[loveyoupeople]

What are your views over the Iraqi war?

BLOOD FOR OIL... is that fair?

Isn't that the real reason this all started anyway?

FACTS:

1) Iraq was a much safer country when Saddam was ruling.
2) when saddam ruled there was no sunnni and sheeya.. everyone got along with every one just fine.
3) yes saddam killed a lot of iraqis for whatever reason.. but now that he's gone they are still getting killed but in bigger quantities.

When is this going to end?

.. I can't see another child dye and be pay for saddam's or bush's mistake.. someone has to speak out..

[iAMfromHuntersBar]

Blood for oil?

Hell yeah, why not! We've started wars for much more petty reasons in the past!

And your 3 "facts" just go to prove what little you actually know about the situation, especially the very immature line "yes saddam killed a lot of iraqis for whatever reason"

[loveyoupeople]

Blood for oil?

Hell yeah, why not! We've started wars for much more petty reasons in the past!

And your 3 "facts" just go to prove what little you actually know about the situation, especially the very immature line "yes saddam killed a lot of iraqis for whatever reason"

Hell yes why not? I bet you won't be saying this if they wer killing your son, daugter, mother, or any of your loved ones..

And I know exactly what I'm talking about.. im iraqi who lived in iraq... your the one who's far away and have no clue


And when I said saddam killed for whatever reason and now that he's gone they people are still dying means that nothing is improving..

How could you be OK with someone dying for oil? U know they kill people and chop them up and send them to their famalies in bin bags?
How would you feel if that was some 1 u cared about.. who's inecont.. will you truly be OK with that?

[iAMfromHuntersBar]

1. Saddam Hussein murdered literally 100s of thousands of his own people in his reign... not in nice ways either, using chemical weapons and other lovely methods!

2. There was no Sunni (not sunnni) or Shī'a (not sheeya, something I would expect a 22 year old Iraqi to know!) split because Saddam, a Sunni, used the Peoples Army to suppress the larger Shī'a population through fear of torture and death... they certainly didn't "get along".

3. We've already been there!

Who is "they" by the way... who are you blaming now?

[loveyoupeople]

1. Saddam Hussein murdered literally 100s of thousands of his own people in his reign ... not in nice ways either, using chemical weapons and other lovely methods!

2. There was no Sunni (not sunnni) or Shī'a (not sheeya, something I would expect a 22 year old Iraqi to know!) split because Saddam, a Sunni, used the Peoples Army to suppress the larger Shī'a population through fear of torture and death ... they certainly didn't "get along".

3. We've already been there!

Who is "they" by the way ... who are you blaming now?

And by your explination it makes it OK for innocent people to die.. is that what your saying? Its OK for innocent people to die?

Sunni and sheeya is how its pronounced in arabic smart guy.. and they had no problems. My mum is a sunni and my father is sheeya.

[Curlyben]

What color is the sky in your world!!

Your so called facts are typical rose tinted, media driven cobblers.

Saddam is responsible for one of the largest, most wide ranging genocides ever!!

Now while I don't agree with the reasoning behind the invasion, the result has justified the action.

Ps people DIE not DYE as this is color change!

[iAMfromHuntersBar]

What? Are you saying your 3 "FACTS" aren't facts now?

No, I'm not saying it's OK, I'm just saying that oil's as good a reason as any!

I'm within a hair's bredth of labelling you a troll.

[NeedKarma]

Saddam is responsible for one of the largest, most wide ranging genocides ever !!!

I agree with you there. But there are many genocides happening in Africa too and no large US contingent has "freed" them.

[loveyoupeople]

listen.. I know what saddam is.. I lived in his country. I know he killed people.. and it wasn't just that.. people were cut off from the real world.. no satellite-dish no mobile phones; and stuff like that.. even the mentality is different than other arabic countries.. I was brought up in UK but lived in iraq for few years.. anyway.. when I sor what happened after the war.. and I've lived there before the war and sor how much better life was before the war I was surprised.. and I lost many people I care about..
bottom line is.. people lost their value... as if its OK to be boomed, killed etc. and because of how unsafe it is; there are rape and kidnapping for money.. or u pay someone $100 to kill someone,. u know that's how much human is worth $100.. its crazy.. and its not just the Iraqis... I see those American solders that are so young and have all their future ahead of them losing their lives.. why? What for?
a friend came from iraq few days ago and he was saying that some americans are committing to suicide because they can't get out of the country because of their contract.
.. this is not about the big people who have power,. its about the little ones who don't... come on you can't be that heartless and say "hell yeah ok blood for oil"

[iAMfromHuntersBar]

"It is of course well known that the only source of war is politics ... war is simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means."
Carl von Clausewitz

Since humans walked the Earth and more than likely up to the point we render ourselves extinct there has been, and will be wars for a whole host of reasons!

[tomder55]

1) Iraq was a much safer country when Saddam was ruling.
2) when saddam ruled there was no sunnni and sheeya.. everyone got along with every one just fine.
3) yes saddam killed a lot of iraqis for whatever reason.. but now that he's gone they are still getting killed but in bigger quantities.

1) much safer for the Tikriti I'm sure . I'm not so sure the Shia ;the marsh Arabs the Kurds and most of the Sunni would agree with you . During Saddam's reign of terror the killings were silent but they happened routinely... or are you unaware of the mass graves found all over the country ?

This argument really makes me laugh . When South Africa was being ruled by a minority regime the world did everything short of invasion to oust the ruling minority . While Saddam was butchering and otherwise brutally subduing the majority in Iraq the world turned a blind eye and winked at violations of sanctions that the UN imposed . Even those they would not have adopted if he had not had a history of attacking his neighbors .

Tell me , were Iraqi's safer when he fought a decade long war with Iran ?Millions were killed in that conflict. Was the Middle East safer when he invaded and plundered Kuwait ,and threatened Saudi Arabia ?

2) yeah the minorities were effectively put down under Saddam . This observation of yours seems a little dated. Have you been following the news from Iraq lately ? It appears that al-Qaeda's attempt to foment civil war has been successfully countered. Yes it got dangerous last year after the terror bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra .But cooler heads have emerged . It was recently revealed that even the Kurds would prefer a united Iraq over division plans that have been proposed. Large sections of Iraq have been handed over to Iraqi authorities to govern. Just this week Basra was handed over to complete civilan control Most Iraqis live in peace.

3) see my comments to #2 . All recent news accounts by the press, that was reluctant to report any good news from Iraq ,are confirming that there has been a dramatic drop in violence across the board since the "Surge" began in earnest this summer.

Edit : Bill Roggio takes a good look at the released data about civilian deaths in Iraq .The graphs provide an excellent illustration of the decline .

Iraq by the numbers: Graphing the decrease in violence - The Long War Journal

Let's address 'Blood for Oil' . From the London Times Iraq - the best story of the year | Tim Hames - Times Online

By any measure, the US-led surge has been little short of a triumph. The number of American military fatalities is reduced sharply, as is the carnage of Iraqi civilians, Baghdad as a city is functioning again, oil output is above where it stood in March 2003 but at a far stronger price per barrel and, the acid test, many of those who fled to Syria and Jordan are today returning home.

The BBC said that its correspondent in Baghdad reports that the improved security is bringing "all sorts of dividends in the country, some of which could be enormously lucrative." Increased oil production by Iraq, which is estimated to have the world's third-largest proven oil reserves after Saudi Arabia and Iran, is good news for the world as well.

Earlier this year, IEA's chief economist warned that the world faces a major crisis because of the scarcity of oil unless Iraq is able to increase its exports exponentially by 2015. According to the IEA only Saudi Arabia and Iraq are capable of increasing oil production. Demand for oil, despite higher prices, is expected to increase in 2008 by as much as 10 percent.

Contrary to claims by critics of President Bush, the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power was not "all about oil." But the continued recovery of Iraq's oil industry is certainly an argument in support of Gen. Petraeus' request not to halt the military surge by withdrawing troops before July, when the plan is to revert to the pre-surge level of 130,000 troops.

Charleston, SC Latest Editorial News: Iraq surge is paying dividends

The difference is that now the revenue will go to the Iraqi people ,not to a jackbooted dictator.

[Fr_Chuck]

What are your views over the Iraqi war?

BLOOD FOR OIL... is that fair?

isnt that the real reason this all started anyways?

FACTS:

1) Iraq was a much safer country when Saddam was ruling.
2) when saddam ruled there was no sunnni and sheeya.. everyone got along with every one just fine.
3) yes saddam killed a lot of iraqis for whatever reason.. but now that hes gone they are still getting killed but in bigger quantities.

when is this going to end?

.. I can't see another child dye and be pay for saddam's or bush's mistake.. someone has to speak out..

You are just saying this to get people started right, there is no way anyone can seriously believe that it was a safer place? And no sunni or sheeya, I guess they all just appeared when Sadamm lost power.

I can't reply since the "facts" are so silly they don't deserve any resspect of an answer

[loveyoupeople]

You know what I can't believe that your all that ignorant to see what's really going on; your tottaly brainwashed by media

When saddam was there there was islam who are either sunni or sheeya which wasn't an issue at all... as I said my mother is sunni my father is sheeya.. so am I.. I'm sheeya they mix have no problems with each other.. now if you believe it or not that's a fact.. and arguing about all this with an iraqi who lives there is just plain stupid..

Don't believe everything you hear on the news... whats being said on the news and what's really happening to country very different...
Was it safer when saddam was there.. HElLL YEAH.. and I'm not a sunni or a tikriti.. my sister got married to a kurd.. they seem fine as well...
U have all said that it wasn't safe when saddam was ruling.. well guess what it isn't safer now. So imagine how worse it got..

Everything I have said in these posts are facts.. this is what's happening.. me being connected directly to iraq.. make me the real sours here not the media..

[excon]

Hello love:

I agree with you. Saddam wasn't a nice guy, but he wasn't a lot different than lots of the world's not so nice guys. Actually he wasn't ANY different, and there are WORSE than him as we speak... He DID kill some of his people. He DID gas about 5,000 Kurds. He ran his country with an IRON hand. I didn't like him. I'm a Jew.

However, an ordinary Iraqi, whether he was a shia or a sunni, could walk the streets in safety. He could do business (Iraq was very PRO business). He could support his family and live in a home with running water and electricity.

NONE of that is possible now. IF Iraq was DINGED before we went in, it's totally DESTROYED now.

excon

[loveyoupeople]

Hello love:

I agree with you. Saddam wasn't a nice guy, but he wasn't a lot different than lots of the world’s not so nice guys. Actually he wasn't ANY different, and there are WORSE than him as we speak....... He DID kill some of his people. He DID gas about 5,000 Kurds. He ran his country with an IRON hand. I didn't like him. I'm a Jew.

However, an ordinary Iraqi, whether he was a shia or a sunni, could walk the streets in safety. He could do business (Iraq was very PRO business). He could support his family and live in a home with running water and electricity.

NONE of that is possible now. IF Iraq was DINGED before we went in, it's totally DESTROYED now.

excon

Thank you for sharing my views and being realistic about it. X

[ETWolverine]

What are your views over the Iraqi war?

BLOOD FOR OIL... is that fair?

isnt that the real reason this all started anyways?

FACTS:

1) Iraq was a much safer country when Saddam was ruling.
2) when saddam ruled there was no sunnni and sheeya.. everyone got along with every one just fine.
3) yes saddam killed a lot of iraqis for whatever reason.. but now that hes gone they are still getting killed but in bigger quantities.

when is this going to end?

.. I can't see another child dye and be pay for saddam's or bush's mistake.. someone has to speak out..

All right. Let's study these "facts" of yours and see if they really are FACTS or just drivle.

During Saddam Hussein's reign, the following occured:

- Use of rape as a piolitical tool.
- Kidnap and indoctrination of children as young as 5 years olf into the "Ashbal Saddam" (Saddam's Cubs) in which they were taught cruelty to animals and other humans as a way to make them into "soldiers" for Saddam's army.
- Murder of 80,000 Kurds in Halabjah by poison gas in March 1988
- Al Anfal Massacre: as many as 100,000 Kurds killed by Sarin, Mustard and nerve agents in 1988. Thousands of others imprisoned or "disappeared".
- April 1991, Saddam kills 100,000 Kurds and 130,000 Shiites using Sarin, Mustard and nerve agents.
- In 2003 and since, several mass graves with thousands of bodies of people murdered by Saddam Hussein were found. More are still being found today.
- Execution by Saddam of as many as 4,000 prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison.
- Torture, rape and murder of thousands of women by Uday Hussein, Saddam's son.
- Torture of professional soccer players who did not perform up to Uday's standards.
- Use of torture devices such as Iron Maiden, Iron Mask, Pear of Anguish, and other devices by Uday against political and personal enemies.


All in all, under Saddam, roughly half a million people were massacred under Saddam's regime, and millions were improsoned, tortured, raped, etc. And this number doesn't include INDIVIDUAL killings, only group killings. These are also only the events that have been documented, not the ones that have not been proven to have occurred... the ones that happened, but for which there is no evidence.

By comparison, Iraq Body Count, as of today, estimates the number of civilian deaths from violence in Iraq since the invasion of Iraq at 85,713.

So you tell me, based on the numbers, was Iraq safer under Saddam? I think not. Iraqis are NOT being killed in "bigger quantities" than under Saddam.

Finally, under Saddam, the Sunni and Shia did NOT get along... or if they did, it was at the point of a gun. Saddam committed genocide of the Kurds and of Shia by the tens of thousands. His Sunni's, which account for less the 10% of the population of Iraq, were first-class citizens, while Shia and Kurds and other groups were second and third class citizens. The abuse of Shia and Kurds by Sunnis is well-documented.

As to your assertion that we went to war for oil... where is all that oil we are supposed to have captured? If we gained all that oil, where is it? Why are oil prices going through the roof if we have all this extra oil? Who has it? Which American companies are taking that Iraqi oil?

In short, your statement is pure baloney. It has no basis in actual fact. It is untrue. It is drivle. It's a tired, old bumber-sticker slogan from anti-Bush, leftist idiots who don't bother with facts.

Elliot

[tomder55]

Oh sure yeah he did kill some people...

Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq under Saddam . Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 Iraqis died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers are 70 and 125 civilian deaths the government was responsible for per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power.

Oh but the rest of the survivors were happy as clams as they went about their business with no contact to the outside world with

"no satellite-dish no mobile phones; and stuff like that."

That they lived in fear of saying anything against the fearless leader with his spies on every corner... or fear of having their daughters brought to one of Uday's rape rooms or having their family fed into wood chippers for Saddam's sons amusement is of no consequence. So long as they were selling dates and figs to each other all was well.

The fact that most parts of the country lived in abject poverty to a point that the UN decided to ease up on sanctions in a futile attempt to get aid to the people is of no consequences in a nation that had one of the top oil reserves in the world . That Saddam was plundering the "oil for food " funds was of no concern .

Please ; I can buy into and debate many of the objections to the invasion of Iraq. But I cannot stomach arguments that say the people were content or there are other dictators we should've remove first .

[speechlesstx]

BLOOD FOR OIL... is that fair?

Isn't that the real reason this all started anyway?

Can anyone tell us how Bush has benefited from Iraqi oil since the invasion? If you want facts on why we went to war they are here and here.

FACTS:

1) Iraq was a much safer country when Saddam was ruling.

It's easier to keep the peace under threat of torture and/or execution.

2) when saddam ruled there was no sunnni and sheeya.. everyone got along with every one just fine.

One good Anfal campaign and a few hundred thousand Marsh Arabs later and I think folks can find a way to coexist for a while.

3) yes saddam killed a lot of iraqis for whatever reason.. but now that he's gone they are still getting killed but in bigger quantities.

Perhaps you should really think about this part of your post and then get back to us: "for whatever reason"

.. I can't see another child dye and be pay for saddam's or bush's mistake.. someone has to speak out..

I think more than enough people have spoken out. Had more people (UN, France, Germany, Russia, etc... ) taken serious action against Saddam rather than just "speak out" (or scheme with Saddam), perhaps all this could have been avoided.

As for when it will end who knows, but it's way too late to turn back and if you don't want to see more children die in this, the right thing to do would be to support our efforts in Iraq.

[loveyoupeople]

Can I go out in the streets now in iraq? No because its nt safe.. before when saddam was leading.. it was safe enough to go out. It wasn't that bad when he was leader.. if you don't mess with him he won't mess with you...

Don't believe the estimates of how many are being killed now... they never tell you the truth..

Can anyone tell us how Bush has benefited from Iraqi oil since the invasion? If you want facts on why we went to war they are here and here.

It's easier to keep the peace under threat of torture and/or execution.

One good Anfal campaign and a few hundred thousand Marsh Arabs later and I think folks can find a way to coexist for a while.

Support the USA to kill more people.. are you kidding me?

[tomder55]

1999 The US led NATO bombed Kosovo and Serbia for 60 straight days to force the removal of Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic ;to force the Yugoslav army out of Kosovo (a Serbian province) while allowing a NATO force to occupy the province.

The justification for this action was that Serbia under Milosevic had committed genocidal ethnic cleansing against Bosnia and it was suspected that ethnic Albanians were being slaughtered in Kosovo. There was an additional justification for this action . There was a generally approved consensus prevalent that the international community's primary task was dealing with rogue states behaving in ways that violated international norms. The fact that the US was the only nation that could project such power gave the US the responsibility to lead .

Russia was opposed to the operation ,but besides preventing the UN from giving the operation it's official stamp of approval ,the Russians could do nothing else to prevent this course. There was no general worldwide opposition to this at all . Since there was no known reserve of oil in the Balkans no one could accuse the US of "blood for oil " . Perhaps another reason for the quite acquiesce was that the US President was Democrat Bill Clinton and not Republican George W Bush.

Could someone tell me what the difference is between freeing Iraqis from the genocidal jackboot of Saddam Hussein and freeing the Kosovarians from Milosevic's reign of terror ?