12 US soldiers lost for the 4 civilians killed by Iraqis....

[Spoonman]

Apparently, in an attempt to bring in the ones responsible for that civilian massacre that happened not too long go....12 soldiers lost their lives for nothing....

Thoughts?

 

[aria]

Well, from what I've been reading (not really in too much depth) over the days since the mutilation killings, the basic sequence of events was:

- 4 private security people killed (the mutilations)

- US decides during the televised mutilations to not intervene (or else provoke a very large and angry mob)

- The US decides to close off Fallujah until it can marshall the forces to go in and bring in those responisible (cutting the city off from everything)

- The US goes into Fallujah in a major way, hoping to get those responsible for the mutilation-killings. This is resulting in large casualities on both sides because the Sunni Iraqis in Fallujah are pissed and its likely house-to-house fighting (that and they likely had 24 hours alone while the city was closed off to plant bombs and things for the US forces)

- Meanwhile, there's another very large problem brewing in the Shiite areas (remember, Fallujah is a part of the 'Sunni Triangle', they're the rival sect to the Shiite and enemies). Now the US is facing two very different pockets of unrest. The quick chronology to that problem is (1) last week US closes down radical Shiite newspaper, sparking massive protests, (2) US arrests some lieutenants of a radical mullah, sparking actual riots (3) the riots are getting even more intense and wide spread as the US issues an arrest warrent for this mullah -now its no longer about his adherents, but regular Iraqis who think he's a symbol of US oppression of Iraqi faith, culture, and leaders (yes, it doesn't make total sense, but it was inevitable in an undereducated society).

Good times, good times all around. Still, the US has been wise to make sure to keep those two sides away from each other, otherwise they'd probably spark a civil war that would destroy all the new stuff you, the American tax-payer, have paid to put in.

 

[Spoonman]

Well, from what I've been reading (not really in too much depth) over the days since the mutilation killings, the basic sequence of events was:

- 4 private security people killed (the mutilations)

- US decides during the televised mutilations to not intervene (or else provoke a very large and angry mob)

- The US decides to close off Fallujah until it can marshall the forces to go in and bring in those responisible (cutting the city off from everything)

- The US goes into Fallujah in a major way, hoping to get those responsible for the mutilation-killings. This is resulting in large casualities on both sides because the Sunni Iraqis in Fallujah are pissed and its likely house-to-house fighting (that and they likely had 24 hours alone while the city was closed off to plant bombs and things for the US forces)

- Meanwhile, there's another very large problem brewing in the Shiite areas (remember, Fallujah is a part of the 'Sunni Triangle', they're the rival sect to the Shiite and enemies). Now the US is facing two very different pockets of unrest. The quick chronology to that problem is (1) last week US closes down radical Shiite newspaper, sparking massive protests, (2) US arrests some lieutenants of a radical mullah, sparking actual riots (3) the riots are getting even more intense and wide spread as the US issues an arrest warrent for this mullah -now its no longer about his adherents, but regular Iraqis who think he's a symbol of US oppression of Iraqi faith, culture, and leaders (yes, it doesn't make total sense, but it was inevitable in an undereducated society).

Good times, good times all around. Still, the US has been wise to make sure to keep those two sides away from each other, otherwise they'd probably spark a civil war that would destroy all the new stuff you, the American tax-payer, have paid to put in.

...shit.

 

[Lovecraft0110]

...shit.

My thoughts exactly. The funny things about this post war scenario are that:

1. I always said this would be the necessary outcome of Bush's idiotic war. Not only me, but most discerning and objective commentators saw it coming as well. Partisanism sometimes blinds people to the obvious truth at hand. Hell, I have yet to see one fucking American conservative speak against the war. People no longer have opinions of their own, methinks.

2. This war, just as I had foreseen, has done nothing to weaken Al Qaeda or indeed Islamic terrorism at large. The REAL promoters of terrorism in the Middle East are to be found in one of the supposed allies of the US: Saudi Arabia. It's Saudi Arabia, and not Iraq, who funds the myriad of extremist shiite schools found all throughout the world. These schools are the breeding grounds where future terrorists are educated and trained. There are thousands of these schools in the Middle East, many in Africa, and surprise, surprise! even some in Spain itself.

3. The only thing that kept Shiite extremists in check in Iraq was Sadam Hussein's dictatorship, whether you like it or not. By depriving the country of this unholy, evil, satanic dictator, you have effectively put it in the hands of islamic terrorism, period. I am sure Al Qaeda is laughing off its ass at the moment.

How can people be so ignorant? Sometimes I think that the western world does indeed deserve this sort of thing. American and Europe seem to be breeding passive, sheep-like idiots all the time.

Edit: third point added to the argument.

 

[Spoonman]

Oh nevermind it was 19 soldiers, within 24 hours....

And Lovecraft0110 they're not all sheep....there's Bobak!

Check this article and tell me why no one votes for Buchannan...

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=2168

 

[PleaseKillMeNow]

This war is making me sad, I'm probably gonna start wearing a black arm band soon.

(And to think, when this war began, I had some conservative views and was all like "Yeah, fuck Saddam! He's the weapon!". Shit. It seems that Iraq was much more at a state of peace back then compared to now. I still wanna get a copy of the book he wrote.)

 

[galfordo]

It seems that Iraq was much more at a state of peace back then compared to now.

Yeah, they probably were. Of course it took occasional mass murder, the eradication of any semblance of freedom or opinion, and the occasional unruly customer being thrown into a wood chipper while still alive - but you know, that's no big deal I guess. As long as we could maintain that kind of "peace", I guess it makes no difference to some people .

 

[PleaseKillMeNow]

Yeah, they probably were. Of course it took occasional mass murder, the eradication of any semblance of freedom or opinion, and the occasional unruly customer being thrown into a wood chipper while still alive - but you know, that's no big deal I guess. As long as we could maintain that kind of "peace", I guess it makes no difference to some people .

I blame the media. They atleast created the illusion of a "peaceful" state. As long as an American isn't involved, it's not worth reporting.

(Sort of unrelated)

The Taliban destroyed priceless statues of Buddha. Do we hear much on such an outrage? No. But once word gets out that bin Laden MAY be over there, we get 24 hours of Geraldo coverage.

 

[galfordo]

I blame the media. They atleast created the illusion of a "peaceful" state. As long as an American isn't involved, it's not worth reporting.

(Sort of unrelated)

The Taliban destroyed priceless statues of Buddha. Do we hear much on such an outrage? No. But once word gets out that bin Laden MAY be over there, we get 24 hours of Geraldo coverage.

Actually Geraldo did a special on that stuff a couple of months back. Of course it didn't get much airtime because it cast the actions in Afghanistan in a positive light, and touted our accomplishments there. If the "evil and oppressive" US isn't getting black eyes somewhere, don't expect the news teams to report it.

 

[Spoonman]

....If the "evil and oppressive" US isn't getting black eyes somewhere, don't expect the news teams to report it.

Could it be? a "bleeding heart" conservative?!

Holy shit....I've seen it all, now.

 

[galfordo]

Could it be? a "bleeding heart" conservative?!

Holy shit....I've seen it all, now.

I'm not sure what about that makes me a bleeding heart - but calling me that in a general sense is definitely a bit of a stretch. I'm just shitting on the media dude, dont call Guiness just yet

 

[Mike Shagohod]

..."You already know what I'd say within my post so I'll just let the pics speak for me."

MERCENARY X99

 

[Lovecraft0110]

(And to think, when this war began, I had some conservative views and was all like "Yeah, fuck Saddam! He's the weapon!". Shit. It seems that Iraq was much more at a state of peace back then compared to now. I still wanna get a copy of the book he wrote.)

Fuck that. I AM conservative, for Christ's sake.

But that does not mean I have to agree to every single damn thing Bush does. Since when is policing other countries, to the detriment of your own, a conservative thing to do? Meddling with other people's affairs is what the Democratic party is all about.

What the US should HAVE DONE, instead of attacking Iraq with no reason whatsoever, is choosing the right targets instead. Why not bomb Saudi Arabia instead, uh? Oh, wait, those terrorism mongers are supposed to be our FRIENDS! Geez.

 

[galfordo]

..."You already know what I'd say within my post so I'll just let the pics speak for me."

MERCENARY X99

ROFFLES ... Merc you crack me up dude .

 

[Spoonman]

I'm not sure what about that makes me a bleeding heart - but calling me that in a general sense is definitely a bit of a stretch. I'm just shitting on the media dude, dont call Guiness just yet

Just goofin' around....Just think its funny you see the media as some yelping human rights watchdog... whinning whenever America does something "questionable"

For the longest time I thought the exact opposite, I saw a faithful bitch in the media....at America's beck and call....willing to put the US in a positive light, no matter what....

Shitting on the media is good though....not as good as shitting on Hollywood but...eh....I'll keep that Guiness number handy anyway.

 

[galfordo]

Just goofin' around....Just think its funny you see the media as some yelping human rights watchdog... whinning whenever America does something "questionable"

For the longest time I thought the exact opposite, I saw a faithful bitch in the media....at America's beck and call....willing to put the US in a positive light, no matter what....

Shitting on the media is good though....not as good as shitting on Hollywood but...eh....I'll keep that Guiness number handy anyway.

Oh don't worry, man - I'll shyte on Hollywood until my ass blows a gasket ... LOL .

And no, I don't really see the media as a human rights group - they're much more self-serving than that. They do seem to take considerable pleasure in painting a rather grim picture of America - and the world in general, to be fair.

But they do seem to almost revel in American "defeats". For 5 minute store about 10000 enemies that we dust, an American soldier's stubbed toe will usually get about an hour of media coverage.

The fucking doom and gloom bullshit just sorta aggravates me sometimes.

 

[mog]

I wouldn't say the media is liberal or has a long history in exposing the US' fuck ups. At least, not till after the fact. When the war started the media gave very little coverage to huge anti-war protests and whatnot. The war went on and was "over" for quite some time before they started showing what they are now. What changed it? I think they're just pandering to viewers now that anti-Bush/anti-war is the new rage with all the kids and the previous pro-everything fad is out of style.

 

[BlackSpy]

As long as American lives are valued over Iraqi lives the Iraqis will not be happy with the occupation. US military policy is not to count civilian casualties, what message does that send about how they value the citizens of their proto Iraqi democracy? If there really is such little regard for Iraqi welfare why should the American’s expect to be treated as anything but enemies of the people?

Closing that newspaper, with a circulation of about 10,000 was the most stupid single thing I have heard of being done in Iraq since the occupation began. It spoke to a population who up till then had been peaceful, the paper had done nothing to ferment violence but it had been very critical and disrespectful of the American forces and in particular Paul Bremmer. If that is not a legitimate role of the free press I don’t know what is. However, the paper is closed, its readers and people who had never even heard of it before are outraged and a precedent has been set for the governments of Iraq for years to come on how they may handle a critical press.

Even if the paper had incited occasional violence, I thought freedoms were meant to be worth dying for. I thought we were over there killing Iraqis so they could have those freedoms, did Rumsfield not say the looting after the fall of Saddam’s regime was an expression of a free society and a measure of the success of the liberation? Are Iraqi freedoms only worth suffering for when it’s Iraqis who must do the dying?

 

[BoriquaSNK]

Check this article and tell me why no one votes for Buchannan...

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=2168

While I agree completely with his views in the article, Pat Buchanon is a certified, grade-A, 110% active racist bastard. The man wrote a book about how immigration was "destroying" american culture. He is also an outspoken opponent of inter-racial and gay marriage (like that wasn't expected). He truly is an evil, horrible man.

No registered republican wants to denounce the war so close to election day. Otherwise, I'm sure McCain would have a soap box out by now.

 

[Spoonman]

While I agree completely with his views in the article, Pat Buchanon is a certified, grade-A, 110% active racist bastard. The man wrote a book about how immigration was "destroying" american culture. He is also an outspoken opponent of inter-racial and gay marriage (like that wasn't expected). He truly is an evil, horrible man.

No registered republican wants to denounce the war so close to election day. Otherwise, I'm sure McCain would have a soap box out by now.

Haha...holy shit....perhaps his choosing of an African American woman for VP was just a publicity stunt then....

He does have the look of an old fashioned Yankee bigot...but hell, I'd consider his ultra isolationist stance the lesser of the two evils at this point.

 

[aria]

Haha...holy shit....perhaps his choosing of an African American woman for VP was just a publicity stunt then....

Regardless whether he's racist or not, yes, it most definitely was a publicity stunt.

Remember the progression?

- Gore chooses Lieberman, the first Jew on a major ticket
- Buchanon chooses... that one woman who's name I forgot, which he proudly announced to be the first African American VP candidate on a major ticket
- Nader pickes LaDuke, the first Native American Woman to be on a ticket
- Bush picks Dick Cheney, a big fat white guy with a heart condition.

LOL! Whew, there's a real good joke just waiting to be made

 

[Spoonman]

Regardless whether he's racist or not, yes, it most definitely was a publicity stunt.

Remember the progression?

- Gore chooses Lieberman, the first Jew on a major ticket
- Buchanon chooses... that one woman who's name I forgot, which he proudly announced to be the first African American VP candidate on a major ticket
- Nader pickes LaDuke, the first Native American Woman to be on a ticket
- Bush picks Dick Cheney, a big fat white guy with a heart condition.

LOL! Whew, there's a real good joke just waiting to be made

Im just waiting for a Black, retarded, lesbian cripple with a hearing aid on social assistance to wind up on a ballot....

BTW Im in Canada...so I really don't know shit about American politics...so don't quote me on anything....unless you can get a good burn/diss on me....then its necessary.

 

[rugal2000]

Posted by LOVECRAFT
"2. This war, just as I had foreseen, has done nothing to weaken Al Qaeda or indeed Islamic terrorism at large. The REAL promoters of terrorism in the Middle East are to be found in one of the supposed allies of the US: Saudi Arabia. It's Saudi Arabia, and not Iraq, who funds the myriad of extremist shiite schools found all throughout the world. These schools are the breeding grounds where future terrorists are educated and trained. There are thousands of these schools in the Middle East, many in Africa, and surprise, surprise! even some in Spain itself. "


Im sorry Enrique this time you have crossed your wires.
Saudia Arabia historically promotes a distinct form of Islam called Wahabiism, this is the antithesis of Shiism. The Iran-Iraq war which raged for 8 years from 1980-88 was all about the Saudi and Iraqi's in alliance with the US, stopping the Khomenei shiiah threat. Wahaabiism is a severe form of sunni islam and it regards Shiias as little more than infidels. Also there is no "myriad of extremist shiiah schools found throughout the world". Shiiaism is confined to Iran/Iraq and Pakistan. It is utterly redundant in South East Asia, India and Africa where the biggest muslim propulations are.