povertystruck
Member
well said
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
How is Bush resposible for this?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
HombrePequeno
Diamond Member
Iraqi civilians are different from the Iraqi government. We went there to take out the government. We didn't go around purposely targeting civilians.
I really don't have a problem with "murdering" soldiers who are defending somebody like Saddam Hussen.
Find me an Iraqi that doesn't think Saddam was a brutal dictator, one that hasn't been paid off by Saddam. Iraqis tried to do something about Saddam's regime back in '91 but got slaughtered (b/c they had no outside support). Iraq broke the ceasefire so we decided to resume the conflict.
Freedom of the press. The ability to express themselves without fear of Saddam's torture chambers. A very good chance at a democratic country and ruling themselves if the foreign extremists will let them. Open markets and foreign investment will come soon.
The infrastrucure is improving and will continue to improve.
Why don't you blame the foreign terrorists for the trouble they are causing or can you only blame America?
What would the Iraqi's have if Saddam was still in power? Fear, repression, torture, sanctions and the prospect of his son taking over when Saddam died?
LoL - Our miltary impossed a anti-American ban on speeches and rallies in Iraq a while back ago. Do really think they are all Saddam loyalist or foriegners when you have trigger happy soldiers ( whose job should not be policing people in the first place ! ) shooting Iraqi's left and right ?
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/061203_nw_activityban.html
HombrePequeno
Diamond Member
I think those 14 resolutions that they also broke were kind of the last straw.
povertystruck
Member
quote by etech, 'Why don't you blame the foreign terrorists for the trouble they are causing or can you only blame America?'
Because it is so easy.
Here a clip from an article from the web:
The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.
quote by 'HombrePequeno'
Iraqis tried to do something about Saddam's regime back in '91 but got slaughtered (b/c they had no outside support). Iraq broke the ceasefire so we decided to resume the conflict.
They did not have physical outside support, but they did have verbal. Bush senior wanted them to uprise, but than changed his mind to help them, after of course death was being dealt. How was death being dealt? The U.S. let iraqi republican guard enter Iraq in their tanks(seriously) the shia uprising in the south was killed easily. Can't forget about the Kurds, helicopters were allowed to enter Iraq(under the excuse that bridges were blown), Kurds fleeing Into the mountains were watched by U.S. fighter planes and of course the iraqi helicopters(who were gunning them down).
How long did the massacre last under the eye of father Bush? Two weeks, and Saddam was back in control.
Because it is so easy.
Here a clip from an article from the web:
The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.
quote by 'HombrePequeno'
Iraqis tried to do something about Saddam's regime back in '91 but got slaughtered (b/c they had no outside support). Iraq broke the ceasefire so we decided to resume the conflict.
They did not have physical outside support, but they did have verbal. Bush senior wanted them to uprise, but than changed his mind to help them, after of course death was being dealt. How was death being dealt? The U.S. let iraqi republican guard enter Iraq in their tanks(seriously) the shia uprising in the south was killed easily. Can't forget about the Kurds, helicopters were allowed to enter Iraq(under the excuse that bridges were blown), Kurds fleeing Into the mountains were watched by U.S. fighter planes and of course the iraqi helicopters(who were gunning them down).
How long did the massacre last under the eye of father Bush? Two weeks, and Saddam was back in control.
HombrePequeno
Diamond Member
Bush was a dumbass for running his mouth off telling Iraqis to rise up and overthrow Saddam. But the UN should have let us finish the job we started.
You really think you can take out a government without taking civilian casualties in a war? And you really think bullets and missiles got eyes and only target people in the "government"? And you really think Bush Admin didn't know civilian casualties was gonna be part of the war?
And you can tell if a soldier is defending Hussien or defending their country from foreign invader? Or you think they should just lay down their weapon and trust American coming into their country, install a new government for them, make their life heaven and leave?
Hussein represented the sunni Muslims, even though they are minority, they are at least 20% of the Iraqi population or 4~5 million strong. You will be surprised how many people supported him, and maybe that's why he was able to control the country for more than 20 years?
Are you another UN wanna be? Who give you the power to resume the conflict?
Sure, Iraqi people will forget all about the conflicts between sunni and shiite Muslim, conflicts between Kurds and Iraqis, and conflicts between Iraq and Iran and killing will never happen again. Or American will be there to protect them until eternity.
Sure the infrastructure will improve, as long as Bush Admin throws billion and billion of our hard earn money at it. Oh and let's hope the terrorist don't blow them up and we have to throw billions and billions more.
Importance difference, I do not blame America but I do blame Bush Admin for the mess in Iraq. It is their initial decision that created this mess. It is their lack of planning that created this mess. It is their lack of capability that created this mess.
Iraqis would still have job, food on the table, and electricity in 120F summer. Maybe, just maybe they value those more than western style democracy?
HombrePequeno
Diamond Member
rchiu:
Of course there are going to be civilian casualties during a war. The way you worded it though, sounded like you were saying that we were purposely targeting those civilians. It sucks that several thousand civilians died but how many more would have died had Saddam stayed in power and the sanctions stayed in place?
The majority of Iraqi military did lay down their weapons and surrender to us. Most of the ones remaining were there to defend Saddam and his regime.
Saddam DID NOT represent the Sunni Muslims in Iraq. Hell he only started being religious after Desert Storm. Most saw Saddam for what he really was. I will be surprised how many supported him? Show me some numbers. He stayed in power by using Stalinist tactics.
The UN wasn't really doing its job enforcing its rules. Iraq violated its obligations so it faced the serious consequences talked about in Resolution 1441.
Of course there are going to be civilian casualties during a war. The way you worded it though, sounded like you were saying that we were purposely targeting those civilians. It sucks that several thousand civilians died but how many more would have died had Saddam stayed in power and the sanctions stayed in place?
The majority of Iraqi military did lay down their weapons and surrender to us. Most of the ones remaining were there to defend Saddam and his regime.
Saddam DID NOT represent the Sunni Muslims in Iraq. Hell he only started being religious after Desert Storm. Most saw Saddam for what he really was. I will be surprised how many supported him? Show me some numbers. He stayed in power by using Stalinist tactics.
The UN wasn't really doing its job enforcing its rules. Iraq violated its obligations so it faced the serious consequences talked about in Resolution 1441.
Right, etech. It's the same thing in india too. The hindus slaughter hundreds of thousands of muslims and not a peep from the arab world. But let israel kill one known TERRORIST leader and the entire arab world and their pinko western apologists gets their panties in a notch. Talk about hyprocisy.
Because pu$$y clinton was in office and he was too afraid to go to war.
HombrePequeno
Diamond Member
It was understood by most of the Security Council that 'serious consequences' meant war. I believe even France understood that. What else could it have meant? Sanctions? Those were kind of already in place.
It probably didn't say the word war because it was written by a politician. They say things without actually saying them so they have their asses covered if something gets screwed up.
It was understood by most of the Security Council that 'serious consequences' meant war. I believe even France understood that. What else could it have meant? Sanctions? Those were kind of already in place.
They understood it meant war? Then why were we considering going back to the SC for another resolution (until we realized that it would be vetoed)? After all, 1441 already said 'serious consequences'...why bother going back? Was there anything written that said everyone understood what 'serious consequences' meant? (There must've been, otherwise you wouldn't make such claims, correct?)
Dari - If the reason that we went to war was because we got Bush in office, that negates the 'last straw' theory, right?
They understood it meant war? Then why were we considering going back to the SC for another resolution (until we realized that it would be vetoed)? After all, 1441 already said 'serious consequences'...why bother going back? Was there anything written that said everyone understood what 'serious consequences' meant? (There must've been, otherwise you wouldn't make such claims, correct?)
Dari - If the reason that we went to war was because we got Bush in office, that negates the 'last straw' theory, right?
Like I said many times before, clinton should've put hussein out of commission after the first UN resolution protesting his refusal to abide by the ceasefire. Aside from the limitless opportunities a friendly iraq would bring to the US, and aside from how 9/11 changed our perspective of the world, Bush simply got tired of that asshole's games. He had his final chance and blew it. The game was effectively over on 9/12/2001.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
No - the games were over after 9/11. It was time to put up or shut-up. He(saddam) chose to be shut-up.
CkG
Who said anything about shiites and kurds? I don't give a phuck about them. Bush senior backed out on his promise to help those people because of what a leaderless iraq would do to the region. Take into consideration that iran had just finished a 10 year war with iraq, they would've had a tremendous influence in that country. Bush backed off so that iraq could stay intact. Bad for the shiites and kurds, but good for the region at that time.
But instead of banking on bush's goodwill, hussein flaunted it and tried to take advantage of the inter-warring years. He only fooled himself into thinking that we'd forget how dangerous he is and we'd renounce the sanctions so that his people can live a better life. But hussein's greatest mistake was not trying to make amends with the new Bush administration. Instead, he continue to keep the UN out of iraq and remained hostile. What an idiot.
Sadly, hussein forgot the lesson that the relatively smart iranians taught the world in 1980-1981. When a new, more conservative, administration came to power, reach an agreement to resolve an outstanding issue. Hussein did the opposite and look at where he is today.
povertystruck
Member
I don't think attacking Iraq has made the U.S. safer. Bush is asking for more terrorist attacks.
My opinion is that North Korea was and is the biggest threat to peace. North Korea can hit hit parts of the U.S. North Korea has all the WMD that Iraq had plus most likely nukes (nukes + long range missles=blackmail blackmail=funds or things of value which = continuation of the regime). Their convential army is impressive(1million+ soldiers, reservists, an artillery force that can level Seoul, etc. etc...........I forget the rest.
Well its obvious that the U.S. did not strike North Korea, for fear of a nuclear strike. So instead America attacks a 'soft target', for advertising purposes of Bush and military, oil, and perhaps a little influence from........
Remember Iraq could barely hit Israel, but North Korea can hit the U.S.A.
My opinion is that North Korea was and is the biggest threat to peace. North Korea can hit hit parts of the U.S. North Korea has all the WMD that Iraq had plus most likely nukes (nukes + long range missles=blackmail blackmail=funds or things of value which = continuation of the regime). Their convential army is impressive(1million+ soldiers, reservists, an artillery force that can level Seoul, etc. etc...........I forget the rest.
Well its obvious that the U.S. did not strike North Korea, for fear of a nuclear strike. So instead America attacks a 'soft target', for advertising purposes of Bush and military, oil, and perhaps a little influence from........
Remember Iraq could barely hit Israel, but North Korea can hit the U.S.A.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
Yeah right, looking like cowardly back stabbing bitches was good for us! It came back to bite us on the ass when the coalition of a few held siege to Basra for 3 weeks. We were expecting Basra to fall immediately but the Shittes remembered the first Bushes cowardly renege on his promises and decided not to put their necks on the line for that Mofo's son!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
