If we are so concerned about the Iraq’s y’all tell me why we won’t treat their wounded. How can we not treat them? We run their country. And you can’t say it’s not military policy.
I patiently await your weaseling.
There was information about such incidents earlier, among others about the children mentioned in the article.
The immorality and arrogance of these criminal invaders, already unlimited, still seems to increase by the day.
I can’t imagine that UK medics would ever react like this.
Correct me if I’m wrong here… and give me a heart attack.
Forgot to mention: Every single one of this kind of incidents happening overthere is directly caused by the invaders.
There is nothing “indirectly” about invading and occupying a sovereign nation causing the death of thousands of people and the mutilation of thousands of others.
Not one thing. Nothing. They are responsible for every single death and wounded.
When the hell did I ever say that concern for Iraqis alone is why we should go in? And even in an alternate reality where I did, I don’t believe in ‘universal healthcare’ in America, and I certainly don’t think we should pay for universal healthcare in Iraq.
The next time you try to attribute a position to me, take 2 minutes out of your ever-so-busy day, and research a bit.
A repost of why I think taking Iraq was the right move:
Well, isn’t that just peachy! Statements like that really call for a music cue, like Village People doing Macho Man
Nosiree, Bob, we Americans ain’t wussies, we shoot first and ask questions if we feel like it, kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out.
Maybe this kind of hairy-chested troglodyte international policy appeals to you. Brutus, but dammit man! its a bunch of romantic macho mush, it is crapola, it is Bushwah!
Suppose we had that kind of rep going when the Cuba missile crisis came about? When we want a potential adversary thinking “The Americans are ready for war, but dont want war.” rather than “I’d better hit them first, 'cause sure as hell they’re gonna hit me!”
Even if it hasn’t sunk in for you, friend Brutus, its sunk in everywhere else: Iraq was no threat! Saddam’s “military machine” couldn’t have taken Belgium in a fair fight, they had no Bad Mojo weapons, nor delivery systems, nor anything else that could be remotely considered a threat to the USA!
So the most massively armed military force in history, sitting on thousands of thermo-nukes that we can put anywhere at any time is somehow compelled to invade a nation that has taken no hostile action *whatsoever *.
elucidator, don’t tell me you went to the Reeder School of Putting Words in Peoples Mouths. Your posts are…‘colorful’ enough as they are. No need to confabulate.
I don’t believe that I said that Iraq was a ‘clear and present danger’, or any such rot. I do think taking Iraq was a great move for America, for all sorts of reasons. I also do think that our approach to governing Iraq is not realistic, but that’s a seperate matter.
And Reeder, much like Rebel Commands’ impassioned crys to Red Leader, I am asking you to ‘Stay on Target!’. If you want to Pit me for being such an evil cad, do it to it! But try to leave GD for debating.
Well, the whole Iraq mess pretty much dates back to the invasion of Kuwait, which was a hostile act, no? At the time, I thought it was a poor decision not to “continue to Baghdad” while we had the troops over there. Do you think we made the right decision in '90 to leave S.H. in power?
If the US ever dares to invade Belgium, I think the US should be prepared to have their own nukes “strategically stored” there pointed at them to hit them first.
As for the Iraqy army: I think Hussein didn’t have any reason to even in his wildest dreams consider those strategically stored US nukes in Belgium enough “threat to the national security” to pre-emptive attack Belgium.
This not only because although his army outnumbering largely the Belgian military (now only trained for and deployed in peace keeping missions, by the way) Hussein would have found it already difficult to actually transport his military overthere.
But in addition to that: Hussein is not Bush, who thinks he is inspired by God to murder thousands of people.
Hussein only killed them out of lunaticism and greed.
One could in this case even agree with the belief that is so much alive among so many Americans: America is The Greatest in Everything.
They have indeed Everything Greater in their President and Government:
I’m already waiting for the next Election Circus Show.
Take a bet that the Bushy clan wins?
I’m already praying for the average American who isn’t part of the Golden Circle Of American Great Capitalism and sees not only his jobs disappear, but has to pay for the Leading Lunatics and their Greedy Murder Plans, if he is so fortunate to have and to keep a job.
Aldebaran.
Do you think the US would have got involved there, and in the whole region for that matter, if there wouldn’t have been some slight oil business involved?
I guess you better remind OPEC to invite Granada, Somalia, and Yugoslavia to their next neeting. The US gets involved in numerous regions for all kinds of reasons.
But I don’t doubt that oil had a lot to do with Gulf War I. What’s wrong with that? Defending allies who are suppliers of a critical commodity to our economy is no sin.
I think he is where we have our fundamental difference. You seem to think that a war inflicted upon a soveriegn nation that poses no imminent threat is an acceptable, albeit vigorous, expression of realpolitick.
I would remind you that we, the Americans, settled that hash a half century ago. We set ourselves up as judge and jury, and tried men for war crimes. We defined a war crime as an aggressive war without threat or provocation. And we hanged some people for it.
It was we ourselves who established the principle that aggressive war is a crime, an action no crivilized nation could accept. We acted as moral leaders, and splendidly, IMHO. The principle is well established, commonly recognized and just as commonly broached.
The only justification for the Iraq invasion that entertains even a shred of common decency would be a threat, a threat that, apparently, existed only in the fevered imaginations of our leaders.
Forgot to mention: The members of OPEC at the moment are Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela.
Iraq didn’t fire so called “banned” missiles to the invaders of its sovereign nation. Because there were none to be fired. They were destroying their missiles- the few that were left- until a few hours before what you called “coalition” and what I call criminal invaders crossed the border.
And take notice that those missiles weren’t that horrifically transgressing the limitations, because we speak here of a few kilometers they trangressed the reaching limit.
And as Iraqy army specialists declared: that was because they were tested when not armed. So when operational they weren’t transgressing any limits.
Yet, Iraq agreed to destroy them and was still busy doing so when the lunatic in lead of the USA gave order to start the butchering of thousands of Iraqis in order to get his claws on the natural resources of their sovereign nation.
And of course in order to have the heart of the Middle East as his personal playground to position his (also disposable) soldiers on military bases who are among others built on the most valuable irreplacable, nowhere else to be found craddle of civilisation. Who was even before they started to destroy the landscape on the foot of the Ziggurat was already vandalized, looted, dammaged and sprayed with graffity by US culture-barbarians.
Maybe you think Bush and Crew care one bit about the Americans who died and are going to die overthere?
Don’t let me laugh.
Better said: Don’t let the world laugh.
I wouldn’t call it greed; I would call it protecting the single most important resource of modern society. If we defended Kuwait because they had the largest diamond mine in the world, that would be greed.