"Are you aware that over 75% of recent polled Iraqi people"

What would you expect them to say to a bunch of "survey takers" carrying
rifles? I'm surprised 25% had the courage to say no.

Tuuk wrote:
Harry, do you know how many thousands of lives have been saved? Would you
rather have allowed Saddam to continue his killing? Come on there Harry, you
enjoy freedom of speech here in the west,,,, yes?? I mean your always
barking at the government for what you think is not efficient or not right.
Do you know what would happen to you in Iraq? Well, first, they would rape
your daughters and rape your wife right in front of you, all this would
happen right before they killed you in a most efficient method.
Besides there scarry harry, they are not targeting civilians, these babies
and innocent who are being killed are mostly a result of the suicide bombers
who do not care about collateral damage. The U.S. does every thing possible
to limit or eliminate collateral damage.
So why are you so against saving the lives of so many more humans? Do you
realize that the majority if Iraqi people are appreciative of the U.S.'s
presence there? Are you aware that over 75% of recent polled Iraqi people
now see a better future, better schools, better hospitals, and the medicine
that was once supplied to the Iraqi people by the U.S. is now going to those
who need it and not Saddam's black market. The schools are modernized and
even the women are allowed to go to school.
So scarry harry, what was your point again? It seems selfishly aimed towards
your own personal interests, your not Iraqi and you do not live there, but
you disagree with what is happening. LOL,,, once again there Harry, you are
the limit,,,speed limit..
It is humanitarian efforts, and your right, the U.S. shouldn't have to do
this alone, the coalition forces need to have more membership and the U.S.
taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for this, there is no excuse why more nations
are not financially involved.






"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

John H wrote:


On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 22:26:51 -0500, Jim wrote:


In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal concluded: "To initiate a war of
aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme
international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it
contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Nuremberg also taught us that "just following orders" is not an excuse
for what the winning side declares to be war crimes. So while the
Germans couldn't get off the hook, neither can the Iraqis, who have been
told from the beginning of the invasion that if they DID follow their
leaders' orders, they would be tried for war crimes. And yet, the
sensitive American soldier who is told to drop bombs on undefended Iraqi
villages -- well, he must do what he is told to do and there's no wiggle
room. He is ruled by people with divine rights; the power that comes

from holding one hand on a bible and keeping the other outstretched to

the oil oligarchy.

What is the wing opening in the sky? What is darkening the clouds? When
does it descend in all its ominous power?
"The best lack all convictions, while the worst Are full of passionate
intensity." (Yeats)

Can you provide an instance where an American soldier was told that he
was to drop bombs on an undefended village and then proceeded to do
so?

I thought not. Now, what is the rest of your post worth?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


We've dropped plenty of bombs on plenty of villages in Iraq, and, by the
standards of modern warfare, these villages were either undefended
entirely, or were "defended" by a small rabble of irregulars whose
actions were small-scale and had nothing to do with the village, but,
rather, with saving their own skins. There are counts kept of the
non-combatant Iraqi civilians we have killed. The numbers are in the
thousands.

You think playing your "literalist" games gives you an argument? It only
makes you the bigger fool.

Is this what they taught you in the military? Amorality?