Victory in Iraq is OURS!!!

Ah. I see. spamming.

Quote:

Now, do you deny that Saddam Hussein deliberately tried to cause as many deaths as possible, regardless of age, gender, or guilt for anything in Halabja?

Nope not as "many deaths as possible" he only killed his enemy, just as Bush is trying to do, he's on trial, and now its Bush's turn.

Its hard to distinguish between the two...

We ALL know that OUR God can beat up THEIR God. This is why we must makes them all Christians and Republicans.

Is this the end of the fantasy of Iraq becoming a united democratic nation. If only the Morons in this administration had any inkling of the history and people of that nation they would have known better.

I guess those women and children were Hussein's enemies, then. Hard to distinguish between them except for the obviously trivial fact that one targets combatants with some accidental harm to civilans, as in every war in history, and the other specifically targets noncombatants including children.

Zippo
It is time to stop the crap. Granted Bush should never have started the war and therefore we should never have been in this position.

the enemy does not wear uniforms and hides among the populance.

Is this the end of the fantasy of Iraq becoming a united democratic nation. If only the Morons in this administration had any inkling of the history and people of that nation they would have known better.

n a 1996 Frontline Special on The Gulf War General Norman Schwarzkoph spoke these prophetic words.

Gen. NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF: On the question of going to Baghdad_ if you remember the Vietnam war, we had no international legitimacy for what we did. As a result, we, first of all, lost the battle in world public opinion. Eventually, we lost the battle at home.

In the Gulf war, we had great international legitimacy in the form of eight United Nations resolutions, every one of which said, "Kick Iraq out of Kuwait." Did not say one word about going into Iraq, taking Baghdad, conquering the whole country and- and hanging Saddam Hussein. That's point number one.

Point number two- had we gone on to Baghdad, I don't believe the French would have gone and I'm quite sure that the Arab coalition would not have gone. The coalition would have ruptured and the only people that would have gone would have been the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

And, oh, by the way, I think we'd still be there. We'd be like a dinosaur in a tar pit. We could not have gotten out and we'd still be the occupying power and we'd be paying 100 percent of all the costs to administer all of Iraq.

In his memoir, "A World Transformed," published in late 1998, George Bush Sr. wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War.

"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... There was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

Asked by Woodward, an assistant managing editor at the Washington Post, if he had ever consulted the former president before ordering the invasion of Iraq, Bush replied that "he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength; there is a higher father that I appeal to."

InfraBlue wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

He gassed his own people!!!

Yes. To be more specific, he gassed his own people that were in league with that other person of the triumvirate axishead of evil, IRAN.

For its part, the US would rather MOAB these people instead.

I guess one can argue that MOABING is better than GASSING.

He intentionally killed everyone in an entire town, including women and children - not by mistake, but by design. We never kill non-combatants on purpose. I guess the babies were in league with Iran too, right?

MOABs do not distinguish between those that are in league with Iran, and their children.

Pathetically, you see no distinction between Hussein intentionally killing every living thing in a town, and us killing some civilians by mistake as has occurred in every war since the dawn of time.

I guess one can argue that MOABING is better than GASSING.

. . . one targets combatants with some accidental harm to civilans . . .

Is this the end of the fantasy of Iraq becoming a united democratic nation. If only the Morons in this administration had any inkling of the history and people of that nation they would have known better.

Brandon9000

Quote:

I guess those women and children were Hussein's enemies, then. Hard to distinguish between them except for the obviously trivial fact that one targets combatants with some accidental harm to civilans, as in every war in history, and the other specifically targets noncombatants including children.

Bush call's it 'Collateral Damage' why can't Hussein use that term ?

Brandon9000 wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

He gassed his own people!!!

Yes. To be more specific, he gassed his own people that were in league with that other person of the triumvirate axishead of evil, IRAN.

For its part, the US would rather MOAB these people instead.

I guess one can argue that MOABING is better than GASSING.

He intentionally killed everyone in an entire town, including women and children - not by mistake, but by design. We never kill non-combatants on purpose. I guess the babies were in league with Iran too, right?

MOABs do not distinguish between those that are in league with Iran, and their children.

Pathetically, you see no distinction between Hussein intentionally killing every living thing in a town, and us killing some civilians by mistake as has occurred in every war since the dawn of time.

Pathetically, to further your rhetoric you ignored the concession I made when I had written:

Quote:

I guess one can argue that MOABING is better than GASSING.

Brandon wrote:

. . . one targets combatants with some accidental harm to civilans . . .

"Some accidental harm"--now there's a euphemism for you!-- to civilians wouldn't occur if one didn't target combatants among civilians in the first place. Harm to civilians is a secondary or tertiary concern to the US and coalition forces. The US and the coalition forces will target combatants regardless of whether there are civilians around. Heck, they'll even target presumed combatants, or even civilian areas that presumably have combatants, or presumed combatants. An entire apartment building was MOABed because it was presumed that Saddam was hiding out there during the early part of the invasion. Public buildings are regularly MOABed because it is presumed that combatants, or presumed combatants are located there, and civilians are KILLED. That is part and parcel of this war, however, and this war wasn't accidental; it was deliberately waged. Saying "some accidental harm" occurs to civilians in this war is a lot like saying that this war was waged accidentally.