Saddam Hussein

[i k a r i]

Too awful to watch xD,
I dont trust that video anyway...at all.

[Darth Mandarb]

... second of all, the propaganda they do by putting irak people supporting them, that's so fake it hurts, people buy what they see, the war winners write history.

Ummmm ... I have several friends who served in Iraq who might strongly disagree with you on that regard.  I'm not taking the side of the mass-media (whom I openly chastise on a regular basis) but I trust the word of my friends who said that flocks of people thanked them on a daily basis for what they did/were doing there.

I would agree that the reasons we were given to justify the start of the war have proven false and we shouldn't have been lied to in the first place.  And perhaps it's reached a point where there is no way out of the situation in Iraq.  But to make a statement like that seems silly unless you've been there or know somebody that has.  If not ... it sounds like you're repeating something a 19 year old college kid blurted out thinking he actually knows anything about the world.

Did you all see how many people were celebrating the dead of Saddam Hussein?, 50, maybe 60?.

Ummmmm² ... so you were EVERY where in the world (at the same time) when Saddam was hung and counted only 50-60 people?  Can you teach me that trick?  That'd be handy for sure!

I'm hoping you're making a joke here?

[i k a r i]

The people celebrating were at the capital, shouldnt there be more than 50 or 60 happy people there?..I think that's enough saying, I dont think Irak was ok with Sadam Hussein but why would they be happy now that some other country is stealing their resources?.. And why did so many people die for just one guy, and why with such a precise technology they attacked the whole country and the Irak media.
People there either could be cheated with the sh#t about USA liberating them, or just being used to motivate USA soldiers, or they were part of media propaganda, and if they werent then it clearly shows how few people is happy about having ther friends familes and compatriots dead. Who would be grateful for receiving bombs from USA in their country, killing hundreds of innocents, they leaved the city in chaos, without a leader, USA just said, "now is up to them to make it better", literally, USA killed the only guy who could have been a trouble for them, "the irak Bush". The reason of the attack changed dramatically, first they had some Nuclear bombs they never used xD, then it was to liberate them.
Maybe your theory is correct, "WOPS sorry!, we killed a lot of people and there was no nuclear bomb at the end, we should have research a little longer before bombing you all to hell, but now that we started it, we have to finish it, keep bombing", Bush killed the same amount of people than Saddam Hussein.

I havent been everywhere, I sure havent been buying whatever CNN showed to the world, I think USA people is so patriot they defend what is impossible, they see what they want.

EDIT
I dont want to sound like a "knowitall" young rebel  , mine are just theories, noone here can talk with facts, unless they fully relay on what CNN shows, or whatever Bush says.

[Darth Mandarb]

Bush killed the same amount of people than Saddam Hussein.

I'm not sure where you got that from either ... Saddam was/is responsible for millions of deaths of his own people.  Yes civilians have been killed in the U.S. invasion ... but nowhere near that number.  Both of these websites are somewhat sensational so I take their information at face value only but some quick google searches will turn up similar findings:

Saddam's Body Count
The number of civilians reported killed by Saddam
Min 1.26 million Max 2 million

Iraq Body Count
The number of civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq (not just by American weapons)
Min 52,473  Max 58,056

Again I can't vouch for the reliability of these websites ... but I found several others that report like data.

I'm not justifying the civilian deaths caused by the US invasion.  I just find it silly to say that "Bush killed the same amount of people than Saddam Hussein" when that simply isn't the case.  Secondary we aren't targetting them as Saddam did.  Nor are we gassing them wholesale with chemical weapons.  Or making their families watch as they are slowly tortured and killed.  Or any of that.  I'm sure there are instances of "wrong" doing by the US soldiers but they are the exception, not the rule.

I havent been everywhere, I sure havent been buying whatever CNN showed to the world, I think USA people is so patriot they defend what is impossible, they see what they want.

Perhaps you should find your glasses and read the rest of this thread   That's a very "lumping" statement again.

[Ishmael]

The American mind is so corrupted.

I'm not 100% sure exactly what you meant by that ... but I'm sick and tired of the rest of the world lumping all Americans under the same umbrella.Ã,  Just because our President is destroying our country and our mass media exploits that fact doesn't make us all war-mongering capitilist pigs, I assure you.

I was referring to the stereotypical American. The one who doesn't know how to program their VCR and thinks Sweden is a naighbour of China's, or the like. The ones who were about to ban GTA for Hot Coffee. Somehow they always get known to the rest of the world, along with your president. I mean no offence to anyone in particular, all the Americans here I know are Americans are way above the stereotype.

[i k a r i]

Yes I think it was "silly" to say they killed the same amount of people, but is that the point??
They are both murderers, and one of them is still alive, give him some time..
So is Bush better than Saddam Hussein for killing less people?, Saddam Hussein killed his own people?! xD, does that makes him more evil, Bush is a better person because he killed people from Irak?, a poor country noone gives a sh#~  and without war power?..Yes, OF COURSE, because they are not his own people, and USA needed some petroleum, is that so bad?. What a nice president, so patriotic. I'd like to see USA attacking Japan now if there is some political problems..Actually I wouldnt.
There are not instances of wrong in the U.S army doing, it is all wrong, do you HONESTLY think USA attacked Irak for LIBERATION?, or because they made a mistake about them having Nuclear weapons?. Why would they attack the whole country, and why would they shoot at their press. I'm more worried about Bush terrorism than Irak's.
Whatever the reason of attack is (if is not for petroleum........................), it is not justified.

Perhaps you should find your glasses and read the rest of this thread Wink  That's a very "lumping" statement again.

Im not saying you or anyone here buys what CNN shows, Im just saying I don't.
Im glad Saddam Hussein is dead (probably), hopefully Bush will die too.

I cant avoid noticing you only answer some parts of my posts, maybe you do agree with some things I said..

[Darth Mandarb]

Yes I think it was "silly" to say they killed the same amount of people, but is that the point??

Yes, that's exactly the point.

The U.S. invaded Iraq (albeit under false pretense) with a military objective.  In any military action there are always civilian losses (the term is "casualties of war").  This is an unavoidable part of war no matter how smart our bombs are.  I don't like it, but it's a fact.  So yes, in the advance of the military objective(s) a lot of Iraqi civilians have been killed.

However, the important thing to realize here is that the U.S. is not targetting the civilians.  Saddam was deliberatly and cold-bloodedly targetting his own people.  He killed them by the thousands for no other reason than he disliked them.  Here is a Brief History of Saddam and his rise to power.  One of the most chilling videos I've seen is watching the calling out  of members of his own government (in front of the rest) and watching as they were taken out and shot in the head while he laughed and smoked cigars.

They are both murderers, and one of them is still alive, give him some time..

Time to what?  Die?  Time gets us all eventually ...

So is Bush better than Saddam Hussein for killing less people?,

Not for the number, but for the reasons yes.  I'm not saying Bush is a good person but he doesn't sit in the white house planning chemical attacks on the people of Montana.  There IS a difference.

Saddam Hussein killed his own people?! xD, does that makes him more evil, Bush is a better person because he killed people from Irak?, a poor country noone gives a sh#~  and without war power?..

Yes.  The brutal and deliberate targetting of your own civilian populace is far worse than the regrettable civilian deaths as the result of a publically declared war (even if for the war was started for the wrong reasons).

Yes, OF COURSE, because they are not his own people, and USA needed some petroleum, is that so bad?. What a nice president, so patriotic. I'd like to see USA attacking Japan now if there is some political problems..Actually I wouldnt.

"War is a continuation of politics by other means." - Carl von Clausewitz

While there is some debate over what Clausewitz meant by that, the fundemental (and obvious) point, I think, is that wars are almost always fought for political reasons.  (I have much deeper theories on this, but I won't go into that now)

The U.S. is, sadly, completely and totally dependent on oil.  The middle east has an absolute monopoly of the world's oil right now.  So we are forced to keep our influence there.  It's just a sad fact of global politics.  Sure there might be hotspots in other parts of the globe where the military might of the US could "save the day" but it doesn't benefit the U.S. politically to do so, thus, they'll continue to be ignored.  As much as we dislike it, we the people have very little say in the matter.  The U.S. isn't unique in the practice of this, just the current "bully" that everybody loves to pick on.

There are not instances of wrong in the U.S army doing, it is all wrong, do you HONESTLY think USA attacked Irak for LIBERATION?, or because they made a mistake about them having Nuclear weapons?. Why would they attack the whole country, and why would they shoot at their press.

I'm not an expert on the middle east by any stretch of the imagination ... but it doesn't take a PHD to realize that as long as the middle east controls the world's oil supply that the nations (like the U.S.) that are addicted to that oil are going to take steps to ensure we get the lion's share.  The welfare of the nation depends on that.  While I don't doubt (in the slightest) that Bush's cabinet is firmly in the pockets of big oil and their main motivation may well be for their own monetary gain, it doesn't change the fact that any sovereign nation (super power) that wishes to remain so will do what is necessary to accomplish this.

I'm more worried about Bush terrorism than Irak's.

That's an opinion you're entitled to.  I'm not to happy with Bush either and while it's fun to call him a terrorist it's a matter of semantics really.  He's not hi-jacking civilian planes and crashing them into civilian targets.  He's not strapping TNT to his body and detonating himself in a restaraunt.  He might be a war-mongering pig ... but a terrorist?  I don't really think so.  Again, just semantics I reckon.

Perhaps you should find your glasses and read the rest of this thread Wink  That's a very "lumping" statement again.

Im not saying you or anyone here buys what CNN shows, Im just saying I don't.
Im glad Saddam Hussein is dead, hopefully Bush will die too.

I was referring to how you lumped all USA people together with the statment "USA people is so patriot they defend what is impossible, they see what they want."  Earlier in this thread I commented on this ignorant habbit people have of "lumping" a people together.

I cant avoid noticing you only answer some parts of my posts, maybe you do agree with some things I said..

Not this time

[i k a r i]

The U.S. invaded Iraq (albeit under false pretense) with a military objective.  In any military action there are always civilian losses (the term is "casualties of war").  This is an unavoidable part of war no matter how smart our bombs are.  I don't like it, but it's a fact.  So yes, in the advance of the military objective(s) a lot of Iraqi civilians have been killed.

So you're OK with that, people getting killed for the good economics of your country, the most poweful nation is entitled to take what they need, that's life, right?. And if the other nation have an evil terrorist leader, even better.
Besides my point is not talking about the unavoidable parts of war, is why the war started, and you know it was for economic reasons.

However, the important thing to realize here is that the U.S. is not targetting the civilians.  Saddam was deliberatly and cold-bloodedly targetting his own people.  He killed them by the thousands for no other reason than he disliked them.  Here is a Brief History of Saddam and his rise to power.  One of the most chilling videos I've seen is watching the calling out  of members of his own government (in front of the rest) and watching as they were taken out and shot in the head while he laughed and smoked cigars.

U.S IS targeting the civilians, there are more civilians dead than anything else, and they knew this was going to happen, so technically, they targeted them. Unavoidable part of war, sure.
And less than 2000 deaths for USA army

Time to what?  Die?  Time gets us all eventually ...

Time to get equal with Saddam Hussein.

Not for the number, but for the reasons yes.  I'm not saying Bush is a good person but he doesn't sit in the white house planning chemical attacks on the people of Montana.  There IS a difference.

Because there's no need to, I dont think Bush is a person who feels regret for killing others, he was probably drinking champagne and eating Sushi while USA soldiers died, or watching cartoons or playing Ben Jordan, the thing is, he's smarter than Saddam Hussein, and not being a dictator means he have to act politically to get into people's brain and hearts.

Yes.  The brutal and deliberate targetting of your own civilian populace is far worse than the regrettable civilian deaths as the result of a publically declared war (even if for the war was started for the wrong reasons).

Im not from USA and I see USA civilians and Irak civilians like "people", and the leaders of every country should see the others as equals, I dont believe in god, but Bush says to act in his name, so why would be worse to kill people from your country?, if there were some kind of civil war, being in Bush side is your best choice, he doesnt mind who he kills.
And the war never started for the wrong reasons, you think he didnt know what he was doing from the very beginning?, You know he did.

The U.S. is, sadly, completely and totally dependent on oil.  The middle east has an absolute monopoly of the world's oil right now.  So we are forced to keep our influence there.  It's just a sad fact of global politics.  Sure there might be hotspots in other parts of the globe where the military might of the US could "save the day" but it doesn't benefit the U.S. politically to do so, thus, they'll continue to be ignored.  As much as we dislike it, we the people have very little say in the matter.  The U.S. isn't unique in the practice of this, just the current "bully" that everybody loves to pick on.

Is easier to steal it, than to buy it, if you have the army power USA have, of course.
They just buy the people startingawarinthenameofgodtosavepeoplefromterrorismandnucleardisasters.

I'm not an expert on the middle east by any stretch of the imagination ... but it doesn't take a PHD to realize that as long as the middle east controls the world's oil supply that the nations (like the U.S.) that are addicted to that oil are going to take steps to ensure we get the lion's share.  The welfare of the nation depends on that.  While I don't doubt (in the slightest) that Bush's cabinet is firmly in the pockets of big oil and their main motivation may well be for their own monetary gain, it doesn't change the fact that any sovereign nation (super power) that wishes to remain so will do what is necessary to accomplish this.

The necessary means the most easy way, no matter who has to die. That's what wars are for.

just semantics I reckon.

Just that..
like here

Earlier in this thread I commented on this ignorant habbit people have of "lumping" a people together.

I was talking in general, I should have said "most US people", because that's what I think, is hard to express properly in english.

[ManicMatt]

U.S IS targeting the civilians, there are more civilians dead than anything else, and they knew this was going to happen, so technically, they targeted them.

Yup, I remember seeing that footage of the US Jetplanes dropping bombs down on villages and the marketplace.

Care to show me a source of this information that shows more civilians have been killed by the US Army than the amount of Iraq military killed by US?

[Darth Mandarb]

The U.S. invaded Iraq (albeit under false pretense) with a military objective.  In any military action there are always civilian losses (the term is "casualties of war").  This is an unavoidable part of war no matter how smart our bombs are.  I don't like it, but it's a fact.  So yes, in the advance of the military objective(s) a lot of Iraqi civilians have been killed.

So you're OK with that, people getting killed for the good economics of your country, the most poweful nation is entitled to take what they need, that's life, right?. And if the other nation have an evil terrorist leader, even better.
Besides my point is not talking about the unavoidable parts of war, is why the war started, and you know it was for economic reasons.

Actually I never said I was okay with it.  Just that it was a fact of war, which it is.

U.S IS targeting the civilians, there are more civilians dead than anything else, and they knew this was going to happen, so technically, they targeted them. Unavoidable part of war, sure.

You are wrong again.  I suggest you do a little research before spouting out your "facts" so freely.  According to some websites the total number of Iraqi deaths (civilian and non-civilian) numbers as high as 733,854.  Following the link I posted earlier numbering only civilian deaths at 58,056.  That's a military (non-civilian) count of 675,798 deaths.  Far more military deaths than civilians.  Not to mention that more than 50% (according to my friend (who was a Marine on the ground in Iraq)) of the civilian deaths were caused by other Iraqis, not U.S. soldiers.

I understand you're mad about the situation ... but think before you speak.  The US is NOT targetting civilians, as much as you'd like to think they are, they aren't.

And less than 2000 deaths for USA army

Please research first: American Body Count is now over 3000.

And the war never started for the wrong reasons, you think he didnt know what he was doing from the very beginning?, You know he did.

Actually I don't.  And nor do you.  You don't (can't possibly) know what the man was thinking.  You can speculate, but you can't know.  And the war DID start for the wrong reasons.  We the people were told one thing (which turned out to be false) and that's why we went to war.  Hidden motives aside, that's why we went to war.

The necessary means the most easy way, no matter who has to die. That's what wars are for.

I don't believe that's what wars are for.

I was talking in general, I should have said "most US people", because that's what I think, is hard to express properly in english.

Talking in general makes it worse.  Not only are you "lumping" but you're "generalizing" too?

[Nacho]

U.S. is not targeting civilians. Every person with a grame of brain will know that the orders from above are to avoid collateral damages as much as possible. Every civilian casualty is a casualty in the scoreboard of the insurgency.

If you are saying that the US militars are adding goals in the scoreboard of the terrorists on purpose, there' s no need to go on with the discussion because you would be showing that you are too sectarian for learning anything sensible with this...

Iraq is going bad, terribly bad. But Iraq has been a mistake, not an ethnic or political purge, as you want to make it seem.

What Videla did was. And Videla was not born in Texas...

So, your next step is probably going to post something with a lot or rage saying that someone of your family was killed by Videla, blah, blah, blah... and saying that I can't deffend the USA mentioning Videla because Argentina is not equal to Videla, blah, blah, blah...

That, exactly that, is what Darth Mandarb is saying about Bush... But you don' t listen because you go on with the manifesto. So, listen, and reply according to the thing people tells you.

[Ishmael]

Care to show me a source of this information that shows more civilians have been killed by the US Army than the amount of Iraq military killed by US?

What about the amount of US military killed by the equipment?

That's actually rather amusing... There was a peroid when every odd three days I heard a piece of news about another copter gone down somewhere within half a globe from Iraq

[Nacho]

So... copter accidents amuse you?

[Ishmael]

If you want it that way, yes. Especially if they result in dead US military outside of their war zone.

[EagerMind]

I promised myself I wasn't going to get into this, but as an American that neither supports Bush nor is in favor of the war in Iraq, I must confess that there are parts of this discussion that I find quite infuriating.

I don't think anyone here - American or otherwise - has denied that Bush is an awful president, unpopular and controversial both at home and abroad, who's time in office I'm sure will end up being a low point in our history. Plenty of Americans are unhappy with the current state of our country and the direction it's headed - anyone taking 5 seconds to use Google will realize this. And anyone willing to put in a few more minutes of effort will also discover that the mechanisms of our government are also working to undo the more egregious aspects of his presidency, including removing Bush himself from office in 2 years.

We have a bad president and the last 6 years have not been good ones for America. A lot of things need to be improved as a result. No argument there. If nothing else, as we (and many other countries) struggle with the uncertainties of terrorism and a post-Cold War world, it's a reminder that individual rights and freedoms need to be constantly defended and fought for. But I find it difficult to sit by when my country and government is compared to genocidal tyrants and state-sponsored terrorists. Or when our system of government is summarily dismissed as being broken and inferior to others. Or when the death of Americans is glibly laughed at as the punchline to a joke.

I wouldn't expect anyone from any country to be OK with this, patriotic or not. And I believe this is the point Darth Mandarb is trying to make. Ikari, Bush has many faults and our country is far from perfect, but if you're seriously going to compare him and our government to Hitler and Hussein, some of the most brutal and heartless killers the world has ever known, I suggest you take a minute and get a grip on reality, or at least think before you open your mouth.

If this is me being a nationalistic, aggressive, and ignorant American, so be it. But if you can't see that all the baseless spin and propaganda being spewed about my country is just as ignorant and nationalistic as we're accused of being, then I really feel sorry for you.

[i k a r i]

Actually I never said I was okay with it.  Just that it was a fact of war, which it is.

I'm not an expert on the middle east by any stretch of the imagination ... but it doesn't take a PHD to realize that as long as the middle east controls the world's oil supply that the nations (like the U.S.) that are addicted to that oil are going to take steps to ensure we get the lion's share.  The welfare of the nation depends on that.  While I don't doubt (in the slightest) that Bush's cabinet is firmly in the pockets of big oil and their main motivation may well be for their own monetary gain, it doesn't change the fact that any sovereign nation (super power) that wishes to remain so will do what is necessary to accomplish this.

You seem rather careless about it, like if it were part of a necessary process to start a war every once in a while.
Is only normal that a country constantly improving his war power chooses the way of war to get what it needs, thats what I said that for countries like USA, war is the easiest way, even more when they attack countries like Irak with nule "war power". I dont think this will ever change as long as I live, sadly, Im just saying Bush is one murderer of many to come, and that leaders like him should be exterminated in order to have a better world. This will be delirious, as many things I probably said, but I think in a future, the peace will come when every country gets their nuclear power and noone will dare to attack the other, that, or the end of the world  :o

Please research first: American Body Count is now over 3000.

I've just red 2000 bodies this morning in an Argentina's newspaper. Blame them.

Actually I don't.  And nor do you.  You don't (can't possibly) know what the man was thinking.  You can speculate, but you can't know.  And the war DID start for the wrong reasons.  We the people were told one thing (which turned out to be false) and that's why we went to war.  Hidden motives aside, that's why we went to war.

The war did not start for the wrong reasons, no matter what the people were told, Bush started the war knowing why, the people didnt know, but they didnt start it, and the army have to do what they are told, even if they knew the reason was economic, (or not).
The war started for Bush's reasons, so the decision wrong/right goes only to him.

Talking in general makes it worse.  Not only are you "lumping" but you're "generalizing" too?

I dont know what do you mean with "lumping", but yes I am generalizing, because that's how I see most of the US people, maybe Im wrong.

Not to mention that more than 50% (according to my friend (who was a Marine on the ground in Iraq)) of the civilian deaths were caused by other Iraqis, not U.S. soldiers.

"according to my friend" is not a very reliable source, even if he was in Iraq, soldiers act by orders, act like pawns for the government, and are constantly lied, is VERY hard to believe, after watching missiles going down in the middle of a highly populated city (etc.), that Iraq soldiers killed 50% of the civilians.
off-topic
I'm tired to see on TV all the tricks USA used in Irak, hiring actors, filming people burning and old currency (old money), putting small crowds celebrating, these things may be debatable, or you can deny them, except the one about the money burning, wich is filmed, wich was reported in US newschannels, and wich was probed to be money that was not in currency long before the war started. And Im talking about several documentals made by USA people

U.S. is not targeting civilians. Every person with a grame of brain will know that the orders from above are to avoid collateral damages as much as possible.

I was misunderstood, Im not saying USA objectives were to kill civilians, Im just saying they didnt give a shit about it, they are targeting them because thats unavoidable since Bush took the decision to invade Irak. And by USA I mean Bush.

EDIT

Ikari, Bush has many faults and our country is far from perfect, but if you're seriously going to compare him and our government to Hitler and Hussein, some of the most brutal and heartless killers the world has ever known, I suggest you take a minute and get a grip on reality, or at least think before you open your mouth.

If this is me being a nationalistic, aggressive, and ignorant American, so be it. But if you can't see that all the baseless spin and propaganda being spewed about my country is just as ignorant and nationalistic as we're accused of being, then I really feel sorry for you.

It was a rage comparision, to be honest, but he has the potential, isnt he heartless too?, I dont think he cant sleep for killing all this people in Irak. Im gonna be EXTREMELY honest here, is not that I cry for the Irak deaths either, or that I care TOO much about it, I just cant believe there's someone alive capable of doing that and, even worse, with so much power. I think his death would be beneficial for the world. This is what makes me angry, that a cold blooded killer like Bush is still alive, and being supported for some USA people.
The propaganda is the least thing that affects me, honestly, and I repeat, I dont have nothing against most USA people, I think its people is among the greatest in the world, full of talent and intelligent, Im just saying sometimes their patritism gets in the way of the brain, and that's what Bush used in the first time. Hopefully he wont be re-elected next time..


PLEASE note that in some parts USA means Bush. 

[Darth Mandarb]

I've just red 2000 bodies this morning in an Argentina's newspaper. Blame them.

I'm not blaming anybody.  If you're going to make a claim like that you should point to the source.

The war did not start for the wrong reasons, no matter what the people were told, Bush started the war knowing why, the people didnt know, but they didnt start it, and the army have to do what they are told, even if they knew the reason was economic, (or not).
The war started for Bush's reasons, so the decision wrong/right goes only to him.

The U.S. President cannot simply start a war.  It must be approved by Congress, the representatives of the people.  Congress approved the war in Iraq due to faulty information they were given from several different intelligence agencies.  I'm not denying that Bush lied to us.  I'm not denying that he made the decision to go to war.  But he doesn't have a magic button he could push and we suddenly find ourselves in a war.  To believe otherwise is either incredible ignorance, or simple naivety.

After the Korean and Vietnam wars congress enacted the "War Powers Resolution" which basically forces the president to get congressional approval to start a war.  Though the UN didn't support the invasion of Iraq, the US Congress did grant approval to Bush.

I dont know what do you mean with "lumping", but yes I am generalizing, because that's how I see most of the US people, maybe Im wrong.

Yes, you are.  It's ignorant and just plain wrong to generalize or "lump".  By lumping I meant you were taking all (or most) of U.S. citizens and making judgements on them all based on the actions of a few newsmakers.

"according to my friend" is not a very reliable source, even if he was in Iraq, soldiers act by orders, act like pawns for the government, and are constantly lied

You're generalizing again.  I would trust "my friend" with my life.  He upholds the ideals that I think all US soldiers should have.  He was not a pawn, doesn't lie, and I believe what he says more than any news agency or internet debate.

is VERY hard to believeafter watching missiles going down in the middle of a highly populated city (etc.), that Iraq soldiers killed 50% of the civilians.

Where did you see this video?  Al Jazeera?

I'm tired to see on TV all the tricks USA used in Irak, hiring actors, filming people burning and old currency (old money), putting small crowds celebrating, these things may be debatable, or you can deny them, except the one about the money burning, wich is filmed, wich was reported in US newschannels, and wich was probed to be money that was not in currency long before the war started. And Im talking about several documentals made by USA people

Please link to some source for all this trickery and hiring of actors you speak of.

I was misunderstood, Im not saying USA objectives was to kill civilians, Im just saying they didnt give a shit about it, they are targeting them because thats unavoidable since Bush took the decision to invade Irak. And by USA I mean Bush.

They are NOT targetting civilians ... for the 10th time.  And I can assure you they DO give a shit about it.  You really need to be more careful with what you say.

It was a rage comparision, to be honest, but he has the potential, isnt he heartless too?, I dont think he cant sleep for killing all this people in Irak. Im gonna be EXTREMELY honest here, is not that I cry for the Irak deaths either, or that I care TOO much about it, I just cant believe there's someone alive capable of doing that and, even worse, with so much power. I think his death would be beneficial for the world. This is what makes me angry, that a cold blooded killer like Bush is still alive, and being supported for some USA people.

Odd ... I wonder if that feeling of hatred and animosity you have towards Bush is the same feeling he has/had toward Saddam and the Iraqi people?

Hopefully he wont be re-elected next time..

He cannot be elected to a third term.  So we're ALL lucky in that regard.

[shitar]

but I trust the word of my friends who said that flocks of people thanked them on a daily basis for what they did/were doing there.

Lol i'd believe it. If 300,000 foreigners with assault rifles showed up in my country id be kissing their ass too.

The U.S. President cannot simply start a war.Ã,  It must be approved by Congress, the representatives of the people.Ã,  Congress approved the war in Iraq due to faulty information they were given from several different intelligence agencies.

Kosovo War 1999. President Clinton went through NATO completely bypassing any need for Congressional approval. And the president CAN go to war for (might be inaccurate by a few days/weeks) 60 days before needing approval from Congress. The President has plenty of "magic buttons".

You really need to be more careful with what you say.

Or what? You'll invade him? lol

[Darth Mandarb]

Kosovo War 1999. President Clinton went through NATO completely bypassing any need for Congressional approval. And the president CAN go to war for (might be inaccurate by a few days/weeks) 60 days before needing approval from Congress. The President has plenty of "magic buttons".

The president cannot, as I understand it, declare a "war" without congressional approval.  He can take military action (as was done in Kosovo, Somalia, and Iraq in the 90s) without congressional approval.  But to declare war officially he needs congressional approval.  Now, as with anything, there are levels of political bullshit and wrangling that can be done to skirt the constitution.  However, in the case of the current Iraq war, congress DID grant it's approval.

You really need to be more careful with what you say.

Or what? You'll invade him? lol

So you're generalizing that I, as an American, must be war happy?  It's interesting that the entire point of my posts in this thread keeps being proven over and over again in this thread ...

[Nacho]

If you want it that way, yes. Especially if they result in dead US military outside of their war zone.

Idiot.