DO YOU THINK THE SEARCH FOR SADDAM...

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

AOD

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
768
0
0
40
#2
How do you figure we lost 3 times as many people over sea's then we did on 9-11? last time I heard we had somethin like 300 causalties and there was a few thousand people that died on 9-11. And I wouldn't put the war in Iraq as the search for saddam i'd just say the war in Iraq. And nah I don't think it was worth it we attaked a country that in all reality hasn't attaked us directly so I think it wasn't really just no matter how bad people think dude was to his own people. And about all a that weapons of mass distruction non sense seems to be just that non sense. so I woulda much rather a seen us to put all that money and effort into finding Bin Laden. Which is what we shoulda done way before we started this shit. As far as people losing they're lives. Yeah that's sad but you know what. They shoulda thought about that before they went into the military. they aren't inocent they knew that was a possiblity before they signed up. . .It's not they were drafted. . .
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
43
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#3
I believe the "official" casualty number for Amerikan soldiers to date is around 500 and 3,000 injured. Of course the troops are going to be there for a very long time so I would expect that number to continue to rise.

Now some media outlets are reporting Iraqi deaths around 7,000 to 10,000 while others are reporting 15,000 to 25,000 Iraqi casualties, many of which are innocent civilians including children.

It's going to take years and years to rebuild Iraq and in the process of doing so thousands of more lives will be lost.

The funny thing is no one has found any of the so called WMD's and now the Bush administration is saying that they are liberating Iraq. Well, if killing thousands of people is what they call liberating, then they are sure doing a damn good job.
 
May 2, 2002
9,580
17
0
41
#4
2-0-Sixx said:
many of which are innocent civilians including children.
lol

you're full of shit. many of which were actually crazy towelheads running at american soliders with bombs strapped to their chest.

I actually remember hearing from BBC that the children death toll was quite low.

quit spreading bullshit over this board, commie
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
43
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#5
Psycho Logic said:
lol

you're full of shit. many of which were actually crazy towelheads running at american soliders with bombs strapped to their chest.

I actually remember hearing from BBC that the children death toll was quite low.
Please, keep your racist comments off of this board. This isn't the first time I have witnessed you say some fucked up shit like that.

Do your homework...About 50-60% of Iraqs population are childrenAnd YES, there have been MANY children killed.
 
May 2, 2002
9,580
17
0
41
#6
'towelhead' is racist?

thats news to me.. Had I said sandnigger, ya, kinda racist.

50%-60% of iraq's pop are children? ok, be that as it may, it doesnt mean that 50-60% of the people killed were children.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
43
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#7
Psycho Logic said:
'towelhead' is racist?

thats news to me.. Had I said sandnigger, ya, kinda racist.

50%-60% of iraq's pop are children? ok, be that as it may, it doesnt mean that 50-60% of the people killed were children.
"Towelhead" is a racist term. Say that to a middle easterner and see if they get offended or not.

Did I ever say 50-60% of the causalties are children? No I said,
Now some media outlets are reporting Iraqi deaths around 7,000 to 10,000 while others are reporting 15,000 to 25,000 Iraqi casualties, many of which are innocent civilians including children.
"MANY"
man·y
adj. more, (môr, mr) most (mst)
1.Being one of a large indefinite number; numerous: many a child; many another day.
2.Amounting to or consisting of a large indefinite number: many friends.

Many children have lost their lives in Iraq. Again, do you homework.:dead:
 
Mar 18, 2003
5,362
194
0
43
#8
1. We don't invade Iraq, civilians die (including children) under Saddam (with malice).
1. We do invade Iraq, civilians die (including children) by the U.S. (unintentionally, this being forever arguable, though).

*YEARS FROM NOW*

2. We didn't invade Iraq, civilians including children are still dying (Saddam).
2. We do invade Iraq, no one is dying by the U.S. or under Saddam.

Why is this? Simple. People in Iraq are being sacraficed in order to keep the country safe for the people in the future. We are freeing the people from evil and cruel dictatorship under Saddam, this is not rocket science. Liberating Iraqi's takes more than telling Saddam to leave. In this case, it had to be done by force because of the strong resistance (remember they once had the 4th largest army in the world) all of which reside under the direct control of Saddam. We are liberating these people from the torture and vicious murder coming from the people who are supposed to be bettering the country. These leaders instead spent millions on cars, zoo's, women, and material things while children starve in the streets. Some people won't acknowledge this because bias runs through their veins. Check these people's posts and you will find NOTHING concerning the U.S. that isn't bashing the country, not a coincidence. These people understand completely what I just typed out, but in order for them to "show" that they understand, they would have to show some shred of approval for what the U.S. is doing, which we all know is never going to happen, regardless what this great nation does.

Liberating people is about FREEING them from control, and in this case, evil dictatorship. That is exactly what is being done. Casualties are inevitable, they are going to come whether we touch that country or not, end of story.

2-0-Sixx said:
"MANY"
man·y
adj. more, (môr, mr) most (mst)
1.Being one of a large indefinite number; numerous: many a child; many another day.
2.Amounting to or consisting of a large indefinite number: many friends.

Many children have lost their lives in Iraq. Again, do you homework.:dead:
That's just a way of tricking readers into believing a much larger number exists. If 5 people died in Iraq, and three of them were children, I could use the words "most of" or "many of" without error, but the numbers are still very small. Clever; I would be lying if I said I never did it myself.
 
May 2, 2002
748
2
18
43
#9
^^^bush uses those same kind of words in every speech that he gives..

2. We do invade Iraq, no one is dying by the U.S. or under Saddam.
you are right in some sense but saddam will be replaced by another dictator that will just hide behind the democracy name tag and people will continue to die nomatter who is in charge in the middle east especially if the united states keeps heating shit up over there
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
43
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#10
Nitro the Guru said:
That's just a way of tricking readers into believing a much larger number exists. If 5 people died in Iraq, and three of them were children, I could use the words "most of" or "many of" without error, but the numbers are still very small. Clever; I would be lying if I said I never did it myself.
Actually I wasn't trying to be "clever" at all. To me, HUNDREDS of innocent Iraqi children is many...too many.

Dosia has a very good point. What kind of government will come after Saddam? Well, if I was a betting man I would bet my $$$ on another "evil" ruthless killer. This time, one who listens to every word the U.S says (Much like how Saddam did for so many years).

All you have to do is look at the past. How many times has the U.S overthrown a government or assassinated leaders only to implant a much worse government? Do the names Jacobo Arbenz and Castillo Armas mean anything to you? Or how about Joao Goulart and General Castelo Branco? How about Salvador Allende? Want more?
 
Dec 13, 2003
2,058
3
0
43
#14
we put saddam in power in the first place..but just because we took saddam out doesnt mean freedom and justice for all...that kinda of shit will never come to pass. stopping terrorism with acts of terroris will never solve anything.
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
48
#15
2-0-Sixx said:
How many times has the U.S overthrown a government or assassinated leaders only to implant a much worse government?

Do the names Jacobo Arbenz mean anything to you?
as to arbenz in Guatamala he was trying to impliment a Communist/Socialist government. and confiscated "American Owned" lands.

What can be worse than that?
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
43
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#16
Mcleanhatch said:
as to arbenz in Guatamala he was trying to impliment a Communist/Socialist government. and confiscated "American Owned" lands.

What can be worse than that?
LOL!

That fucking Arbenz...I mean shit, he gave back the land to the poor. What a fucking evil man! Taking him out of power and killing thousands of innocent people makes it all worth it right?

Your unfuckingbelievable McBain.
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
48
#17
MzThicK said:
WAS WORTH ALL THE LIVES LOST?

WE LOST 3 TIMES THE LIVES OVER SEAS THEN WE DID ON 911....WAS IT WORTH THE SAFETY OF ANOTHER COUNTRY? IM JUST CURIOUS WHAT YALL THINK

CLICK HERE TO SEE MZTHICK
MzThick approximately 400 American lives have been lost in Iraq and i believe about a hair under 3000 were lost on 9-11 so your numbers a way off.

but if you mean was it worth it anyway i would say YES. By taking this battle to Iraq we are taking doen a ruthless dictator who has killed nearly 1 million people (we have already found mass graves amounting to about 300,000).

we are also helping in the long run to stabilize the middle east since Sadam was a major sponsor of terrorism in Palistine, as he sent to the families of homocide bombers that killed innocent Isrealies check of $15,000.

also by taking him out we will make the world a safer place as just a week after his capture Lybia (a state that sponsors terror and has weapons of mass destruction) and its leader Kadafi agree with the USA and with Brittish officials to let the UN come in and dismanlte its WMD programs.
 
Jul 19, 2002
357
0
0
49
dosiared.greedygraphiks.com
#18
IF YOUR REGARDING THE LIVES OF AMERICANS ONLY ONES WORTH LIVING THERN YEA NUMBERS ARE OFF BUT IM SPEAKING ON ALL HUMANS DYING OVER THERE....NUMBERS ARE HIGHER...JUST CAUSE THEY ARE FROM IRAQ, DOESNT MEAN THAT THEIR LIVES ARENT WORTH SOMETHING.....EVERYONE SEEMS TO ONLY FOCUS ON WHATS GOOD FOR US TROOPS....
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
48
#19
2-0-Sixx said:
I mean shit, he gave back the land to the poor. What a fucking evil man!
that would be great if it was his land (and i know he did lend alote of his land also).

but the land wasnt "HIS" it belonged to private individuals.

and if i recall correctly he didnt "give" the poor the land. he confiscated it for the government and let them "borrow" it.
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
48
#20
MzThicK said:
IF YOUR REGARDING THE LIVES OF AMERICANS ONLY ONES WORTH LIVING THERN YEA NUMBERS ARE OFF BUT IM SPEAKING ON ALL HUMANS DYING OVER THERE....NUMBERS ARE HIGHER...JUST CAUSE THEY ARE FROM IRAQ, DOESNT MEAN THAT THEIR LIVES ARENT WORTH SOMETHING.....EVERYONE SEEMS TO ONLY FOCUS ON WHATS GOOD FOR US TROOPS....
no the numbers arent higher because as i said earlier Sadam and/or his regime are directly responsible for about 1 million deaths, and we have already uncovered about 300,000 mass graves.

now tell me what is worse another couple of million lives over the course of his life and his Sons lives in power or a couple thousand accidental lives that are taken now "collateral damage"?