Pilgrims massacred in Baghdad

Bot · #1

20 pilgrims killed, hundreds wounded in Baghdad

These people absolutely disgust me... more than 300 wounded... :? And these people have the nerve to bitch about "war crimes" committed by Americans? What, only they're allowed to kill their own people? Savages don't deserve to have the same rights as us...

#2

Man, that is so, so sad...They need to just fucking wipe those guys out in the middle east and start fresh...

#3

I'm surprised that Brains isn't all over this, spewing his anti-American propaganda that he loves so much.

#4

you summoned me?!

all I can say is: "see. that mini-coalition war was a mistake. one of the most stable AND western middle-east countries - be it with a dictator in charge - is now in full-flows civil war".

strange that I could predict that back in 2003 and the almighty US could not!

good one bm?! /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

#5

Hey,

I'm a 100% disabled veteran and I will say that the numbers of people who don't want us over there are outweighed by the people who thank us for liberating them. But, what we need to do is take a more proactive position there. Either move forward or get out. Right now, we are nothing more than an occupying force with no clear intentions. If Bush keeps spreading his Manifest Destiny ideas throughout the world people will hate is in the same way they hated Alexander the Great.

Bot · #6

Stable? Are you shitting me, Brains? Why do I even bother with you... lol

Edit: Bush: Leaving Iraq now would be a 'disaster'

"A failed Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will provide safe haven for terrorists and extremists. It will embolden those who are trying to thwart the ambitions of reformers.

"In this case, it would give the terrorists and extremists an additional tool besides safe haven, and that is revenues from oil sales," the president said.

...

"You can't have a democracy with ... an armed political party willing to bomb its neighbor without the consent of its government," Bush said of Lebanon.

#7

no kramer I am not shitting you, but you proved my impression that you fail to understand English (or do not take the time to read another one's posts).

I said it was stable before the occupation and that it is far from now (what you posted).

I totally agree with you on your other point: leaving now would be another 'disaster'. you guys should never have gone in in the first place.

Bot · #8

Brains, I KNOW you said before... I just happen to disagree with your (incorrect) statement.

#9

so, the "edit" was not a reply to my post; you could have made that more clear.

the least you can say is: it was FAR more stable than it is now or do you disagree for the sake of disagreeing with me? it hardly was an "imminent" threat to world peace or the US. a lot less than it is now or do you disagree?

how many US troops have lost their lives up to now? a bit over 2500? worth it because of an instability problem (links to al quaeda, highly developed WMD able to strike the US withing how many months was it?)? I seriously doubt it.

#10

Yes, Iraq was stable before Kramer. The people KNEW the women would get raped. The people KNEW the men would be killed at random. The people KNEW they could starve to death because there wasn't enough food.

Now, they aren't sure if they will get blew up by some jackass with a bomb. See, so it IS unstable now that we are there. /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />