Hey Aunt Judy, this is why we're in Iraq, you retard..............

DTJ wrote:
> On 5 Dec 2005 15:52:38 -0800,
> wrote:
>
> Apologies to everyone for the top post, but this post was so powerful
> I couldn't snip it. This **** makes me sick, yet I feel even worse
> after listening to the rabid far left defend SH as if he should have
> been crowned or something.

DTJ, try to think with your own head instead of regurgitating Cheney's
and Hannity's fecal matter.

So, two points for the guilable:

1. Removing Saddam was *against* our national interest (the Baath party
was secular, and ruthlessly repressed the Islamic crazies; with Saddam gone
Iraq is becoming a religious Shia state and a good friend of Iran).

2. The reason given for the war had nothing to do with Saddam being
an oppressor of the nice brown natives of Mesopotamia. I doubt it that
anyone in America would have agreed to sacrifice one American soldier
for such a worthy cause. Does anyone with a brain really believe that Likdunik NeoCons
such as Wolfowitz and Pearle couldnt sleep nights because the precious Iraqi
Arabs they loved so much were slaughtered by Saddam?

Bo Raxo wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Pooh Bear wrote:
> > > Aunt Judy likes it in the rear wrote:
> > >
> > > > DTJ wrote:
> > > > > On 5 Dec 2005 15:52:38 -0800,
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Apologies to everyone for the top post, but this post was so
> powerful
> > > > > I couldn't snip it. This **** makes me sick, yet I feel even worse
> > > > > after listening to the rabid far left defend SH as if he should have
> > > > > been crowned or something.
> > > >
> > > > That's why the rabid far left is so out of touch with reality.
> > > >
> > > > Yet these "caring liberuls" think Saddam should have been left alone.
> I
> > > > wonder what these hypocrites would think if they were residents of
> Iraq
> > > > under his rule?
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps that's why they are trying to ram their agenda down our
> > > > throats?
> > >
> > > Before you congratulate yourselves to much about the needless death of
> > > amybe up to 100,000 Iraqi civilians since the US invaded be aware that
> the
> > > situation is now no better than it was under Saddam.
> > >
> > > " LONDON - Human rights abuses in Iraq are as bad now as they were
> > > under Saddam Hussein and could become even worse, the country's
> former
> > > interim prime minister said in an interview published Sunday...... "
> > >
> > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051127/...u/britain_iraq
> > >
> > > Graham
> >
> > Worse off now than with Saddam? Any Iraqi I've talked to has had
> > exactly the opposite to say. Why take the opinion of a British news
> > reporter over a Baghdad citizen, and where do you get the 100,000 Iraqi
> > civilian figure?
> >
>
> Correction: Why take the word of former interim prime minister Allawi, whom
> the U.S. picked to run the first post-Saddam Iraqi government, over Todd
> Wasson at Performance Simulations. Well, gee, I can't imagine why we
> wouldn't go with your claims Todd. Please, tell us the names of some of
> these Baghdad citizens you've talked to.

Sarcasm noted. Lovely talking with you.

Moving right alone, I should have corrected myself there indeed.
Neglected to read the article and didn't realize the view was of
Allawi's. My mistake. It contradicted what I've heard from Iraqis and
saw "London" and "Yahoo" and jumped to an irresponsible conclusion.

As far as the names of the Baghdad citizens goes that I've talked to
that would disagree with Mr. Allawi wholeheartedly, I honestly don't
recall their names and would probably have some difficulty pronouncing
them anyway ;-) There weren't very many, but they really went out of
their way to make sure I understood how much better things were there
and how thankful they were that Saddam was gone.

Nobody has to take my word for that of course, but I'll take the word
of our troops when they get back. I'm just a nobody as you've
delightfully pointed out. My point was it's not a bad idea to speak to
an Iraqi citizen that has lived under Saddam's rule about whether life
is better now or pre-Saddam in Baghdad or anywhere else in Iraq when
you get a chance. Might also be a good idea to ask whether the person
you're speaking to worked for Saddam at the time too. Chances are if
he did and is now unemployed he might not be as happy as the rest of
the folks. Or so I was told by one of the Iraqi's ;-)

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:46:40 GMT, 223rem > wrote:

>2. The reason given for the war had nothing to do with Saddam being
>an oppressor of the nice brown natives of Mesopotamia. I doubt it that
>anyone in America would have agreed to sacrifice one American soldier
>for such a worthy cause. Does anyone with a brain really believe that Likdunik NeoCons
>such as Wolfowitz and Pearle couldnt sleep nights because the precious Iraqi
>Arabs they loved so much were slaughtered by Saddam?

As bad as Saddam was, there are other dictators who are worse.

Bernd Felsche, > was motivated to say
this in rec.autos.driving on Tue, 06 Dec 2005 11:41:57 +0800:
>
> > writes:
>
> >Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> >> Yeah, well, the Chinese do pretty much exactly the same stuff to
> >> political dissidents, but we're more than happy to throw
> >> bargeloads of money at China. Now, why do you think that might
> >> be...you retard?
>
> >Sheer numbers might be one reason, retard.
>
> That'd be right. Disappear millions of dissidents

and hold a permanent seat on the UN Security Council

> and you get no quibbles.

> Disappear a few thousand

and you are a nobody country

> and you're in deep manure.

In article .com>,
says...

>Yet these "caring liberuls" think Saddam should have been left alone. I
>wonder what these hypocrites would think if they were residents of Iraq
>under his rule?

If you wanted to send in the troops to get Sadam, then say so. Don't be
such a chicken **** and make up a lame excuse like WMD.
-------------
Alex

On 5 Dec 2005 22:22:43 -0800,
wrote:

>Worse off now than with Saddam? Any Iraqi I've talked to has had
>exactly the opposite to say. Why take the opinion of a British news
>reporter over a Baghdad citizen, and where do you get the 100,000 Iraqi
>civilian figure?

Please, replying to trolls like pooh-on-his-face does not work. He
and the rest of the illiterate in this country believe that they can
spout made up figures of 100's of thousands killed, and that people
will believe them. Well, the illiterate themselves will, but nobody
intelligent.

There were claims like this a long time ago. They were all refuted,
yet idiots keep referencing them as if there were any truth at all to
them.

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:46:40 GMT, 223rem > wrote:

Guess a permanent solution is required, I had hoped that you might
mature in a month. Sadly I now know you never will.

On 6 Dec 2005 02:48:35 -0800,
wrote:

>Nobody has to take my word for that of course, but I'll take the word
>of our troops when they get back.

I have listened to our troops. A local group invites any returning
troops from the area to speak at forums. Every single one has talked
about how happy the Iraqi people are for what we have done. Not one
has ever complained about an Iraqi doing something that harmed an
American, unless the Iraqi was a former Bath party member. Why?
Because the Iraqis WANT US THERE. They appreciate what we are doing.
They look forward to when we leave, only because that will be a time
when the proud nation of Iraq will have regained the ability to defend
itself from the terrorists that are present.

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 07:39:19 -0700, Howard Brazee >
wrote:

>As bad as Saddam was, there are other dictators who are worse.

So we do nothing about problem a until all problems b are solved. You
must be friends with pelosi and dickle.

DTJ wrote:

> On 5 Dec 2005 22:22:43 -0800,
> wrote:
>
> >Worse off now than with Saddam? Any Iraqi I've talked to has had
> >exactly the opposite to say. Why take the opinion of a British news
> >reporter over a Baghdad citizen, and where do you get the 100,000 Iraqi
> >civilian figure?
>
> Please, replying to trolls like pooh-on-his-face does not work. He
> and the rest of the illiterate in this country believe that they can
> spout made up figures of 100's of thousands killed, and that people
> will believe them. Well, the illiterate themselves will, but nobody
> intelligent.
>
> There were claims like this a long time ago. They were all refuted,
> yet idiots keep referencing them as if there were any truth at all to
> them.

I appreciate that the truth isn't popular in the USA.

There figure of "up to 100,000 deaths" NOT 100's of thousands please -
don't exaggerate - as a *consequence* of direct and indirect effects of the
war came from an independent report published over a year ago now.

Indirect deaths include deaths for example as a result of the crippling of
the Iraqi hospital system which means ppl are dying who likely could have
been saved by medical treatment.

Many have been killed in explosions resulting from insurgent activity too.

It is not suggested that those 100,000 were all direct civilian casualties
of allied military action.

Whilst the figure of 100,000 is perhaps controversial, I believe there is
wide acceptance of a figure of 25-30,000 even among those who would prefer
it not to be so.


" Iraq death toll 'soared post-war'

Poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence"
have led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq, scientists claim.
A study published by the Lancet says the risk of death by violence for
civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led
invasion. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

The Lancet is the highly respected journal of the British Medical Assocation
and hardly has any axe to grind.


I suggest you take your blinkers off.


Graham