1

Hrm. Interesting. I could've sworn those pictures were quite similar to ones I've seen of the casualties of American bombing? Oh, well. I guess THAT price you CAN afford....asshat

2

wow.....

you done good.

this texan is impressed.

3

I think your first commenter accurately depicts the mentality of those people better than either you or I could depict them with our words.

4

The pictures could also be of the civilian French people who were killed during the Allied bombardment prior to the Normandy invasion or other French civilians killed inadvertantly by Allied troups in 1944. Seems that the French people feel that a certain level of sacrifice was necessary in ACCIDENTAL deaths for THEIR freedom. I guess using the logic of the first post, the Allied shouldn't have liberated France, Holland, et. al. because the risk of accidental death of civilians would be too high.

5

#1:
I could've sworn those pictures were quite similar to ones I've seen of the casualties of American bombing

AND

#4:
The pictures could also be of the civilian French people who were killed during the Allied bombardment prior to the Normandy invasion or other French civilians killed inadvertantly by Allied troups in 1944.

You're both wrong, although I understand that Steve is not lead by the same spiteful spirit as alasdair asshat.

There is a fundamental difference, political and moral between the casualties on the banner and the examples you both picked up. Can you take a guess?

I'm pretty sure that Steve is perfectly aware of it, but I cast strong doubts on asshat alasdair faculty to comprehend the reason why his moral equivalence is irrelevant.

6

Great flash animation. The only problem I have with the whole war thing is forcing the asshat anti-war protestors to pay for the campaign. It would be great if there was a way they could deduct their portion of military funding from their next income tax statement. Maybe that would make them shut up for a while. I think only those who WANT to do the right thing should have to pay to do so. Those who want to sit back can keep their stinkin' money while they watch the suffering of others.

7

The problem with this war is that it opens up:
a disoriented and muslim 20 million soul market
+ potential WMD access
+ a great deal of money and smaller weapons' astray
all up for grabs by every terrorist factions that is politically and logisticly capable!!

The dead are nothing yet...

8

ashurbanippal:

Right... As if any terrorist faction anywhere needed this war to have access to any black market of arm sales anywhere.

There are way more weapons available from other rogue states than there are in Iraq (Mind you, I think they'll be dealt with next. One seller at a time).
In case you didn't notice, the potential "shoppers" may encounter a few hindrances on their way to the stores. Like the 101st Airborne for instance.

You're missing the point. The point is precisely that Iraq is not a state ran shopping mall for terrorists anymore.
This war will prevent what you call the problem, coming from this part of the world.

9

Just got back.

Bloggers like you are what's pissing the so-called 'unbiased' networks off.

Keep up the good work.

Anti-war = pro-fascist.

It shuts them up and makes them cry.

Try it, it works.

10

"I could've sworn those pictures were quite similar to ones I've seen of the casualties of American bombing?" -- alasdair

Nice try. But those casualties shown on the banner are clearly the work of indiscriminate poison gas, not precision guided explosives. Speaking for myself, at least, I would much rather be collateral damage of a bomb blast than the intended target of of poison gas. I suppose you would say that Iraqis should not have to make that choice. And Saddam would agree with you.

11

So was this a war for human rights?
First Bush claimed the war was necessary because Iraq had helped AlQuaida. Unfortunately in spite of the Bush administration's best efforts to dig up the slightest shred of evidence...there wasn't any!
Then it was meant to be necessary because the USA had concrete proof Iraq had WMD, such as the obviously forged documents that Iraq tried to get raw materials for nuclear weapons from Niger. Iraq was meant to be an imminent danger to the USA and was illegally keeping WMD. This has also proved to be a lie - and anyway, the US and its allies in the region (eg. Israel) are 'allowed' to have all the WMDs they want.
Now this war has been reinvented as one for human rights. Another lie. The CIA helped Saddam into power, helped him massacre communists and muslims, encouraged him to invade Iran, sold him weapons and precursors for chemical weapons, provided him with intelligence and illegal funding, and helped Iraq avoid censure for its wartime atrocities at the UN.
Saddam stopped being useful when he invaded Kuwait for continuing to steal Iraqi oil, so the USA stopped being his buddy.
The illegal invasion of Iraq wasn't for human rights but because having a compliant Iraq helps the USA's strategic interests in the Middle East, helps control of a region with vast oil reserves, makes money for Republican donors like Bechtel and Halliburton, knocks out an enemy of Israel, and scares other less compliant states to behave in line with US interests. Now it's set a precedent that any state which feels a perceived threat from another can launch an invasion without consequences.

The war was nothing to do with human rights and everything to do with money and power....period.

12

#11 This is getting tiresome, really. I suggest you tell all of that to the Irakis (from a distance tough. They may not agree with you).

Else, you can keep talking to my horse, sweetheart.

13

Good comeback, shame you didn't actually address any of the facts I put forward.

So how did the USA react to Saddam's use of gas munitions against the Kurds at the time? Here is one of many articles on the web about that. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,784125,00.html

That was back in the days when Saddam (and Bin Laden) was still seen as a friend by the US republican government. I guess the Reaganites back then didn't know it was wrong to use poison gas when civilians would be collateral damage. Just like the current administration doesn''t realise that using cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells in cities is a bit naughty.

'We don't collect information about civilian collateral damage'.

14

Hmmmmm, bugger if I know my man.

What's the Irakis' answer? Did you ask them?

(Oh, by the way, an article from TheGrauniad? Ah, that's a good one, you funny boy you. In the very words of my horse: Heeeeeeeee Heee Heeee Heee.)

15

As someone who's lived under the tyranny of a dictator, I find it so utterly offensive how some of you people who have lived under the protection of First-world governments can be so naive and idiotic. You act as if there are no evil men in the world, that Bush and Blaire and the rest of the Free World start a major war just for the hell of it. You hate your government so much that you paint a sadistic maniac like Hussein as a martyr. The United States, being the last remaining superpower in the world, can't just do what Europe does and stick their heads in the sand whenever a humanitarian crisis happens.

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

16

Yes, the Americans were allied with bin Laden and Hussein at one time. So, the proper way to make up for that is to allow them to stay in power? Okey-dokey, then!
By the way, a lie is not merely an incorrect statement, but rather it is an incorrect statement that the speaker knows to be incorrect and states anyhow for the purpose of deceiving. If anyone has any evidence that Bush knew there were no WMD's, they aren't publishing it. We know that the rest of the world thought there were WMDs in Iraq, otherwise what were their reasons for continuing the UN inspections?
The correct reasons for opposing the war in Iraq are that Saddam posed no credible threat to the US, and that the policy of preemption, while understandable as a theory, sets a dangerous precedent. Although Saddam liked to play a little too close to the edge, he never did anything that (he thought) would get himself in trouble. He had America's support against Iran, and asked for Bush I's opinion before invading Kuwait. In the current situation, he was an asshole, but he in fact appears not to have any of the offending WMDs. As for the preemptive policy, yes, it would be better to preempt a strike rather than suffering a blow and then striking back, but you should do so only on the basis of very, very sound intelligence. Of which there obviously was none in this case.
One more question to the anti-Bu... I mean, anti-war zealots: if the Americans had found WMDs, would the invasion have been justified? If not, then the whole WMD issue is irrelevant, isn't it? Idiots. Bush isn't a liar, just a bad strategist.

17

-" and anyway, the US and its allies in the region (eg. Israel) are 'allowed' to have all the WMDs they want. "

This statement from "Jim" combined with his "client state" lingo makes me want to go back to M.I.T. and take more notes from Prof. Chomsky, that wonderfully post-modern man who is going to bring equality to us all, no matter the differences between a liberal democracy and those gassers in Chad, it's all good. Go client state yourself to France you douche.

18

As a woman in my early fifties i object strongly to all this talk of WMDs !
I have been suffering from this menopausal depression for some time .
I personally am extremely happy that Iraqi women appear to be totally devoid of this crippling illness since it can only be cured with healthy doses of Irish whisky - of course not available in that desperate country.
Yours faithfully
Dominique Vidal
Institut des Petomaniacques de France

19

#11
"...and anyway, the US and its allies in the region (eg. Israel) are 'allowed' to have all the WMDs they want."

You're goddamned right we can. Because we excersize a little thing called "restraint." A concept that people like Saddam Hussein (may he be executed in the most painful means possible and burn in the darkest hole of Hell) would laugh at while having you tortured in front of your family for even suggesting. Let's think a little here...how long have we had these WMD's and had the restraint to not use them? Can you give me one instance where the US has nuked, gassed, or otherwise tried to obliterate an entire people? Even after September 11th? What do you think the bin Ladens and Husseins (remember the Kurds?) of the world would have done? I can tell you...and it wouldn't take a 9/11-esque massacre to provoke such an attack either. The only thing that would have to happen is a non-Islamic government (let's assume it was, oh I don't know...the Israelis) to "condemn" something that happened in a country run by this type of person, and that country, and it's people would cease to exist. Christ man, the Israelis, whom you apparently have no love for either, even have more restraint than these modern-day barbarians, though, admittedly less than the US. But can you blame them? They suffer attacks every fucking day that they have to live with. You sit on your ass in front of the T.V. at night ignoring those atrocities and telling yourself "they had it coming" and when they retaliate, again, with more restraint than the PLO, you say it is an unfounded attack on the poor defenseless Palestinians. You wonder why these innocent civilians are getting killed? Because they are the ones harboring and hiding the terrorists. And allowing the terrorists to hide behind them...not necessarily because they want to, but because they will be killed if they don't.

People like you almost make me ashamed to tell people I run into that I am an American. Almost. But I will still die to defend your right to hide behind the Constitution and the Stars and Stripes that I swore an oath to. Because don't have the intestinal fortitude to do so yourself.

20

(original drivel edited)

Where the hell do you think you are? Ever heard about respect for private property?

DF.

(end edit)