Iraqi Soccer Team: "Stop using us Mr. Bush"

Post by **Cairber** » 2004-08-21 07:22am

The Kernel wrote:
Cairber wrote:none of these outweigh the genocides of Saddam. I am for real. Genocide is for real, the one attack March 16 1988 killed more innocent women and children than this enture war as killed. period.
What are you basing this on? Those attack killed ~ 10,000 people which is NOT more people then have been killed during the Iraqi war and subsequent occupation.

And in case this escaped your notice, who do you think is running things on a local level now that Saddam is gone. That's right, the fucking religious leaders who are far worse for your average Iraqi citizen then Saddam was.

That attack killed upwards of 50,000. Not all in one day, but the fallout continued to kill for months after. The number you are quoting is the Iraqi governments number. check out the sources I quotes earlier in the thread.

Post by **Cairber** » 2004-08-21 07:29am

I will readjust that number to 35,000 based on Jahard's essay, since he says that 50,000 is a number used when figured in with the neighboring town, which is rumored to have been hit by a separate attack only 3 days later but to much lesser scale. It hasnt been proven if the leftover chemical found in the rocks there was from the same attack or a separate one.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-08-21 09:11am

Cairber wrote:That is completely false. Anfal started in the late 70s, which is far before the Gulf War.

Ah, you mean back when the US supported and supplied him? I can still see some very very good reasons for them to be pissed with the US of A for that shit too...

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-08-21 01:26pm

Cairber wrote: That is completely false. Anfal started in the late 70s, which is far before the Gulf War.

Which has WHAT to do with what I said? The Kurdish rebellion of 1991 didn't occur until 1991 and was a direct result of promises made by American forces to support a Kurdish revolt. This led to millions of Kurds being turned into refugees as well as the outright slaughter of tens of thousands over a period of 10 years.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-08-21 01:33pm

Cairber wrote: That attack killed upwards of 50,000. Not all in one day, but the fallout continued to kill for months after. The number you are quoting is the Iraqi governments number. check out the sources I quotes earlier in the thread.

Fine, tell you what, let's assume for a second that those attacks did kill between 35k-50k people. Did the fact that the US was supporting Saddam during this time completely escape your attention? How about the fact that the weapons Saddam was arming himself with were a direct result of his alliance with the United States? Please do tell why the Iraqi people should be grateful towards us; Saddam was our Golden Boy during the very decade where he was ruthlessly killing both Iranians and his own citizens, it wasn't until he threatened our oil interests by invading Kuwait that we actually gave a shit about the man.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-21 02:14pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote:I'm just going to come in and point out that this whole discussion is predicated on a false dilemma. One side is saying that the Iraqis have no right to be mad at the US because we overthrew Saddam for them, but it definitely isn't an either/or situation. The Iraqis can be glad that we overthrew Saddam, but also very angry at the difficulties that resulted. Post-Saddam Iraq didn't have to be such an ugly goddawful mess.

Precisely. Let's envision the following scenario for a second.

I'm being chased by a madman in my home, and he's trying to kill me. I call the police for help. They show up in time to save me, but they bring a tank, crash it into my house, kill the madman, but also destroy my house and kill my family in the process.

According to the "Iraq should be grateful crowd," I should be thankful to the police for saving my life. After all, there was a lunatic after me, and they killed him. Who cares if they killed my family and destroyed my home in the process? I should be grateful!

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-08-21 02:46pm

Durandal wrote:According to the "Iraq should be grateful crowd,"

There's one guy in that crowd which I just don't understand; Joe. He can be intelligent, but when it comes to Iraq, it's like he turns his brain off and starts furiously defending the United States, even when it clearly doesn't deserve defending.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-08-21 02:52pm

Incidentally, the Iraqis just beat Australia 1-0.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-21 03:22pm

BoredShirtless wrote:
Durandal wrote:According to the "Iraq should be grateful crowd,"
There's one guy in that crowd which I just don't understand; Joe. He can be intelligent, but when it comes to Iraq, it's like he turns his brain off and starts furiously defending the United States, even when it clearly doesn't deserve defending.

Says the former VI... Hell, Joe hasn't even posted in the past 30 posts in this thread or so. Why bring him up out of left field?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-08-21 03:29pm

Rogue 9 wrote: Says the former VI... Hell, Joe hasn't even posted in the past 30 posts in this thread or so. Why bring him up out of left field?

What exactly is your fucking malfunction? It is against board policy to attack someone without cause you fucking shithead and BS gave you no cause for that comment.

His entire statement was designed to question how intelligent people like Joe could still support America's foreign policy, a perfectly legitamate question. If you have nothing better to do then vulturing you can just shut the fuck up.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-21 03:33pm

The Kernel wrote:[It is against board policy to attack someone without cause

What, you mean like BS just did?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-08-21 03:37pm

Rogue 9 wrote: What, you mean like BS just did?

BS didn't attack Joe you fucking idiot. His statement was out of respect for Joe more than anything else as he is one of the most intelligent conservative members here, yet BS wants to know why someone like Joe would support the war. We don't care why you support the war seing as how you are NOT one of the more intelligent conservative members on this board.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-21 03:46pm

Given that I'm not conservative, I'd say no, I'm not.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-08-21 03:56pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
Durandal wrote:According to the "Iraq should be grateful crowd,"
There's one guy in that crowd which I just don't understand; Joe. He can be intelligent, but when it comes to Iraq, it's like he turns his brain off and starts furiously defending the United States, even when it clearly doesn't deserve defending.
Says the former VI... Hell, Joe hasn't even posted in the past 30 posts in this thread or so. Why bring him up out of left field?

It takes a really sensitive new age cock to equate a question with an "attack". Grow a thicker skin you little pansy.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-08-21 06:38pm

It didn't really bug me too much, but thank you anyway Rogue.