U.S. fires on van at checkpoint that has 13 people inside

tough choice, but I''m going to have to go with the beers on this one.

Fantastic decision. I call timeout for drinks!

Bush likes two things - blathering on about Texas and getting people to shoot other people. I think it may be the only two things he''s good at.

Boy, do I sense some anti-dubya sentiments in this thread or what!

"asands2" wrote:
Bush likes two things - blathering on about Texas and getting people to shoot other people. I think it may be the only two things he''s good at.

Boy, do I sense some anti-dubya sentiments in this thread or what! :)

I''m starting to think some people are against the war because Bush is the President....but I know that no one here would think that way.

Its amazing how many deaths we cause whenever we try and help.

How about the deaths that would be prevented by this war? How about the deaths Hussein caused while he was/is in control? Ever read the story by ex-human shields? The stories from defectors? There are now even reports that Iraqi people are welcoming coalition forces.

So you''re saying if we did nothing and kept to our selves we wouldn''t be hit by terrorist?

First, I''m not suggesting it as policy, but, yes that''s the general gist of it. At least, we likely wouldn''t be a target of organized and well funded terrorism.

We did pretty much nothing to the terrorists prior to 9/11 and I don''t have to tell you what happened.

And Ulairi I think you are right on the money when you said some people are against the war because it''s Bush and Republicans.

If you think ""doing something against terrorists"" is a general thing that can be solved only in one way, just take a look at how ''successful'' Israel''s strategy was in the past two years.

"JD" wrote:

If you think ""doing something against terrorists"" is a general thing that can be solved only in one way, just take a look at how ''successful'' Israel''s strategy was in the past two years.

Isreal has been doing what we''ve done before. After a terrorist attack lob some missles at a country. Going in and cleaning up the mess is different.

''After a terrorist attack bulldoze a refugee camp'' different?

where exactly is Israel clearing up any mess? Their methods only result in more suicide bombers so far. Honestly, Israel finally has to accept that they cannot go on as they are doing now. This is not leading us anywhere.

"chrisg" wrote:

where exactly is Israel clearing up any mess? Their methods only result in more suicide bombers so far. Honestly, Israel finally has to accept that they cannot go on as they are doing now. This is not leading us anywhere.

I''m saying we''re cleaning up a mess. If we just lobbed missles at a country we''d be more like Isreal.

my apologies. I got you wrong there. Though cleaning up won''t be over with the end of the war IMO. The real hard times begin when the war is won and over.

"Locke" wrote:
Its amazing how many deaths we cause whenever we try and help.

How about the deaths that would be prevented by this war? How about the deaths Hussein caused while he was/is in control? Ever read the story by ex-human shields? The stories from defectors? There are now even reports that Iraqi people are welcoming coalition forces.

So, which would you prefer more : Saddam slowly killing his own people, or us coming in and just wiping them all out at once? Even with our intentions of not killing any civilians, we do; it is inevitable. You should take a look at this link that Elysium posted earlier if you don''t believe it. Not only that, but we are sending American soldiers to die in the desert by fighting a war that is not neccessary. You can''t read this and tell me that you honestly support the pointless loss of life that is going on in Iraq. And who is to say that post-war Iraq will turn out any better than it is, anyway? We believed the same thing in Afghanistan when we helped a little group called the Taliban gain control.

But, sadly, now that we are this far in the war, we must continue. As Elysium said :

The BBC at this hour is reporting the bus and its occupants as being ""unarmed"". That said, the coalition is now, officially ****ed. It''s this simple, we _must_ win this war at all atrocious costs.
"asands2" wrote:

So, which would you prefer more : Saddam slowly killing his own people, or us coming in and just wiping them all out at once? Even with our intentions of not killing any civilians, we do; it is inevitable.

1) We don''t tortue them. Saddam does.

2)Not counting the thousands of Kurds (including women and children) that have been murdered, the greatest loss of life have been against armed soldiers, the real crime there, being that many of them didn''t want to serve in Iraqi military but weren''t give a choice.

3) I''m sure you weren''t suggesting that we are brutally slaughtering an entire people.

4) None of the civilian deaths were done on purpose, sadly, this is what happens in times of war although Saddam purposefully putting his people into harm''s way isn''t helping.

5) The thousands of Kurds that were murdered.

So, which would you prefer more : Saddam slowly killing his own people, or us coming in and just wiping them all out at once?

If that''s the case, I would not be supporting this war. But we are NOT wiping them all out at once. Not to minimize the civil lives that are lost during this war, but civilian casualities in this war is one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in history. Moreover, the amount of civilian casualities would not even be this high if Hussein did not hide his military behind civilians or shoot their own civilians. Or if by ""them"" you were referring to Hussein''s ruthless army that terrorize their own people, of course I''m all for that.

You should take a look at this link that Elysium posted earlier if you don''t believe it.

I just had lunch, thanks for the warning about the graphical nature of the link! No doubt about it, that''s sad. But Al-Jazeera(?) isn''t about to show you the pictures of those that died under the torture of Hussin. They are not going to tell you the stories of hudsbands having to watch while the rape squad rape their wives. They are not going to tell you about the people that were drag off in the night never to be seen again just because they said something bad about Hussein. They are not going to tell you about 12 year old girls beaten because they said no to sex to his son.

Not only that, but we are sending American soldiers to die in the desert by fighting a war that is not neccessary. You can''t read this and tell me that you honestly support the pointless loss of life that is going on in Iraq.

I think they are fighting for a cause, and a noble one at that. I don''t think I can convince you otherwise so I''ll just say they are not doint something pointless.

And who is to say that post-war Iraq will turn out any better than it is, anyway? We believed the same thing in Afghanistan when we helped a little group called the Taliban gain control.

I find it hard to believe that life can be worse than under Hussein''s rule. Back then the Taliban and US were against a common enemy. They didn''t want to be ruled by the Soviets and we didn''t want them to be, too. The US is to be blamed for the way they turned out?

First off, I was not saying that we are going in there and purposely slaughtering Iraqi citizens by the truckload; but, regardless, many civilians have died and will continue to die the longer this war goes on. We see it as collateral damage, but the Iraqi people see it as the loss of a neighbor/wife/child.

There was no hard evidence of weapons of mass destruction and/or chemical weapons in Iraq, and there still isn''t any hard evidence. If we are simply going after Iraq to get rid of an oppresive regime then we must be consistent and go after North Korea, Iran and even China. Otherwise, this war is Dubya getting back at Saddam for evading his dad in the Gulf War. And that is no reason for thousands of people to die.

I will acknowledge that life under the Ba''ath regime wasn''t good. The rapes, the beatings, it must have been a living hell. But a regime can''t hold power without support. I think the answer to getting rid of Saddam would have been for all the Iraqi people that didn''t like the way things were to leave, go to Iran or Syria or Saudi Arabia; anywhere but Iraq (Actually, the ideal situation would have been for Bush Sr. to support the revolution in the early 90''s, but that would have been much too intelligent for him). If Saddam had tried to attack the people fleeing Iraq, the United Nations would have been all over him.

This war should never had happened.

You mean Bush''s not sending over the troops because he wants all the oil he can get or because Hussein tried to assassinate his daddy or because he doesn''t like Hussein''s mustache? ;P

And why bother suggesting action against those other countries? You aren''t for the use of force and imagine how you would feel if Bush really goes after those countries?

I can''t believe you are insinuating that Iraqi people actually support Hussein and they stayed because they kinda like living under his rule. Oh right, sure they support him, because if anyone said anything otherwise they are dead already. It''s not as simple as just pack up and leave. Even if only a small minority of Iraqi population didn''t like him and wanted to leave where would they go? Who would take them? Do they even have the monetary means to do that? I think your impression of Hussein''s regime is sorely underinformed. ""Wasn''t good"" is the understatement of the year. And it''s not like Iraqis didn''t try to rise up against him. http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

And read http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030329/17/dwjp9.html and tell me why the UN hasn''t done anything. Because UN is limp and the only good it does is humantarian effort.

Edit: Bush Sr. got mis-information at the end of the 1st Gulf War that Hussein''s Republican Guard were mostly taken out and weren''t in shape to put down the uprisings. Turn out the intelligence was false and some Republican Guard divisions came out of nowhere and brutally put down the revolts. He made a decision based on the information he had at the time, I''m sure he regretted, but I suppose only a Democrate president could have made the right decision.

This war should never had happened.

I agree. But alot of people seem to blame it more on Bush & ""cronies"" than UN''s inability to enforce anything or Hussein.

And why bother suggesting action against those other countries? You aren''t for the use of force and imagine how you would feel if Bush really goes after those countries?

I did not say that I supported that, I was just saying that if this war is about overthrowing an oppresive regime, Bush must also go after other coutries with oppressive governments. Why are the Iraqi people more speical than the North Koreans or the Chinese?

I can''t believe you are insinuating that Iraqi people actually support Hussein and they stayed because they kinda like living under his rule.

I was not insinuating that the majority of Iraqis supported Hussein. There is a minority of supporters though, just like with all oppressive governments throughout history. I was simply stating that if people over there really wanted to get out, they would. And I am sure that such people that wanted to leave could. That is why there are many Iraqi refugees living in the United States and other countries. Iran, for example, would love to take as much power away from Saddam as possible and I am sure that they would gladly welcome defectors; same with Kuwait. And if it is a matter of life and death, monetary issues don''t matter.

""Hmmm, well, there is a good chance that I will be beaten by Hussein supporters today; but I just donn''t know if I am financially secure enough to relocate.""

""Wasn''t good"" is the understatement of the year.

I know, I was purposely understating it.

I agree. But alot of people seem to blame it more on Bush & ""cronies"" than UN''s inability to enforce anything or Hussein.

I agree that the U.N. really didn''t do it''s job very well here, but that doesn''t give the United States the right to go over the head of the world peacekeeping force. Why should we even keep the U.N. around if we aren''t going to listen to them?

Don''t get me wrong here, I am not supporting the Hussein regime in any way shape or form. Saddam Hussein is an evil man, and should not be allowed to wield any power whatsoever. In fact, I used to be for the war until I took a long and hard look at the situation. I realized that the whole idea of a pre-emptive attack was wrong, especially when there is little to no foreign support or evidence to back our claims. The United States has no right to be the vigilante sherriff of the World.

You know, at a time when 960 people were slaughtered in just over two hours in the Democratic (sic) Republic of Congo over a successfully signed political truce, this sudden interest some Bush conservatives have with humanitarian issues sounds like a load of propaganda bullsh*t. Where''re the outcries of intervention in DRC to avert the humanitarian crisis, or are we only doing countries with political and strategic resources? Where was Bush''s humanitarian concern in Sierra Leone? Where is it when Turkey slaughters Kurds, hmmm? Hey, I''m all for humanitarian intervention, though I prefer some legitimacy with my wars (Coalition of the willing? Please. Four countries with significant material assistance or troops, much less than the 30+ we had for the ''91 Gulf War.) I''m even for politically pressuring the UN into action to assist those under tyrannical rule, which is something I really think the administration could have done if it was led by someone with any indication of diplomatic aptitude. But, don''t try to sell me the hack lines of this being a war about liberation, humanitarianism, or protecting America. Save the rhetoric for those not able to research or draw logical conclusions, because it''s obviously not about any of those things? In fact, I really don''t know why we''ve put our people over there, but we have, and now we have to win. We must win, and we will win, but at a cost that you and your administration dismiss easily.

A humanitarian war? Only if it''s profitable. Yeah, I don''t like Bush, but that''s not why I think this was a bad idea from the start. You can ignore it as that though, if you want.

See, you got me all worked up right before bed.

Yeah, what the articulate one said!

Esylium: Were you for the bombings in Serbia?

I smell a trap!

"Elysium" wrote:

I smell a trap!

Quit envading the question! It''s only a trap if you were for it.

Ok, show me the research where it shows that this war is obviously not about liberation, humanitarianism, or protecting America. And how is this war profitable?

And this war is 100% legal. Hussein violated the truce he signed at the end of the 1st Gulf War to disarm within 45 days. It''s been 12 years. US has all the legal grounds to resume fighting. And don''t tell me you need UN to do anything. Not only did the UN proved itself to be incapable of anything, Clinton sure didn''t and nobody gave a whim.

We must win, and we will win, but at a cost that you and your administration dismiss easily.

The administration didn''t dismiss anything, at least not publicly, but you must know those vile Republicans so well I certainly did not dismiss the lives that are/will be lost in this conflict. But you seem to dismiss the lives of Iraqi people that they should just rot in their little world over there. Moreover, it''s not my adminstration, it''s YOUR adminstration. I am not an American.

For me, if Bush had came out in the beginning and said he''s gonna invade Iraq so that he can get all the oil he wants or to settle a score with Hussein and freeing Iraqis from tyranny would just be an unintended by-product I''d still fully support _this_ war. But that''s just me.

Ya know. I think I''ve had my fill of the political forum for a while. I feel like we''re just talking in circles at each other now, and finding different ways to have exactly the same arguments. That''s not to say you guys should stop dicussing, but I''m just worn out on it a bit.

Let me know if you guys save the world!

"Locke" wrote:

Ok, show me the research where it shows that this war is obviously not about liberation, humanitarianism, or protecting America. And how is this war profitable?

The fact that we arent going to go after any of the other 100 opressive regimes on the planet. How is this war profitable? Theyre already discussing which corporations to divide up post-war Iraq to. The goddamn cellular phone standard was picked already! And it was picked so that US companies would benefit from it (thier words, not mine).

"Locke" wrote:

And this war is 100% legal. Hussein violated the truce he signed at the end of the 1st Gulf War to disarm within 45 days. It''s been 12 years. US has all the legal grounds to resume fighting. And don''t tell me you need UN to do anything. Not only did the UN proved itself to be incapable of anything, Clinton sure didn''t and nobody gave a whim.

Personally, its not so much what he did, its the way he went about it. Did he wait a few months and get some more people on board? (Namely his own) Did he wait to find some real proof? Did they overestimate the quickness of this war to the American people in order to gain support from the uninformed? How many people have they jailed as ""enemy combatants"" just because they want to interrogate them illegally? (Again, thier words, they have stated they are holding them only to find out what they know). To me, its his methods that are inexcuseable, not his ends.

"Locke" wrote:

For me, if Bush had came out in the beginning and said he''s gonna invade Iraq so that he can get all the oil he wants or to settle a score with Hussein and freeing Iraqis from tyranny would just be an unintended by-product I''d still fully support _this_ war. But that''s just me.

You know, if he had, I might feel a little better about this war. At least he would have been honest. As it stands now hes lying to everybody and then getting them killed for his own interests. To me thats inexcuseable behavior for a President.

Ya know. I think I''ve had my fill of the political forum for a while. I feel like we''re just talking in circles at each other now, and finding different ways to have exactly the same arguments. That''s not to say you guys should stop dicussing, but I''m just worn out on it a bit.

Know that feeling that''s why I''ve been avoiding posting too much here recently.(that and playing Age of Mythology ) Still good to read though!

"kegboy" wrote:
Ya know. I think I''ve had my fill of the political forum for a while. I feel like we''re just talking in circles at each other now, and finding different ways to have exactly the same arguments. That''s not to say you guys should stop dicussing, but I''m just worn out on it a bit.

Know that feeling that''s why I''ve been avoiding posting too much here recently.(that and playing Age of Mythology ) Still good to read though!

I agree I dont post as much, but its an excellent read. Great way to learn more about your surroundings.

"Locke" wrote:

Ok, show me the research where it shows that this war is obviously not about liberation, humanitarianism, or protecting America. And how is this war profitable?

I can''t comment on a lot of these things in this thread, but there is proof that a lot of US corporations already got deals for the rebuild process. So this war is indeed profitable for your economy. That is not to say though that this is a reason for this war. It better be not.

Whether or not the US companies are getting deals on rebuilding Iraq is feeble evidence of malicious alterior motives. A few companies getting better deals on oil or lucrative rebuilding contracts isnt going cause our economy to flourish and its hardly going to change things drastically overnight.

A few thousand jobs wont help the millions of unemployed. A hundred new business contracts wont dent a huge deficit.

This one of my main gripes about the ""No Blood for Oil"" arguments. How long will it take for better deals on oil to pay for $62 billion and rising cost of the war? This is besides the fact that oil is the life blood of the world. That is like saying ""No Life for Life"". Saving thousands of lives by not protecting oil supplies by force can end up hurting generations of people. Think of how crippled we''d be if the government didnt subsidise gasoline. Trade becomes less because shipping costs double. States become poorer because exporting isnt as viable. States dependent on exported goods starve. Lessoning travel and trade causes states to become more isolationist. This causes more conflicts and rivalry between states. The United States, a dominant nuclear power, completely erodes from within. This is a worst case scenario rant obviously.

There is a thin balance. Use of force to strengthen stability, peace and error margins is justifiable long term for the US and the world.

Saddam Hussein is a threat to political and social stability. I do not like the alterior motives of this administration. I do not think they are doing this for oil. I believe they are doing this because of an axe to grind and we have a president who thinks he''s a crusader. The side effects, if they come to pass, are worth it. I have little problem removing Saddam from power by force due to the positive side effects.

"chrisg" wrote:
"Locke" wrote:

Ok, show me the research where it shows that this war is obviously not about liberation, humanitarianism, or protecting America. And how is this war profitable?

I can''t comment on a lot of these things in this thread, but there is proof that a lot of US corporations already got deals for the rebuild process. So this war is indeed profitable for your economy. That is not to say though that this is a reason for this war. It better be not.

We are paying for the rebuilding. Why should the American people pay French companies to re-build Iraq? If you''re not an allied country you should get no deals. NONE.

"Ulairi" wrote:

We are paying for the rebuilding. Why should the American people pay French companies to re-build Iraq? If you''re not an allied country you should get no deals. NONE.

As I always stated I think the Iraq corporations should get the deals. Not the french nor the US nor any other foreign country. At best foreign countries should get secondary deals like resources for the rebuild. But from what I have read this is not what the US administration has currently planned.
And by the way, there are plenty of offers, Germany included, to help paying the rebuild process.