Leave Bush Alone

[djxeno]

Originally posted by mr mahs

Did we carpet bomb Iraq?

Don't you agree with the might of the U.S anad Britain military, Iraq could have been turned into a parking lot?

Anyone ever taken by Sadam never returned, big difference...

well we did carpet bomb them to some extent with shock and awe and cluster bombs. but we had to be careful not to destroy the oil infrastructure because we needed that later once we woud have control over the country.

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by djxeno

well we did carpet bomb them to some extent with shock and awe and cluster bombs. but we had to be careful not to destroy the oil infrastructure because we needed that later once we woud have control over the country.

HUH?

Shock and Awe? where were you in March a K hole? Didn't you see the palaces on fire and traffic in the streets of Bahgdad? Check your history books jack, what the Germans did in England in WWII was capret bombing.... We picked and chose what to hit granted there were some mistakes but it could have been 100x worst...

Oh and the only thing that will limit the financial burdon to all of us is that black gold in the ground of Iraq... This argument has already been dismantled before...

[marksimons]

cluster bombs are fucking evil.

they're useful in worms, but then that is a videogame.

--

Each 1,000-pound cluster bomb contains between 200 and 300 "bomblets" -- canisters that can explode into hundreds of fragments over an area the size of several football fields.

According to Myers, U.S. warplanes dropped 1,500 cluster bombs in Iraq, 26 of them within 1,500 feet of civilian neighborhoods. Britain's Ministry of Defense said the British army fired by artillery or rocket launchers more than 2,000 cluster munitions and dropped 66 cluster bombs around Basra.

U.S. troops have reportedly removed about 600 unexploded bomblets from the Baghdad neighborhood of Doura. But unexploded cluster bombs still litter cities such as Najaf, and their existence has become another source of resentment felt by Iraqis toward the occupying U.S. forces.

Pentagon spokesman Air Force Maj. Jay Steuck says cluster bombs were used because they are especially effective in destroying airfields, tanks and enemy convoys. He added that the bomblets, which fail to explode upon impact between 5 percent and 20 percent of the time, cause less physical destruction than many bombs.

---

I believe unexploded cluster bombs have killed about 1000 iraqis, and probably been the cause of many injuries as the brightly coloured tubes are like magnets for kids - I mean how the fuck is a kid supposed to know what a cluster bomb looks like - and like landmines you end up with people missing feet, legs, hands arms..

I've seen an estimate of 200 hundred million lbs of explosives have been dropped on iraq in this war.

800 tommahawk cruise missiles were used - I think I remember hearing about one ending up in turkey?

yes I did:

"Two Tomahawk cruise missiles misfired, landing in an unpopulated area in the republic of Turkey. There were no reported injuries," the official said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,921423,00.html

smart missiles indeed.

during the opening few weeks of the war there were about 10,000 'dumb' bombs dropped and about 20,000 'smart' munitions, in addition to the cruise missiles and cluster bombs.

some bombs go up to 500 lbs.

if that hits an urban area it doesn't matter if it's carpet bombed or not.

oh and is this a co-incidence?

Tons of depleted uranium left in Iraq and Kuwait after the 1991 Gulf War: 40.

Percentage increase in cancer rates in Iraq between 1991 and 1994: 700.

http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=1917&CategoryId=4

you gotta wonder...

however, it's not just bombing that kills civilians, the main risk now is from incidents involving bullets on the ground. Just go to www.iraqibodycount.net and see the numbers of civilians caught in crossfire and killed at checkpoints.

[igloo]

marksimons and djexno...you are so misguided on this discussion it is ridiculous, and like mr mahs said--your stance has already been dismantled...in debate and in reality. It is tired, boring, and misguided.

I would like to attend this debate now.

You win. Saddam Hussein should have stayed in power. Iraqis and the world were better off with him still in power.

At the end of the day, that is what all your bullshit amounts to.

[djxeno]

Originally posted by mr mahs

HUH?

Shock and Awe? where were you in March a K hole? Didn't you see the palaces on fire and traffic in the streets of Bahgdad? Check your history books jack, what the Germans did in England in WWII was capret bombing.... We picked and chose what to hit granted there were some mistakes but it could have been 100x worst...

Oh and the only thing that will limit the financial burdon to all of us is that black gold in the ground of Iraq... This argument has already been dismantled before...

Let me ask you something, since you believe that we care about the iraqi civilians then what was the purpose of shook and awe and of cluster bombs?

please explain.

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by djxeno

Let me ask you something, since you believe that we care about the iraqi civilians then what was the purpose of shook and awe and of cluster bombs?

please explain.

It was a tactic used to persuade the iraqi's to defect and abandon their posts... It didn't work as planned but it definitly didn't target civilians..... it wasn't relentless bombing we picked and chose what to hit and when...

Think about what you are saying and how bad it could have been...

[djxeno]

Originally posted by mr mahs

It was a tactic used to persuade the iraqi's to defect and abandon their posts... It didn't work as planned but it definitly didn't target civilians..... it wasn't relentless bombing we picked and chose what to hit and when...

Think about what you are saying and how bad it could have been...

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[igloo]

Originally posted by mr mahs

It was a tactic used to persuade the iraqi's to defect and abandon their posts... It didn't work as planned but it definitly didn't target civilians..... it wasn't relentless bombing we picked and chose what to hit and when...

Think about what you are saying and how bad it could have been...

Like I said before,

marksimons and djexno...you are so misguided on this discussion it is ridiculous, and like mr mahs said--your stance has already been dismantled...in debate and in reality. It is tired, boring, and misguided.

I would like to attend this debate now.

You win. Saddam Hussein should have stayed in power. Iraqis and the world were better off with him still in power.

And the United States used 'shock and awe" and cluster bombs because the U.S. wanted to kill as many civilians as possible.

At the end of the day, that is what all your bullshit amounts to.

mr mahs...they are an absolute joke

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by djxeno

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

You're Lost Sadam!

[marksimons]

you misunderstand my whole stance on the war, how it was faught and why it was faught...

do you know how American special forces killed Pablo Escobar?

I would argue this.

if getting rid of saddam for humanitarian grounds was so important, then why not just kill him, assasinate him? support those groups in iraq who wanted to off him.

if we're looking to history, why the fuck did George Bush sr tell the iraqi's to rise up, then leave them to get beat down and fill a mass grave? well?

america has occupied iraq.

occupying iraq never works, just like occupying afghanistan never works...

putting a western army in iraq was never going to promote stability, especially an army led by a man who seems to feel he was appointed by god, and has used the word crusade.

now, just because the crusades were in the 12th century, and well before america was founded, doesn't mean they're not relevant here.

it's just part of the history, that the iraqis, and people in that region know about.

they have learned to be suspicious of western powers, mainly because western powers do things like, well, helping put people like saddam and the sha of iran in place.

if the war was about WMD then why not let the weapons inspectors have more time? the american inspectors have now had more time than the UN ones and found nothing.

if this war was about getting rid of saddam, then why not just send in assasins?

why occupy the country?

why when bagdhad was getting looted did american forces not guard a museum which housed some of the treasures of human kind, but rather guard the oil ministry.

why were the oilfields some of the first places occupied.

why are there executive orders giving immunity to oil companies...

this war could have been faught in many other ways, troops could have been better trained, if the reasons for the war were not lies, and your leaders had said:

"well saddam has been there long enough, we want to put a multi-national force together to remove saddam from power and let the iraqi people be in control of their own destiny" fair doos, we'll go along with that.

but.

that's not what happend.

don't try and re-write fucking history.

this war was about WMDs and the security of america, and part of the war on terror.

saddam was implied to have links to 9/11, which are as yet unfounded, yet I believe that around 70% or some stupidly high figure of americans believe he had something to do with those attacks.

does the white house set people straight on this? of course not because it's exactly what they fucking want.

bush represents, he represents everything that is reprehensible in this corrupt capitalist world of ours.

you guys believe the cold war was a right and just war.

I believe that it was started by the british, because our upper classes were shit scared of communists, becuase they knew how much they fucked over the working classes in britian.

churchil wanted attacks against working class areas of germany, not the upper classes.

the cold war was started because the american upper classes, which by default are rich, given the lack traditional bloodlines and the such, they were scared of communism.

the bullshit about world revolution missed the fact that after WWII russia was fucked.

you guys don't think that vietnam was a crime against humanity, I believe that, well, it was something along those lines.

over a million civilians dead? why? because a rather small country in the far east elected leaders who wanted to help the working classes.

america has had a hand in repression all over the world, and has many times covered up selfish acts with the fig leaf of 'democracy' and 'free trade'.

well fuck. that.

we have the tools, we have the information, we have the truth on our side.

you gloss over the fact that bush has said, on numerous ocassions that America, and it seems America alone, has the RIGHT to pre-emptively attack ANYONE who is a 'potential' threat.

read the PNAC website, they want america's power to be unchallenged.

new nuclear programs have been discussed.

you are fighting a 'war' that is open ended and may in fact never be won.

how the fuck do you tell when you have destroyed terroism.

is it even possible to destroy terroism by force? looking at israel I'd say no.

then we find out that israel is offering advice and training to the US army on how to occupy iraq.

whooop de fucking do that makes me feel reassured about the future of that country.

capitalism and globalisation are not inherently evil or malicious things, but they are part of the problem with todays world.

this situation in iraq and iran over the past 50 years is the making of the western world. our leaders past helped in the repression of some of the smartest peoples in the world.

our leaders turned a blind eye to saddam when he committed war crimes, because he was on the right side.

this is what really fucking pisses me off, the sanctamonious preaching of bush when, his secretary of defence did deals with saddam. that smug grin of a rich boy who never worked for anything in his life, who is sending poor kids out to die for his, well, other people's wealth.

marx argued that war is an inevitable product of capitalist society, I'm inclined to agree.

capitalism, religion, the media. it's fucked up. jesus' church was bastardised by Saint Paul, he was the first modern christian. preaching one thing, doing another, preaching that he was appointed by god, that what he says was the word of god, that he was appointed by Christ himself when he had never even met the man. He invented the pagan style communion still used in the catholic church, he added the phrase 'do this in memory of me'

our world is as corrupt as it was 2000 years ago, it's just that we have guns now, and nuclear and chemical weapons.

we need to come up with ways of stopping war.

I believe we could do a great deal to solve conflicts around the world peacefully, do you guys think we can?

I don't think it's naieve, we may well need crack teams of soldiers who can be sent to places, we need trained police who can operate in dangerous areas, but be mindful of respecting the local civilians.

I believe we could do all this through a united nations which is given the repsect it deserves.

remember that the league of nations, the precursor to the UN, was an American idea.

[djxeno]