And you'll just bendover and take it in the ass for Political Correctness.Poseidon wrote:
LOL. You won't do shit.David.P wrote:
Left = Hypocritical douche bags, And i will do anything to stop them.
Poll
Would You Be Happy If You Were Liberated By Another Nation's Army?
| Happy | 37% | 37% - 13 | ||||
| Unhappy | 62% | 62% - 22 | ||||
| Total: 35 | ||||||
Let's take a step back, David.
Is there any benefit to starting an insurgency if the occupiers aren't oppressive? I don't see any.
This is a simple question that every Iraqi should have asked themselves before fighting us when we invaded Iraq. We weren't oppressors.
In the scenario given by Braddock, the problem really isn't occupation itself -- it's the occupiers. China is obviously an oppressive nation. If our liberators were say... British, I'd gladly work with them because I know they aren't an oppressive people (past grievances with Ireland notwithstanding).
Is there any benefit to starting an insurgency if the occupiers aren't oppressive? I don't see any.
This is a simple question that every Iraqi should have asked themselves before fighting us when we invaded Iraq. We weren't oppressors.
In the scenario given by Braddock, the problem really isn't occupation itself -- it's the occupiers. China is obviously an oppressive nation. If our liberators were say... British, I'd gladly work with them because I know they aren't an oppressive people (past grievances with Ireland notwithstanding).
QFT.Turquoise wrote:
Let's take a step back, David.
Is there any benefit to starting an insurgency if the occupiers aren't oppressive? I don't see any.
This is a simple question that every Iraqi should have asked themselves before fighting us when we invaded Iraq. We weren't oppressors.
In the scenario given by Braddock, the problem really isn't occupation itself -- it's the occupiers. China is obviously an oppressive nation. If our liberators were say... British, I'd gladly work with them because I know they aren't an oppressive people (past grievances with Ireland notwithstanding).
US, UK, Any modern western Nation. Not Oppressive.
China, Russia, Any ME nation. = Repressive.
Israel = Fighting for Survival.
Fatah = Cooperating for Survival.
Hamas/Hezbollah = Hyprocritical assholes who use Israel as an excuse for the shittyness of their nations situation.
And the Poor Palestinians are just caught in the middle.
Oh really? And how's that.David.P wrote:
And you'll just bendover and take it in the ass for Political Correctness.Poseidon wrote:
LOL. You won't do shit.David.P wrote:
Left = Hypocritical douche bags, And i will do anything to stop them.
You're the only one taking it in the ass, David. Straight from all the conservatives that have brainwashed your already FUBAR mind.
YGBSM. What color is the sky on your world?AutralianChainsaw wrote:
yeah.. Bush killed a lot more people than Saddam.ATG wrote:
I would stack them like cordwood.
Comparing Bush to Saddam...silly.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Man fuck politics! Right = Nationalist Assholes, Left = Hypocritical Assholes.Poseidon wrote:
Oh really? And how's that.David.P wrote:
And you'll just bendover and take it in the ass for Political Correctness.Poseidon wrote:
LOL. You won't do shit.
You're the only one taking it in the ass, David. Straight from all the conservatives that have brainwashed your already FUBAR mind.
I'm a fucken Libertarian. Do what the fuck you want as long as you bother me.
I think you left out a "don't" in there...
Yeah Fuck! I'm just rushing because i got alot of homework to do.Turquoise wrote:
I think you left out a "don't" in there...
What if I want to be a liberal pussy?David.P wrote:
Man fuck politics! Right = Nationalist Assholes, Left = Hypocritical Assholes.Poseidon wrote:
Oh really? And how's that.David.P wrote:
And you'll just bendover and take it in the ass for Political Correctness.
You're the only one taking it in the ass, David. Straight from all the conservatives that have brainwashed your already FUBAR mind.
I'm a fucken Libertarian. Do what the fuck you want as long as you bother me.
Serious question...FEOS wrote:
YGBSM. What color is the sky on your world?AutralianChainsaw wrote:
yeah.. Bush killed a lot more people than Saddam.ATG wrote:
I would stack them like cordwood.
Comparing Bush to Saddam...silly.
How many deaths is Saddam responsible for (against his own people and in warfare)?
How many deaths is Bush responsible for, given that he is responsible for sending troops into Afghanistan and Iraq?
the entire modern history of Iraq is plagued with civil strife. Tribal warfare. Religious division. Only, now, we have news cameras there to document it.Braddock wrote:
We're talking in a purely hypothetical scenario I know but you seem to completely assume that a civil war would naturally result in the event of a dictatorship, well why didn't a civil war occur naturally in Iraq?.
Saddam didnt hold on to power for so long through peace. His entire military organization and command and control was revolved around the threat of internal insurrection after 1991.
its not a million.Braddock wrote:
Serious question...FEOS wrote:
YGBSM. What color is the sky on your world?AutralianChainsaw wrote:
yeah.. Bush killed a lot more people than Saddam.
How many deaths is Saddam responsible for (against his own people and in warfare)?
How many deaths is Bush responsible for, given that he is responsible for sending troops into Afghanistan and Iraq?
That's why I'm asking someone else this time ...can't trust those dodgy census bodycounts!GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
its not a million.Braddock wrote:
Serious question...FEOS wrote:
YGBSM. What color is the sky on your world?
How many deaths is Saddam responsible for (against his own people and in warfare)?
How many deaths is Bush responsible for, given that he is responsible for sending troops into Afghanistan and Iraq?
that 1 million is nothing but sensationalism. even the lancet report is grossly exaggerated. I couldnt even guess as to how many civilians died accurately, but Ill believe less than 200,000. Mostly due to the insurgency.
exclude all the taliban and so forth and you leave a small amount of people. In which most were accidents.Braddock wrote:
That's why I'm asking someone else this time ...can't trust those dodgy census bodycounts!GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
its not a million.Braddock wrote:
Serious question...
How many deaths is Saddam responsible for (against his own people and in warfare)?
How many deaths is Bush responsible for, given that he is responsible for sending troops into Afghanistan and Iraq?
Taliban aren't worth being taken into account, Saddam tested his weapons on villages.
inane little opines
and, keep in mind, saddam's regime was responsible for a lot of violent deaths among his civilians up until the point we occupied.
and of course saddam gave free access to the press so we could accurately count how many he is responsible for. I swear Mr Auschwitz Chainsaw needs some electroshock therapy.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
and, keep in mind, saddam's regime was responsible for a lot of violent deaths among his civilians up until the point we occupied.
How many are you suggesting roughly? I would be highly sceptical of the idea that the American military campaign only killed only a small number of civilians given the ferocity of the initial air strikes and the sheer messy nature of the ground assaults... and accidents are neither an excuse nor a justification for deaths.dayarath wrote:
exclude all the taliban and so forth and you leave a small amount of people. In which most were accidents.
Well we haven't exactly been able to accurately calculate how many have died as a result of the American invasion either so what's your point?usmarine wrote:
and of course saddam gave free access to the press so we could accurately count how many he is responsible for. I swear Mr Auschwitz Chainsaw needs some electroshock therapy.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
and, keep in mind, saddam's regime was responsible for a lot of violent deaths among his civilians up until the point we occupied.
jesus dude use your headBraddock wrote:
Well we haven't exactly been able to accurately calculate how many have died as a result of the American invasion either so what's your point?usmarine wrote:
and of course saddam gave free access to the press so we could accurately count how many he is responsible for. I swear Mr Auschwitz Chainsaw needs some electroshock therapy.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
and, keep in mind, saddam's regime was responsible for a lot of violent deaths among his civilians up until the point we occupied.
we have calculated. except, that number is too low for a lot of peoples agendas, so they blow it up and THATS what causes the confusion. The lack of credibility.
tell you the truth, I want to see that inflated number getting even higher. Then, people will start recognizing it as the propaganda it really is. Civilian deaths are down, but the numbers keep rising? doesnt make much sense to me.
What do you mean use my head? Obviously Saddam was a rather nasty guy and we can't truly calculate how many deaths he was responsible for during his reign but equally the US military campaign has made such a mess of the region that accurate figures can't be obtained now either... leading to people claiming anywhere between several thousand deaths to over a million. And as we have seen in this thread leading some people to claim the US military were only responsible for very few deaths and that most of these were as a result of accidents.usmarine wrote:
jesus dude use your headBraddock wrote:
Well we haven't exactly been able to accurately calculate how many have died as a result of the American invasion either so what's your point?usmarine wrote:
and of course saddam gave free access to the press so we could accurately count how many he is responsible for. I swear Mr Auschwitz Chainsaw needs some electroshock therapy.
Braddock, all missiles and big offensives made in Iraq or Afghanistan were made in order to eliminate hostiles; talibans and insurgents. All the civilians that died in artillery fire / missile attacks / air bombings etc. are considered accidental, they're not supposed to die, and given the high precision of our weapons these days it's very remarkable if alot of civilians die in these accidents.Braddock wrote:
How many are you suggesting roughly? I would be highly sceptical of the idea that the American military campaign only killed only a small number of civilians given the ferocity of the initial air strikes and the sheer messy nature of the ground assaults... and accidents are neither an excuse nor a justification for deaths.dayarath wrote:
exclude all the taliban and so forth and you leave a small amount of people. In which most were accidents.
The taliban and it's fellow insurgencies are responsible for probably 90% or more of all the casualties in Iraq. I can't give you an exact number, I haven't been there and I don't think there's really a statistic showing : Taliban killed number A, Americans killed number B. That doesn't exist.
Just keep in mind, the americans and it's allies are incredibly carefull when it comes to taking out hostiles, and with that reduces the amount of civilian casualties as much as possible. Also, any intentional killing of civilians results in the soldier in question going through alot of shit.
Last edited by dayarath (2008-04-05 12:23:56)
inane little opines
I was referring to nazi chainsaw and his remarks.Braddock wrote:
What do you mean use my head?