cnn.com— The bomb, which was dropped by a U.S. fighter plane, was aimed at a building that three men entered after planting a roadside bomb as an unmanned surveillance plane watched from overhead, the officials said.
Jan 6, 2006View in Crawl 4
@FuManchuWhy didn't the U.N. try Churhill & Truman for the bombings of civilians after the war, or whichever Germans didn't kill themselves that would have been responsible. Wholesale killing of civilians may be illegal, but to assume a war with no civilian deaths is possible is foolish. All you people that are against this war, are really agains war, period. That's a nice thought, one I shared as a child, but the problem is convincing the rest of the world. Wether you like it or not, we've been attacked by nations like Iraq, and Iraq would not have hesitated to attack us if given the opportunity. Nor will Iran. The people in power there are bleedin' crazy. You can't assign reasonable motives to the mad. A world that is half Ghandi's and half Atilla, will soon be all Atilla! The world is not perfect, nor can it ever be. There is no Utopia. Get over it.
[1] If the US military [as an organization, NOT necessarily all individuals serving] wasn't so cowardly, they would oppose lightly-armed resistance fighters with ground troops instead of using aerial bombing in CIVILIAN areas with their famous "kill 'em all --let God sort 'em out" attitude. THEY DO, AND ARE, OVER 2000 of them have died so far, so you can have the freedom to spew your crap on here. You have been watching too much of Crapper-Moore's crap on TV to even come close to understanding the truth.
joeyjojo - "He had. And do their job at what? Finding nothing?""Saddam was evil. No doubt about that. He was also funded by the US. We had a beef with Saddam. Not Iraq. But we destroyed Iraq, rather than just Saddam and his regime"Uhm.. No he kinda did, inspecting the country to prevent further agressions to its neighbors and no they found something(s).Saddam let SOME inpsectors do their jobs and ONLY where he decided it was ok. Even THEN they found traces or evidence that 'strongly suggests Iraq is concealing an attempt to re-arm itself'. Which I actually do not have issue with. Hell! If Iraq, Syria and Jordan were my neighbors I would want to be armed too. It was the abetting of terrorist groups and training facilities that were allowed to be in his country with absence of regard that is an issue for me. Unfortunatly, Iraq certainly is not alone in that regard. I also agree with another poster: We did have a beed with Saddam NOT Iraq. However, he was using his people to shield himself as he continued to go on doing what the United Nations had asked him repeatedly not to do. Sadly, what was going on in Iraq is not isolated to Iraq. Moreover, it has amplified a division in idealogy within many otherwise unified countries. I urge all of you who feel you need to voice your opinion about the war in Iraq (on both sides) to go to your library (or use your l33t Google skills) and research the complete history of the region that includes Iraq. Go back at least to the 1910s when Islamic fundamentalists tried to lead a 'Holy Crusade' not unlike that of the Catholic Church. The conflict in that region goes back to the dawn of recorded history (in fact that is where 'history' as we know it began). The region was for the majority of 'civilized' culture where 'it' all began and flurished - the mecca of scienctific method, literacy and religon. The latter being the single most violent source of mankind and especially over that region of basically sand.This education thing in Iraq has me 'bent'. To even allude that the country so much as made an attempt to educate on a fair unbiased basis (meaning that all social classes could attend) is at the very least a very twisted and distorted view of reality at the era leading up to GWI and the War in Iraq. You were more likely to be killed by 'goverment officials' in Iraq then to be taught to read. So, yeah Iraq had some educational set backs I suppose.Folks, even after the US is long gone, there will always be war in that region of the world. It has nothing to do with oil or terrorism. Those are only the excuses we make to get involved in a on going war that we have no place in. Yet we defend Isreal and its right to squat on stolen land because of our 60 year old committment and religous obligations. a world free of religon = wars fought over good old fashion greed - at least I can wrap my head around greed.
There we go again again.. oops Bush just killed more civilians. Lets see that's 30,000 est Iraqi civilians dead to only 2801 on 9-11.Being the good christian that Bush claims to be I guess he is just letting God sort em out.
Jesus..@M.Moore Fan (aa3000) - Bush wasnt the only one involved in this s**t! This ALL goes back to pre-Jimmy Carter. Bush just happened to be the one in office. Do you think we considered WAR with them ONLY under Bush? Furthermore, CONGRESS DECLARES WAR! Not the president or anyone else ONLY CONGRESS. So start axing your congressmen and women (but you wont cause you all want to blame Bush - f**k the real criminals).Bush was in office HOW f**kING LONG before 9/11? Okay then so WHO would be most poised to stop 9/11? Clinton? .. Oh yeah, he had Bin Laden in his targets on 3 seperate occassions and didnt pull the trigger. In retrospect, he would have for sure now, but not at the time (pre-9/11) in fears of killing innocent people near Bin Laden. As for "I hate the fact that bush is an evangelist that thinks anyone that is not a Christian is a sinner and going to hell." What the f**k are you talking about? Never ONCE have I seen or read a speech in DIRECT CONTEXT that says anything even remotely close to this statement. Moreover, the fanatics we are at WAR with feel the same way only they want to be the ones to send us to hell.You could go on forever... Well before you do PLEASE GET THE FACTS! OR AT LEAST HAVE A f**kING CLUE AS TO WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!
gigglestickJan 6, 2006
@FuManchuWhy didn't the U.N. try Churhill & Truman for the bombings of civilians after the war, or whichever Germans didn't kill themselves that would have been responsible. Wholesale killing of civilians may be illegal, but to assume a war with no civilian deaths is possible is foolish. All you people that are against this war, are really agains war, period. That's a nice thought, one I shared as a child, but the problem is convincing the rest of the world. Wether you like it or not, we've been attacked by nations like Iraq, and Iraq would not have hesitated to attack us if given the opportunity. Nor will Iran. The people in power there are bleedin' crazy. You can't assign reasonable motives to the mad. A world that is half Ghandi's and half Atilla, will soon be all Atilla! The world is not perfect, nor can it ever be. There is no Utopia. Get over it.
isepicJan 6, 2006
[1] If the US military [as an organization, NOT necessarily all individuals serving] wasn't so cowardly, they would oppose lightly-armed resistance fighters with ground troops instead of using aerial bombing in CIVILIAN areas with their famous "kill 'em all --let God sort 'em out" attitude. THEY DO, AND ARE, OVER 2000 of them have died so far, so you can have the freedom to spew your crap on here. You have been watching too much of Crapper-Moore's crap on TV to even come close to understanding the truth.
metmanJan 6, 2006
joeyjojo - "He had. And do their job at what? Finding nothing?""Saddam was evil. No doubt about that. He was also funded by the US. We had a beef with Saddam. Not Iraq. But we destroyed Iraq, rather than just Saddam and his regime"Uhm.. No he kinda did, inspecting the country to prevent further agressions to its neighbors and no they found something(s).Saddam let SOME inpsectors do their jobs and ONLY where he decided it was ok. Even THEN they found traces or evidence that 'strongly suggests Iraq is concealing an attempt to re-arm itself'. Which I actually do not have issue with. Hell! If Iraq, Syria and Jordan were my neighbors I would want to be armed too. It was the abetting of terrorist groups and training facilities that were allowed to be in his country with absence of regard that is an issue for me. Unfortunatly, Iraq certainly is not alone in that regard. I also agree with another poster: We did have a beed with Saddam NOT Iraq. However, he was using his people to shield himself as he continued to go on doing what the United Nations had asked him repeatedly not to do. Sadly, what was going on in Iraq is not isolated to Iraq. Moreover, it has amplified a division in idealogy within many otherwise unified countries. I urge all of you who feel you need to voice your opinion about the war in Iraq (on both sides) to go to your library (or use your l33t Google skills) and research the complete history of the region that includes Iraq. Go back at least to the 1910s when Islamic fundamentalists tried to lead a 'Holy Crusade' not unlike that of the Catholic Church. The conflict in that region goes back to the dawn of recorded history (in fact that is where 'history' as we know it began). The region was for the majority of 'civilized' culture where 'it' all began and flurished - the mecca of scienctific method, literacy and religon. The latter being the single most violent source of mankind and especially over that region of basically sand.This education thing in Iraq has me 'bent'. To even allude that the country so much as made an attempt to educate on a fair unbiased basis (meaning that all social classes could attend) is at the very least a very twisted and distorted view of reality at the era leading up to GWI and the War in Iraq. You were more likely to be killed by 'goverment officials' in Iraq then to be taught to read. So, yeah Iraq had some educational set backs I suppose.Folks, even after the US is long gone, there will always be war in that region of the world. It has nothing to do with oil or terrorism. Those are only the excuses we make to get involved in a on going war that we have no place in. Yet we defend Isreal and its right to squat on stolen land because of our 60 year old committment and religous obligations. a world free of religon = wars fought over good old fashion greed - at least I can wrap my head around greed.
terrya64Jan 7, 2006
There we go again again.. oops Bush just killed more civilians. Lets see that's 30,000 est Iraqi civilians dead to only 2801 on 9-11.Being the good christian that Bush claims to be I guess he is just letting God sort em out.
baddolphinJan 7, 2006
Support our oops.
metmanJan 13, 2006
Jesus..@M.Moore Fan (aa3000) - Bush wasnt the only one involved in this s**t! This ALL goes back to pre-Jimmy Carter. Bush just happened to be the one in office. Do you think we considered WAR with them ONLY under Bush? Furthermore, CONGRESS DECLARES WAR! Not the president or anyone else ONLY CONGRESS. So start axing your congressmen and women (but you wont cause you all want to blame Bush - f**k the real criminals).Bush was in office HOW f**kING LONG before 9/11? Okay then so WHO would be most poised to stop 9/11? Clinton? .. Oh yeah, he had Bin Laden in his targets on 3 seperate occassions and didnt pull the trigger. In retrospect, he would have for sure now, but not at the time (pre-9/11) in fears of killing innocent people near Bin Laden. As for "I hate the fact that bush is an evangelist that thinks anyone that is not a Christian is a sinner and going to hell." What the f**k are you talking about? Never ONCE have I seen or read a speech in DIRECT CONTEXT that says anything even remotely close to this statement. Moreover, the fanatics we are at WAR with feel the same way only they want to be the ones to send us to hell.You could go on forever... Well before you do PLEASE GET THE FACTS! OR AT LEAST HAVE A f**kING CLUE AS TO WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!
mutantFeb 23, 2006
I declare Bush on WAR!!