oh please! The iraqi people are no more liberated than they were before. Before all of this happened, including the first gulf war, Iraq had one of the highest standards of living in the Mideast. That means ALL the people, not just the rich. Health care was free, schools and universities were free, food was subsidised. America and only america is to blame for the state the country is in right now. Saddam may have been a tyrant and a dictator, but we see now how the country runs without someone keeping all the different factions under control. Saddam had NO WMD. that was admitted by the state department afterwards. Sure the average Iraqi is happy to see Saddam gone, but he'd be even more happy to see the Americans gone. I bet you didn't know that Iraq had a huge christian population, and that Saddam protected the christians and the church. In fact, the highest ranking bishop in Iraq said after the "liberation" that he no longer felt safe, that Saddam had protected them. that's a lot more than you can say for several other countries in the gulf, such as Kuwait & Saudi Arabia. talk about human rights violations, prisoner abuse, and discrimination? why doesn't America step in there? all this talk about freedom is just a smokescreen.

 

 

 

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

It seems that you're influenced by the media as well
Saddam wasn't building those weapons (at that time) they haven't found any till now.
Yeah he used such weapons before on shiites and Kurds but that was after some US diplomat told Saddam they wanted to take over, as well as when he attacked Kuwait, when a US diplomat told him Kuwait stole oil from him and showed him satallite photo's of it. And the US sold Saddam weapons to invade Iraq and then blamed all on him. I'm not saying he was a good man (Saddam) but the US is as bad as he is.



Thanks to the US government, Iraq is in anarchy and they stay there for heir next invasions, probably on Iran and/or Syria and Korea is on their list as well, since they want to give Israël their "promised" lands



As tyrant gone? Before the GulfWar in the 90's began Saddam made a fine country of Iraq and was even more wealthier then most others, THATS why the US wanted them down and the oil has a big part in this as well. The UN told mr. Bush not to invade and what did he do? So the UN shouldn't be blamed as well.



I have nothing to add

 

 

 

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I found a video from Fallujah today (couldn't have found it earlier since it was published only this morning or something). A little memory refreshing: The city of Fallujah has been victim of US assaults twice, once in April 2004 (the pictures from Abu Ghurayb were better for the US government than those from Fallujah - what's torture against genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity?) and November 2004 (that time it was completely sealed - about no pictures leaked out...)



-> http://www.diario.it/?page=wl05060100#english

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Being someone who wants to join the army when I turn 18. I think going to war with Iraq was a great idea, The last thing we needed was a terrorist controlled country. How do we know what he was planning to do? He knew we were going to go into the country, He could of gotton rid of any WMD in a heart beat. If saddam didn't have anything to hide, he wouldn't of hid in a hole.. There's a big givaway for you. We might not have proved to the world that Iraq was as bad as we were informed. But we did "and still" helped out a developing country out a very deep hole, a bad leader dug them into.

Take my opinion or leave it..
XD

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Hmm that leader build up a great nation my friend, but due to some "diplomats" he was pushed into war and tirrany... Anyways if you join the army remember this point of advice: Don't die for your country, they don't care for you neither

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

let's leave it then. first of all, it's pretty obvious he didn't have WMD. why? because the US would not have attacked him if he did. why don't they attack north korea? because they actually have nuclear capability. and they said saddam had that, plus WMD. if he really did have them they would have negotiated a settlement with him. America's economy is going down, and the US only started pressuring Iraq after Saddam insisted on Euro payments instead of Dollars, which would have had the effect of weakening the already shaky dollar, and obviously America couldn't countenance that. But how do you justify taking innocent lives so that you can keep living your selfish lifestyle? America has put the country into a far deeper hole than it ever was. research some more, about how Iraq was before the Gulf war. as i said before, it was one of the most advanced countries in the middle east. And as far as Saddam's hiding proving his guilt, what would you do if attackers were searching for you? You'd hide too, but that wouldn't mean you were guilty. i'm not saying that Saddam wasn't guilty, but he was no more guilty, and i dare say even less so, than the States. that's my 2c.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

let's leave it then. first of all, it's pretty obvious he didn't have WMD. why? because the US would not have attacked him if he did. why don't they attack north korea? because they actually have nuclear capability. and they said saddam had that, plus WMD. if he really did have them they would have negotiated a settlement with him. America's economy is going down, and the US only started pressuring Iraq after Saddam insisted on Euro payments instead of Dollars, which would have had the effect of weakening the already shaky dollar, and obviously America couldn't countenance that. But how do you justify taking innocent lives so that you can keep living your selfish lifestyle? America has put the country into a far deeper hole than it ever was. research some more, about how Iraq was before the Gulf war. as i said before, it was one of the most advanced countries in the middle east. And as far as Saddam's hiding proving his guilt, what would you do if attackers were searching for you? You'd hide too, but that wouldn't mean you were guilty. i'm not saying that Saddam wasn't guilty, but he was no more guilty, and i dare say even less so, than the States. that's my 2c.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

That is a very good insight, and my heart follows that concept, but does anyone remember the Vietnam War? After the U.S. pulled out of South Vietnam it was not long before the communist North Vietnam took over the South. Although I really feel that our work there is done, I believe we should somewhat stick around for a while to insure that Iraq's government does not fall to a dictator.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

yep, that's a good insight ... well, I've been against the war in the first place anyway but I believe that "we told you" is not the right attitude about now - but the US army can't handle the situation on its own. I suppose it's about time the USA apologize to the international community and request some help and, even more important: It's time for the US army to treat the iraqi people decently. Almost all over the world there's one simple rule for occupation armies: Be nice and you'll receive a nice welcome. Does anyone here remember the pics from the first days of the assault? People were standing along the roads and welcomed the US army - that was before they began to mistreat and kill civilians on a large scale.
The resistance the US army has to deal with in Iraq does not come from former Baathists (as the propaganda machine said in the first months), islamic fanatics (at least not that much), it's the people who wants to get rid of the occupation. I'm not happy to say this but if this army would be in my country - I'd do my best to keep them busy, too.

By the way, the situation in Iraq has to be very bad for the US and "iraqi" army. Did anyone hear about the Operation Lightning? In this operation, about 40,000 US and iraqi forces were said to have captured 900 resistance fighters, killed about the same number and established 194 permanent and 608 mobile control posts in the city of Baghdad. Today I've read a note on the Reuters website, that there were no first hand reports about any changes that certainly would have been noticeable in such a large operation. The Reuters article further said that this was not due to ignoring the reports - neither independent nor critical nor embedded journalists reported about any of these control posts, a heavy military presence (40,000 soldiers - that's pretty much, even for a country at war. There are less than 200,000 soldiers occupying the entire country) or whatever. Does this sound like a real military operation? To me it does not...

One more thing before I leave for the night: There's been a message on the german press agency's website on Saturday which has not been spread in any but a swiss newspaper: A US military patrol attacked a car whose driver was standing in front of some traffic lights. Even stranger is the fact that they attacked it from behind, according to eyewitness accounts. Is there anyone around who can tell me why a car which is waiting at the traffic lights is a threat?

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

getting sadam out of power was a good idea, however the way it was done was not a good idea. i believe dicators should be overthrouwn and i definitely don;t like terrorists. What frustrates me is that its takes a bad excuse for the western world to invade a country and overthrow a dictator. There are plenty more countries where we should be doing that. And why didn;t we do it in the first place during the kuwait war?

there are too many political and economic intersts involved in the iraw war for anyone to say that it was just about kicking out a dictator. because if that was the case then i can name a long list of countries that need invading just for that reason alone.

Maybe bush was mad because that 'man treid killing my (his) daddy'!!!

Well then I wish that some more dictators treid killing his daddy.

ps/ credit to bush for invading though! Iraq is better of.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)