Suicide bombers kill over 110 in Iraqi cities

[tinybear]

Sure they come from several categories. But they are mainly Sunnis, former Saddam loyalists or people from Al Qaeda affiliated organisations, i.e. they are people who used to thrive when Saddam was in power.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4268904.stm

[dilligras]

Quote by: tinybear Sure they come from several categories. But they are mainly Sunnis, former Saddam loyalists or people from Al Qaeda affiliated organisations, i.e. they are people who used to thrive when Saddam was in power.

Sounds like the Dems might fit that description, as well. Not that one can reasonably expect them to stay out of power long, with the perfidious support of the lefty-infested media heralding their every treasonous utterance.

[Matt W]

Dilligras, you want to stay on-topic or try and debate?

[dilligras]

Quote by: Matt W Dilligras, you want to stay on-topic or try and debate?

Sure....do you?

[Matt W]

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer. :rolleyes:

Talk about Iraq, dilligras, don't rant about Dems.

Do not respond to me within this thread. PM myself or Sean if you have any questions.

[Samildanach]

I see......so you wish us to see your position as "intelligent", rather than treasonous. Rather self-serving aren't we?

Hmmm lets consider that for a second. A reasonable definition of treason would be

treason: betraying one's country, whether in peacetime or during a war

for example: Allowing or hiring a group of terrorists to attack the largest buildings in the nation's largest city and the military's headquarters is an act of treason.

Thankyou for the highly dubious honor of being classed as an American,however, I not being American, cannnot be classed as treasonous. As for the intelligent part,my apologies if I hit a raw nerve, I didn't mean to bring your insecurities in that area into the limelight and you have my word and my solemn promise that I will do my best not to highlight these deficiencies of yours again in front of the volconvo general population. As for self serving, as far as America in general goes thats the pot calling the kettle black.

[Samildanach]

What a load of horseshit. What it does is undermine the morale of our troops while they're in harm's way, while simultaneously giving their enemy cause to continue murdering innocents in hopes of reinstating their dictatorship and dominance over the majority of Iraqi citizens.

America doesn't need the suicide bombers to undermine moral, all they have to do is to look at whitehouse policy and approval ratings for the war. Bush is doing most of the jihadists work for them to ensure sales for his weapons manufacturing buddies. After all everytime the world might be on the brink of unprofitable peace, America will make sure it steps in to stop it. Thankyou America world defender.

Iraqis must not be seen as worthy of the same freedoms the lefties so vigorously defend for themselves.

Not the primary reason given for going to war. Operation Iraqi oil grab couldn't have cared less about the civilian towel heads and if anything saw them as a damn nuisance, proof of this is aforementioned airstrikes.

As for "stealing oil", isn't that what Saddam was doing to the Kuwaitis, when we intervened? And didn't he break every single stipulation of the cease fire that left him in power, including firing on our planes over the no-fly zone on a weekly basis?

Ah the truth comesout at last, American intervenes when oil is under threat. Stipulations are simply an excuse to invade.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: tinybear Sure they come from several categories. But they are mainly Sunnis, former Saddam loyalists or people from Al Qaeda affiliated organisations, i.e. they are people who used to thrive when Saddam was in power. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4268904.stm

Some, but not all.
A LOT of people thrived while Saddam was in power, and they didn't need to be Baathists or loyalists. Regular clock-punchers, shopkeepers, business owners who needed full-time water and electricity and a lot of others made out well in Iraq.

You sound like you are trying to make Iraq sound like it was one of those little African dictatorships where the despot takes all the money and the people die a slow death. Everything I have read about pre-war Iraq shows a different country. As I have said before, you just had to make sure you didn't piss of Hussein and he didn't even know you and you could go about your business.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: dilligras As for "stealing oil", isn't that what Saddam was doing to the Kuwaitis, when we intervened? And didn't he break every single stipulation of the cease fire that left him in power, including firing on our planes over the no-fly zone on a weekly basis?

Are you as ignorant on the rest of your history as you are of this?
It was Kuwait which was "slant drilling" into IRAQ and stealing Iraq's oil. Saddam used that as the justification to invade Kuwait after our ambassador to Iraq said we had no interest in what was "a border dispute". Of course, we all know what Papa Bush did right after that.

And I find your casual use of the words "treason" and "traitor" HIGHLY offensive.

[bishop]

here are some more signs of the great progress that bush always talks about...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

*yay*

[dilligras]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Are you as ignorant on the rest of your history as you are of this?

Probably......would you care to answer your own question?

From "The U2 in Desert Storm":

For six centuries, until World War I, both Iraq and Kuwait were part of the Ottoman Empire. The Empire was already crumbling when the Ottoman Turks joined the Germans against the Allies in World War I. The victorious Allies lost little time partitioning the Empire after the war. Kuwait became a British protectorate. In 1922, trying to end bickering between the Middle Eastern states, British High Commissioner Sir Percy Cox redrew the map of the area. To satisfy Iraqi demands for territory Cox gave Iraq lands that had traditionally belonged to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. To compensate Saudi Arabia for its loss, Cox carved off another piece of Kuwait for its western neighbor. The arrangement left Iraq unsatisfied, Saudi Arabia-furious, and tiny Kuwait licking its wounds.2

'Nuff said?

Quote by: Scribbler1 It was Kuwait which was "slant drilling" into IRAQ and stealing Iraq's oil. Saddam used that as the justification to invade Kuwait after our ambassador to Iraq said we had no interest in what was "a border dispute".

Slant drilling? What a joke. Just because Saddam makes a charge, we are to assume he is bereft of ulterior motive in making the charge? Preposterous on the face of it.

Why would someone go drilling sideways into Iraq, when oil may be cheaply had over much of Kuwait? Actually, as I understand it, "slant drilling" is a natural occurrence and was first discovered by accident, rather than by design, in East Texas. Much of the "directional" part of drilling technology is used to keep things going straight down, rather than turning corners and binding things up, according to one of my offline sources, who under condition of anonimity, revealed confidential phrases from his agency training manual.

Of course, never having personally slung chain for a living, I will have to profess an inate ignorance on the topic.

There is no place on the face of the earth where oil is more easily reached at lesser cost than Kuwait, making the expense and wear and tear of slant drilling a rather needless exorbitancy. Kuwait has nearly 100 billion barrels in reserve, and was responsible last I heard for 10% of the world's production. A nice little prize, indeed.

Saddam owed them a ton of debt he was struggling to pay, so he was also pissed at Kuwait for not forgiving his war debts, accumulated during his war with Iran.

Since Iraq had tried to annex Kuwait several times after oil was discovered there in the 1930's, it is infinitely more likely that Saddam just wanted to get control over a larger chunk of the world's supply, allowing him more leverage in regional affairs. His goals were no secret. His vision of his own legacy was pretty damn grandiose, and easily encompassed his ruling all of the ME---as evidenced by his immediate massing of troops on the Kuwait/Saudi border, adjacent to the plum of the desert, the Saudi oil fields.

Do not try to sell me a bill of goods as to Saddam's perfidious ways, compadre, but rather ring up a "no sale" on your Cosmetic Counter Barbie Cash Register, my obstreperous historian.

And the claim that Ambassador Gillespie gave Hussein the green light is not a settled one, as you assert......though I have not seen them, I have heard that transcripts of several versions of her conversation are publicly available.

From Wikipedia:

In April 1991 Glaspie testified before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate. She said that at the July 25 meeting she had "repeatedly warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein against using force to settle his dispute with Kuwait." She also said that Saddam had lied to her by denying he would invade Kuwait. Asked to explain how Saddam could have interpreted her comments as implying U.S. approval for the invasion of Kuwait, she replied: "We foolishly did not realize he [Saddam] was stupid."

Of course, we all know what Papa Bush did right after that.

Well, I might have said "we all know", prior to reading your belief about the righteousness of Saddam's invasion and attempted annexation. Now, I must confess to certain reservations about such an all-encompassing statement.

And I find your casual use of the words "treason" and "traitor" HIGHLY offensive.

Objection and source duly noted.........thank you for voting.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: dilligras Well, I might have said "we all know", prior to reading your belief about the righteousness of Saddam's invasion and attempted annexation. Now, I must confess to certain reservations about such an all-encompassing statement.

Take it any way you like, and I never defended Saddam Hussein for anything. Saying A is wrong doesn't make B automatically right. Perhaps it does to you.

Sorry, no flame war today. No sale.

[Apeman81]

It's quite amusing to be accused of being a "bot" by the very people who have demonstrated a propensity to pick and choose the "evidence" they laughingly present to back up their gratuitous assertions.

I liked the napalm claim. Especially the part where in order to bolster their position, footage from Viet Nam was used. Man, that's convincing!

And the claim that White Phosphorous is a “chemical weapon” that burns the body but not the clothing. Now that was really rather amusing.

The “suicide murderers as courageous” was quite a stretch, however. Rather too tragically sad that anyone could even pretend to believe that to invoke mirth.

So let’s do post thread wrap up:

1. The Coalition forces have already lost the war
2. Suicide bombers are “fearless” and “courageous”
3. Americans cowardly bomb from a distance.
4. The illegitimate President is waging an “illegal” war which he “lied to start” in order
to “steal Iraqi oil”
5. The American soldiers are “cowards” fighting an “illegal” war. Worse, they are criminals
employing “illegal, chemical” weapons while they purposefully “target civilians”. But in
their defense, they “are not supposed to make judgments. And they wouldn’t know,
anyway.”
6. The “insurgents” are “courageous” in that they do not fear death. They are fighting
to “resist an invasion” in order to bring back the good old days.

Your arguments are pathetic and bereft of reasoning. They evidence your overpowering hatred of this President and a loathing of the United States in general.

Sad.

[RickSp]

So Ape, you begin your post with a denial of documented facts, then repeat the distortioned assertions that only you have made and then claim that anyone who isn't your brand of war monger loathes our country. Why even bother?

Suggesting that I hate my country, a country that I do love deeeply, is a grave insult. On the other hand, considering the source, I could care less.

[Samildanach]

Rick, what else did you expect from someone whose version of reality is so out of whack with whats actually going on?

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp So Ape, you begin your post with a denial of documented facts, then repeat the distortioned assertions that only you have made and then claim that anyone who isn't your brand of war monger loathes our country. Why even bother? Suggesting that I hate my country, a country that I do love deeeply, is a grave insult. On the other hand, considering the source, I could care less.

Just for fun, what “documented facts” are you referring to?

The Napalm/White Phosphorous film?

The “Secret” Poll?

Just what facts have you presented that I did not counter by exposing them to be assertions of fact?

As for any suggestions as to your feeling toward your country, it is your acceptance of any evidence of wrongdoing, even unto criminality, on the part of your country, while ignoring the evidence to the contrary, combined with your uncanny ability to repeat as fact unproven allegations says more about what you feel for your country than I can.

Open your ears, your eyes, your mind and your mouth before you blindly rant about the evils of America, and the cowardice and criminality of the American soldier. That particular bandwagon which you have leaped upon can lead to damage to America and it's people. I

[RickSp]

Ape,

You are just getting boring. You keep claiming that I consider American soldiers to be cowards which is damned lie, like so much of your lunacy. And I do not necessarily consider American soldiers to be guilty of criminal acts. (Their commanders and the change of command may be another matter.) Your absurd rants just aren't worthy of a detailed response. You continue to come up with insulting crap as if it constitutes debate. It doesn't.

And no, I won't waste my time further providing documentation of anything to you as you only ignore anything that is presented in your bullshit and blather. So save your idiotic insults for someone who gives a damn.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp Ape, You are just getting boring. You keep claiming that I consider American soldiers to be cowards which is damned lie, like so much of your lunacy. And I do not necessarily consider American soldiers to be guilty of criminal acts. (Their commanders and the change of command may be another matter.) Your absurd rants just aren't worthy of a detailed response. You continue to come up with insulting crap as if it constitutes debate. It doesn't. And no, I won't waste my time further providing documentation of anything to you as you only ignore anything that is presented in your bullshit and blather. So save your idiotic insults for someone who gives a damn.

Oh, what a convenient dodge! It's not the soldiers, it's their commanders. Poor dumb soldiers just follow orders and have neither training nor understanding of the legalities of the ROEs (Rule of Engagement).

From your post #47:
“The bushbots seem immune to the bizarre irony of invading a country because of non-existent illegal weapons and then turning around and using napalm and white phosphorus, both illegal weapons, in residential areas. There may be nothing cowardly about dropping naplam and Willie Pete in cities. It is, however, probably criminal.”

In one paragraph, you assert that the war was solely founded on a lie, that the U.S. has dropped Napalm and Willie Pete in cities, that such weapons are illegal (despite no shred of evidence that napalm was used nor that WP is illegal) Then you assert that to be a criminal act. Did I miss something?

To support your position, you link to some very questionable sources that offer no more than allegation in the form of “secret” polls and “documentaries of assertions by one fellow who offers into evidence that White Phosphorous is a “chemical weapon” that will burn flesh while leaving clothing intact. Both links asserted as facts to support outrageous allegations of what you believe to be criminal acts on the part of the soldiers of your country.

But you don’t see how that your blind faith that soldiers are capable and willing to commit criminal acts in the prosecution of the war could in anyway harm their morale, mush less make their position more difficult. Can you imagine the captured American trying to make his case to the enemy that is busily using the links you posted here to justify the soldier’s criminality? Literally, heads would roll.

But please, go on “loving” your country. Fortunately for both of us, better men than you continue to protect your ability to do so.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Zeebadee Well, what would be an acceptable method for an Iraqi to resist what he sees as an invasion of his country? How should the Iraqi's try to defend their country? I'm curious as to what would be acceptable to you, and still be practical and effective for them.

I'm still waiting to hear from Mr. V and the other bushbots. Is the average Iraqi going to be allowed to defend his country, or do we make the rules such that ANY practical defense is defined as terrorism?

[RickSp]

Ape, now you are claiming that the soldiers are guilty but the officers are innocent? Hell, you should work for the Bush administration. I guess that is what you mean by "supporting the troops." And you seem damned proud that the US is using illegal weapons in residential areas. Your final slur about "better men", well, your macho crap is equal parts boring and stupid. Your problem, not mine.