US helicopter attacks Iraqi school killing 7 children

Post Reply New Topic

There is nothing Christian about wiping out an entire race, do not put those two together. I bet you’re the one that made this sign lol.

Good point. Vigilant Americans will remember Waco.

Funny picture.

No I not a right wing conservative. I do not support my government, I think it is a bloated whale.

I do not support the Law in America either, I think our drug laws are antiquated and authoritarian.

You are right about that Waco thing, but we also paid the price with the Oklahoma City bombing.

Saddam was a liberal Muslim, you are also right, but he was also a ruthless monster, and I agree that this country would be in a better place if we did not come over here. I think Bush made a mistake thinking he could change these bastards, they do not want it, they want to live with their ignorance and poverty. I wish we would have just leave them the hell alone.

That Motherf***er Manalitwist needs to die slowly though for rejoicing over the deaths of these young kids (American Soldiers).
I HATE that so many BILLIONS OF AMERICAN TAXPAYER DOLLARS are going to these f***heads.

I am thoughtful, I just do not like this SOB Manaltwist and his cowardly ways. Come out into the light and get sqaushed like a little bug you f**k.

I AM not bad with grammer, just did not take the time to proof read that last post.

This is nonsensical. Based on this logic, they should not be having an election right now in the city of Philadelphia because it has such a high murder rate, instead they should just resurrect and install Saddam Hussein.

However, let's pretend you are right. Let's say Saddam believed that a dictator was the best guy to run Iraq. The thing is he did not have to behave like he behaved. Saddam was no "benevolent" dictator. He was a brutal thug. Augusto Pinochet, who I think crossed the line, managed to kill far, far less.



Non-sequitur, Jacob. You say, "the media portrayed him as a blood-thirsty tyrant who maintained his control through a program of murder and terror." And, isn't this still the accepted facts of what occurred? "It was often reported that his victims numbered in the hundreds of thousands." Well, we already know that based on the number of victims found murdered in mass graves. "I recall watching one press conference where Donald Rumsfeld said it was likely that close to a million Iraqis had been killed by Hussein." This is not an unreasonable estimation.



(source, original was in the New York Times)



(source)

Oh, and yes, he was tied for ordering the murder of 148 people in 1982. 1. Isn't that bad enough in itself? 2. The fact he wasn't convicted of some general "crimes against humanities" doesn't mean he didn't do it.

A successful trial as open as this in a case of a (present) former absolute leader was unprecedented in history (I don't consider the trial of Slobodon Mulosivich to be a success), and only comparable case cases were of the show trials of Charles I, and Louis XVI in previous centuries. Also, again, the US did not try him the Iraqis did, but I doubt you believe me.



Not in the sense that we would think of a secularist in the United States.



Not in terms of people who are liberal (small L) and also Muslims. Although he did permit more more openness in society, then say, Saudi Arabia. He had a tendancy to clamp down to gain political support.



There is precedent for that in Islam.



By this logic we should leave?



The Waco Incident was poorly handled, but the FBI did not intentionally set a fire there. David Koresh was a genuinely dangerous figure.



Serious conservatives describe such people as fringe idiots (If you want I can look for the video of the conservative protesters who made those descriptions)

Welcome to the discussion, crazedchef

ADDENDUM: Not an endorsement of anything or any comments. I just put this here so as not to be misunderstood.

Last edited by jimservo on 15 May 2007, 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Manalitwist is OK.

I don't agree with his views, but lets not get personal. He doesn't.

If Hussein is a mass murder then where are the bodies? We should be seeing corpses stacked high to the sky. There are a few photos on the internet and I don’t see any evidence on the scale of what is claimed. It’s not surprising that there is a considerable amount of buried dead in Iraq. The Iran-Iraq war was a bloody eight year ordeal. Gulf War I had its share of dead too. Then there was the Kurdish/Shiite uprising and years of harsh sanctions that took its toll on the population as well. But a million corpses? That is no small number. I’m not going to rely on some article published by Hussein’s enemies to settle the matter. There should be solid proof. The fact that some kangaroo court could only pin him with 148 killed says something.

Question takes quote out of context.


And yes Philadelphia would be much better off with a strongman in charge to wipe the sub-human filth off the street. I don’t want to be shot or stabbed because the parliamentary process can’t get the problem under control. The idea that modern democracy, which btw resembles almost nothing like what the founders created, is some sacred cow that we all must lay down our lives for is a contrived absurdity. Just like the idea that it can or should be exported to a place like Iraq. The intelligent people in charge understand this.

I was being sarcastic. Plus, I think the grammar was screwed up.



No wonder you believe in conspiracy theories. There are hundreds of thousands of dead in mass graves. Search Iraq and mass graves on Google image search.



Actually, the fact that they charged him with something so specific speaks volumes. They easily could have simply charged him with something very general but instead they charged him with a specific instance that had witnesses, and documentary evidence. One million is an approximate estimation. You will notice that the article I quoted to has lower totals as well. No serious study has estimated that Saddam murdered only 148 people.



Philadelphia, in an election, just voted for a reform candidate that has a tough on crime platform.

Every person is a human being, regardless of where they live or whether or not they commits a crime.



No, you advocate overthrowing the system and shooting and stabbing those who disagree with yourself.



The founders also created such a thing as a Constitutional Amendment process in the knowledge that as times just societies adjust. The founders were not fans of the types of absolutism that you favor so I am not sure why you are bringing them up as an argument for your support.



Citizens having a role in deciding their own representives? What a primitive idea! Why, they should be slaves to the state!



Of course, and benevolent dictators are always benevolent, or if there aren't there are so easy to remove. After all, mein Fuhrer was quickly kicked out off office when he proved that he wasn't just interested in just reforming the economic system, but indeed had other interests, and Chairman Mao was removed without incident when he started talking about his citizry as mere pack animals, and good-old Pol Pot had early retirement when he advocated the abandonment of cities.

Oh, what? None of those things happened? Hmm...

Of course it would be easily to argue that democracies were the big baddies if Democracies were the ones killing there own citizens in massive numbers and making wars, but the thing is that just isn't the case. Democracies do sometimes make war on dictatorships, but democracies literally (with a few old debatable exceptions) don't make war on each other and certainly don't kill their own citizens in mass. They also, on average have better economic performance.

But, alas, in a democracy one is required to allow a plurality of opinions and that is tough to accept when you think any other opinion then your own is faulty.

I should add as well that those within the founders own generation, including some of the founders themselves, tinkered with the system the created. The first national system, under the Articles of the Confederation, proved ineffective, and paved the way to the more effective Constitution. The initial Presidential electoral system proved ineffective, and had to be reformed under the 12th Ammendment. While factions (later parties) were initially not intended they were quickly accepted as necessary in the American system. Liberalizations in qualifications in individual states for voting occurred throughout the founders generation period. By 1828, all states but one (South Carolina) had it's citizens voted at the polls for President.This had already been the case with state offices.

I did do that. That’s what I'm talking about. There is nothing there that reveals anything like the numbers we’re talking about. We should be seeing piles and piles of dead bodies.



“They easily could have simply charged him with something very general but instead they charged him with a specific instance that had witnesses, and documentary evidence.”

Yea, it’s called a trial and it takes place in a courtroom. They have to at least keep up some semblance of due process. The prosecutor just can’t walk in with a copy of the New York Times and point to the parts where it says -Hussein is a mass murder- and present that as evidence. He wasn’t charged “with something very general” because its suppose to be trail, and wouldn’t have looked very good to accuse him of something that can only be backed up by unsubstantiated media reports.



Wow, a tough on crime platform! What a novel idea. Did his opponent have a soft on crime platform? Politicians have been saying that crap for decades, it doesn’t mean anything.

Overthrowing the system that permits this state of semi-anarchy to continue and expand is just. Like I said in another thread, the constitutional process is driven by money, lawyers, and media. If your enemies completely outclass you in these areas then your desire for reform by the constitutional process is hopeless. The founders were unable to petition the King of England for change and so used revolutionary violence to accomplish their goals.

The “great” American democracy has killed more people and caused more harm and misery in the last century then all of the dictators combined. A system that allows the situation, like the one in Philadelphia, to go on across the country while sending its cash and military half a world away to wreck nations in the name of freedom is a tyranny. Dictatorships have been given a bad name by the same people who gave Hussein a bad name. The monarchies of old were essentially dictatorships but we don’t really think of them that way. Perez Musharraf of Pakistan is a dictator, but the American TV and newspapers will never attack him like they did Hussein. The same goes for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan. These countries suppress dissent, torture, and throw people in jail for disagreeing. The real difference is that they are allied with the U.S. So do you see how it works?

Bashar al-Assad of Syria is sometimes called a dictator. I suspect if America/Israel seeks regime change in Syria we will begin hearing more about how repressive Assad is and about his crimes against humanity.



The plurality of ideas in America is limited to Democrat or Republican. Like the saying goes; they are the two wings of the same bird of prey. Anything that falls outside of this false choice (Dem. v Rep.) is labeled extremism or intolerance. The media has the political process wrapped up.

Addendum: I don't advocate for a system that suppresses opinion. Anyways, who thinks that opinions that differ from their own are correct? If you can't find fault in an opposing viewpoint then what good is your own opinion?



Grammar? You're in a glass house on that one.

HOW MUCH MORE PERSONAL CAN IT GET WHEN HE IS LAUGHING AT THE DEATHS OF AMERICANS WHO ARE TRYING TO HELP THE IRAQUI PEOPLE?

HOW ABOUT HIS PM TO ME LAUGHING ABOUT ALL OF THE MORTAR ATTACKS I HAVE BEEN THROUGH?

HOW ABOUT HIS DAILY "BRIEFINGS" OF THE INSURGENT ATTACKS THAT DAY?

It doesn't get any more personal.

Jacob Wrote:

"The “great” American democracy has killed more people and caused more harm and misery in the last century then all of the dictators combined."

Man, you have got some screwed up ideas about history.

Ever heard of Stalin? Or maybe Hitler? (Stalin, according to some historians killed upwards of 10 million of his own people, and Hitler killed 6 million Jews not counting the war dead).

I agree America has stuck it's nose in other's business where it was not wanted or needed. You keep talking about history: What about the French, The English, The Spanish, etc...?

Those countries were dictators and conquerers for centuries.

You do not have to worry about the Police in America "dissappearing" you for writing a dissenting opinion.

Americans give more per capita than the rest of the world combined to help those less fortunate. WE AMERICANS are giving BILLIONS to try and build a stable government for these people, too bad there are many who do not want to give up control (The Clerics). They want their "Black Magic" (their interpretation of the Koran: God's Will?! !) to rule the land and be the end all, be all, on their say so.

America at least makes the effort to separate the Church from the State. (not so well these last few years I will admit)

Life is not perfect. Governments are not perfect. Our form of democracy is not perfect. In a perfect world everyone would get what they want. It is not a perfect world, we are here in Iraq, and we do not plan on letting it descend into anarchy.

crazedchef, are you really in Bagdad?

Stalin and communism certainly have racked up their share of killing in the last century. Apparently that didn’t stop America from saving Stalin’s regime in WW II.

It’s true that governments are not perfect. They have a tendency to enlarge and serve the people within them over time. I agree with the position that governments need to be beaten back as much as possible, otherwise they increasingly consume the people’s money and freedom. Modern democracy has done just that. In America it has occurred on such scale that it is impossible to repair it without a catastrophe.

I don’t think dictatorships are all peaches and cream, but they certainly are an improvement to what we have now, even if the dictator is flawed. People who always condemn autocracies hold up mass democracy as some sort of paradise. They think it is some ideal that can never be questioned.

Iraq already is in anarchy and the U.S. military is not making it any better. They don’t want our money, and frankly, I don’t want to give it to them either.

I will answer this one before reading the one below because I feel that the person will rile me up.

Yes, I have been here for 24 months now. Do not want to go into any more details because of this manlatwist charachter.