cnn shows video of sniper killing our troops

[ocp]

Those who don't think it was necessary probably also support non-action in darfur, or Iran, or even N. Korea as well (for instance).

So... why don't you?

why don't I what?

rob

Why don't you americans invade Iran and North Korea, while you're at it?

[Nod]

Or they could show the way your entire country folded after the Madrid train bombings.

Ironic what's been written below. The reason yet another US stooge/lackey/junta/quisling [delete as applicable] Aznar was voted out was because he attempted to exploit the bombings for a domestic agenda. Exploitation akin, but not on the same scale, to the Neocon PNAC marching atop the bodies of the 9/11 dead to expedite their stunted vision of planetwide hegemony.

Look, I'm very much against this war but i really didn't appreciate the tone of that remark.

They also could show you how cilvilians get killed there violently everyday since your government had the fantastic idea to invade this country.

Regardless of tone - it's factually correct. The invasion was illegal, the occupation incompetent and the results, as predicted by numerous domestic intelligence services the respective 'Coalition' governments still refuse to listen to, predictable.

[robtronik]

So... why don't you?

why don't I what?

rob

Why don't you americans invade Iran and North Korea, while you're at it?

its possible. That's why we are using diplomacy first. 6 party talks with North Korea. U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Same with Iran. Sanctions. See where it nets out.

But diplomacy without the threat of consequence is meaningless and a waste of time.

rob.

[Chris J]

Why is this? What have the millions of men and women who have died throughout history due to war, both as soldiers and civilians, what did they really die for?

yes, we're touching the nerve here, why ?
A very few motivators brain-washing thousands of other people into killing their peers for superficial reasons.
The ones that don't respond to the brainwash become the ennemy.

over & over & over & over

mazoretti or robtronik are the passive supporter type, totally remote from the action, comfortably sit in front of their computer under the delusion that they're glorious warriors defending their country in the name of freedom. (while Mummy prepares the sandwiches)

A sad case in fact but not as sad as the guys who actually go to battle.
Mazoretti doesn't believe what he writes, that's why he's so venemous, he's trying to convince himself but in the end he's not stupid enough to actually join the troops.

war is one thing, mazoretti's death is another.

[deva]

That 650k number of Iraqi's killed since the invasion is BS, Deva. Don't be so sucked in by anti war propaganda that you can't be analytical enough to parse those numbers realistically.

Its been sliced and diced and analyzed by many groups who are anti-war and even they say the study is flawed.

A Lancet study is not some 'ant-war propaganda'. But I have been taking a break from reading news, so would you point me to an article where anti-war groups or some reputable scientific organizations are saying the study is flawed.

[decoder]

The Juba videos have been on ogrish.com for months.

Big deal.

[deva]

The real question is: What role does our occupation play in aggravating the violence? My guess: It is an excuse by those who are anti-democratic to attack their own people. If (and when) we leave, the attacks will continue by those who want to re-instate a terrorist friendly government (i.e. fascist, like the taliban) so they can have a base of operations.

Its a fight. It will be ugly, and it is necessary. They either show up there, or in the U.K. or in the U.S. - And for what it is worth, Saddam needed to be removed for all the reasons we've discussed ad nasuem to date.

Since there was not a lot of violence before the US attack and subsequent occupation of Iraq, it is obvious what effect our presence has had. The country of Iraq is far worse off today than before we launched an offensive war against them.

I'm sorry Rob, but you are just far removed from reality. You say "re-instate a terrorist friendly government". Iraq under Saddam was UN-friendly to the likes of Osama Bin Laden. Not that long ago, Iraq was at war with Iran. Iraq under Saddam was secular, and strongly opposed to Islamic fundamentalism. There were women, christians, and non-religious scientists in positions of respect and power in the country. That is a thing of the past.

What the US attack on Iraq has done has opened the door for such fundamentalism to take over the country.

We have failed on every front and by every measure. Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq. Bush lied that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. The last gasp was to declare Saddam, who had not that long ago been a US ally (during the time he used mustard gas on civilians which the US was silent about), a bad man. oooohhhh, the boogie man.

There are lots of bad men in power around the world. The idea we took out Saddam because he was bad is a bald faced lie.

[robtronik]

That 650k number of Iraqi's killed since the invasion is BS, Deva. Don't be so sucked in by anti war propaganda that you can't be analytical enough to parse those numbers realistically.

Its been sliced and diced and analyzed by many groups who are anti-war and even they say the study is flawed.

A Lancet study is not some 'ant-war propaganda'. But I have been taking a break from reading news, so would you point me to an article where anti-war groups or some reputable scientific organizations are saying the study is flawed.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial ... =110009108

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php

etc.

rob.

[robtronik]

The real question is: What role does our occupation play in aggravating the violence? My guess: It is an excuse by those who are anti-democratic to attack their own people. If (and when) we leave, the attacks will continue by those who want to re-instate a terrorist friendly government (i.e. fascist, like the taliban) so they can have a base of operations.

Its a fight. It will be ugly, and it is necessary. They either show up there, or in the U.K. or in the U.S. - And for what it is worth, Saddam needed to be removed for all the reasons we've discussed ad nasuem to date.

Since there was not a lot of violence before the US attack and subsequent occupation of Iraq, it is obvious what effect our presence has had. The country of Iraq is far worse off today than before we launched an offensive war against them.

I'm sorry Rob, but you are just far removed from reality. You say "re-instate a terrorist friendly government". Iraq under Saddam was UN-friendly to the likes of Osama Bin Laden. Not that long ago, Iraq was at war with Iran. Iraq under Saddam was secular, and strongly opposed to Islamic fundamentalism. There were women, christians, and non-religious scientists in positions of respect and power in the country. That is a thing of the past.

What the US attack on Iraq has done has opened the door for such fundamentalism to take over the country.

We have failed on every front and by every measure. Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq. Bush lied that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. The last gasp was to declare Saddam, who had not that long ago been a US ally (during the time he used mustard gas on civilians which the US was silent about), a bad man. oooohhhh, the boogie man.

There are lots of bad men in power around the world. The idea we took out Saddam because he was bad is a bald faced lie.

yeah, o.k.

we've been down this road before ad nasuem. Your perspective on what we inherit due to enforcing security council resolutions is different from mine.

You'd rather not to keep the status quo, whereas I would rather in order to enforce what is in our interests to do so. However, just because it becomes hard and people die for that decision does not make it a bad decision.

It makes it a tough and hard won battle to win.

That's the difference between those that oppose the action in Iraq and those that do.

BTW, nowhere did Bush LIE. Go read the resolution passed in congress giving him the authority to use force against Iraq. Mistaken intelligence on the immediacy of the threat AFTER WE INVADED and found out, but that was on Saddam, not us.

anyway...

rob.

[jackmazzotti]

Why is this? What have the millions of men and women who have died throughout history due to war, both as soldiers and civilians, what did they really die for?

yes, we're touching the nerve here, why ?
A very few motivators brain-washing thousands of other people into killing their peers for superficial reasons.
The ones that don't respond to the brainwash become the ennemy.

over & over & over & over

mazoretti or robtronik are the passive supporter type, totally remote from the action, comfortably sit in front of their computer under the delusion that they're glorious warriors defending their country in the name of freedom. (while Mummy prepares the sandwiches)

A sad case in fact but not as sad as the guys who actually go to battle.
Mazoretti doesn't believe what he writes, that's why he's so venemous, he's trying to convince himself but in the end he's not stupid enough to actually join the troops.

war is one thing, mazoretti's death is another.

i am not sure if you are refering to me because my name is mazzotti but i spent 6 years in the us army four of them as an airborne infantry medic with the 82 airborne

and you hate me because of what?
because i think it is shamefull and disgusting to play a video of enemy snipers killing our soliders during a very very serious war
on a personal note
that could have been my brother
thank God it isn't

as far as people dying in wars
does the term "6 million jews" ring any bells
or should i say a mere superficial "6 million jews"

[pulsoc]

Why shouldn't we see what is happening in the world? Do we need to be protected from death? Or are you concerned about the privacy of the deceased?

And why would you consider footage of someone getting shot "propaganda"? I am genuinely curious.

[hacktheplanet]

By the way, here's a direct link to the article because the OP couldn't be bothered to copy/paste:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/ ... index.html

[jackmazzotti]

Why shouldn't we see what is happening in the world? Do we need to be protected from death? Or are you concerned about the privacy of the deceased?

And why would you consider footage of someone getting shot "propaganda"? I am genuinely curious.

the idea is simple
weaken our resolve to fight

its incredibly insensitive to the families that have their loved ones out there
what if that was your son or daughter

cnn is disgusting

[Meef Chaloin]

Why shouldn't we see what is happening in the world? Do we need to be protected from death? Or are you concerned about the privacy of the deceased?

And why would you consider footage of someone getting shot "propaganda"? I am genuinely curious.

the idea is simple
weaken our resolve to fight

its incredibly insensitive to the families that have their loved ones out there
what if that was your son or daughter

cnn is disgusting

so you're basing one sided propaganda on the families who have lost someone? perhaps those families would be grateful to see the real circumstances of how their child was killed rather than the american wet dream you are touting.

[forge]

and at the same time folks, watch how two cousins catch a 4 ft catfish,
and how Carmen Electra teaches a group of elderly ladies how to lapdance!

NEWS!

exactly!

BTW - John Hopkins university has put the toll at over 650 000 dead civillians
the "official" Iraqi health department figure is around 130 000
GWB puts it as 30, 000 - I think that figure came direct to him from his hotline to God

whatever number it is, the US troops count is considerably less than all of them, which considering they started the whole damn thing, I think they've come out pretty well