Now that war is assured...

[General Ludd]

Lincoln loves to see civilians die so much that he's got a head start on the gloating.

[rah]

Keep it to a civil discussion, or it's toast.

RAH

I've already closed one similiar one this morning and won't need much of an excuse to do the same here.

[Daz]

There's probably gonna be a lot of casualties on all three sides: Iraq, USA, Civilians. Left the Brits out on purpose.

In a few months from now there's gonna be a lot of people asking the question "and what was it our guys died for?". Especially when the oil companies take over Iraq. All we can sadly do is wait 'till it starts happening.

But it took a lot of time to realize what kind of war the Vietnam war was... And you all know what the reason for that war was: Dealing with something that is/could be a threat to the USA.

Now where have I heard that one recently....

[BeBMan]

I certainly hope that is will be short, without big loss of life (on either side, military or civilian), and that the post-war situation will be as good as possible.

[rah]

This quote from his speach

"Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty, and when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time."

A chilling reminder of one of the proclaimed reasons we fought in Vietnam.

Even if we win, giving the power to the people that have been subjected to Sadam's hateful propaganda for over a decade since that last Gulf war is not likely to produce a country that will look at the US in a friendly light.

RAH

[Bereta_Eder]

it's not so much the propaganda it's the angloamerican bombs and the int community sanctions.

500.000 children have died because of them.

500.000 more civilians will die now.


what kind of emotions do you think they elicit?

[SlowwHand]

Why are some people stuck with this 500,000 random number?
Where did you pull this out from?
Come as a vision in the night ?


48 hours. Adios, muthas!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
There are probably quite a few from the left who would take great delight in a large number of civilian casualities. In fact, stick around awhile. They will soon be gloating about each incident of a misdirected bomb so that they can have even more reasons to hate America. Without civilian casualities the left would have to direct their hatred from all things American to actually trying to help someone.

Do explain why you are clamouring for an attack on Iraq. If there wouldn't be a war, there wouldn't be bombs dropped. The root cause of civilian causalties is a trigger happy GWB administration. Please explain how this is related to the left you are trying so hard to demonise.

Originally posted by Lincoln
I hope I was only kidding Sava.

Please explain which bit of the post is supposed to be funny.

[Bereta_Eder]

500.000 Iraqi children have died. Acknowledged even by the american admin which said they were a good price to pay for furthering US foreign policy.


500.000 civilians will die is the official UN estimate.

100.000 from the angloamerican bombs
400.000 from diseases associated with the war.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
48 hours. Adios, muthas!

May the guilt of the soon-to-be-dead civilians be upon your conscience.

[rah]

Originally posted by paiktis22
it's not so much the propaganda it's the angloamerican bombs and the int community sanctions.
500.000 children have died because of them.

Was it the sanctions or their leader using the money to build palaces instead of helping his people? Saddam is the king of propaganda. He works the world stage quite well. This time he overplayed his hand.

[Bereta_Eder]

No, it was the sanctions that made it impossible for the children to have any med care.

They die even from the flu, and that's because of the sanctions.


They thought that'd piss them against Sadam, it pissed them against the US.

[rah]

I laugh at your assumption. Then why haven't the kurds in the north suffered to the same degree? Hmmm.. Maybe it's the leader that is the difference.

[Bereta_Eder]

no, it's whom the US has sanctions against and whom it helps actively. kurds dont have the 1st, have the 2nd.

I laught at your assumptions yankee

[KrazyHorse]

Rah: the kurds also have an easier time selling their oil to the outside world.

I agree that Saddam is the major difference, though.