Defining Picture of the Iraq War

[SK]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/He219/more%20pics/CreditHe219.jpg

Picture released by the U.S. Army Tuesday, May 3, 2005 shows a U.S. Army soldier comforting a child fatally wounded in a car bomb blast in Mosul, 360 km (225 miles) northwest of Baghdad, Iraq, Monday, May 2, 2005. 15 Iraqis were wounded in the combined suicide bomb attack. (AP Photo/U.S. Army)

look at that picture before protesting the war.

[Turkish-S]

LOLLOLLOL U FUCKING NOOB.
its becuis the war that that kid got hurt.

[SK]

um...you do know there was terrorist attacks before the war right.
dumbass.

[Xollence]

Turkish no need to be an ass.

But yeah I think that picture will just make people protest the war even more. Hehe this is gonna start the same long ass debate found in the other Iraq thread.

[anime050]

Originally posted by: turkish-shikamaru
LOLLOLLOL U FUCKING NOOB.
its becuis the war that that kid got hurt.

If you have nothing good to say, don't say anything at all.

A war is not a joking matter you fucking idiot. Get off my internet.

[Mut]

turkish-shikamaru is probably one of the biggest dumbasses on the planet. Why do you always bother showing the lack of your intelligence?

War pictures always make me sad. Especially ones like this:
http://img80.echo.cx/img80/5100/3irqsoldiertearssm5gt.jpg

[Turkish-S]

i'm not dumb.
war isn't good becuise someone of the army cry's or someone holds an iraqi's kid.
i just don't get what u mean??
shouldn't i now protest ageanst war cuzz 1 of the fucking 10000000 mofo's out there is holding a wounded kid??

[SK]

wow, you make sense. guess its over your head, not suprisingly.

[Turkish-S]

wtf do u mean by that??
but tell me (in a bit easyer english) what u mean by posting that picture...?????

[anime050]

If you don't want people to think you're an idiot ( which you are) go learn some proper english.

[DB_Hunter]

This is gonna be my only post on this topic, I'm in exams and dont have time to go on an on.

What turkish-shikamaru said is right, the way he said it was wrong.

And Sharingan Kakashi there were NOT any terrorist attacks in Iraq before the war, just a brutal dictatorship by Saddam.

Edit: Oh yea by the way, words like 'terrorist' or 'insurgents' or 'criminals' are all subjective.

[Turkish-S]

k this is my last post in this topic. i just think that war is a bad thing. and i'm not going to change my opinion just bye a few sad picture's.
anime050
If you have nothing good to say, don't say anything at all.

A war is not a joking matter you fucking idiot. Get off my internet.

If you don't want people to think you're an idiot ( which you are) go learn some proper english.

am i joking ?? and you don't have something usefull to say so you can also just STFU.

EDIT: yeah hunter is right. saddam only did harm vs the people who lived in his own country.. and he had nothing to do with 9/11 what 40% of all amerikan thinks he does.( i readed this somewhere don't say this isn't tru)

[Xollence]

Damn I have a headache just reading your posts. BTW where did you get that percentage from? We didn't go after Saddam because of 9/11.

[hiddenpookie]

Your in no position turkish to be calling anyone a noob. got it?

Anyway stuff liek this is very sad. and gets me mad at the same time i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif

God bless irag and the u.s. we all know if there's one thign iraq needs is a blissing or some miracle...

[SK]

Originally posted by: DB_Hunter
This is gonna be my only post on this topic, I'm in exams and dont have time to go on an on.

What turkish-shikamaru said is right, the way he said it was wrong.

And Sharingan Kakashi there were NOT any terrorist attacks in Iraq before the war, just a brutal dictatorship by Saddam.

Edit: Oh yea by the way, words like 'terrorist' or 'insurgents' or 'criminals' are all subjective.

ok. i guess saddaam mudering thousands of kurds is no big deal.

[DB_Hunter]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-


Originally posted by: DB_Hunter
This is gonna be my only post on this topic, I'm in exams and dont have time to go on an on.

What turkish-shikamaru said is right, the way he said it was wrong.

And Sharingan Kakashi there were NOT any terrorist attacks in Iraq before the war, just a brutal dictatorship by Saddam.

Edit: Oh yea by the way, words like 'terrorist' or 'insurgents' or 'criminals' are all subjective.

ok. i guess saddaam mudering thousands of kurds is no big deal.

It was a big deal... especially since Rumsfeld helped him obtain those weapons in the 1980's. Let's not forget the Shia now, or the Sunni's who also dissented against him.

[Mut]

Originally posted by: turkish-shikamaru
k this is my last post in this topic. i just think that war is a bad thing. and i'm not going to change my opinion just bye a few sad picture's.
anime050
If you have nothing good to say, don't say anything at all.

A war is not a joking matter you fucking idiot. Get off my internet.

If you don't want people to think you're an idiot ( which you are) go learn some proper english.

am i joking ?? and you don't have something usefull to say so you can also just STFU.
Talk about hypocrisy. Nice post:


Originally posted by: turkish-shikamaru
LOLLOLLOL U FUCKING NOOB.
its becuis the war that that kid got hurt.
In all seriousness, let me tell you something. I don't intend to flame you, I just want to educate you on why you've gotten such responses from us. There are two reason why no one takes you seriously:

Your idiotic attitude towards things.
Your lack of care regarding your spelling and grammar.

It's really difficult to read your posts and think of it anything more than spam because the way you post is just ridiculous. You have no intention to better yourself with spelling and grammar. You just don't care to make yourself seem more presentable, educated, and in any way intelligent. You can't ever act serious, not even act remotely semi-serious, in any topic. When someone makes a thread about war (or anything that requires maturity to discuss), you can't respond with whatever you just did and expect people to not react to it. Like in that one thread KitKat started, the way you post is the first thing we'll base our judgement on and unfortunately, you started on the wrong foot and given us a horrible first impression of you. Personally, I don't think our views of you will ever change, and I doubt that you will either. You've been here for over four months now. From day one, we've told to you work on the way you post, but you've ignored all advice and proceeded to dig yourself in a deeper hole where you'll end up by yourself, isolated from the crowd because of how you act. If you want to improve, I suggest taking the time to spell out words correctly and use proper grammar.

[NM]

I'm gonna have to agree with Mut on this one.



Originally posted by: turkish-shikamaru
LOLLOLLOL U FUCKING NOOB.
its becuis the war that that kid got hurt.

Excuse my language but why the fuck would you say something like that? Are you retarded?

Getting back on topic...yeah, i hate seeing this kind of stuff, its too sad to look at. You can only imagine the kind of emotional stress the soldiers are going through.

[SK]

check this out guys http://www.gunnerpalace.com/
reminds me of some of the stuff ive seen when i was at fort cambell, kentucky.
VVV yup.

[Assertn]

tell me turkish-shikamaru, since you also claim to have a 200 IQ, what do you suggest is a good countermeasure against corrupt dictatorship or terrorist groups? rain flower petals from above?
war may be a bad thing.....but sometimes leaving things the way they are can be worse

[Swallow Your Soul]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
look at that picture before protesting the war.

It is a heartbreaking picture, but I'm still against the war in principal, emotional pictures or not...I'm not against the troops, so for me that isn't a reason as to why I should change my opinion.

The pro/anti-war thing has been done to death though (especially in the original thread that was here...I think everyone (bar newcomers) said everything there was to be said then) and its too late for such an argument anyway as the invasion went ahead ages ago...

It won't stop anyone from continuing the debate though...

[SK]

hmm. i guess i just think differently. when i see pictures like these it makes me think of how much those people suffered and are still suffering, and our troops are fighting and dying for them. i cant be against a war that is freeing a people who were living in terror.
( btw dont bother calling me naiive, i know the u.s isnt doing this solely for the freedom of the iraqi people)

[Y]

You're naive.

[Assassin]

HO-LY CRAP! sharingan -kakashi, y the hell would u make a thread liek this? you know full well what the result will be.

i cant believe this thread has gone on this long, and whats worse is the attidue of ppl who i would've thought were more mature and civil....and no im not referring to just turkish-shikamaru.

everyone has thier opinions, and theyre welcome to. forums arent the place for somethign like this. you wanna debate the war, do it in person with actual evidence, not pictures off cnn and random gossip/rumors you may have heard elsewhere.

lets get a few things straight:

1) Saddam was a dictator. he bombed "his own ppl", or so the popular phrase goes. and yes this is true.
2) his "people" were the rebels opposing him after the gulf war and they were assured the help of the US military (which never came to thier assistance, resulting in the masscare), and the bombs were the same ones provided by the US before the gulf war. this is also true.
3) saddam needed to be removed from power. theres no doubt about that.
4) there are other ways then an all out unprovoked war to get a single man hated by his own ppl out of power.

and one lst thing.....



ok. i guess saddaam mudering thousands of kurds is no big deal.

stuff like this is an absolute joke in terms or arguments. ppl love to bring up this topic, but they either forget or ignore the 0.5 million kids that died as result of sanctions.

Mistakes have been made by both sides. if you really care, go out and do somethign about it instead of posting and arguing over the internet. crap like this only fans the flames on both sides and creates negative stereotypes in the minds of otehrs.

This post ought to be the last one in this thread. mods need to lock it now, and ppl need to stop bickering like little kids.

[Turkish-S]

damn... ure right guy's.it's the way i write things down that brings up all the fuzz ageanst me.i will just quote the opinions which i have the same opinions with:
swollow your soul: It is a heartbreaking picture, but I'm still against the war in principal, emotional pictures or not...I'm not against the troops, so for me that isn't a reason as to why I should change my opinion.
this is what i meant with my first post.-.-
@assertn: i really don't know how to stop dictatorship or terrorist groups rain flower petals from above. but if you start a war ageanst a country it will take down alot of innocent people. so i find the solution to start a war just wrong..
and this is really my last post on this so just go back on topic.
(and alright will try not to post emediatly and be looking first at my grammer and spelling.)

[SK]

imo, sadaam was asking for it when he wouldent allow un inspectors in.

[basey44]

its posts like assassins that everyone should read, or know the info that assassin knows before posting.

now while i know a little bit about this war and the preceding gulf war, thats not nearly enough for me to make a proper informed post on this subject
however i will say in my experiance basically you have to choose which evil to follow, and in this case i support america. yes i hate bush, and our stupid leader johnny howard acts like bush's labrador, but as soon as we entered we had to see it through till the end, there cant be any of this lets get all our troops out by xmas crap, that would just leave the people of iraq even more fucked than before. i was refering to australian troops by that comment. also what kind of allies would we be to pull out after we've sworn to help.

if anything happened to australia i know that i would very much like america to rush to our aid, but that doesnt mean howard has to be his fucking puppet

sorry i kinda rambled on there didnt i, some of it u might have to be from oz to understand but i think ill finish up here. enough of me venting

[Stoopider]

Originally posted by: basey_69
however i will say in my experiance basically you have to choose which evil to follow, and in this case i support america. yes i hate bush, and our stupid leader johnny howard acts like bush's labrador, but as soon as we entered we had to see it through till the end, there cant be any of this lets get all our troops out by xmas crap, that would just leave the people of iraq even more fucked than before. i was refering to australian troops by that comment. also what kind of allies would we be to pull out after we've sworn to help.


Definitely. And it's good you guys are there cleaning up the mess and putting the Iraqi's back on their feet again, if not it would turn into Afghanistan 2.

[r3n]

i hate the fact that any country other than america helped the "war" effort in iraq. it wasnt a war it was an invasion. america use this excuse of WMD to move into any place they like (usually with oil on tap), when america has the most nuclear weapons in the world. theyre the last country id trust with nukes. such hypocrites.

oh and maybe a different view of the iraq war:

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/index.php?e=dontloot.wmv

kinda sums up my view of america atm; powerful and stupid

[SK]

"freedom isnt free, brave men pay that price."
i think people should remember that quote.

[Deblas]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
"freedom isnt free, brave men pay that price."
i think people should remember that quote.

Brave men. More like innocent civilians who are caught up by the bombings and shootings while the ones doing the actual fighting are miles away. People who have guns and bombs are never brave. There is no good side or bad side, or bright side in war. Everyone is gonna end up losing something dear to them.

[SK]

i hate comments like these. so the allies werent the "good side" in World War II?

[Deblas]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
i hate comments like these. so the allies werent the "good side" in World War II?

In your point of view, yes. But what about their enemy. Won't they say that they are the good side?

Iraq may be free of tyranny but, people who don't deserve or aren't even remotely involved in the fighting died. To me, that is not a great accomplishment.

[Assassin]

This post ought to be the last one in this thread. mods need to lock it now, and ppl need to stop bickering like little kids

is this so hard to understand?

ans SK, yes allies were the "good" side. do you know why? because they were protecting themselves from foriegn invaders, and helping others who had also been invaded.

jee, wonder who's doing that in this war?

dont make generalizations. the world isn't black and white. theres no such thing as good and bad. even in ww2, not all the german soldiers were "evil". alot of them did what they did out of fear.

[SK]

um no, i dont think most modern germans would say they were on the good side. they murdered 6 million people.
EDIT: why does this thread need to be locked, we cant have a debate like adults?
EDIT 2: there will always be casualties in war, but in my opinion the people of iraq will be able to enjoy a better life after the war is over than under the rule of sadaam.

[Assassin]

thats precisely it....in UR opinion. everybody has thier own opinion about what the ppl of iraq want, and then they wonder y theres all these attacks on american soldiers everyday. could it be that they want to be left alone?

sadams out of power, a new governments been setup, so y is there still a need for military presence. iraq has its own military now, and they can handle whatever civil unrest there is. the only suppsort they need now is financial support so they can rebuild the civilization thats been utterly destroyed due to 10 years of sanctions and bombings

[SK]

hmm that was a dumb comment. you cant leave now, or there would be civil war immediately. one ethnic/religious group against another.

[Assassin]

Originally posted by: Assassin
iraq has its own military now, and they can handle whatever civil unrest there is.

anyway, if you believe that theres still need for the military tehre, then thats fine. everyone has thier own opinions.

as for me, this is my final post here. i know exactly what will happen if this thread continues, and i really dont feel like watchign a flame war. i come here for anime, not for politics.

[Turkish-S]

@ sharingan: so the allied were good in wo2?? since when is dropping 2 NUKE's on 1 country belong to the good??
DAMN another post of me, this is really the last one.

[Lefty]

Well it was either droping two nuke's in an attempt to scare Japan into surrender and killing a few hundread thousand people in process or let the war go on for like another three years and millions more killed in the process. It's still a great travisty but you look at the people it did save it's the lesser of two evils. Sacrifice of the few for the many.

[Y]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
imo, sadaam was asking for it when he wouldent allow un inspectors in.

Oh God.

I'm not going to touch this. Yet. I'd just like to say that this is probably not a can of worms you want to open.

[Board of Command]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
EDIT 2: there will always be casualties in war, but in my opinion the people of iraq will be able to enjoy a better life after the war is over than under the rule of sadaam.
I have quite a few muslim friends who actually know 2 cents worth of what's really going on, and they totally oppose this "War on Terrorism". They say Saddam really wasn't as bad as the Americans portrayed him, and that most people in Iraq really don't give a shit about Saddam being in power. In fact, it's not like Saddam is running around with a gun shooting people on a street. The country was in better shape under Saddam's rule than it is now under American supervision and this new government. After over 2 years of American occupation, how much has Iraq improved? Is the average Iraqi Joe happier than before now?

Why would the Americans invade Iraq by bombing their capital to ground-zero in the first place in the name of national defense? Defense against what? Is Saddam and the Iraqi army gonna take over the world? There's a big difference between taking extreme precautions and national defense. Seriously, what is the likelihood that Saddam would have eventually attacked America? It's not called defense if there's no offensive side. Do bullies beat up kids in the name of self defense because the weak little kid might grow up and kill them later?

Like someone above said, war is subjective. There is no absolute black and white to it. I'm not saying the Americans are the bad side. Both political sides try to justify themselves and make themselves look like the good. The stuff we see in the western world is handpicked by the western institutions. The video footage we see in the news is handpicked by the media to promote its side of "justice". It's called propaganda, and it's certainly working on some of you (not pointing a finger at SK here).

[Assertn]

oh great.

i knew it was only a matter of time until r3n's ramblings found its way into this topic

[SK]

boc i dont even know what to say to that. i guess when you sitting down comfortable in your computer chair without a care in the world it is easy to be against the war and not give a damn about what people thousands of miles away are going through. im not from a 3rd world country, but ive been through tough situations, i guess its made me more empathetic.
you do know he gased his own people right?

[Board of Command]

But is it just to invade Iraq and take over their country because Saddam killed 0.0001% of the population 20 years ago?

[ChaosK]

well there IS no right or wrong answer and all ur reasonings ARE subjective and i must say though i am not in favor of random wars, i believe this war DOES have a meaning to it though BoC you are right, i must say i am disappointed in the lack of improvement the US gov't was supposed to make on iraq.

[Y]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-

you do know he gased his own people right?

Stop.

Posting.

EDIT:

Please?

[Board of Command]

And to be even more analytical, what makes a force a threat? If it's the weapons Saddam has, then America should never have to be afraid since they got all the best weapons in the world. Saddam may be a murderer, but he's not an idiot who would attack America.

And to bring in the point of empathy, I will empathize with you for a minute. I am an American. Do I wanna be governed by a group of patriotic Americans, or the Chinese army who just bombed, invaded, and took over America?

[Assertn]

its true....he gassed his own people and blamed the americans......
at least something along those lines i believe

meh, w/e....war casualties are the last thing we should be worrying about anyway

[Board of Command]

Originally posted by: AssertnFailure
meh, w/e....war casualties are the last thing we should be worrying about anyway
That's exactly what one of my friends says. If you're a soldier, you should be prepared to get hurt or die. It's a natural part of battle. The point of being a soldier is the pride, and there's no pride in cowardice.

[Jessper]

Originally posted by: BOARD_of_command
Seriously, what is the likelihood that Saddam would have eventually attacked America? It's not called defense if there's no offensive side. Do bullies beat up kids in the name of self defense because the weak little kid might grow up and kill them later?


Funny, that is the same outlook Great Britain and France had on Germany before it merged with Austria-Hungry and almost took over the world (WWII). They did nothing when Germany broke the provisions of the treaty of Versailles, much like it seems the world would have liked to do for Saddam. I hear that if we ignore history we are doomed to repeat it. I'm not saying the same would have happened (world domination is impossible this day in age, through warfare) but after such a large blunder you would think these "enlightened" countries would have been quicker to act.

[r3n]

jessper, iraq had no where near enough power to invade iran, let alone america. wheras at the time, germany had probably one of the most advanced and powerful armies in the world. comparing the two is pointless

always makes me chuckle:

http://jtownend.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Cowards.JPG

[SK]

exactly jesspar.

[Jessper]

Originally posted by: r3n
jessper, iraq had no where near enough power to invade iran, let alone america. wheras at the time, germany had probably one of the most advanced and powerful armies in the world. comparing the two is pointless


No, you don't seem to understand. At the time that Germany broke the provision's terms for the frist time neither did they. After merging they did, yes. But not before.

[r3n]

k i never took history for a reason, its dull. but as i said, comparing the german army before WW2 to the iraq army is pointless. even after WW1 and the treaty of versailles which stated that germany wasnt allowed to build an offensive army, and only for defence, they did anyways. since it had the greatest population in europe at the time i dont think any one european country could stop it alone, compared to iraq which is small compared to turkey, iran, and saudi arabia, 3 of its bordered countries. so stop comparing the two and get your facts straight.

[Y]

Originally posted by: Jessper

Funny, that is the same outlook Great Britain and France had on Germany before it merged with Austria-Hungry and almost took over the world (WWII). They did nothing when Germany broke the provisions of the treaty of Versailles, much like it seems the world would have liked to do for Saddam. I hear that if we ignore history we are doomed to repeat it. I'm not saying the same would have happened (world domination is impossible this day in age, through warfare) but after such a large blunder you would think these "enlightened" countries would have been quicker to act.

Their leaders understood the situation better than you do. Saddam Hussein had no army. His "elite" guards surrendered by the thousands to unarmed civilian camera crews, in both Gulf Wars. There is absolutely no parallel with Nazi Germany as far as military strength goes.

[SK]

the point is not allowing iraq gain a strong military.

[Y]

They weren't. It had been ten years since the last time we attacked them for this issue, and they hadn't gained any sort of military power at all. America is stronger than the entire European continent put together in many ways militarily, a weakened Middle Eastern dictator with delusions of grandeur posed absolutely zero threat to the U.S., or to any of his neighbors.

[Xollence]

Originally posted by: turkish-shikamaru
@ sharingan: so the allied were good in wo2?? since when is dropping 2 NUKE's on 1 country belong to the good??
DAMN another post of me, this is really the last one.

Well that's up for debate as well. It was said that if we invaded the Japanese home islands it would have cost 500,000 American lives, and millions and millions of Japanese lives. And without those nukes Japan would've never surrendered, and it would've given the Red Army a chance to invade Japan. Both sides bomb the shit out of each other, Hitler even bombed his own people. Nuking Japan save more lives in the long run and ended the war.



Originally posted by: r3n
k i never took history for a reason, its dull. but as i said, comparing the german army before WW2 to the iraq army is pointless. even after WW1 and the treaty of versailles which stated that germany wasnt allowed to build an offensive army, and only for defence, they did anyways. since it had the greatest population in europe at the time i dont think any one european country could stop it alone, compared to iraq which is small compared to turkey, iran, and saudi arabia, 3 of its bordered countries. so stop comparing the two and get your facts straight.

Actually Germany after WWI was really weak. Even in the beginning of the Battle of France after Germany invaded Poland, France outnumbered the German by far. The only reason they were able to win is because of Blitzkreig and no one really came to their help.

[Deblas]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
the point is not allowing iraq gain a strong military.

Ohh. Now your changing your views? First you said you were heartbroken because of Iraq suffering(approving of the war nonetheless). And now your saying its for Sadaam because he probably is going to get a bigger army, and better weapons than America. Which is it?

[SK]

deblas your a moron. i was responding to Y's and some others views on the parallel between iraq and germany.
dont put words in my mouth.

[Y]

If you'd actually put words in your mouth instead of using bumper sticker phrases and half-remembered Fox News bulletins, it'd probably be harder to mischaracterize you.

[Xollence]

Originally posted by: Assassin
as for me, this is my final post here. i know exactly what will happen if this thread continues, and i really dont feel like watchign a flame war. i come here for anime, not for politics.

There's nothing wrong with this topic as long as people don't back their debates up with name calling. Why should this thread be closed? If you don't want to watch a flame war, don't post. i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif I don't see the difference in the Naruto forums, there's way more flaming going on other there.

[Xollence]

oops hit button twice.

[SK]

obviously we cant, theres too many assholes like Y who are unable to have a discussion. its out of Y's character to not flame, this is the only place he can act like a tough guy after all.
EDIT: why bother? all you do is drop rude comments left and right with no reasons for giving them.

[Y]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
obviously we cant, theres too many assholes like Y who are unable to have a discussion. l.

Stop spouting rhetoric and bumper sticker quotes and I'll debate you.

The reason I don't take you seriously is because you do things like lie about your IQ in a ridiculously obvious fashion and assume that emotional appeals like "crying_solider_holds_child.jpg" somehow constitute an effective argument.

[SK]

and i would lie about my IQ test why? you love to judge people you know nothing about, for instance, would you have any idea that i received a free scholarship to Worcester Academy because of my test scores? No.
i was not trying to start a debate over the war, i just wanted to share the picture.

[Y]

In your very first post you said "look at this picture before protesting the war".

Clearly, you were trying to make an emotional appeal in favor of the war. Don't weasel out of it.

Also, you claimed you had an IQ higher than Marilyn vos Savant.

[Assassin]

Originally posted by: Xollence
If you don't want to watch a flame war, don't post.

0.o

are u implying that by refusing to participate in this discussion im egging ppl on to start flamming? care to elaborate?




Why should this thread be closed?

because of stuff like this....



Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
obviously we cant, theres too many assholes like Y who are unable to have a discussion. its out of Y's character to not flame, this is the only place he can act like a tough guy after all.
EDIT: why bother? all you do is drop rude comments left and right with no reasons for giving them.

and the post after that, and the one after that. and most likey, the one after this.

[Jessper]

Originally posted by: Y The Alien
Their leaders understood the situation better than you do. Saddam Hussein had no army. His "elite" guards surrendered by the thousands to unarmed civilian camera crews, in both Gulf Wars. There is absolutely no parallel with Nazi Germany as far as military strength goes.

I know Y. My point was not that Saddam would have had a large enough army to take over Europe if left alone, but rather that Germany was shrugged off much like BoC would shrug off Saddam. I was comparing how people thought both Hitler and Saddam were no threat.

My point is, don't think that Saddam was harmless just because of your preconceptions on his military power. In the early 90's it was much easier to gauge strength (size of army being one of the main contributors back then) than now since nuclear and biological arms are much easier to conceal yet it was still messed up in a very large way. It is foolish to simply assume Saddam had no WMD's because if he did one of them, depending on how large he made the bomb, could devastate an entire country.

Military intelligence is not always accurate (heh, obviously) however, that does not mean that everyone else's information was correct, only that it had a better chance to be.

Leaving an instable person such as Saddam in command was a bad move in my opinion, though I understand the reasoning behind doing so. For the most part, war is not fought for peace but rather stability.

Sorry for being kind of all over the place, but I have a test now so I'm not going to refine it much. My apologies.

[Xollence]

No I guess I worded it wrong, I meant either way there's gonna be a few flame posts, so if you don't want to be stuck in don't bother posting.

[SK]

what the fuck are you talking about i scored 204 and she has 230. and when i said 'look at this picture before protesting the war', i did not meant it in a literal way, and for people to start debating the war in the thread.

[Assassin]

ah ok....well precisely why i decided to stop.

although i must admit, readign some of these posts im SOOO tempted to respond i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif

[SK]

i say respond, as long as we are doing it in a respectable manner and not flaming people for their views.
EDIT: link please Y.

[Y]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
what the fuck are you talking about i scored 204 and she has 230.

Methods developed in the 1960's reclassify Savant's adult IQ as 180. An adjusted IQ score of 206 (which is what you originally claimed) would be higher than every eminent genius who has ever been measured by the scale including Einstein and Bill Gates. You would literally be the smartest person who ever lived.

EDIT: And I don't mean by a small margin, you would outrank Albert Einstein by the same gap that Albert Einstein outranks the average person.

Frankly, I wouldn't estimate my adult IQ at anything above 135 and that's being generous to me. I sure as hell wouldn't put yours at anything above average (no offense, buddy), and if you took a test that gave you a 206 score it was not a worthwhile test.

EDIT:

You cannot seriously tell me you posted that picture and said "look at this before you oppose the war" and didn't predict a debate.

[DB_Hunter]

You know, I was thinking how to reply to all that has been said and maybe present my humble analysis of what is going on, but then I thought of the topic title... In my opinion these are probably the defining pictures not only of the Iraq War, but the image of the United States as percieved by people in the Middle East and beyond.

click (http://www.aztlan.net/photo_4.jpg)

click (http://www.sergioramirez.org.ni/images/abu%20ghraib.jpg)

click (http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/na/archive/00148/Tortur_i_Abu_Ghraib_148434c.JPG)

click (http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40174000/jpg/_40174323_harman_ap300.jpg)

click (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/image/0,1587,1210664_6,00.jpg)

click (http://www.realitybasednation.com/images/abu-bush.jpg)

click (http://www.zonalibre.org/blog/surferrosa/irak.jpg)

click (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/gallery/2005/01/19/11_pix.jpg)

click (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/gallery/2005/01/19/19.jpg)

click (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/gallery/2005/01/19/22.jpg)

click (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/AbuGhraibScandalGraner55.jpg)

click (http://www.apfn.org/images/iraqis_tortured18.jpg)

Jesus christ, have more common sense when posting such pictures, you idiot.

GotWoot Moderator

[Y]

Jesus, link those instead of directly posting them.

[SK]

yea lets make generalizations.
edit: ok lock it.

[r3n]

ah good old geneva convention. doesnt apply to america apparently!

really do hope they burn in hell.

[Y]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
yea lets make generalizations.
edit: ok lock it.

This is your response to my post without any insults in it, and it's the reason I don't bother having a discussion with you.

[SK]

no it was the response to r3n's post.
edit: meant db hunter's

[Y]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
no it was the response to r3n's post.
edit: meant db hunter's

So you didn't even respond to mine? Ok. I'll make another one.

Iraq's gassing of the Kurds was done with the full support of the United States.

[Deblas]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
deblas your a moron. i was responding to Y's and some others views on the parallel between iraq and germany.
dont put words in my mouth.

Your an idiot. What views? soldier quotes, media, photos taken by americans, news reported by americans. Your too gullible. You have no idea what you are talking about in the first place. So don't go on saying your views.


Why don't you just take a look at DB's pictures and compare it with yours.

[Y]

Come on Deblas, we can all have a nice and informative chat about the Gulf War here without insults directed at our good posters like Sharingan-Kakashi.

Did you know that not only did Hussein allow U.N weapons inspectors into the country and grant them unrestricted access, but that he was in the middle of destroying the al Samoud missiles judged by the inspectors to exceed the range limit prescribed by the U.N. when the U.S. invaded?

[SK]

deblas you obviously have no clue what the fuck we are talking about, your statement doesnt even make sense. if im an idiot then why did you message me 6 times with friend requests on the gotwoot community.
to Y here: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02.asp
edit: btw ill take my picture over a few idiot troops' mistakes.

[Y]

Congratulations. I know damn well Iraq has a long history of dicking with weapons inspectors. Note, of course, that your link does not disprove anything I said since it stops cataloguing actions over a year before Gulf War II started.



Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
]
edit: btw ill take my picture over a few idiot troops' mistakes.

Your picture means nothing.

[Board of Command]

It's all propaganda. There's the truth, and there's the projected truth. Take your pick.

[Board of Command]

wtf... I'm sure it said "Page not found" after clicking reply!

[Y]

Here is something which sums up my opinion far, far more eloquently than I can hope to do.



[America] has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

Thank you, John Adams.

[Deblas]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
deblas you obviously have no clue what the fuck we are talking about, your statement doesnt even make sense. if im an idiot then why did you message me 6 times with friend requests on the gotwoot community.

LOL. Thats beside the point. You really are an idiot. Though I didn't think so. Thats why I messaged you, but it seems that you didn't want to be my friend in the first place soooooo*flicks finger* Fuck you! i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif

Ohh yea. Of course I know what I'm talking about. I have the same views as all the posters here who say your full of shit. Your the only one here who believes everything the media tells you.

[SK]

Originally posted by: Y The Alien
Congratulations. I know damn well Iraq has a long history of dicking with weapons inspectors. Note, of course, that your link does not disprove anything I said since it stops cataloguing actions over a year before Gulf War II started.



Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
]
edit: btw ill take my picture over a few idiot troops' mistakes.

Your picture means nothing.

says you. to the john adams quote, one of my favorite presidents from my home state i have to add lol, i think john adams opinion would be much different in today's age, especially after wwi/wwii and the fall of the soviet union. the world is much smaller now after all, and america has a much stronger foundation, so why not help others achieve independance.
edit: forgot about deblas, how the fuck do i believe everything the media tells me, i dont even watch the news. i make my opinions from first hand accounts of troops who have been to iraq, and from shit i read.

[Y]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-


says you. to the john adams quote, one of my favorite presidents from my home state i have to add lol, i think john adams opinion would be much different in today's age, especially after wwi/wwii and the fall of the soviet union. the world is much smaller now after all, and america has a much stronger foundation, so why not help others achieve independance.

John Adams' quote is no less valid today then it was over 200 years ago. Your presumption to second-guess the motives of a former President is laughable. The logic behind Adams' idea is true and was borne out in this exact scenario when Britain performed this identical invasion in the early 1900s.

To put it more simply, some things change and some things do not. Britain "helped" Iraq achieve independence in 1917. It was a complete and total failure despite the overwhelming military superiority of Britain.

[Deblas]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-


Originally posted by: Y The Alien
Congratulations. I know damn well Iraq has a long history of dicking with weapons inspectors. Note, of course, that your link does not disprove anything I said since it stops cataloguing actions over a year before Gulf War II started.



Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
]
edit: btw ill take my picture over a few idiot troops' mistakes.

Your picture means nothing.

says you. to the john adams quote, one of my favorite presidents from my home state i have to add lol, i think john adams opinion would be much different in today's age, especially after wwi/wwii and the fall of the soviet union. the world is much smaller now after all, and america has a much stronger foundation, so why not help others achieve independance.

Why the hell would America send troops to Irak to help gain their independence if they are not expecting something in return. I'm sure their views are lets bring love, independence and peace to the world.

Ohh. And your welcome to join as a friend of mine in the community. You don't seem to have any. Saves the embarassment.

[SK]

my point is this, america cant go back to being neutral after world war i and world war ii.
edit: yea nice one deblas, you got me there. you seem to think that you know how i think. you seem to think i am naive enough to believe america is doing this only for the benefit of the iraqi people. i am not a pro american person as i think you believe, but i do believe in the ideal of america. btw iraq is spelled with a q on the end.
edit2: lol jus going back and forth with y i will get him to 1000 posts thought this was funny.

[Y]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
my point is this, america cant go back to being neutral after world war i and world war ii.

And my point is that you are wrong because there is nothing supporting the idea that two large wars (one of which was a terrible fucking idea that led to the second) changed the shape of geopolitics and military actions for eternity.

[Deblas]

Yea well, Thanks to America not being neutral in the first place will probably cause world war III. Funny ain't it. Are you gonna approve of that too.

edit: Ohh no. SK just grammar burned me! Damn, Y. You really type fast.



Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
edit: forgot about deblas, how the fuck do i believe everything the media tells me, i dont even watch the news. i make my opinions from first hand accounts of troops who have been to iraq, and from shit i read.

There you go. From where do you read from? Time magazine? Give me a break.

[SK]

world war iii with who? lol i think ill just ignore your posts now.
@ Y: how can you not think that wwii shows america can not just stay nuetral just because there is an ocean between europe and america?

[Y]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-

@ Y: how can you not think that wwii shows america can not just stay nuetral just because there is an ocean between europe and america?

The U.S. couldn't remain neutral in World War II because Germany declared war on us after their allies bombed us.

Prior to that the U.S. was rightfully neutral, much like we should have been in World War I.

EDIT:

Equivocating any and all international conflicts as though they are all the same is an extremely dangerous pattern that is all too prevalent nowadays.

[SK]

and if pearl harbor was not bombed the us would have allowed britain to lose? this is what you are saying right? the us is a nation made up of people who come from all over the world, imo, it is impossible to stay nuetral in another countries politics when your people are from those countries.
edit: deblas your a fuckin moron. wwi was started because of crazed nationalism and imperialism, wwii because germany got shitted on with the treaty of versailles and britain and france allowing them to build back up. iraq has no outstanding alliances to allow the war to escalate. the only way a new world war could start is if north korea allied with china.

[Deblas]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
world war iii with who? lol i think ill just ignore your posts now

(sighs) This is coming from someone who supposedly has an I.Q of 204. If you know how WWI and WWII started, then there is a possibility of the same thing happening all over again. WWars start by a country attacking another country and from there it excalates.

[Jessper]

Originally posted by: Y The Alien
The U.S. couldn't remain neutral in World War II because Germany declared war on us after their allies bombed us.

Prior to that the U.S. was rightfully neutral, much like we should have been in World War I.


Acctualy, before we were bombed we gave supplies only to Britain and France, we would not have given Germany anything because of an act passed in congress. This violates international law for neutral countries. We even shot down a few German U-Boats. We were not fighting only because Germany couldn't afford it so they didn't openly attack us outside of some British supply routes (the U.S. Navy guarded these routes, hence the U-Boats being shot down).

I'm curious on your opinion on how the US should not have been involved in World War I. I would love to hear it, though this may be wandering off topic a little.

All in all, I can't wait until we have a worth while president to vote for again. Kerry was no shining star, most would only argue that he was the lesser of two evils.




Originally posted by: Deblas

edit: Ohh no. SK just grammar burned me!

Lol, the grammar attack is just about as valid as your attack on him for not having anyone marked as friends in the community.

[Board of Command]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
wwi was started because of crazed nationalism and imperialism
No, WWI was the direct result of a retarded alliance system that was used back then. Nationalism and imperialism was the cause of the conflicts, not the war. The conflict did not cause every western country to participate in a global war, the alliance system did. It should have just been a few European countries fighting.


wwii because germany got shitted on with the treaty of versailles and britain and france allowing them to build back up
No, that's only the root of the problem. It was Hitler who played the emotions of the German people, and they put him in power. Without Hitler there probably would not have been a war, since the Nazi party really wasn't anything without Hitler. WWII is a result of human emotions.

War's a complicated thing. All wars are started by conflicts, but not all conflicts turn into wars, especially world wars. The only thing preventing WW3 is nuclear weapons.

[Deblas]

Originally posted by: Deblas

edit: Ohh no. SK just grammar burned me!

Lol, the grammar attack is just about as valid as your attack on him for not having anyone marked as friends in the community.[/quote]

*sniffs* Yea. Well your stupid. i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif

[Y]

Originally posted by: Jessper


Acctualy, before we were bombed we gave supplies only to Britain and France, we would not have given Germany anything because of an act passed in congress. This violates international law for neutral countries. We even shot down a few German U-Boats. We were not fighting only because Germany couldn't afford it so they didn't openly attack us outside of some British supply routes (the U.S. Navy guarded these routes, hence the U-Boats being shot down).



Sorry I wasn't specific. I meant neutral militarily, in that we didn't enter combat against them directly. I have absolutely no problems (and neither did Adams) with supporting allies in ways other than direct military intervention in a foreign country.



I'm curious on your opinion on how the US should not have been involved in World War I. I would love to hear it, though this may be wandering off topic a little.

"World War I" wasn't a world war. It was a European squabble that turned into a horrifying bloodbath, and the American involvement therein was only due to our provocations towards Germany.. Now, this is with hindsight googles squarely on, but without the U.S.' entrance into World War I, Germany would have ruled Europe and probably made peace with the United States (an attack would have been extremely foolish and unlikely) with far less casualties all around, with the added bonus of World War II never happening.

[SK]

except for that letter germany sent to mexico eh?

[Y]

Of which the first line was:



Berlin, January 19, 1917

On the first of February we intend to begin submarine warfare unrestricted. In spite of this, it is our intention to endeavour to keep neutral the United States of America.

The only stipulation in the letter was that if the U.S. declared war on Germany, Mexico was to also declare war on the U.S. It wasn't an attempt to secretly strike at the U.S., it was setting up a countermove for a possible U.S. strike.

EDIT:

The Germans weren't morons. They knew the possibility that the U.S. would intervene would significantly decrease the odds of their winning. Germany would have struck peace with the U.S. if they ever thought it was possible.

[Jessper]

Originally posted by: BOARD_of_command
No, WWI was the direct result of a retarded alliance system that was used back then. Nationalism and imperialism was the cause of the conflicts, not the war. The conflict did not cause every western country to participate in a global war, the alliance system did. It should have just been a few European countries fighting.

The alliance system back then (balance of power) required that you shift alliances constantly to keep any country from gaining too much power. People stopped wanting to be flexible because their nationalism got in the way of making allies with communist states ect. With democracy came inflexibility and thus a useless system.

Also the alliance between Germany and Mexico pissed the American people off, war may have been demanded from the people, though I forget at the moment.

As I understand it Y, the U.S. waited until our observers in Europe said that they thought the British and French would win then helped them to get a say in the treaty to be made (though we ended up not signing the Treaty of Versailles but made our own with Germany, a much kinder one). Though my mind isn't fresh on the subject so I can't say for sure. Interesting idea of letting Germany take over Europe, would be interesting.

[Xollence]

Originally posted by: Y The Alien

The U.S. couldn't remain neutral in World War II because Germany declared war on us after their allies bombed us.

Prior to that the U.S. was rightfully neutral, much like we should have been in World War I.


Well the US wasn't really neutral, we were supplying Britain, and even some American pilots were fighting in Britain even before Pearl Harbor. - oops someone already said this.

[Turkish-S]

but what do you think of the plan to start a war vs iran??
i dont know what to think. its just stupid. i think if amerika attacks iran it will cause a chain riaction and all the terrorist in the mid east will strike more and harder and there really could start a WW3.

[Board of Command]

That is among the most retarded things I've ever read. WW3: USA vs Terrorists

Cmon man, it's not Counterstrike here.

[SK]

exactly, and i thought your last post was 2 pages ago turkey. also to the world war ii thing, after the us entered the war they helped the brits before going after japan.

[Turkish-S]

k maybe ww3 is a bit exaggerated. but scip that i wanted to ask what do you all think off starting a war ageanst iran..

[yallo]

This is in response to the string of pictures posted by DB_Hunter a couple of pages back.

Prison Experiment (http://www.prisonexp.org/)

Hmm why am I posting this link, I wonder. Definitely not because I'm attempting to provide an excuse for the acts that were committed. But I just thought that this experiment is, to say the least, a very interesting and fascinating (in the kinda fixated-by-horror way) read. And also, that it reveals a lot about human nature that I feel we should all know. I just find it scary how an average Joe can do the most unimaginable things when put under extreme conditions, be it a prison setting, a war, or simply just stress.

Also, it has been brought up several times here, that America chose the "lesser of two evils" when they decided to drop the two atomic bombs on Japan. I'd just like to point out that the lesser of two evils is still an evil. Also, nobody can foretell what would have happened if America had chosen a different way of bringing the war to an end. All those estimates of war casualties in alternative scenarios are simply just that - estimates. So do take them with a pinch of salt.

*deep breath*
Ok, this is quite enough serious talk from me. =)

Edit: fixed some grammer.

[SK]

Originally posted by: turkish-shikamaru
k maybe ww3 is a bit exaggerated. but scip that i wanted to ask what do you all think off starting a war ageanst iran..

they shouldent have nucleur weapons.

[Y]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-

they shouldent have nucleur weapons.
Jesus, you want war with Iran too?

[Board of Command]

Originally posted by: turkish-shikamaru
k maybe ww3 is a bit exaggerated. but scip that i wanted to ask what do you all think off starting a war ageanst iran..
What do I think about starting a war? I think they shouldn't. I really don't see any threats posed by the Middle East.

[SK]

no i dont think we should have war with anyone, i would rather see the UN deal with iran, and north korea.

[Xollence]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
exactly, and i thought your last post was 2 pages ago turkey. also to the world war ii thing, after the us entered the war they helped the brits before going after japan.

Actually they were fighting in both theaters at the same time, and operation overlord didnt happen until 1944, although they did do some fighting Africa. America was fighting Japan in 1942 and already started island hopping.

[Samanosuke]

<3 yallo.