The Iraq War (1 Viewer)

[withoutaface]

no - simply because youre not the master-mind of your friends actions (retarded or not). however, with a dog, whose natural action may be to bite or kill, the owner is responsible.
similarly, rumsfeld is responsible for his soldiers, who are not "uneducated" (as Kerry claimed) but are "the breast and brightest" (as bush suggests here http://youtube.com/watch?v=cslggh9dm0k) and im sure are able to follow orders ,even if they may be irrational, inhumane orders.

Ok, so if I ask an employee of mine to do the same thing, am I responsible? The fact is that responsible soldiers are not programmed to smear their prisoners with faeces and make naked pyramids any more than someone grabbing a beer is likely to inflict physical harm upon someone standing in their way.

Rumsfeld took the appropriate disciplinary action towards his troops, because they misbehaved.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

We're talking about the military here and thus the issue is very simple: a leader is always responsible for his/her troops no matter what. Thus, Rumsfeld, being the second-in-command of US troops is responsible for the behaviour of the soldiers.

Bush should actually be ultimately responsible seeing as he is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces but politics has an interesting ability to distort conventional morals and responsiblities.

If a leader is always responsible for his/her troop the Governor General of australia as a commander in chief of the australian armed forces should be responsible for a sex crime in which a soldier who was sodomised with sex toys by another soldier in Perth. Oh well actually Queen Elizabeth II is responsible for it since she is the Queen of Australia!

Certainly all leaders have moral responsibility on what happening under their command however that responsibility is limited by technicalities such as whether an order was given by that leader and if there are any knowlege of it and whether there has been any intention on the part of the leader to enourage such acts done by their subordinate. You will find that all war crimes convicted after the 2nd world war have direct responsibility to the crimes they committed and has a knowlege of it. You will also notice that Saddam personally may have not shot anyone to death, he was still responsible because he gave order to the specific act committed by others on his behalf.

 

[sam04u]

If a leader is always responsible for his/her troop the Governor General of australia as a commander in chief of the australian armed forces should be responsible for a sex crime in which a soldier who was sodomised with sex toys by another soldier in Perth. Oh well actually Queen Elizabeth II is responsible for it since she is the Queen of Australia!

Why are you such a retard? The only link Australia has to Great Britain is with the Attorney General. She isn't our queen you retard, you seriously don't know anything and continue spitting out this garbage which is illogical and wrong.

Those incidents in Abu Ghraib are Not isolated events, these types of war crimes are being commited throughout Iraq and that is the effect of war. Do you think that the government of the United States which is defending its actions through propaganda would Really reveal all those attrocities which are occuring? They don't care for anyone except getting back into the government and worry more about approval polls than the country. That's the fault of the United States Bush Administration and government. They would, to increase approval lie to the people and do as they pleased. They lied about the WMD, they lie about the attrocities and they lied about not wanting to steal the Iraqi's Oil.

Instead of committing more troops to Iraq so that It can be build properly, they just continue making preparations and continue illegally exporting the Oil which is in Iraq. Now, the U.S.A want's to start another war without having completed the first War. It's utterly futile, the Iraqi war. People suffer for unjust reasons, and the country is now worse off. It's in a civil war, which never happened when Sadaam was in control. A country in civil war is perhaps the worst state in which it can be.

War on Iraq was a failure.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

Why are you such a retard? The only link Australia has to Great Britain is with the Attorney General. She isn't our queen you retard, you seriously don't know anything and continue spitting out this garbage which is illogical and wrong.

LOL calling other retard while you just let us know who the retard is. Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Australia, and she is represented by Governor General NOT Attorney General. Here is a clearer explanation for you.

Australia is a constitutional monarchy and a Commonwealth Realm. Queen Elizabeth II has been the reigning monarch since 6 February 1952. Under the Constitution of Australia, the Queen's powers are delegated to the Governor-General, who is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia. In all matters relating to Australia, the Queen acts solely on the advice of her Australian ministers.
In Australia, the Queen's official title is: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. ("Commonwealth" here refers to the Commonwealth of Nations, not the Commonwealth of Australia.) In common practice, Queen Elizabeth II is referred to simply as "The Queen" or "The Queen of Australia" when in Australia, or when abroad and acting on the advice of her Australian ministers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_in_Australia

She is clearly the Commander in Chief of Australia, we do know that the Prime Minister actually exercise that power. That was intended to show how ridiculous it is to say Bush as a Commander in Chief should be responsible for acts committed by soldiers in their own capacity not ordered by the commanders. Yes there are moral responsibility but calling on for criminal trials is just preposterous.

Those incidents in Abu Ghraib are Not isolated events, these types of war crimes are being commited throughout Iraq and that is the effect of war. Do you think that the government of the United States which is defending its actions through propaganda would Really reveal all those attrocities which are occuring?

Where else did it happen? Those events were not revealed by US Gov't, they were revealed by US soldiers and inquiry , trials and convictions were made.

They don't care for anyone except getting back into the government and worry more about approval polls than the country. That's the fault of the United States Bush Administration and government. They would, to increase approval lie to the people and do as they pleased. They lied about the WMD, they lie about the attrocities and they lied about not wanting to steal the Iraqi's Oil.

As if you never tell lies.

Instead of committing more troops to Iraq so that It can be build properly, they just continue making preparations and continue illegally exporting the Oil which is in Iraq.

built properly in what ways? Why don't you send your great and brilliant PROPER method to them so they can share your expertise and knowlege in rebuilding a poor war torn country. Evidence of any oil illegally exported by US, conspiracy theory?

Now, the U.S.A want's to start another war without having completed the first War. It's utterly futile, the Iraqi war. People suffer for unjust reasons, and the country is now worse off. It's in a civil war, which never happened when Sadaam was in control. A country in civil war is perhaps the worst state in which it can be.

War on Iraq was a failure.

Undeniably futile situation, on the other hand, i saw shiite muslims dancing on the street celebrating the death sentence imposed on saddam, 14 million strong Shiite muslims and another 4 millions of kurds who suffered under Saddam disagreed with you.

 

[sam04u]

LOL calling other retard while you just let us know who the retard is. Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Australia, and she is represented by Governor General NOT Attorney General.

The Queen of Australia only ever acts on the advice of her Australian Prime Minister or in affairs relating to the six Australian states on the advice of the State Premier concerned.

Regardless of whether or not Australia recognises her as the 'Queen of Australia' Australia is still a sovereign state and in reality neither her nor the royal family can do anything without being asked too. Basically, ceremonies, law-making and her title is used to represent the state in criminal cases.

Where else did it happen? Those events were not revealed by US Gov't, they were revealed by US soldiers and inquiry , trials and convictions were made. As if you never tell lies.

I happens all over Iraq every day. Infact, a few people who were shooting in the air to mourn the death of their loved ones in a funeral parlour were attacked by a fighter copter today. (which is a custom.)

Now here's a story to shame us all. It's about America's shameful prison camps in Iraq. It's about the beating of prisoners during interrogation.

"Sources" may be a dubious word in journalism right now, but the sources for the beatings in Iraq are impeccable. This story is also about the gunning down of three prisoners in Baghdad, two of them "while trying to escape". But most of all, it's about Qais Mohamed al-Salman. Qais al-Salman is just the sort of guy the US ambassador Paul Bremer and his dead-end assistants need now. He hated Saddam, fled Iraq in 1976, then returned after the "liberation" with a briefcase literally full of plans to help in the restoration of his country's infrastructure and water purification system. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3947

There are infinite reports, the happening of Abu Ghraib are not Isolated events and I don't want to waste my time being saddened with all that has happened in Iraq. Almost daily something happens which is a breach of the Geneva convention and proof that the American government has failled Iraq. All they really are doing is trying to rebuilt and export Oil from Iraq. And protecting Israel from a future attack.

built properly in what ways? Why don't you send your great and brilliant PROPER method to them so they can share your expertise and knowlege in rebuilding a poor war torn country. Evidence of any oil illegally exported by US, conspiracy theory? Undeniably futile situation, on the other hand, i saw shiite muslims dancing on the street celebrating the death sentence imposed on saddam, 14 million strong Shiite muslims and another 4 millions of kurds who suffered under Saddam disagreed with you.

I know more people who celebrated then you do. I also have arabic sources of media so I know people are happy with him being taken out of power. But, that doesn't justify what that scum of a military did to the Iraqi people. They've been put through a Civil war and the truth is the U.S government could care less about the Iraqi people. (Even a retard such as yourself could Identify that.)

The war on Iraq is a failure, unless their goal was to destroy Iraq and send it into a state of civil unrest.

The far is futile in that the U.S Intervention was a hoax, a lie. There were no weapons of mass destruction, it was blood for Oil. Again, the Americans and the Jews still what doensn't belong to them, then people try to Justify this. The United States of America don't need my planning. They know what they need to do.

1. They need to properly train the military to protect the country.
2. They need to devote more troops and help people understand and see the freedom which they now have.
3. They need to end the sectarian violence by helping to rebuild damaged mosques and uniting people in festivals and such. (people are simple, celebrating makes people happy.)
4. They need to better explain what they have done, what this means. Then, explain that Iraq will now become a more prosperous country now that Iraq is open to the outside world. eg(Quite blowing yourselves up, for yourselves and your country.)

Ofcourse, they don't want that to happen. That was never their intention. They're already using the Oil to fund their war. eg(Using the Oil to fuel their aircrafts and armoured/unarmoured vehicles.)

 

[onebytwo]

As if you never tell lies.

no lies that ever sent the most powerful military to war and killed tens of thousands of civilians

 

[The Brucemaster]

Then, Bush is responsible for Rumsfelds inability to control his troops now.

Yeah that's why I said Bush is ultimately responsible. Although Rumsfeld had more direct control and so Bush isn't really responsible for Rumsfled so much as he is responsible for the campaign in general.

Random sidenote: The Queen is not the CinC of Australian Armed Forces, it's the Governor General - http://www.gg.gov.au/html/fset_role.html

 

[Aryanbeauty]

Regardless of whether or not Australia recognises her as the 'Queen of Australia' Australia is still a sovereign state and in reality neither her nor the royal family can do anything without being asked too. Basically, ceremonies, law-making and her title is used to represent the state in criminal cases.

I am well aware of this and I already said that the Prime Minister actually excercised those powers. Whether her role is ceremonial or not is not the issue, the issue is your lack of knowlege of australian constitution and system of governance.
Who said this?

Originally Posted by sam04u
Why are you such a retard? The only link Australia has to Great Britain is with the Attorney General. She isn't our queen you retard, you seriously don't know anything and continue spitting out this garbage which is illogical and wrong.

Calling other people retard while you cant even differentiate Attorney General and Governor-General. While the Australian Consitution clearly said she is the Queen of Australia regardless of her rubber stamp power, saying she is not our Queen is just sheer ignorance, I believe a failure of the education system.

There are infinite reports, the happening of Abu Ghraib are not Isolated events

what are those infinite reports? So infinite that theres no evidence to back it up?

Almost daily something happens which is a breach of the Geneva convention and proof that the American government has failled Iraq. All they really are doing is trying to rebuilt and export Oil from Iraq. And protecting Israel from a future attack.

What happenned there daily which breached Geneva Convention? Have you read geneva convention and what clause, section or articles are breached daily by US soldiers? Is rebuilding Iraq bad for Iraq? Is exporting oil bad for Iraq? Since when development and trade is bad for a country? Is protecting Israel bad for Iraq? I do not see any reason why anyone would oppose rebuilding of their country. I do not see a problem with gunning down prisoner trying to escape, if they don't want to be killed then they should not try to escape from prison. That is NOT prison abuse. The guards did exactly what a responsible prison guard should do.

I know more people who celebrated then you do. I also have arabic sources of media so I know people are happy with him being taken out of power. But, that doesn't justify what that scum of a military did to the Iraqi people. They've been put through a Civil war and the truth is the U.S government could care less about the Iraqi people.

Exactly, they are happy Saddam's gone. The US military abuse in Abu Gharib was not acceptable that was why they were prosecuted and jailed for their crime and abuses. However, you are not satisfied with that and what else do you want? stone them to death or behead them under Islamic Sharia Law? The US admin wants to avoid civil war at all cost however there are many people who are determined to see US fail in iraq. The US admin did not tell Sunni insurgents to blow up Shiite Mosque or market in baghdad . The US admin did not tell Shiite militia to burn sunni muslims alive. It has a lot to do with their religious differences and centuries of rivalry between the two islamic sects.

1. They need to properly train the military to protect the country.

The US, Britain and Australian soldiers trained tens of thousands of iraqis and recruit many soldiers so Iraqis can defen themselves, there are many terrorists who dont want to see strong iraqi military and there has been many instances in which young men lining up for recruitments were targets of suicide bombers2

. They need to devote more troops and help people understand and see the freedom which they now have.

I thought you wanted US troops OUT, now you want more US troops so that iraqis can enjoy their freedom?

3. They need to end the sectarian violence by helping to rebuild damaged mosques and uniting people in festivals and such. (people are simple, celebrating makes people happy.)

Sounds easy huh? If rebuilding a mosque will help end sectarian violence they would have done so. A rebuilt mosque will probably be a target of terrorist bombing again.

4. They need to better explain what they have done, what this means. Then, explain that Iraq will now become a more prosperous country now that Iraq is open to the outside world.

Iraqis already knew that, that was why they celebrated on the street when US invaded Iraq, celebrated when they had their first ever democratic elections in over 30 years, they celebrated when Saddam was sentenced to death. The problem is there are thousands of islamic extremist who want to see blood flow, blow up Mosques to start as many violence as they can.

no lies that ever sent the most powerful military to war and killed tens of thousands of civilians

tens of thousands of civilians killed by muslim terrorist such as al qaeda, in iraq headed by deceased al zarqawi you mean that?

Yeah that's why I said Bush is ultimately responsible. Although Rumsfeld had more direct control and so Bush isn't really responsible for Rumsfled so much as he is responsible for the campaign in general.

Random sidenote: The Queen is not the CinC of Australian Armed Forces, it's the Governor General

Thats more acceptable, yes Bush and Rumsfeld are responsible for Iraq war, but they are not responsible for crime committed by troops unless they ordered it or have a knowlege of it and never tried to mitigate or stop. Similarly , I do not think the Governor General of Australia is responsible for a soldier who sodomised another soldier with sex toys.

 

[sam04u]

what are those infinite reports? So infinite that theres no evidence to back it up?

I don't particularly enjoy reading reports if innocent people dieing but are you trying to say that it was an isolated incident? Are you saying that this sort of thing doesn't happen?

What happenned there daily which breached Geneva Convention? Have you read geneva convention and what clause, section or articles are breached daily by US soldiers? Is rebuilding Iraq bad for Iraq? Is exporting oil bad for Iraq? Since when development and trade is bad for a country?

The rights against violent interrogation and torture, and also the conventions on how people eg(civilians) should be treated. Many rapes, murders and beatings occur on an almost daily basis.

I think you continually forget the real issue which is in Iraq. Over a 100 people die daily in Iraq many of these people are women and children who did nothing to deserve this. Many mosques and houses have been destroyed, the country is in a civil war. Sectarian violence has broken out. (etc, etc.)

Exactly, they are happy Saddam's gone. The US military abuse in Abu Gharib was not acceptable that was why they were prosecuted and jailed for their crime and abuses. However, you are not satisfied with that and what else do you want? stone them to death or behead them under Islamic Sharia Law? The US admin wants to avoid civil war at all cost however there are many people who are determined to see US fail in iraq. The US admin did not tell Sunni insurgents to blow up Shiite Mosque or market in baghdad . The US admin did not tell Shiite militia to burn sunni muslims alive. It has a lot to do with their religious differences and centuries of rivalry between the two islamic sects.

Many war crimes have gone unmentioned too. That is the issue, although some will be punished many will not. Again, even you yourself said that America doesn't care about the Iraqis. All the U.S really cares about is the Oil which is in Iraq and whether or not you want to admit this it's true. The U.S has been unable to control Iraq and it's becoming worse and worse. Doesn't this show to you what they've done? Potentially destroyed a country because they claimed it had weapons of Mass Destruction? Try to feel the least bit of empathy. Try to Imagine a country like China invaded Israel and bombed it, claiming they had weapons of mass destruction and thay they were endagering the world. How would you like it if they claimed they were helping but thousands died daily? Then orthodox and other Jews began fighting with one another. Do you see how the means does not justify the end?

If it was succesful and people didn't die, I would still be against it. (Because the UNITED NATIONS, said no.) Yet, the U.S disobeyed the group which was established to prevent war. (Yes, I know that Iraq has too, but the U.N had reason to ask for this war not to happen. And you can see it right now. The country is worse off than before.)

Thats more acceptable, yes Bush and Rumsfeld are responsible for Iraq war, but they are not responsible for crime committed by troops unless they ordered it or have a knowlege of it and never tried to mitigate or stop. Similarly , I do not think the Governor General of Australia is responsible for a soldier who sodomised another soldier with sex toys.

They're responsible for the blood of tens of thousands who were slayed under a pretence. Losing your life for a war which was a hoax and a Lie to the U.N can not be justified.
1. They knew their were no WMD in Iraq.
2. They lied to the U.N
3. They went against the U.N and protesters.

If you keep trying to justify this then you're a fool. The U.S is responsible for this Civil war which is rapidly growing. They had no right to Invade the country. They had no right to be there. But, as long as they're their they now have the responsibility of rebuilding it.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

I believe Abu Gharib style torture are isolated incidents since there has not been such things happening elsewhere or talked about on such a scale. It is pretty obvious that US soldiers will not treat those insurgents they arrested in 5 star hotel accomodation. And during the trial the soldiers involved in those abuses said they never heard about geneva conventions and such, and it was not a policy of US to torture prisoner, but as I already said it does happen on the lower level where soldiers acted on their own accord. They were put on trial for those abuses and you cannot expect more than that. There was no such widespread of rape by US soldiers, it does happen but it is rare, considering 100,000 plus US soldiers present in Iraq.

I think you continually forget the real issue which is in Iraq. Over a 100 people die daily in Iraq many of these people are women and children who did nothing to deserve this. Many mosques and houses have been destroyed, the country is in a civil war. Sectarian violence has broken out. (etc, etc.)

over 100 killed daily by whom? islamic insurgents! NOT by US troops. Mosques, houses and market, bombed daily by islamic insurgents, NOT by US troops. Sectarian violence is a problem between the two islamic sect, not between US soldiers and iraqis.

If it was succesful and people didn't die, I would still be against it. (Because the UNITED NATIONS, said no.) Yet, the U.S disobeyed the group which was established to prevent war. (Yes, I know that Iraq has too, but the U.N had reason to ask for this war not to happen. And you can see it right now. The country is worse off than before.)

The UN said NO to US led NATO intervention in Kosovo to save Albanian muslims from serb forces. Nonetheless NATO intervened and saved albanina muslims in kosovo from genocide. So you would let serb massacre albanian muslims in Kosovo unless the UN says yes to NATO intervention?

 

[onebytwo]

tens of thousands of civilians killed by muslim terrorist such as al qaeda, in iraq headed by deceased al zarqawi you mean that?

can you name 5 of these terrorists? i cant, almost all australians, americans or british wouldnt be able to either.
i remember bush saying that the geneva conventions were vague in defining torture
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XzLeHTiphsg
note how he tries to get out of the question.....he talks about debating, he hasnt even put an argument nor answered the question! - "the point i made is the most important point" - what a dick!
"you're looking beautiful today" - is he a poof?
talking about vague...."war on terror"...we're fighting "terrorists" we cant even name...if thats not vague then what is?

 

[onebytwo]

how in hell is the queen the commander in chief?
if youve forgotten australia is a democracy and the commander in chief is the leader of the elected government. if the queen were the leader, there'd be no purpose in federal elections. perhaps we should vote for who we want to be the queen....that would be interesting actually

 

[Aryanbeauty]

Do you personally identify her as your leader?

Yes, but not as much as John Howard who is much more popular than the Queen or her representative the Governor General. I have deep respect for australian constitutional institution and I think its amazing that Australia still have the Queen. Personally I wish she visit australia more often eventhough I've seen her earlier this year at Trooping the Colour in London.

how in hell is the queen the commander in chief?
if youve forgotten australia is a democracy and the commander in chief is the leader of the elected government. if the queen were the leader, there'd be no purpose in federal elections. perhaps we should vote for who we want to be the queen....that would be interesting actually

In all countries the head of State is the commander in chief but their actual powers differs depending on the system used. In USA, France, Russia etc, presidents actually excercise that power while in UK , Australia, India, NZ, Canada, Spain, Germany etc the Head of State ie the King, Queen or Presidents are still commander in chief but that power is actually excercised by the elected government Prime Ministers, Chancellors etc. Aren't you taught about these in your civic class?

can you name 5 of these terrorists? i cant

Just quote a name muhammad and surely at least 5 of those suicide bombers must have that name. It is more important for me to memorise names of my classmates than those suicide bombers and terrorists in Iraq.

 

[wrxsti]

just to let you people know that North Korean has one of the biggest armies in the world; its soldiers will be willing to die a 'horrible death' if it were to defend its empire and leader, north korean has the most significant and sophisticated army system in place...America will never attack Korean, for the sheer fact that their inferior to them...
America will engage its self in a bloody war, and surely the outcome will be a lose for them
North Korean you could say are crazy people with outstanding minds.

btw i dont have a bias view, and i aint korean,chinese or anything related
its just a fact that the world knows, read up and u will understand

 

[wrxsti]

This is the most correct statement i have ever heard me my life.

"ALL TERROISTS ARE MUSLIMS, BUT NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERROISTS"

 

[withoutaface]

just to let you people know that North Korean has one of the biggest armies in the world; its soldiers will be willing to die a 'horrible death' if it were to defend its empire and leader, north korean has the most significant and sophisticated army system in place...America will never attack Korean, for the sheer fact that their inferior to them...
America will engage its self in a bloody war, and surely the outcome will be a lose for them
North Korean you could say are crazy people with outstanding minds.

btw i dont have a bias view, and i aint korean,chinese or anything related
its just a fact that the world knows, read up and u will understand

I nominate this for post of the year.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

Here is a video clip taken by US soldiers in Iraq. I think they are very kind that they gave water to the thirsty kid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9A_vxIOB-I

 

[sam04u]

Here is a video clip taken by US soldiers in Iraq. I think they are very kind that they gave water to the thirsty kid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9A_vxIOB-I

Here is a clip of what the U.S has caused on the bad guys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID1GOQZI22Y&mode=related&search=

Can you see that little bad-guy there? The little 6 year old child?
Maybe you can see the elderly man, the terrorist militia man who has such big guns. That's the bad-guy right there buddy.

 

[sam04u]

I believe Abu Gharib style torture are isolated incidents since there has not been such things happening elsewhere or talked about on such a scale. It is pretty obvious that US soldiers will not treat those insurgents they arrested in 5 star hotel accomodation. And during the trial the soldiers involved in those abuses said they never heard about geneva conventions and such, and it was not a policy of US to torture prisoner, but as I already said it does happen on the lower level where soldiers acted on their own accord. They were put on trial for those abuses and you cannot expect more than that. There was no such widespread of rape by US soldiers, it does happen but it is rare, considering 100,000 plus US soldiers present in Iraq.

No, it does happen at that scale. Ofcourse it wouldn't be reported, why would they report such a deplorable act? It would be negative for the united states. They had no right to be there in the first place and their involvement has caused a civil war to break out as peoples opinions are seperated. We also don't know the details of the situation, it could well be that in a direct or indirect way the U.S army triggered the attacks.

These two groups lived relatively peacefully before and I have friends of mine who were actually living in Iraq as witnesses to this. I never said there was wide-spread rape but when innocent civilians are killed it's quite hard to accept something like this. This war, this civil war would not have happened had the U.S invaders not lied to the world to attack a country for its Oil. The United States government had no business in Iraq why can't you understand that? The United Nations said no, because war was not a viable option. Under a pretence they sent a country into a civil war whilst pretending to be bringing the country a democracy.

1. Why is it their business to be there? They knew Sadaam Hussein had no weapons of Mass Destruction.
2. Why should the Iraqis have to suffer?
3. How do you justify blood for oil?
4. Why does the U.S have to attack Iraq for no reason other than to steal its Oil?

over 100 killed daily by whom? islamic insurgents! NOT by US troops. Mosques, houses and market, bombed daily by islamic insurgents, NOT by US troops. Sectarian violence is a problem between the two islamic sect, not between US soldiers and iraqis.

There wouldn't BE a civil war had the U.S fucked off as soon as they figured out that there was no Weapons of Mass Destruction. But, they stayed! They didn't care about WMD, they don't care about the Iraqi citizens (You, yourself said that.) All they care about is the Iraqi oil and looking succesful to their own country. In my opinion the United States has done nothing for their country. 1000's live in poverty so that they can fund a war overseas which is unjust. 1,000,000's live in poverty so that they can support Israel a terrorist, stolen, false, nation. How can you justify that? How can you justify the U.S sending billons of dollars in aid the the Israeli government annually so that they can wage unjust wars when people in the U.S need help?

This is the working of a corruped government, where people can work two or three jobs and still be poor because Israel wants the U.S to wage futile wars. It doesn't matter how hard or how long they bomb the Middle East. The U.S can't silent the people who see this Injustice.

The UN said NO to US led NATO intervention in Kosovo to save Albanian muslims from serb forces. Nonetheless NATO intervened and saved albanina muslims in kosovo from genocide. So you would let serb massacre albanian muslims in Kosovo unless the UN says yes to NATO intervention?

THE UN was made to protect the world from war! If potentially world war 3 will break out because of one action then Yes! They must listen to the nations of the world. Who do you think the U.N is? The U.N is all the nations in the world (led by the Top 5 nations) who must support the world by passing judgement! If you go against the U.N you are potentially doing something which the world disagrees too. Do you see that? The world didn't want the War on Iraq!

 

[Aryanbeauty]

No, it does happen at that scale. Ofcourse it wouldn't be reported, why would they report such a deplorable act? It would be negative for the united states

If it happen on such a large scale then why cant you give us any evidence. If the US was more worried about publicity fall out it can cover up Abu Gharib abuse as well, it chose not to, because US have transparent system unlike in most islamic countries. Congressional hearings and investigations also prove that it was an isolated incident happening at lower level of the military. Democrats are just as curious as you and everyone else to know what the military had done and they knew they could use it as ammunition against George Bush in the congressional elections. If you are so sure about it provide us evidence that those abuse like the one at Abu Gharib happened at other prisons.

1. Why is it their business to be there? They knew Sadaam Hussein had no weapons of Mass Destruction.

Because US is superpower and have the right to intervene in any country at its own pleasure, like it or not it is a convention held by stronger nations since immemorial, and 19+ million iraqis wanted US to invade their country and liberate them from Saddam Hussein. Iraqis have a say in their own future, NOT you.

2. Why should the Iraqis have to suffer?

Because of Muslim terrorists in Iraq, they have to suffer

3. How do you justify blood for oil?

provide us where US stole iraqi oils and use for free for their plane and weapons where is your source? Which US company actually get a contract for oil drilling, exploration rights in Iraq since the invasion give us proof before bullshitting about blood for oil, in fact more Iraqi bloods were spilled by your fellow muslims fighting in the name of your religion.

4. Why does the U.S have to attack Iraq for no reason other than to steal its Oil?

ANy proof where oil were stolen? Any articles?

There wouldn't BE a civil war had the U.S fucked off as soon as they figured out that there was no Weapons of Mass Destruction. But, they stayed! They didn't care about WMD, they don't care about the Iraqi citizens (You, yourself said that.) All they care about is the Iraqi oil and looking succesful to their own country. In my opinion the United States has done nothing for their country. 1000's live in poverty so that they can fund a war overseas which is unjust. 1,000,000's live in poverty so that they can support Israel a terrorist, stolen, false, nation. How can you justify that? How can you justify the U.S sending billons of dollars in aid the the Israeli government annually so that they can wage unjust wars when people in the U.S need help?

You wanted them to rebuilt the country, you wanted them (US) to protect the iraqis, you wanted them to help rebuilt mosque, you wanted them to help recruit soldiers and built more reliable security force for iraqis and now you wanted them to leave as soon as they found out there was no WMD. There is NO coherence in your argument whatsoever. All you did is bitching here and there in random motion.

Furthermore, there is no statistic evidence that link there become more poor people in USA after US spent money in Iraq war, in fact US economy had gone stronger since 2000. The US sent billions of dollars in Aid to Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Palestine and Lebanon and is the worlds biggest donor. Since 1993 Palestine received $ 1.7 billion from USA http://www.usaid.gov/wbg/. Stop being jealous because you did not get that $$.

THE UN was made to protect the world from war! If potentially world war 3 will break out because of one action then Yes! They must listen to the nations of the world. Who do you think the U.N is? The U.N is all the nations in the world (led by the Top 5 nations) who must support the world by passing judgement! If you go against the U.N you are potentially doing something which the world disagrees too. Do you see that? The world didn't want the War on Iraq!

Another example of how you flip flop on your stand towards killings of innocent people. So it is perfectly fine for you to let Serbian troops muder tens of thousands of Albanina muslims in Kosovo because the UN will not let foreign intervention because of Russia's veto on any resolution against Serbia. Kosovo Albanian muslims lives are perhaps not so valuable for arabs muslims because they are not arab? No wonder albanian muslims despised other islamic countries in their indifference while genocide were committed against them. It was and is always USA theat came to the rescue of the needy, regardless of religion, race or colour.