fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: December 12, 2005 08:14PM

that should really help the situation! i was hoping you had learned something.......oh well.

aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: December 12, 2005 08:19PM

Learn what Fossil ? That spreading the hype of a sham democracy like a movie premiere is going to help the Iraqi debacle ?

1. Shia form a US backed government.
2. US soldiers leave.
3. Shia government falls.

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: December 12, 2005 08:29PM

true when we leave (if) the whole region will fall into war. should we just alow the world regional map to be saudi arabia or iran? that's a frightening thought! iraq is only a stepping stone to acheiving peace. suicide bombers are lineing up to get their shot. why? because they know we are divided in our resolve and maybe they will sway us to leave. that's exactly what they want! duhhhhhhh! we need to increase our presence to full capacity! otherwise they will only get stronger! duhhhhhhhhhhhh!

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: December 12, 2005 08:32PM

oh ,and have you seen the vote lately? looks like the world is smelling the crap coming out also

Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: December 12, 2005 08:37PM

aDCBeast YOUR STILL A FUCKING NARROW MINDED DUMD ASS!

aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: December 12, 2005 08:47PM


Anonymous@203115

Please elaborate Oh great thinker. My DUMD ASS could never be as wise as you.

I guess that means you believe the hype about Iraq and democracy. Wake the f-ck up. Iraq is a sham. It will never work as a democracy.

2 countries will form. Yes 2. The Kurds will be driven from their land. Sunni's to the north and west. Shia from Baghdad on to the southern border.

Will the US have the balls to come back to save the failing democracy in 5 years ? NOPE.

aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: December 12, 2005 09:05PM


fossil_digger

the US never had a right to be in Iraq. that is why 70% of Iraqis dislike the US's presence in Iraq.

If the overthrow of Saddam and subsequent government was going to succeed meaning support of the citizens then the citizens had to be the driving force for the formation of the government. They were not.

The US set up everything. They picked the people for the interim government. They funded US friendly candidates. The US has arrested, driven out, or hindered candidates that would not be US friendly.

Cheney showed himself to lack the knowledge of the Iraqi people prior to launching the illegal invasion of Iraq. He could have looked like a genious despite the dubious nature of going into Iraq if US leaders were instructed to allow the Iraqi citizenry to form the government. But Cheney did not. That is where he F-ed up. And Iraq is doomed to failure because of it.

Showing a stronger US presence is only going to increase sunni resolve to overthrow the shia government.

So far the US military has acted as shia hitmen killing sunnis who didn't have a voice in political process.

Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: December 12, 2005 09:24PM

fossil_digger : why dont u go and fight in the US army in iraq , instead of talkin SHIT all the time ....u coward

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: December 12, 2005 10:03PM

beast: the u.s. ceated saddam and therefore it is our duty to to remove him.(our mistake)the u.n. agreed. it's not illegal since we put him in power. who's conducting that trial? the best solution to keeping iran at bay was to have that freak in power. it did'nt work very well, so he's gone.....2282: if you were paying attention you would know that i am too old to enlist. not to mention i will not voluteer for a cause i don't fully agree with, unlike others (minority) who volunteer to follow a commander in chief they dont agree with. beast we know who that is eh? iraq will not divide they will be conquered by our worst enemies. fact! the only option for iraq right now is democracy they cannot handle ANYTHING by themselves as they are now.

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: December 12, 2005 10:04PM

oh yes, and the reason 70% of iraquis don't want the u.s. there is because it's drawing fundementalists like a giant electromagnet

rogue_1 Report This Comment
Date: December 12, 2005 10:45PM

Iraqi`s dont want the yanks because the US is synpathetic to Israel whereas Iraq has similar thoughts on Israel as Iran
If the Kurds are driven from their land it will be the Turks doing the driving because Turkey wants the oil rich territory
Whatever you think about Saddam he kept his country together without inter-faith terrorism
How long after the US departs Iraq will it be before Israel starts WWIII by nuking Irak/Iran.

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: December 12, 2005 10:52PM

they will not because the u.s. would no longer support them, leaving them on their own. fatal mistake!

aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: December 13, 2005 02:57AM


fossil_digger

The US never created Saddam. He worked his way through the Bathe party to get to the top. The CIA was not involved in putting Saddam in power.
He did that all on his own. Iraq had gone through numerous leaders before Saddam. Saddam did things to stabilize Iraq. Mainly take out people who would overthrow the government.

The US had a hands off attitude until the 80s when Iran pissed the US off. Then Saddam became an ally. But US leaders got greedy aways thinking Saddam was in their hip pocket. That is where the US fucked up.

70% of Iraqis don't want the US there because Iraqis are nationalists. Could you imagine the french or hessians telling the colonists what to do back in 1780s when the colonies were writing the constitution ? They would have FOUGHT them.

rogue_1@12929

This is true however it is only part of the reason. Iraqis are very nationalistic.

You are also correct that an Israel\Iraq\Iran war could break out in the near future. That would really make Bush's invasion of Iraq a very dumb move.

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: December 13, 2005 03:13AM

the c.i.a. had a very "off the record" involvement with saddam. he was "encouraged" to be all he could be. i don't think he was ever an ally, but he did'nt ever achieve hit list material till later. the 3 powers in iraq want an islamic state,yes.

Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: December 13, 2005 03:35AM

aDCBeast, still gold-bricking on the taxpayer's dollar at some sham government job....some very important job you have there, moron...no one else would hire you because only the government allows worthless turds to sit around all day and do nothing, you are going to be surprised when the sunnis vote this week and iraq elects its own government...u.s. stooges? you wish...you want us to fail there so we never leave north america again...like that is going to save our asses. what a moron....get a real job and spend one day of you life working.

Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: December 13, 2005 04:37AM

absolute brainwashed dickheads

aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: December 13, 2005 06:03AM


Anonymous@37161

I'm goldbricking while my nutz are bouncing off your mom's chin.

fossil_digger

Ever since the British ruled Iraq in the early part of the 1900s, Iraqis never trusted people from the west.

The CIA had nothing to do with Saddam taking power. Too many people were making power grabs in Iraq for the US to pick the correct person to back.

Ninepointfiver Report This Comment
Date: December 13, 2005 09:29AM

Beast, Fossil's right. We supported Saddam all through the Iran/Iraq conflict. We built him up, gave him a buttload of weapons, and made him think we were behind him 100%. That's why he pretty much "got too big for his breeches" and invaded Kuwait. Probably didn't think we'd react.

Tribucian Report This Comment
Date: December 13, 2005 11:37AM

Here is a radical idea extreme. If something is causing a "disease," remove it with extreme prejudice. A small tactical warhead--say two kilos-- placed at one of the controlled oil rigs and then exploded. Since most of the oil deposits in that neck of the woods are interconnected, the whole blasted lot would become a blasted lot. Sure, it would change the environment, and the global economy, and the global population among other things. But if there is no oil, or Iraq, or Iran, or a Middle-East for that matter, there would be a change of power because why would those in power now want a big glass bowl? Yes, many brave Americans would die that could be avoided, but then many brave Americans died on a certain December 7th ("a date that will live in infamy"--which could have been avoided-- for the good of the whole. Do I belive this tripe I am typing? No, it is a totally lunatic idea, but it is an option: a final solution if you like.

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: December 13, 2005 11:43AM

As far as Israel nuking Iran, this would occur even if we never incaded Iraq. With Iran taking the path they are now Israel cannot afford to allow Iran to gain nuclear capability. All this could happen even if we never invaded Iraq. The only thing that may prevent it would be if someone (other than Israel) invaded Iran conventionally to dismantle their nuclear facilities.

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: December 13, 2005 10:24PM

we need to dismantle all nukes everyone has with ours being the last

Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: December 13, 2005 10:53PM

What a lying chickenshit little cocksucker Bush is.

Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: December 13, 2005 10:54PM

What a lying chickenshit little cocksucker Bush is. He's turned the whole world against America. And he doesn't care.

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: December 13, 2005 11:11PM

that's a mighty tall tale there. all america? better check those #'s again. and maybe check the vote on the political forum.

aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: December 13, 2005 11:22PM


Tribucian

Well you wouldn't need that option if the US has not illegally formed the state of Israel. The middle east has been screwed up ever since.

aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: December 13, 2005 11:28PM


Ninepointfiver@16746

What you say is true. However Fossil said the CIA helped Saddam come to power. That is not true.

He didn't get too big for his britches. He asked the American ambassador to Iraq if he could invade Kuwait and destroy oils wells that were slant drilling into Iraqi oil reserves. She told Saddam that was not important to the US so the US would have no involvement. So Saddam did exactly as he had asked. He went into Kuwait. Destroyed the oil wells and retreated.

You do know that Kuwait used to be Iraqi territory ? Then the land was stolen from Iraq.
Saddam had been pushing to get it back. That would have been in the future.

Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: December 14, 2005 12:06AM

The US has illegally formed the state of Israel. I didn't know we were in the business of nation building. Just goes to prove, if it worked in Israel it will work in Iraq. Of course Israel has only been there since 1947, so in your world we failed to build a viable nation. Ok have it your way..

aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: December 14, 2005 12:15AM


Anonymous@238240

Israel only semi works and has been able to maintain itself with US money to build a nuclear weapon. I guess we have to let Iraq have a nuke too.

Israel was also of 1 religious faith. Iraq is not. That is where this fight is. Sunni vs. Shia

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: December 14, 2005 01:31AM

and neither one can be trusted with the gift of sovereignty. EVER

aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: December 14, 2005 03:06AM


fossil_digger

Gift ? Hittin da pipe already ? I let you off. It looks like you took a beating today.

Siiikkke.... Gift? WTF ? Sovereignty does not gaurantee anything. In fact it could enslave you just the same as any government structure.

Democracy is not the answer to people's ills. And for the terminally stupid "Democracy did not start in the United States."

Hell from what I see everyday. There isn't democracy in the US either.

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: December 14, 2005 03:56AM

beating? never. well maybe by a sifu or 2. pipe? never. do you consider having their own "Islamic state" sovereignty? or enslaving them into Muslim immortality?

aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: December 14, 2005 09:46AM


fossil_digger

Whatever government iraqis would have chosen without US help would be fine with me. Of course Saddam was fine with me. At least then we knew what we were dealing with.

Only to an arrogant american could "islamic state" mean tyranny or enslavement. Good thing you are not representing the US government to foreign nations. WWIII would start in 2 minutes.

If the american colonists had been told by the french or hessians to have a particular form of government in 1780, what do you think the response would have been ?

Taking a beating means... the more you attack me ... The more you draw your own blood.

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: December 14, 2005 02:49PM

i try not to attack, just enlighten. it's hard to achieve when the shell is impervious to reason or truth.

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: December 18, 2005 10:49PM

be sure to vote on avengerx's b.s. in the political forum also.