Iraq Rebels kill and display Americans

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2004-04-01 08:26am

This shows me, why the Bushism has totally screwed up.....

Supreme_Warlord · Post by **Supreme_Warlord** » 2004-04-01 11:19am

Dargos wrote:...But realisticaly I hope we don't cut and run like we did in Africa...

That's hardly likely to happen ... Somalia was neither sitting on the world's second largest oil reserves nor strategically located.

Cornelius · Post by **Cornelius** » 2004-04-01 02:31pm

This shows me, why the Bushism has totally screwed up.....

1. This is a major problem with the leader's of the nation who think it is morally right to lie to the people, delve them into a false war, and liberate people who hate you, don't want you there, and could give less than two shits about your democracy. All they want is a dictatorship of their choosing so they can later probably request aid in the form of money or weapons..

This whole spiel is bad. This is what happens when people like Skeeter [subjective] say stuff like this with no objective principles to back them up.

And how, you may ask, do I deal with people with other moral systems? I've been wanting to say this for a while now: we impose our moral systems on others!

1. You get situations like this in Iraq.
2. We think we are right, so we do what we think are right, even if it isn't. We do not stop to think of the consequences, good or bad, we just react and do.
3. This is what happens when someone makes up what is moral and tries to apply it to anyone in reality.

Going to Iraq is not moral, because it accomplishes nothing. Gas prices are uber high, there were no weapons--they lied, they are still lying, and men and women are dying for no reason. All the while, people are crying out and saying how moral it is to help the Iraqies who obviously do not want to be saved.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-04-01 09:01pm

Cornelius, don't try to hijack this topic with another one of your "objective v. subjective" spiels.

Cornelius · Post by **Cornelius** » 2004-04-01 11:36pm

I'm not. It has a lot to do with anti-bush war feelings.

Cornelius · Post by **Cornelius** » 2004-04-01 11:37pm

Although. The iraqies aren't doing anything wrong, at least according to them

Cornelius · Post by **Cornelius** » 2004-04-01 11:37pm

You can delete these if you wish. At least I thought it was a funny joke.

It is better than the dead relative one someone else did.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-04-02 12:25am

Something i heard today in the Quebec province media is,when they talked about it they used the words Mercenaries when refering to the 4 Amaricans who were killed,and that fucking pissed me off.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2004-04-02 12:35am

I'm pretty sure they called them that because they were civilian security forces hired to make up for the insufficient number of real soldiers.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-04-02 12:57am

Maybe but the attitude of the frogs in Quebec is most of the are Anti-American

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2004-04-02 02:27am

So....the people who argued for invading Iraq in the first place to "liberate" the Iraqis, once things start to get slightly out of hand, support massive retaliations now? Isn't there something wrong with this kind of reasoning? I mean, if you're going to go to liberate a country and some brutal things happen when you're there, massive retaliations are going to somehow make them all become submissive? Doesn't that work against what you want to do in the first place, to be hailed as liberators? I love how people flip flop sometimes.

But that's just me.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-02 04:01am

Isn't there supposed to be a huge mercenary army in Iraq by this point in time? Security services, mercs, same shit, different smell.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2004-04-02 05:11pm

Montcalm wrote:Just seen the images on CTV....hanging body parts on a bridge,WTF was that for

Probably to provoke the Marines into charging into there half cocked like the Rangers did in Somalia. Didn't work this time, though.

Fire Fly wrote:So....the people who argued for invading Iraq in the first place to "liberate" the Iraqis, once things start to get slightly out of hand, support massive retaliations now? [...] Doesn't that work against what you want to do in the first place, to be hailed as liberators? I love how people flip flop sometimes.

But that's just me.

No, its not just you. Of course, I'd say our goal is to *be* liberators, and being hailed as such doesn't matter much, but massive retaliations are certainly a very bad idea.

Vympel wrote:Isn't there supposed to be a huge mercenary army in Iraq by this point in time? Security services, mercs, same shit, different smell.

Yeah, last I heard private security forces (about half British and half US), were the third largest foreign contingent in Iraq.

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2004-04-02 05:25pm

18-Till-I-Die wrote:They're worth shit because they're people and living beings. Look, i'm not in favor of it either, but the fact is none of this would've happene din the first place if Bush hadnt started the war. Blame him, not them. They didnt start this, he did.

But, i can understand your feelings. You're very right to have them, considering the situation with your father being in the middle of a warzone. But remember who put him there...

I can blame bush for the war, but I'm a little fuzzy on blaming bush for the murder and mutilation of 4 contractors.
The individuals who did this did not lose their fee will or ability to choose not to murder because of the war. Traumatized maybe, but they are still responsible for their actions, just like child molesters are not blameless just because they were molested themselves.