What is YOUR solution to the Iraq situation?

[Train]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: palehorse74
let's try to limit the responses to realistic and viable solutions... some of you are so blinded by your partisan hatred that problem solving and brainstorming are beyond you...

Heres a realistic solution. Rumsfeld should have paid more attention to Tommy Franks. I'd bet casualties would be about 25-50% less, and Iraq would be a lot more stable at this point than it is.

ok.. again, we've been over what has gone wrong a million times around here... the challenge here, in this thread, is to brainstorm solutions based on the situation we are given here and now... If you were placed in charge of coming up with a workable solution, where would you begin?

be realistic and try to figure out how, what, when, and where we need to go from here!... just try.

Basically Franks' plan, which is basically 100k more boots on the ground than Rummy coughed up.

The current plan is working fairly well, its just going a lot slower due to the spread of forces in Iraq. The Iraqi forces are taking over a lot of responsibilities, which is the beginning of the end state. I was only pointing out that Rumsfelds hard on for manuever warfare, while great for an invasion, its not very occupation minded.

Unfortunately partisan politics have pretty much locked in the troop strength at the 150k level.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: palehorse74
let's try to limit the responses to realistic and viable solutions... some of you are so blinded by your partisan hatred that problem solving and brainstorming are beyond you...

I am extremely upset that this post follows mine. I hope you will amend it to clarify to the forum you don't refer to me. Otherwise I will have to get violent and try to guess what you could possibly, possibly mean and by what tenuous unlikelihood it could imaginatively apply to me.

lol.. does the shoe fit?

 

[Tom]

I have no plan for the Iraq situation, and as an American I don't think I need to have one, or should have one.

I have a plan for the Americans there, bring them home.

 

[tommywishbone]

"realistic & viable" while George W Bush is in the White House? I think not. :beer:

Seriously, we need to leave. We're sort of like the arsonist that set the place on fire. As long as we're hanging around, there's going to be bad vibes and nothing is going to be accomplished. We need to leave. The sooner... the better.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Ok, the general purpose of this thread is to hear from everyone exactly what their specific ideas are to ultimately bring peace to Iraq. I see too many people attacking the current administration's plans without themselves offering a viable alternative. Sooo, here's the big test: do you have a better idea? a workable solution? If so, please let me know here! ...

I think one of our fundamental problems is we have no credibility. Most other countries don't trust us because they see us as imperialist warmongers who flout international law and refuse to cooperate with the international community. Iraqis don't trust us for much the same reason, not to mention the minor detail that we invaded and occupied their country without provocation, slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters in the process. In order to improve the Iraqi quagmire, we need help. We need more help from the international community, and we need more help from the Iraqi people. To get more help, we need to rehabilitate our credibility, to convince both Iraqis and the world that our intentions are honorable and just.

In my opinion, a critical first step to rehabilitaing America's credibility is demonstrating we recognize our mistakes and are willing to correct them. That means we need to hold the Bush administration and its lackeys accountable for their aggression, purging them from government and putting them on trial. We'll also have to show the international community we are not only willing to work with them, but are eager to do so, even if it means we no longer get to call the shots. No more profiteering for Halliburton and other BushCo cronies, but that's a small price to pay for peace. Once we can establish a true multi-national police force in Iraq, working under the command of the Iraqi government, we'll have a better chance of cooperation from the Iraqi citizenry. At a minimum, it may placate the Iraqi resistance and reduce their violence against both U.S. and Iraqi targets. It might or might not help prevent a full-blown civil war.

Palehorse?

 

[DealMonkey]

MY solution was to never invade Iraq in the first place. But did anyone listen to me? No, no they didn't. It was all Condi making nuclear explosion noises on cable news, Colin waving anthrax around in front of the UN and Georgie beating the war drums 24/7 and lying in front of Congress and the Nation in his State of the Union address. I hate to break it to ya, but "They tried to kill my daddy" was never a sensible reason to go to war.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Ok, the general purpose of this thread is to hear from everyone exactly what their specific ideas are to ultimately bring peace to Iraq. I see too many people attacking the current administration's plans without themselves offering a viable alternative. Sooo, here's the big test: do you have a better idea? a workable solution? If so, please let me know here! ...

I think one of our fundamental problems is we have no credibility. Most other countries don't trust us because they see us as imperialist warmongers who flout international law and refuse to cooperate with the international community. Iraqis don't trust us for much the same reason, not to mention the minor detail that we invaded and occupied their country without provocation, slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters in the process. In order to improve the Iraqi quagmire, we need help. We need more help from the international community, and we need more help from the Iraqi people. To get more help, we need to rehabilitate our credibility, to convince both Iraqis and the world that our intentions are honorable and just.

In my opinion, a critical first step to rehabilitaing America's credibility is demonstrating we recognize our mistakes and are willing to correct them. That means we need to hold the Bush administration and its lackeys accountable for their aggression, purging them from government and putting them on trial. We'll also have to show the international community we are not only willing to work with them, but are eager to do so, even if it means we no longer get to call the shots. No more profiteering for Halliburton and other BushCo cronies, but that's a small price to pay for peace. Once we can establish a true multi-national police force in Iraq, working under the command of the Iraqi government, we'll have a better chance of cooperation from the Iraqi citizenry. At a minimum, it may placate the Iraqi resistance and reduce their violence against both U.S. and Iraqi targets. It might or might not help prevent a full-blown civil war.

Palehorse?

yes? looking for feedback? You make some good points regarding credibility and working with the international community; however, the bolded sentences indicate that you are also good at spitting out inaccurate and inflamatory Michael Moore propoganda.... GG.

 

[maddogchen]

Learn from History. Do what the Romans did. Massacre entire insurgent cities and send the population away as slaves. It worked very well for the Romans.

So with the Sunni population decimated, they'll be easier to control. Make sure to eliminate all their leaders, even religious ones, so that they will not have anyone leading them astray.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
Learn from History. Do what the Romans did. Massacre entire insurgent cities and send the population away as slaves. It worked very well for the Romans.

So with the Sunni population decimated, they'll be easier to control. Make sure to eliminate all their leaders, even religious ones, so that they will not have anyone leading them astray.

Then when you have your uncontested Shia majority, the Iranian mullah's will pull their strings and lay down that yellow brick road all the way to Saudi Arabia. The royal family will crumble, and we'll be sent reeling economically at the instanteneous loss of crude oil probably from the entire OPEC region.

Thing is, if we could hold on to the region long enough to deplete the oil fields of Saudi Arabia and possibly Iraq we wouldn't be THE ONLY ONES left without a huka tube. Now that the situation is escalating beyond our control, we're losing our grasp of the schedule as well. It stands to reason that since we'll be forced out of the region prior to them depleting their resources they can target our economy specifically since more sympathetic powers will be allowed to continue to feed (like Russia, China, etc.)

If you look at how this will play out several steps ahead you can see that the inevitability of an Iraqi Civil War is just the tip of the ice berg; it's what follows that is freaking everyone out.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Ok, the general purpose of this thread is to hear from everyone exactly what their specific ideas are to ultimately bring peace to Iraq. I see too many people attacking the current administration's plans without themselves offering a viable alternative. Sooo, here's the big test: do you have a better idea? a workable solution? If so, please let me know here! ...

I think one of our fundamental problems is we have no credibility. Most other countries don't trust us because they see us as imperialist warmongers who flout international law and refuse to cooperate with the international community. Iraqis don't trust us for much the same reason, not to mention the minor detail that we invaded and occupied their country without provocation, slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters in the process. In order to improve the Iraqi quagmire, we need help. We need more help from the international community, and we need more help from the Iraqi people. To get more help, we need to rehabilitate our credibility, to convince both Iraqis and the world that our intentions are honorable and just.

In my opinion, a critical first step to rehabilitaing America's credibility is demonstrating we recognize our mistakes and are willing to correct them. That means we need to hold the Bush administration and its lackeys accountable for their aggression, purging them from government and putting them on trial. We'll also have to show the international community we are not only willing to work with them, but are eager to do so, even if it means we no longer get to call the shots. No more profiteering for Halliburton and other BushCo cronies, but that's a small price to pay for peace. Once we can establish a true multi-national police force in Iraq, working under the command of the Iraqi government, we'll have a better chance of cooperation from the Iraqi citizenry. At a minimum, it may placate the Iraqi resistance and reduce their violence against both U.S. and Iraqi targets. It might or might not help prevent a full-blown civil war.

Palehorse?

yes? looking for feedback? You make some good points regarding credibility and working with the international community; however, the bolded sentences indicate that you are also good at spitting out inaccurate and inflamatory Michael Moore propoganda.... GG.

How is he wrong? You can love America and still realize the facts as they are. Our invasion of Iraq was agreed upon as utterly baseless many, many moons ago. There is no argument.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: maddogchen
Learn from History. Do what the Romans did. Massacre entire insurgent cities and send the population away as slaves. It worked very well for the Romans.

So with the Sunni population decimated, they'll be easier to control. Make sure to eliminate all their leaders, even religious ones, so that they will not have anyone leading them astray.

Then when you have your uncontested Shia majority, the Iranian mullah's will pull their strings and lay down that yellow brick road all the way to Saudi Arabia. The royal family will crumble, and we'll be sent reeling economically at the instanteneous loss of crude oil probably from the entire OPEC region.

Thing is, if we could hold on to the region long enough to deplete the oil fields of Saudi Arabia and possibly Iraq we wouldn't be THE ONLY ONES left without a huka tube. Now that the situation is escalating beyond our control, we're losing our grasp of the schedule as well. It stands to reason that since we'll be forced out of the region prior to them depleting their resources they can target our economy specifically since more sympathetic powers will be allowed to continue to feed (like Russia, China, etc.)

If you look at how this will play out several steps ahead you can see that the inevitability of an Iraqi Civil War is just the tip of the ice berg; it's what follows that is freaking everyone out.

I disagree with your points. I think that the Iraqi Shiites are not as close to the Iranians as many of you would like us to think. Except for Sadr who gets his funding from Iran, many religious Iraqi Shiite leaders are suspicious of Iran's intentions. There's also deep tensions still left over from the Iran-Iraq war where many Iraqi Shiites died in. And also after fighting for so long to gain control, once you've gained power, why would you so easily let it slip from you hands and let yourselves be manipulated by others?

And I also disagree that this would lead to Saudi Arabia's downfall. I think that just like how Bush and Co. looked at how everything would go right, you're just trying to see how everything would go wrong. But it rarely works out that way.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Ok, the general purpose of this thread is to hear from everyone exactly what their specific ideas are to ultimately bring peace to Iraq. I see too many people attacking the current administration's plans without themselves offering a viable alternative. Sooo, here's the big test: do you have a better idea? a workable solution? If so, please let me know here! ...

I think one of our fundamental problems is we have no credibility. Most other countries don't trust us because they see us as imperialist warmongers who flout international law and refuse to cooperate with the international community. Iraqis don't trust us for much the same reason, not to mention the minor detail that we invaded and occupied their country without provocation, slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters in the process. In order to improve the Iraqi quagmire, we need help. We need more help from the international community, and we need more help from the Iraqi people. To get more help, we need to rehabilitate our credibility, to convince both Iraqis and the world that our intentions are honorable and just.

In my opinion, a critical first step to rehabilitaing America's credibility is demonstrating we recognize our mistakes and are willing to correct them. That means we need to hold the Bush administration and its lackeys accountable for their aggression, purging them from government and putting them on trial. We'll also have to show the international community we are not only willing to work with them, but are eager to do so, even if it means we no longer get to call the shots. No more profiteering for Halliburton and other BushCo cronies, but that's a small price to pay for peace. Once we can establish a true multi-national police force in Iraq, working under the command of the Iraqi government, we'll have a better chance of cooperation from the Iraqi citizenry. At a minimum, it may placate the Iraqi resistance and reduce their violence against both U.S. and Iraqi targets. It might or might not help prevent a full-blown civil war.

Palehorse?

yes? looking for feedback? You make some good points regarding credibility and working with the international community; however, the bolded sentences indicate that you are also good at spitting out inaccurate and inflamatory Michael Moore propoganda.... GG.

Inflammatory? Perhaps. Inaccurate? Do tell.

Re. "putting them on trial", I believe that is an essential requirement for regaining credibility. For example, let's assume Brezhnev intentionally launched a nuke at the U.S. or an ally in 1970. After the usual saber rattling, the Soviet government removed Brezhnev and claimed it was all a terrible mistake. Would that be good enough? Would we be satisified that the new Soviet government had truly changed and should be excused for the acts of its former leader, or would we insist that Brezhnev and everyone associated with the attack be tried? What if Brezhnev claimed he acted for good reasons, or based on bad intelligence? Would we take him at his word? In short, would the new Soviet government have any credibility with us if Brezhnev & Co. were not held accountable for their actions?

For the exact same reason, we need to try Bush and others in his administration for attacking Iraq.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: maddogchen
Learn from History. Do what the Romans did. Massacre entire insurgent cities and send the population away as slaves. It worked very well for the Romans.

So with the Sunni population decimated, they'll be easier to control. Make sure to eliminate all their leaders, even religious ones, so that they will not have anyone leading them astray.

Then when you have your uncontested Shia majority, the Iranian mullah's will pull their strings and lay down that yellow brick road all the way to Saudi Arabia. The royal family will crumble, and we'll be sent reeling economically at the instanteneous loss of crude oil probably from the entire OPEC region.

Thing is, if we could hold on to the region long enough to deplete the oil fields of Saudi Arabia and possibly Iraq we wouldn't be THE ONLY ONES left without a huka tube. Now that the situation is escalating beyond our control, we're losing our grasp of the schedule as well. It stands to reason that since we'll be forced out of the region prior to them depleting their resources they can target our economy specifically since more sympathetic powers will be allowed to continue to feed (like Russia, China, etc.)

If you look at how this will play out several steps ahead you can see that the inevitability of an Iraqi Civil War is just the tip of the ice berg; it's what follows that is freaking everyone out.

I disagree with your points. I think that the Iraqi Shiites are not as close to the Iranians as many of you would like us to think. Except for Sadr who gets his funding from Iran, many religious Iraqi Shiite leaders are suspicious of Iran's intentions. There's also deep tensions still left over from the Iran-Iraq war where many Iraqi Shiites died in. And also after fighting for so long to gain control, once you've gained power, why would you so easily let it slip from you hands and let yourselves be manipulated by others?

And I also disagree that this would lead to Saudi Arabia's downfall. I think that just like how Bush and Co. looked at how everything would go right, you're just trying to see how everything would go wrong. But it rarely works out that way.

Iraq is a void of viable leadership and organization. If it does come to Iraq, it will either be militaristic or theocratical in nature. Either way, it will be a bloody sectarian struggle and both sides will have outside enablers. Who do you think the Shia will defer at that point?

And by the way, if what I describe is pessimistic to you what is your more "realistic" alternative?

 

[BarneyFife]

The easiest solution would be to bring back Saddam. I was laughed at when I first said this in 2004 and it looks like my idea looks better and better with each passing second.

These people don't want democracy. Some of you need to get it through your skulls.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

with respect to Barney's suggestion, while a dictatorship is probably one of the simplest (though not wisest or perfect) ways of controlling religious tensions, releasing Saddam would be one of the unwisest things to do. Even if he wasn't harboring WMDs when we invaded, he is an evil and vicious man, and if he gets put back in power I can almost guarantee that the situation in Iraq will only get worse.

realistic and viable solutions are hard to say, and certainly not easy to do. I would start by increasing the troop levels since it is imperative to control the population, and you can only keep an eye on insurgents, patrol, and respond decisively with enough troops (though I'm not sure we'd be able to have the RAND estimate of 500k troops for a country Iraq's size). Next we'd have to rebuild the infrastructure....get schools, electricity, water, etc. Without good facilities and utilities there is no way to ensure Iraq's present and future governance. Along with the infrastructure we'd have to build up the police (I'm assuming judiciary and jails would be rebuilt under 'infrastructure').
Perhaps most difficult is diffusing the religious tensions, and at present I can't think of a viable solution. You can't really move the inhabitants to different locations, and you can't reasonably expect religious differences hundreds if not thousands of years old to go away (Ireland being an example; there's a truce or peace accord but not everyone is laying down their arms).

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
The easiest solution would be to bring back Saddam. I was laughed at when I first said this in 2004 and it looks like my idea looks better and better with each passing second.

These people don't want democracy. Some of you need to get it through your skulls.

Hehe, well, you are probably correct. However, I think the Iraq situation has deteriorated so much that even Saddam couldn't fix it, anymore.

I think Iraq is hooped for the next decade or so. No matter what anyone does Civil War or Civil Strife will continue until all sides either grow tired of it or 1 side prevails and dominates the others. In the end Iraq won't have gained anything, US relations with the Mid-East will be at an all time low, and US relations with everyone else including its' Allies will also be permanently damaged.

IMO, the damage to the US's reputation is the worst result of all. The US had the opportunity to fashion the World the way it wanted virtually unopposed and with the help of its' Allies. A few bad decisions by an extremely morally weak President and that opportunity is gone. The US has been exposed as incapable of such a position.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Inflammatory? Perhaps. Inaccurate? Do tell.

ok, for starters, we haven't "slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children..."

that's Michael Moore BS rhetoric at it's finest, so that is where you lost all of your credibility. One thing you need to know if that I am one of the troops who, according to you, commited this supposed massacre; so I take ALOT of offense to your saying so. Those bastards are killing eachother over there, so I'd appreciate it if you hold your g'damn tongue the next time you point fingers our way!

The single biggest factor that seperates us from the backwards fanatical monsters we are fighting is that we do not kill indescriminantly, and we certainly never target women and children unless they're pointing a gun at us. I think I can speak for every soldier in telling you to stick those kind of accusations straight up your arse.

So, if you wish to debate anything with me, you're going to need to lose the Michael Moore soundbites and baseless accusations.

g'day.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Inflammatory? Perhaps. Inaccurate? Do tell.

ok, for starters, we haven't "slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children..."

Of course we have. I'm sure you don't like the word "slaughter", but according to my dictionary, it's the correct word for killing a large number of people in a violent manner.

that's Michael Moore BS rhetoric at it's finest, so that is where you lost all of your credibility.

And you sniveling about Michael Moore destroys yours.

One thing you need to know if that I am one of the troops who, according to you, commited this supposed massacre; so I take ALOT of offense to your saying so.

So be offended. If you never encounter anything that offends you, you're not living in a free society.

I will point out that "massacre" is your word, not mine. I'm also quite familiar with your mighty warrior schtick. I haven't decided whether I believe it or not, but it is immaterial for the purposes of this discussion.

Those bastards are killing eachother over there, so I'd appreciate it if you hold your g'damn tongue the next time you point fingers our way!

Fortunately, if you truly are a U.S. soldier, I'm paying you to defend my right to point my fingers wherever I choose. (You know, that pesky First Amendment?) You know what's even worse? We're paying you to defend -- gasp -- Michael Moore's First Amendment rights as well.

The single biggest factor that seperates us from the backwards fanatical monsters we are fighting is that we do not kill indescriminantly, and we certainly never target women and children unless they're pointing a gun at us.

That's only half accurate, since we do intentionally target residential areas when we believe there are military targets there, even though we know full well we will kill innocents as a result. Nonetheless, I did not claim we kill "indiscriminately". That is your word, again.

I think I can speak for every soldier in telling you to stick those kind of accusations straight up your arse.

Yawn. Another e-macho e-thug. I suggest you save your kinky suggestions for Abu Ghraib. Fortunately, you don't speak for all soldiers, or even most soldiers. You only speak for yourself.

So, if you wish to debate anything with me, you're going to need to lose the Michael Moore soundbites and baseless accusations.

g'day.

Sniff, sniff, Michael Moore, sniff, sniff. Grow up. :roll:

By the way, if you wish to debate anything with me, you'll need to learn to address the things I actually said instead of all the bogus BS you insinuated I said. You've done nothing to support your allegation that my comments were inaccurate. I'll also note you completely ignored my explanation of why it is important to try this administration if we are to get our credibility back. I'll therefore assume you recognize the validity of my recommendation.

 

[Riceball]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Inflammatory? Perhaps. Inaccurate? Do tell.

ok, for starters, we haven't "slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children..."

that's Michael Moore BS rhetoric at it's finest, so that is where you lost all of your credibility. One thing you need to know if that I am one of the troops who, according to you, commited this supposed massacre; so I take ALOT of offense to your saying so. Those bastards are killing eachother over there, so I'd appreciate it if you hold your g'damn tongue the next time you point fingers our way!



The single biggest factor that seperates us from the backwards fanatical monsters we are fighting is that we do not kill indescriminantly, and we certainly never target women and children unless they're pointing a gun at us. I think I can speak for every soldier in telling you to stick those kind of accusations straight up your arse.

So, if you wish to debate anything with me, you're going to need to lose the Michael Moore soundbites and baseless accusations.

g'day.

Isn't the civilian body count in the thousands alone from the initial military invasion? Now I'm not asserting that our troops deliberately target civilians but technicaly we are repsonsible for their deaths.

 

[dahunan]

Every US politician who voted to allow the Shock and Awe campaign needs to be sent to live in Iraq.. immediately.. that will be a good first start.

 

[imported_Tango]

Let them build their own army. Build the country on a federal structure, giving an acceptable level of indipendence to Kurdish, Sciite and Sunny regions. Gradually bring the troops home.

There is no easy solution. The disaster we see today is the result of the complete lack of culture and political knowledge of the worst US administration the country ever had. You cannot go back in time. There should have been no Iraq invasion. But even if you wanted to invade Iraq, there could have been so many different ways to do so. They chose the western-movie style, and now pay the price. Instead of trying to gather some consensus in the region, the policy chosen alienated most of the polical capital the US has in the Middle East. The series of mistakes accomplished in the last 4 years is nothing short of spectacular. Some of them are very hard to recover from, and the process will take time. A lot of time.

 

[tommywishbone]

"Ok, for starters, we haven't slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent men, women & children..."


"Of course we have. I'm sure you don't like the word "slaughter", but according to my dictionary, it's the correct word for killing a large number of people in a violent manner... "

The sad nasty horrible truth. We must be insane.

Herr Bushler is laughing at the slaughter.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
"Ok, for starters, we haven't slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent men, women & children..."


"Of course we have. I'm sure you don't like the word "slaughter", but according to my dictionary, it's the correct word for killing a large number of people in a violent manner... "

The sad nasty horrible truth. We must be insane.

Herr Bushler is laughing at the slaughter.

no one ever mentions their military either..what if someone killed that many of our troops proportionally? ffs..

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
"Ok, for starters, we haven't slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent men, women & children..."


"Of course we have. I'm sure you don't like the word "slaughter", but according to my dictionary, it's the correct word for killing a large number of people in a violent manner... "

The sad nasty horrible truth. We must be insane.

Herr Bushler is laughing at the slaughter.

no one ever mentions their military either..what if someone killed that many of our troops proportionally? ffs..

Pre-emptively or After we attacked first?

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
"Ok, for starters, we haven't slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent men, women & children..."


"Of course we have. I'm sure you don't like the word "slaughter", but according to my dictionary, it's the correct word for killing a large number of people in a violent manner... "

The sad nasty horrible truth. We must be insane.

Herr Bushler is laughing at the slaughter.

no one ever mentions their military either..what if someone killed that many of our troops proportionally? ffs..

Pre-emptively or After we attacked first?

Without provocation no less.