit wrong buildings accidently? Yes possible, but it would be because of old inteligence. You say thousands and thousands would die. There no way we will hit that many wrong targets. Its inevitable we will hit one or two targets on accident. But most cilivans deaths will be caused by them being human sheilds.

 

[Syringer]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Of course innocent people will die. Lots of them. But its all for the security of the US.

Again...

I can tell you're one of those types that no matter how things are explained, you will stick to your simple-minded one-liners and biased opinions.

War is hell...no one argues that. But to remove Saddam from power and free the Iraqi population from tyranny will have many more benefits than allowing the Iraqis to suffer decades more of torture and repression.

It's probably nice to think that our ultimate goal in all of this is to liberalize Iraq and make things niec for them.

If that is the case, why stop there? There's millions of people in the world that WISH they could have the luxiries that Iraq has. There are people out there that make Saddam look like an angel, and there are people that make the people of Iraq look like they belong on Cribs.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Of course innocent people will die. Lots of them. But its all for the security of the US.

Again...

I can tell you're one of those types that no matter how things are explained, you will stick to your simple-minded one-liners and biased opinions.

War is hell...no one argues that. But to remove Saddam from power and free the Iraqi population from tyranny will have many more benefits than allowing the Iraqis to suffer decades more of torture and repression.

Here's a list of countries that the US has bombed since WWII. You tell me how many of them are democratic nations today, and became that way as a direct result of US military action.

1. China 1945-46
2. Korea 1950-53
3. China 1950-53
4. Guatemala 1954
5. Indonesia 1958
6. Cuba 1959-60
7. Guatemala 1960
8. Congo 1964
9. Peru 1965
10. Laos 1964-73
11. Vietnam 1961-73
12. Cambodia 1969-70
13. Guatemala 1967-69
14. Grenada 1983
15. Libya 1986
16. El Salvador 1980s
17. Nicaragua 1980s
18. Panama 1989
19. Iraq 1991-2003
20. Sudan 1998
21. Yugoslavia 1999
22. Afghanistan 1998, 2001-2002

YOU should post your source instead of plagarizing.

http://greenthink.blogspot.com/


Take this test. It's a list of countries we have bombed or invaded since WWII.
It was compiled by historian William Blum:

1. China 1945-46
2. Korea 1950-53
3. China 1950-53
4. Guatemala 1954
5. Indonesia 1958
6. Cuba 1959-60
7. Guatemala 1960
8. Congo 1964
9. Peru 1965
10. Laos 1964-73
11. Vietnam 1961-73
12. Cambodia 1969-70
13. Guatemala 1967-69
14. Grenada 1983
15. Libya 1986
16. El Salvador 1980s
17. Nicaragua 1980s
18. Panama 1989
19. Iraq 1991-2003
20. Sudan 1998
21. Yugoslavia 1999
22. Afghanistan 1998, 2001-2002

In how many of these instances did a democratic government,
respectful of human rights, occur as a direct result?

Choose one of the following:
(a) 0
(b) 0
(c) 0
(d) 0

This quiz compliments of Vietnam Veterans Against the War,
Ben Chitty USN 65-9 VN 66-7 68 NY/VVAW

Peace Center
P.O. Box 36, San Antonio, Texas 78291

http://greenthink.blogspot.com/
http://greenthink.blogspot.com/

 

[Maverick]

This story appeals to both sides. Think about it...

a) The civilians that are already suffering and will suffer more as a result of our bombing, hence more Iraqi's being burned alive.
b) The bombing is to get rid of the regime that is causing the suffering of the civilians therefore taking away soldiers that set Iraqi's on fire.

I guess I can see how the bombing could be a necessary evil. But the fact of the matter is...sh!t like this happens all over the world...why we're focusing on Iraq in particular is mainly because we want their oil. Its just that our leaders are using the pretense of "weapons of mass destruction" to drum up support.

 

[Wheezer]

What the hell is wrong with you people?

A woman just trying to get along in life dealing the cards she was delt was set on FVCING FIRE!!!

And all you can come up with is "why does she have 8 kids?"

Or "yeah these poor people are the ones we are going to bomb"

Not any of you anti war idiots has made a statement that I have read that cricizes the soldiers that did this.

All you know how to do is bring your political views into the picture and state once again how you disagre with Bush. It truly shows what inconciderate morons you really are. Nothing else matters except getting your views across, and making sure that your rights to free speech are exercised.

How utterly pathetic.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: LH
Most civilains that die will be human sheilds. Our missles are accurate to 1 meter. Will we hit wrong buildings purposely no. Will we hit wrong buildings accidently? Yes possible, but it would be because of old inteligence. You say thousands and thousands would die. There no way we will hit that many wrong targets. Its inevitable we will hit one or two targets on accident. But most cilivans deaths will be caused by them being human sheilds.

So if I drop a bomb precisely through a window of one room, it wont affect another room or building? Think downtown Chicago. If you decide to bomb it how are you going to have the explosions selectively avoid civilians?