[k-krack]

Originally Posted by Bastian

It`s depressing, indeed. And it also reminds me of what those soldiers are going through, what they sacrifice to build a better future for Iraq and for the world. And it makes me very angry that people in Europe (and also in the US, i guess) compare them to Nazis! It`s so discusting.

I wish the war would be over, but I know it`s not. I hope that Iraqi democracy will prevail, that civil war will be prevented, and a stable iraqi state will evolve, without jihadist or sectarian violence. And I hope the best for the GIs over there.

Sorry man, but you clearly are a complete moron.

[Ohama Beach `44]

Originally Posted by static-harmony

My brother is not a murderer, he is just doing what he signed to do. That's what I hate blaming the soldiers and not the politicians or those in High rank positions.

of course a person is a murderer who killed a person. it does not matter what the reason was. but this is a soldiers private problem. the political dimension of the middle east conflict is, that i can´t critizise a war against anti-democratic movements (homophobic, sexists, racists, religious-conservatives, fascists, ultra-brutal terrorists) that represses a whole region between israel and afghanistan and also parts of africa.

[Bertrand]

Originally Posted by Cantankerous

We can't "free" Iraq. It's their own business, NOT ours. America needs to stop trying to be the world's 9-1-1 because it is not working to our advantage.

I agree with that. A nation has to free itself.
What happened there was highly stupid.
Once the US army got rid of Saddam, offering cash to his officers to clear the path, what was left for the Iraqi? Who could they vote for? When you vote for someone, you pay attention to his/her latest achievements.
The greatest achievement would have been to have freed Iraq.
But there were no Iraqis involved in the process.
During this war, I'd believe there were some Iraqui groups who fought Saddam, but none got to be noticed. No Iraqi was given a chance to prove the rest of the nation he would be a leader, able to deal with choices, make the proper move and so on, during this war. All the credits were tossed at Bush's administration.
Back in 1991, during the first gulf war, inside the country, several groups had started the fight and could have been considered dangerous for Saddam. That was the time for the rest of the world to chose among those guys who were on the verge of achieving something who to support (according to our own interest). Didn't happen. Western civilizations let them die.

I don't understand Bastian.

Saddam is on trial, in a very peculiar box, a too big setting that makes him look like a baby in a park (I'm missing the correct word). Put teddy bears on the pictures and you'll get what I mean.

So, Saddam on trial, who do you want the Iraqis to be freed from?

There's a government, with people with no great experience.

Had they had an experience, they could have seen things coming and answered. What's the Iraqi government answer to terror? Is there one? Or are they leaving their future rest in the hands of the US army? Where's every Iraqi citizen's autonomy?

America's leaders don't consider themselves as the world 911. It's a way of giving the families a treasurable reason for the death of their sons and daughters.

[Ohama Beach `44]

Originally Posted by Bertrand

A nation has to free itself.

i just read this sentence. and i do not understand if you understand the dimension of what you are saying.

do you know what that would have ment to hitler-deutschland? this nation would have killed the last 6% jewish people between france and russia if the allies would have followed that idea that you spread.

i am proud that bomber harris leveled berlin, dresden or cologne to ground zero. that was the root for democracy and freedom in germany. but your freedom kills!

you should notice that it´s impossible to free yourself under certain amounts of conditions. hitler-deutschland was such a situation and many in middle east are comparable because of totalitarian strong autocratic conditions.


think about it!

[Bertrand]

Do you disagree with what comes after that second sentence too?

[blue sunlover]

mamamia yes think about it

[static-harmony]

I do agree that a nation has to free itself.

[Bertrand]

There was a putsch in Chile on 1973-09-11 (or was it 1974).
When you're on the side of the ones who kicked out president Allende, you call that freeing the nation from a threat.
Those who took the power were not citizens of the USA. They had proved themselves and so on. They got what they wanted with Henry Kissinger's helping hand, but they already had the capacity of assuming power.
Helping the inside "resistance" (in this case the resistance to a socialist president) is the way to help another nation.
The USSR did it.
The USA did it.
They trained Ben Laden during some conflict in the gulf area.
What I meant is that a regime can only exist when the people know their leader has achieved something in his life before becoming the head of the nation. You can't propel anyone on the front stage and expect everything to be all right just cause you'd like to, the way Bush did.
I believe that Cantankerous and others don't see what good George Walker did before becoming president (the guy quit drinking though) and that's why the USA appears as a nation freaking out. And powerful people freaking out are not the best guests you'd expect.

[Rob Instigator]

cantank, the majority of iraqui deaths in the past few years (and there have been over 16 THOUSAND) come at the hand of insurgents or fellow iraquis of a different religion, NOT at the hands of american's or other foreign soldiers.
In areas of baghdad there are 10-30 bodies found every morning executed, dragged out of their homes at night, by arabs, not by americans.

put the blame where it really is if you are going to be indignant.