2826 to date. George has doubled the death toll of 9/11. And you won't be leaving 'till the next democrat president. You do know that you are in or are going to Iraq to secure US industrial investments. "Freeing" the people is just needed to get the system to work for US benefit. 50 000 civilians have already been freed - of their lives. Well done (but that's got nothing to do with you, the bloody ragheads are shooting each other, yeah!).
What you fail to realize is I don't give a damn about the Iraqi citizenry. Will I blow them to bits if ordered? Probably not since it is an unlawful order and I don't need any nasty stains on my military record. However will I feel terrible if they die to collateral damage? Nope. Their philosophy is that they'll go to heaven if they die in holy war. So technically I'd be doing them a favor.
And so what if we are supposedly securing American industrial investments? I'm securing that which is America's then. Still doing some good for my nation's economy. Even if it is the big guys that are getting the cash.
Next up George Bush actually hsn't doubled the death toll. He hasn't actually killed a single person. Not only that, but congress agreed to go to war. Many of which were democrates. If anything the government on that level has given the order to go to war, which resulted in that many deaths. But if you want to get into numbers like that look back to Pearl Harbor.
How many men and women died there? Okay then now look at the Pacific campaign alone. How many more died than Pearl Harbor? A whole shit load more.
Then there was also WWI with the sinking of American civilian ships. How many more people died than those civilians getting "revenge" for them? Hell in the battle of the Somme some 1,900 people died a day. That battle alone ending with some 800,000 deaths.
People need to remember how nasty war can actually be and be thankful for the less than 1% of my generation that is willing to go and stop evil men from causing more harm to us economically and mortally. Mind you the majority of those men and women that volunteered and actually quite educated and could be doing things that make more money. But instead they'd rather do something worth while in their lives.
And as for Vietnam. That was a different war under different circumstances. Take note of the Soviets. Yeah that would have went really good if we just fought the war like we should have. But instead we had stupid politicians, who don't know how to fight wars, lead the damn thing. Not only that but idiots like Kerry gave the enemy hope. They were on the edge of defeat until they saw all the protests and such that the American's were foolishly having.
They knew if they kept fighting that eventually America would pull out because its people kept protesting and losing their will to win.
As for "leaving till the next democrat president," whoever said I wanted to leave? I enlisted for war. That's my only purpose in the Army. To find, close in, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America. Nothing more.
Oh, don't worry, I would have been surprised if you cared for Iraqies. You are perfect, you and your brothers in arms are spot on what your present government needs. A young man so sure of being on the right side, for the right cause, he's ready to take the bullet. And those you are about to kill, and who will eventually kill you, think their right, too. All fanatic, all fodder, you are.
You'll probably say it's cowardly liberal shit, but I find these interesting reads: [link] [link]
Hey,,, u should put Russia as a last country .. cuz if we do fight with them .. there will be no more wrs after it cuz there will be no more humanity ... (i'm russian by the way so be carful of what ever u write in reply)
-it's right, however pakistan is a islamic brother country, but nowadays its government's mans are so tend to west specialy u.s. & when i make this I don't add it like many other islamic land that isn't here; anyway i can't remember may be i miss it when i make this work!
anyway thanks for your views & reminisce.
i know a little. i can read it and write it, but i dont understand any of it...hehehe...i am slowly learning. someday i will become fluent and i will read hedayat, hafez, and ferdowsi in their original form. someday...
Saddam was no different than Milosevic. Both leaders led crimes against humanity. If ousting Milosevic was justified so was ousting Saddam.
I agree that there wasn't enough facts for the accusation of WMD or that Iraq was a direct threat to U.S. interests. but just based on the fact that Saddam was torturing and killing his own people we needed to intervene.
This isn't just Bush.. President Clinton had the same issues in 1996 but chose to forgo military measures for fear it might hurt his re-election. We must remember that his legacy has been tainted by his sexual proclivities so worldly matters were hardly his worry.
I am anti-war, of course, and I think your piece of work here Pedram is very good. I can foresee the fall of Rome if we are not careful. We may be the most powerful nation but we can't take on the world just because they may disagree with us or our values and beliefs.
Why do we have problems with Bush? I dont think I have that much personal problems with that guy... maybe it's the people who surround him that are way more dangerous and cause way more troubles... cause First of all, he was not really the most experienced man concerning politics outside of his country once he got elected, this should not mean trouble immediately, but... he was surrounded by maybe the most experienced government of the american history... and all of them were people that had their own thoughts about everything and were arguing, there were intern conflicts (for example powell vs the hawks) Bush just let them argue. All of a sudden 9/11 is there and the people expect a quick and powerfull answer from their president... well they get it... in the end he decides to listen to (in my opinion and the opinion of more than half of the world and even in the opinion of a lot of american citizens) the 'wrong' party... The plans to attack were allready there before 9/11.
Never heard of Project for a New American century? The US is for the first time in a position of being alone in a great power positiong... and they wanna keep that position nomather what it takes... besides of that, there is no proof at all that 9/11 has anything to do with Iraq, and dont come with the fact now that Sadam is cruel to his people! He was a creal dictator indeed, i dont say that isnt true, there's no discussion about that... but... as long as SAdam and the US were best mates... and when the US delivered him biological weapens... wasnt he a cruel dictator then? but back then, no american seemed to care what he did to his people...
Just some random thoughts about IRAQ, yes I AM against that war (not I WAS, 'cause it is still busy)
ok, apparantly nobody has deemed you worth their time to correct, however I would like to educate you.....call me the asshole, but i can't stand by while people think like that.....The war is with the nation of Iraq, the 9/11 Terrorist attacks (which i believe you are referring to) were performed by a militant branch of a terrorist organization based in the middle east. Iraq may or may not have supplied such groups with arms or aide, however the point is that we are waging war on a nation while pointing the finger at a small group of extremists. People are dying for some reason, America can't get its facts straight enough to actually provide reasoning, they must figure that God will sort them out.....