Home› A Moving Train

Pictures from Iraq

«134

Comments

  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    do you have any pictures of the bulldozers burying bodies in mass graves after the chemical attacks that saddam ordered in the late 80s early 90s?
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,056
    jlew24asu wrote:
    do you have any pictures of the bulldozers burying bodies in mass graves after the chemical attacks that saddam ordered in the late 80s early 90s?

    Maybe we could find one with spent mustard gas shells bearing the stars n bars included in the shot…?

    The US supplied precursor chemicals, active viruses, funding, and logistics support to Iraq before, during and after the attacks on the Kurds…

    How dare Saddam use chemical weapons on the Kurds? They’re supposed to use them on the Iranians!!!! :roll: .…but then…this was the THIRD version of ‘why we attacked’…



    Nov. 1, 1983: senior State Department official, Jonathan T. Howe, told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports showed that Iraqi troops were resorting to "almost daily use of chemical weapons" against the Iranians.

    March 1986: The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a security council statement condemning Iraq’s use of these weapons.

    May 1986: The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq from May of 1985 and May of 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

    May 1986: US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade Botulin poisin to Iraq.

    Late 1987: The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in Northern Iraq.

    February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages.

    April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas.

    August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925.

    August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire.

    August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds.

    September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq.

    September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives."

    December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons.
  • WaveCameCrashinWaveCameCrashin Posts: 2,929
    jlew24asu wrote:
    do you have any pictures of the bulldozers burying bodies in mass graves after the chemical attacks that saddam ordered in the late 80s early 90s?

    Of course not.. Saddam would never do such a thing. :roll:
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    jlew24asu wrote:
    do you have any pictures of the bulldozers burying bodies in mass graves after the chemical attacks that saddam ordered in the late 80s early 90s?

    if you're suggesting the reason behind the US invasion of Iraq was to remove Saddam Hussein from power, I think there's been more than enough evidence to disprove that theory.

    The sanctions alone killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did, and that's not even disputed. Don't even need to mention the 2 invasions.

    and that's all these pictures were meant to do, just provide some kind of an idea of what it means to be invaded.
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    prfctlefts wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    do you have any pictures of the bulldozers burying bodies in mass graves after the chemical attacks that saddam ordered in the late 80s early 90s?

    Of course not.. Saddam would never do such a thing. :roll:
    no one is disputing that saddam killed hundred of thousands of kurds. it its not the point. and it doesn't excuse killing another million to "save" them from such atrocities.
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,056
    Commy wrote:

    if you're suggesting the reason behind the US invasion of Iraq was to remove Saddam Hussein from power, I think there's been more than enough evidence to disprove that theory.

    The sanctions alone killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did, and that's not even disputed. Don't even need to mention the 2 invasions.

    and that's all these pictures were meant to do, just provide some kind of an idea of what it means to be invaded.
    And when it's discovered that the reason of the day for invading was falsified or intentionally misleading, it gets real quiet, real quick...
    Accountability ends when the finger starts to point inward, I guess...

    So many dead over lies...the pics do drive it home. Have to wonder what public opinion would be like if tv coverage showed more of those images from day one, instead of the 'embedded' bullshit we were given...
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    do you have any pictures of the bulldozers burying bodies in mass graves after the chemical attacks that saddam ordered in the late 80s early 90s?

    You mean the mass graves filled with the bodies of the Shiite Muslims in the South of the country who were killed with U.S encouragement after they attempted to overthrow Sadaam at the end of the first Gulf war?
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Commy wrote:
    no one is disputing that saddam killed hundred of thousands of kurds. it its not the point. and it doesn't excuse killing another million to "save" them from such atrocities.

    yes it is the point. you want to post these pics and make this thread to put the US in some bad light and show what its like to be invaded. why? why not show what Iraq was like before the invasion. mass killings, beatings, torture, people living in fear everyday, and having zero freedoms.

    why not post pics of current day Iraq that show woman and children going to school, people being able to express themselves, and progress that is being made everyday. there is a reason why Iraq is not in the news anymore, no one cares about good news...its not reported.

    here is the only story I could find about Iraq on BBC's site...A story about US technology companies coming to Iraq to help build the internet and networking capabilities..
    article wrote:
    "The internet in Iraq was censored and not easily available under Saddam Hussein. It is now widespread but is still expensive and not always reliable.

    But for many Iraqi families, it has been a lifeline linking them with the outside world during years when it was often too dangerous to step outside their front door.

    The BBC's Sebastian Usher says not too long ago the prospect of senior executives from leading American companies paying a week-long visit to Iraq would have been out of the question.

    It is a sign of the improving security situation that nine executives are venturing into Baghdad. It is also an indication of how the Americans are trying to use means other than military power to help Iraqis develop a more stable society.

    in the country.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8010393.stm


    I'm not saying this to justify US going into Iraq. war is horrible and going to Iraq was wrong. we were told lies about what was going on there. but guess what, it happened. cant change that now. so instead of dwelling on the bad things of the past, why not look to some of the positives as well. to say Iraq is not making progress is plain ignorant.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    do you have any pictures of the bulldozers burying bodies in mass graves after the chemical attacks that saddam ordered in the late 80s early 90s?

    You mean the mass graves filled with the bodies of the Shiite Muslims in the South of the country who were killed with U.S encouragement after they attempted to overthrow Sadaam at the end of the first Gulf war?

    since the US "encouraged" Shitties to overthrow Saddam, it must be our fault Saddam committed genocide on them. ok got it.
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    jlew24asu wrote:

    yes it is the point. you want to post these pics and make this thread to put the US in some bad light and show what its like to be invaded. why? why not show what Iraq was like before the invasion. mass killings, beatings, torture, people living in fear everyday, and having zero freedoms.


    its not about putting "the US in some bad light". they do that just fine on their own. the pictures aren't faked..each is a glimpse of what invasion really means. that was the point. that's why i posted the pics. not to show how bad the US is, not to point fingers, just to show that war is a nightmare, that's why. maybe next time people wont' be as ready to follow along when someone suggests its time for another invasion. and that time will come.
    why not post pics of current day Iraq that show woman and children going to school, people being able to express themselves, and progress that is being made everyday. there is a reason why Iraq is not in the news anymore, no one cares about good news...its not reported.

    feel free to do so. no one is stopping you.
    here is the only story I could find about Iraq on BBC's site...A story about US technology companies coming to Iraq to help build the internet and networking capabilities..
    article wrote:
    "The internet in Iraq was censored and not easily available under Saddam Hussein. It is now widespread but is still expensive and not always reliable.

    But for many Iraqi families, it has been a lifeline linking them with the outside world during years when it was often too dangerous to step outside their front door.

    The BBC's Sebastian Usher says not too long ago the prospect of senior executives from leading American companies paying a week-long visit to Iraq would have been out of the question.

    It is a sign of the improving security situation that nine executives are venturing into Baghdad. It is also an indication of how the Americans are trying to use means other than military power to help Iraqis develop a more stable society.



    in the country.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8010393.stm


    I'm not saying this to justify US going into Iraq. war is horrible and going to Iraq was wrong. we were told lies about what was going on there. but guess what, it happened. cant change that now. so instead of dwelling on the bad things of the past, why not look to some of the positives as well. to say Iraq is not making progress is plain ignorant.






    all the tortured and innocent lost along the way....but here's the internet so lets move on.


    you're suggesting we move on? forget the past, focus on the good?

    ever wonder why people in general choose not to take that approach when dealing with the holocaust? its when people forget atrocities they are repeated. its why i saw those holocaust survivors give their presentations in highschool, and will never forget the look in their eyes. so that doesn't happen again.

    and i'm not comparing the iraq invasion to the holocaust, but there are similar lessons to be learned.

    the american people have "moved on" from the invasion of Panama, from Vietnam, from the first Iraq invasion. they "moved on" from the phillipines and nicauragua.

    that's how we got into this mess. people forget and move on.

    so, that is why i posted these pictures. so that we don't move on. so that people remember just how much of a nightmare war really is.

    and maybe, if enough people don't move on, maybe the US won't be invading some akistan or some random island nation 5 years from now.


    Ernest Hemingway
    "Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime."
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    jlew24asu wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    do you have any pictures of the bulldozers burying bodies in mass graves after the chemical attacks that saddam ordered in the late 80s early 90s?

    You mean the mass graves filled with the bodies of the Shiite Muslims in the South of the country who were killed with U.S encouragement after they attempted to overthrow Sadaam at the end of the first Gulf war?

    since the US "encouraged" Shitties to overthrow Saddam, it must be our fault Saddam committed genocide on them. ok got it.

    eh. if you promise your buddy your going to back him up if he stands up to a bully, and then leave him to get his ass kicked, you have some responsiblity for his injuries, yes.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Commy wrote:
    all the tortured and innocent lost along the way....but here's the internet so lets move on.

    dont get cute. you know thats not the point I was making.
    Commy wrote:
    you're suggesting we move on? forget the past, focus on the good?

    yes and no. I'm suggesting we move on, not forget the past, and merely mention the good, not ignore it.
    Commy wrote:
    ever wonder why people in general choose not to take that approach when dealing with the holocaust? its when people forget atrocities they are repeated. its why i saw those holocaust survivors give their presentations in highschool, and will never forget the look in their eyes. so that doesn't happen again.

    and i'm not comparing the iraq invasion to the holocaust, but there are similar lessons to be learned.

    the american people have "moved on" from the invasion of Panama, from Vietnam, from the first Iraq invasion. they "moved on" from the phillipines and nicauragua.

    that's how we got into this mess. people forget and move on.

    so, that is why i posted these pictures. so that we don't move on. so that people remember just how much of a nightmare war really is.

    and maybe, if enough people don't move on, maybe the US won't be invading some akistan or some random island nation 5 years from now.


    Ernest Hemingway
    "Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime."

    sounds like you are comparing the holocaust to the Iraq war. no one disputes that war is horrible. and its a shame we didnt learn our lesson from Vietnam. all I'm saying, is stop ignoring the good that is and can happen. instead of trolling around the type of sites you posted, why not look for stories like the one I posted? or better yet, show both. unless you dont want Iraq to succeed as a nation. and my guess is thats probably what you want. you get great pleasure by seeing the US fail.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Commy wrote:
    eh. if you promise your buddy your going to back him up if he stands up to a bully, and then leave him to get his ass kicked, you have some responsiblity for his injuries, yes.

    the US made no promises to shiites.
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    jlew24asu wrote:
    Commy wrote:
    eh. if you promise your buddy your going to back him up if he stands up to a bully, and then leave him to get his ass kicked, you have some responsiblity for his injuries, yes.

    the US made no promises to shiites.


    really.


    Executive Summary The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 says, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." emphasis mine.



    its my understanding that the US dropped fliers on shiite villages, telling them to rise up, that the US was going to support them...

    there was a report of a shiite village being wiped out by Saddam's forces in sight of US Marines.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Commy wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    Commy wrote:
    eh. if you promise your buddy your going to back him up if he stands up to a bully, and then leave him to get his ass kicked, you have some responsiblity for his injuries, yes.

    the US made no promises to shiites.


    really.


    Executive Summary The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 says, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." emphasis mine.



    its my understanding that the US dropped fliers on shiite villages, telling them to rise up, that the US was going to support them...

    there was a report of a shiite village being wiped out by Saddam's forces in sight of US Marines.

    there is a key word in the summary..should support. I'm sure there were Marines who saw Saddams forces killing people. but they had orders to stand down. would u rather the US invade and occupy Iraq in 91? that was the only other option. ok, I didnt think so.
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    On Feb. 15, 1991, President George H.W. Bush called on the Iraqi military and people to overthrow Saddam Hussein.


    edit: "CALLED ON IRAQI PEOPLE". Iraq is %50 Shiite. ie IRAQI PEOPLE=SHIITES


    and yeah, check it yourself, its an accurate statement.


    so back to the original point of this pointless little argument, YES, the US told the Shiites to rise up and overthrow Saddam...inherent in that plea is a pledge of aid. hey we just invaded your country, now rise up and take control...what else would they think? of course the US was going to help them. not so.


    The spontaneous Shiite uprising of 1991 consumed the southern part of Iraq right up to the approaches to Baghdad. Rebels came to U.S. troops, who were then deployed in the Euphrates Valley, begging for U.S. intervention. The Shiite political parties sent emissaries to the few Americans who would see them. To this day, I am haunted by the desperation in the appeals made to me by one group, as they realized time was running out for their countrymen.


    But the wonderful US foreign policy planners decided a militant Saddam was better than a possibly Iranian friendly Shiite rule...yeah it came down to politics. and 100,000 people died as a result. another American foreign policy victory eh? they're just Shiites right? they don't count as real people, right?

    make excuses all you want, its safe to say the entire region would have been better off if the US never got involved.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    ok, well then I guess the US should have invaded and took out Saddam in 91. would that have made u happy? the US can never be right in your eyes.

    no one forced Saddam to invade Iran or Kuwait for that matter. yes, the US got ivolved and took sides. our involvement in the region is necessary. oil. its no secret. our economy and country has been completely dependant on oil to survive. if the US never got involved, Saddam would have invaded and killed whoever he wanted. killing many more.

    stop blaming the US for the worlds problems.
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    jlew24asu wrote:
    ok, well then I guess the US should have invaded and took out Saddam in 91. would that have made u happy? the US can never be right in your eyes.

    no one forced Saddam to invade Iran or Kuwait for that matter. yes, the US got ivolved and took sides. our involvement in the region is necessary. oil. its no secret. our economy and country has been completely dependant on oil to survive. if the US never got involved, Saddam would have invaded and killed whoever he wanted. killing many more.

    stop blaming the US for the worlds problems.


    i'm not trying too. in this case the US bears some of the burden. most of it.


    the US is an empire. and not a very nice one. that's should be obvious. and i'm not trying to point that out in every post, but the thread inevitably led to that fact.

    If the US never got involved in the first place we probably wouldn't have seen Saddam take power, the gassing of the kurds(with US made chemical weapons) the Iran/Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwait...and on...



    there is a legitimate theory which ties the CIA with Kuwaiti intelligence, prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Kuwait was slant drilling the Ramallya oil field, literally pumping the oil out from under Iraq. hundreds of millions of dollars worth. Rhetoric from Washington hinted that the middle east should be left to the middle east...actually it didn't hint at that it directly said that. April Glaspie was the highest ranking US official to talk to Saddam prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, she was the US ambassador to Iraq, this is what she said, when they were directly discussing the Iraq/Kuwait confrontation..

    "US Ambassador Glaspie:

    "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasise the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."


    the official US position on the Iraq/Kuwait conflict, prior to the Iraqi invasion, was that they had "no opinion" on it, that it had no association with America.

    i think it was wwII that redrew the borders, basically cutting Iraq off from the sea. iraq never recognized them. add the green light from Washington, the provocateur activities with Kuwait, and you have a war...which gives the US a perfectly legitimate reason to send in the troops.

    An Iraqi Ambassador at an Arab summit produced documents seized in the invasion of Kuwait, showing CIA Kuwaiti intelligence cooperation, specifically regarding the slant drilling...

    when presented with documents the Kuwaiti Ambassador feinted.

    there's more, much more, but i think you get the idea.








    the point is leave Iraq to the Iraqis
    leave afghanistan to the afghanis
    leave iran to the iranians
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    its the face of war.


    i don't care if this is from the first invasion in 92, doesn't matter. still powerful.

    http://www.albasrah.net/images/iraqfree ... 27_jpg.jpg
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    edited April 2009
    Commy wrote:

    i'm not trying too. in this case the US bears some of the burden. most of it.

    the US is an empire. and not a very nice one. that's should be obvious. and i'm not trying to point that out in every post, but the thread inevitably led to that fact.

    the US is a perfectly fine "Empire" whatever that is. we do much more good then harm in the world. sad you dont realize that. it would be nice if you focused your level of hatred to the true villains of the world.
    Commy wrote:
    If the US never got involved in the first place we probably wouldn't have seen Saddam take power, the gassing of the kurds(with US made chemical weapons) the Iran/Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwait...and on...

    the US didnt create the Baath party, the US had nothing to do with Saddam taking power. we also had nothing to do with him being a psychotic sociopath. you totally lost me at the statement here. this really shows just how much you dont know the history or Iraq and the region. I'm not saying the US's hands are clean in the middle east, but we are not the source or cause of the problems there.
    Commy wrote:
    there is a legitimate theory which ties the CIA with Kuwaiti intelligence, prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Kuwait was slant drilling the Ramallya oil field, literally pumping the oil out from under Iraq. hundreds of millions of dollars worth. Rhetoric from Washington hinted that the middle east should be left to the middle east...actually it didn't hint at that it directly said that. April Glaspie was the highest ranking US official to talk to Saddam prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, she was the US ambassador to Iraq, this is what she said, when they were directly discussing the Iraq/Kuwait confrontation..

    "US Ambassador Glaspie:

    "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasise the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

    the official US position on the Iraq/Kuwait conflict, prior to the Iraqi invasion, was that they had "no opinion" on it, that it had no association with America.

    i think it was wwII that redrew the borders, basically cutting Iraq off from the sea. iraq never recognized them. add the green light from Washington, the provocateur activities with Kuwait, and you have a war...which gives the US a perfectly legitimate reason to send in the troops.

    An Iraqi Ambassador at an Arab summit produced documents seized in the invasion of Kuwait, showing CIA Kuwaiti intelligence cooperation, specifically regarding the slant drilling...

    when presented with documents the Kuwaiti Ambassador feinted.

    there's more, much more, but i think you get the idea.

    everyone loves a great theory I mean conspiracy. even if all this bullshit was true, Saddam is still to blame for invading Kuwait.
    Post edited by jlew24asu on
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Commy wrote:
    its the face of war.


    i don't care if this is from the first invasion in 92, doesn't matter. still powerful.

    http://www.albasrah.net/images/iraqfree ... 27_jpg.jpg

    so are these..

    http://www.aaljumah.com/system/files/am ... oldier.jpg

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26403249/wid/21370087

    http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/123 ... iraqEX.jpg
  • Brisk.Brisk. Posts: 11,566
    Why did Saddam kill Kurds?
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    I BrisK I wrote:
    Why did Saddam kill Kurds?

    great report on the entire situation if you have the time.

    http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1993/ ... ANFAL1.htm

    The Iraqi Kurds have also been the victims of an accident of geography, for vast oil reserves were discovered in the 20th century on the fringes of their ancestral lands. The Kurds have repeatedly challenged the government in Baghdad for control of these areas--especially the ethnically mixed city of Kirkuk. And it is this contest for natural resources and power, as much as any consideration of ideology or deep-rooted ethnic animus, which underlies the brutal treatment of the Kurds by the ruling Arab Ba'ath Socialist Party.
  • Brisk.Brisk. Posts: 11,566
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I BrisK I wrote:
    Why did Saddam kill Kurds?

    great report on the entire situation if you have the time.

    http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1993/ ... ANFAL1.htm

    The Iraqi Kurds have also been the victims of an accident of geography, for vast oil reserves were discovered in the 20th century on the fringes of their ancestral lands. The Kurds have repeatedly challenged the government in Baghdad for control of these areas--especially the ethnically mixed city of Kirkuk. And it is this contest for natural resources and power, as much as any consideration of ideology or deep-rooted ethnic animus, which underlies the brutal treatment of the Kurds by the ruling Arab Ba'ath Socialist Party.

    Thanks man, i read all these threads and wish i could participate but i dont know anything really as its usually just mega complex, and not having grown up in any of it makes it harder to understand the situations at the times. Also i guess articles contain some sort of bias.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    I BrisK I wrote:

    Thanks man, i read all these threads and wish i could participate but i dont know anything really as its usually just mega complex, and not having grown up in any of it makes it harder to understand the situations at the times. Also i guess articles contain some sort of bias.

    I suppose all articles have some sort of bias one way or the other. its important research as much as you can to find facts. commy, for example, will have you believe the US created the Kurds and used them as a pawn in their grand plan for world domination. reader beware ;)
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I BrisK I wrote:

    Thanks man, i read all these threads and wish i could participate but i dont know anything really as its usually just mega complex, and not having grown up in any of it makes it harder to understand the situations at the times. Also i guess articles contain some sort of bias.

    I suppose all articles have some sort of bias one way or the other. its important research as much as you can to find facts. commy, for example, will have you believe the US created the Kurds and used them as a pawn in their grand plan for world domination. reader beware ;)



    actually the kurds were moved from eastern europe into iraq by the nsa, nice try through.

    kidding of course.


    i don't know anything about the kurds.
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    jlew24asu wrote:
    Commy wrote:
    its the face of war.


    i don't care if this is from the first invasion in 92, doesn't matter. still powerful.

    http://www.albasrah.net/images/iraqfree ... 27_jpg.jpg

    so are these..

    http://www.aaljumah.com/system/files/am ... oldier.jpg

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26403249/wid/21370087

    http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/123 ... iraqEX.jpg


    no. this isn't the face of war.


    war may include things like this...those wonderful trained killers bandaging little kids, but its not the face of war.


    and there's an argument to be made, that i will make, that those kids wouldn't have been in that situation were it not for the very soldiers bandaging them.

    its like taking credit for putting out a house fire that you set.

    "dude, did you see that, i just put out that fire"
    "yeah you set it though you stupid mother#*%$"
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Commy wrote:

    no. this isn't the face of war.

    I meant they are powerful images.

    Commy wrote:

    war may include things like this...those wonderful trained killers bandaging little kids, but its not the face of war.

    and there's an argument to be made, that i will make, that those kids wouldn't have been in that situation were it not for the very soldiers bandaging them.

    its like taking credit for putting out a house fire that you set.

    "dude, did you see that, i just put out that fire"
    "yeah you set it though you stupid mother#*%$"

    :roll: sigh, you just dont get it. as much as you refuse to believe it, the US is there to help. if we weren't we would have bombed the place back into a desert and left a long long time ago. we arent there to make Iraq the 51st state. we arent there to take the land.
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    jlew24asu wrote:
    Commy wrote:

    no. this isn't the face of war.

    I meant they are powerful images.

    Commy wrote:

    war may include things like this...those wonderful trained killers bandaging little kids, but its not the face of war.

    and there's an argument to be made, that i will make, that those kids wouldn't have been in that situation were it not for the very soldiers bandaging them.

    its like taking credit for putting out a house fire that you set.

    "dude, did you see that, i just put out that fire"
    "yeah you set it though you stupid mother#*%$"

    :roll: sigh, you just dont get it. as much as you refuse to believe it, the US is there to help. if we weren't we would have bombed the place back into a desert and left a long long time ago. we arent there to make Iraq the 51st state. we arent there to take the land.

    ?

    in what strange world do you kill millions of people and then say you are helping them?


    Iraq used to be the most advanced country in the region.

    its now on the same level as some of the poorest countries in Africa.


    if that's the US gov't definition of "help", maybe we should send them a dictionary or something.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Commy wrote:
    ?

    in what strange world do you kill millions of people and then say you are helping them?


    Iraq used to be the most advanced country in the region.

    its now on the same level as some of the poorest countries in Africa.


    if that's the US gov't definition of "help", maybe we should send them a dictionary or something.

    A) we didn't kill millions of people. that is an outright lie and disgusting you would say such an exaggerated thing.

    B) we are helping them. we are spending BILLIONS on their infrastructure and training brave Iraqis to defend themselves with police and military. and its actually working.

    C) to say Iraq used to be the most advanced country in the region is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard and further proves you know little to nothing about the history or Iraq.
Sign In or Register to comment.