Staredit Network

http://humanitarian.bloghi.com/2005/11/20/...de-in-iraq.html

These detail the crimes the American Empire have commited against Iraq.

Good read.

Enjoy. Discuss.

because war should be fair and fun yup.

US just thrown Iraq 50 years back in infrostructure & other sides life.

but what can Iraq or the community do ? US is the most powerful country in the world, they're the boss & they use their power.

1) Stilth, grow up and wait till your about 14-15 before joining this discussion thank you.
2) Its that kind of thinking that gets you nowhere. We used to have slavery and no civil rights, then a few people come along, demand freedom from opression and for civil rights.

Euro, i think he tryed to say that war is never fair & never fun.

There's nothing much that can be done except the US Armed Forces blaming it on themselves, besides that, there is no law that prohibits it.
Above the US, there is nothing, that means that they make their own laws and can apply it wherever they currently have control. It is all some well balanced politics... tipped in favor of politicians, not diplomatics, of course.

The UN can't really do anything because it has no control over anything, it's just a body of ambasadors to ease relationships and promote alliances between member countries. The UN may and has already implemented a long time ago, "War rules", in which you cannot do this or that and civilians aren't going to be targets. Well, there's a big problem with that, and it's that the UN can't enforce anything. Will Kofi Annan go into war and make them stop? Nah, they'll just kill him. All the UN does is help economically and in health, people who need so. But they won't intervene in a war.

Now you may think that all member UN countries might go up against the US and defeat them. Problem is that the US is the largest importer of goods, meaning that those countries will lose a vast amount of money by trade only. Then you need to organize all those armies and actually go fight, which will be the costliest war ever.

So in conclusion, there isn't anything that anybody can do to stop the US Armed Forces, or any major countries' Armed Forces from breaking the "Laws of War". The Media can publish anything they want, but unless it suits politicians, they won't back down.

3,000[sup]th[/sup] POST!

US sacrificed lifes of people of Iraq for stability of prices on it's market. again, people die & kill for money. nothing new

Genocide in Iraq caused by The Americans? Hm...wait, who was that guy we took out of office, you know the one who gased millions of his own people, not to mention his enemies. Oh yeah, Saddam Hussein! You know, the ruthless tyrant who killed his own people because they didn't agree with him. we may have supplied him, but we did not force him to kill his own people. and those war-time stories of shooting surrendering Iraqis and using depleted uranium in bullets and missles? Doubtful. This article you are sending us to is written by a 16 year old in Texas, all he has are disputed 2nd hand accounts of what happened and i frankly cannot beileve some of this accusations on that website. i want solid proof, show me pictures, videos, something that will prove beyond a resonable doubt that we have commited these crimes. i cannot beileve that the US would do something like that based on a paper written by a 16 year old

In the first Gulf war we never techniqually "invaded" Iraq. Yes we entered the country, only to do a MASSIVE right turn flanking manuever onto the Iraq forces in Kuwait.

As to my knowledge we never entered any Iraq cities.

The use of Depleted U. We find ways to better kill our enemies and cause them damage. All countries do this and America is no different. With war means to kill, not to be nice.

Again the 100,000 Iraqs killed is not labeled. We do not know if those were military or cvilian deaths. Or how many were each. I would suspect they were mostly military simply becuase when the iraq army was retreating we strafed their columns.

I would say around 2,300 civilians died by the air war, that sounds realistic to me. We got smart bombs, but that doesn't mean civilians won't get in the way.

Further more I do not know why that kid is complaining about the first Gulf War by which it was a coalition. It was not just America in that war.

This boy's wording is also selective and bais. "Anti-occupation forces" right....

Basically this article would seem true to me, but I believe the numbers are blown out of proportion, and it seems that he doesn't give the whole picture, just his side.

I think this kid grew up thinking war was nice, and distant and when he actually realized people die in great numbers is when he made up his opinion.

Really I think American youths needs to grow some guts.

100,000 iraqis? No, that's a number made up by anti-war propaganda. The number is about 31,000. Guess who is causing it too? Insurgents. They kill their own people with the knowledge that killing innocents will not make the US back out but in hopes of getting countries mad at the US and it has worked quite well which is kind of pathetic. What people don't understand around the world is that invading Iraq was just and the only reason so many people are getting killed is because of radical muslims who follow the koran like christians followed the bible during the crusades. Really, what would Iraq offer us? Iraqi oil imports only make up about 3.5% of the US oil market so it's not oil. If not oil then what is it? It had to be for National and International security or we and other countries would not be there right now.

Even though I agree with euro on many levels about the crimes against Iraq, I think we are forgetting that families also where affected by 9/11, I mean read this for example.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/10/moussaou...tims/index.html

I know it’s no excuse to invade Iraq, but it’s almost like what we did in Pearl Harbor, They attacked us, we attacked them, But that conversation is completely different from this one. We should all take in consideration all the facts before making statements.

Yeah I agree that we should not have gone into Iraq, waste of money.

But we need to show the whole picture and I think Euro's article only shows one side....

Oh dear god I hope you're talking about yourself!

1: uh stalingrad read the entire article. 31,000 is just this war, what about both this and the gulf war. exactly. 2: thedaddy, its civilians its not talking about both military civilians. Entering a country is a war, whether we entered their cities or no. We attacked. Hmm so hannibal invading Italy but not entering their cities isn't war? Nice logic there. Actually it shows neither side, it shows neutral ground showing the deaths and what has happened. I see now your logic. If it states facts that are harmful it must be one side. Now if it states facts which help us, its both sides and its the end of the story for you.

Zombie, Iraq and 9/11 is in no way connected. We went into Iraq because of "WMD's". Guess what, there were none.

Stalingrad we are there for the oil. Since the invasion, haliburton and many other oil companies have made a killing in the market. With a record setting year(s). While prices may rise for the civies, it definatly makes the oil companies money.

Sorry, I only skimmed through the article, but the 100,000 figure still doesn't seem right. You'd think we did less damage like 50,000 total MAX. (And the most damage was caused by whom? Not American soldiers).



America is not there for oil, other countries that depend on Iraq for oil might be there for that reason but not us atleast. As I said 3.5% is all the oil we get from Iraq. And what are you talking about? Haliburton lost so much money due to the contracts they made with Iraq for oil, they should have just stuck to their core energy business. Also, Exxon has yet to profit off of Iraq in any major way.

Let me tell you guys what the Secretary of Defense during Bush Sr.'s administration said:

We will go in and attack any nation that threatens our energy reserves.

-US gives Iraq supplies in Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988 (Ensure that Iraq gives us oil)
-US invades Iraqi held Kuwait 1991 (To get back Kuwait Oil)
-US attacks Iraq 1998 (Warn Saddam that we want his oil)
-US attacks Afghanistan 2002 (Protect US ships, planes and shipping lanes)
-US attacks and conquers Iraq 2003 (BUSH WANTS OIL!)

It's simple.

It's not that simple. Why would we risk so many soldiers when we have so many alternatives to petrollium resources? We have plenty of oil reserves in Saudi Arabia, which is more than enough to fuel our country for a long time. Plus the oil reserves we have on our own US soil that we have yet to tapped. By the time we tap all our oil reserves, we will most likely be using another fuel for cars and the petrol based energy we used to depend on will not be necessary, especially with all the current political movements and acts to stop using oil and find another energy to use.



We were in a bad situation at that time with oil, but we were secure with oil in the 90's.



Yeah, we defended a nation whos oil we depended on at the time.



What are you talking about? The british and american air strikes neutralized biological and chemicle plants to prevent bio-warfare.



Irrelevant to oil claims.



Look at the first reply in the post. Also Note: Iraq serves no economical gain to the USA, it was our of pure national/inter-national security. If we were in it just for the oil, why would other countries be there also? They didn't need to come.

It's simple. It takes billions of dollars to change our primary energy resource to soemthing else. Also, why use our own oil when we can use somebody else's? When almost all the oil is gone, the US will go and make a monopoly out of oil.



It wasn't a threat to the British nor Americans, but to the Israelites.



We're not just talking about oil, but all energy resources. This means the oil that comes in ships and above all, all that cargo that US Customs will tax.



If the US went in alone, it would be quite obvious. A matter of National Security wasn't in the order. Iraq could hardly attack the US, if it was a matter of National Security, then we would've invaded them in 1988 when Saddam had much more military capability and started tossing chemical and biological weapons on his fellow Iraquis. We lived with Saddam having thousands of bombs that posed no real threat to us, why would we attack him when he was less of a threat?

Sorry. national security was the wrong term to use, I should have said "We want to keep the countries alive and prospiring that allow us to prospir further". Other countries agreed and this is why we have combined force in conflicts like some of the listed above in other posts.

Stalingrad you are so far from the truth, thatyour willing to accept anything they tell you. Iraq is for Oil. Oil companies including Haliburton made more cash then they lost. Don't say otherwise. Even the corporate controlled media got it right. While gas prices went up, oil companies revenue also went up. I love how you use words such as 'irrelevent' yet can't even spell 'prosper'. Why would they risk lives for oil? Human lives are a number. YOU are a number. Ya they want to keep the number of deaths low simply so it isn't called a bloodbath that they sent us into. "We went in there to overthrow a totalarian dictatorship!" Ya well who installed it in the first place? Who backs dictatorships all the time? Who actually called Death Squads "Freedom Fighters"? Who gives money and weapons to dictatorships? The United States of America of course! Do you actually believe that we "fight for freedom with every bullet fired"? If you do, you need to take your nose out of the governments ass. National Security and Nationalism/Patriotism are soem of the most horrible things out there. Not because of their meanings, but by how they are always misused. How Hitler and Bush both used National Security as the guise to set up gestapos. Hitlers Gestapo was a physical one, Bush's is an electronic one. They all used National Security to suspend freedoms and rights in their path to power.

This world is becoming so much like George Orwell's 1984 its not even funny. Breakdown in relationships, no loyalties to anyone other then to Big Brother, perpetual warfare with no end. Humanity has changed little in 7000 years, with the exception of the little gadgets used, the whole way of life is relatively the same.

So with your logic, it's okay for us to go into Iraq and destroy them, all for the Bush Oil Empirium?



We defended Kuwait because we turned our backs on Sadam, and to keep Kuwait from falling under his hands because then the price of Oil would be even higher. The Kuwaitians figured out how to drill diagnolly, so they started stealing Iraq Oil. Sadam asked if he invaded them, if we would interfere. We told him no. But we did anyways.



I've never heard of that. Care to give us unbiased sources?



True. But if we gain a foothold in Afghanistan, we can smuggle Opium into the states and sell it for even more money, and then "spen" money on the "War on Drugs" illusion they have created. Do you honestly believe we are really fighting it? "Billions upon billions of dollars" are "spent towards the War On Drugs". Really? Why is there no progress? If that much money is really being spent towards it, then they could EASILY stop drugs. I laugh at you ignorant people.

Look at the first reply in the post. Also Note: Iraq serves no economical gain to the USA, it was our of pure national/inter-national security. If we were in it just for the oil, why would other countries be there also? They didn't need to come.

Other countries? What other countries? Britan? Hahahahaha! They are in there for Oil, too. It's quiet obvious. All the other countries left after we took Sadam out. But who stayed there? Two of the "world powers" Britain and America. America's excuse is to "establish a democracy" (Bullshiz) And what is Britians excuse?? Iraq IS AN OIL JACKPOT! How in the hell can they serve as no economical gain to us, when our farking president's father has an OIL EMPIRIUM?!

Please be quiet. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Show me where I said War?

Again you assume what I am thinking, which is again immature and incorrect. Did you read my entire post? I believe I said I would assume this article is truth. My only problem with the article is that it is blown out of preportion and doesn't show all the sides of the issue.

Do not be so quick to counter what I say when I haven't said anything about the article being wrong accept for the fact that we never "invaded" iraq. More like we used their open desert for a gaint flanking maneuver onto the Iraqi forces in Kuwait.

Also I do really think anyone knows the count of Iraqi deaths http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

with two different places both with largely different numbers makes me wonder if anyone knows.

a picture speaks 1000 words, and I'm a little tired. So...



That sums up and ends my arguement.

I do believe the Ad Hominem is against the rules, isn't it Chris?

My picture is very reasonable. There are two sides to every arguement. That's what the picture is saying.

Ta da.

oh and that body count thing. You do know that the Holocaust reached 6million Jews, and close to 3million non-jews in deaths? I dunno. Maybe its just me that remembers the genocide Sadaam hosted.