image stats
rating
3
votes
11
views
730
uploader
fossil_digger
comments
18
date added
2008-04-08
category
Stupid
previous votes
Loading..
log in
Username:

Password


indent register
indent recover

the facts are.....

1 star2 stars3 stars4 stars5 stars
the facts are.....

Comments for: the facts are.....
Placelowerplace Report This Comment
Date: April 08, 2008 02:16PM

and this war in Iraq won't be the last either
Mint Report This Comment
Date: April 08, 2008 02:38PM

nevermind rather not go into this again



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2008 02:40PM by Mint.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: April 08, 2008 02:47PM

chickenshit! smiling
bouncing smiley
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: April 08, 2008 05:08PM

thumbs
down fossil....drinking
smiley
PW Report This Comment
Date: April 08, 2008 06:05PM

not only that...

Germany NEVER attacked us until we were attacking them.

Korea never attacked us

Vietnam never attacked us
PW Report This Comment
Date: April 08, 2008 06:10PM

also...

not to degrade but, in all this time in iraq only 4000 have died. thats pretty fucking amazing.

god bless the troops and fuck all the nay sayers here at home asking them to come home b4 all is done. if we come out now like the hippie left says, they will probably get elected and when the psycho's in iraq start killing everyone the dem's will THEN cry for peace and send the boys in anyway...

if democrats had brains, they would be republicans.
shaDEz Report This Comment
Date: April 08, 2008 06:48PM

all this time, in Iraq, only 4000 have died... so I guess, by that logic, that Iraqi civilians are sub-human. Over 1 million have died! This is not all that new of a phenomenon though(the national chauvinistic thinking that American lives are more valuable than non-American lives), but is a thinking that we have to do away with.
And speaking of Korea, and Vietnam(among many others); just like them, Iraq never attacked the U.S. either.

The Democrats are not going to pull out any troops either. Basically if Hillary is victorious, this occupation will continue, just needs a new strategy. McCain: "a hundred years of war", Obama: "we need to increase our soldiers by 100,000". It doesn't matter who is the president assuming that there is an election. Whoever is the president is the president of the USA, which doesn't do humanity any good.

The elections are just to pull the people back into the empire, instead of doing what they need to be doing, taking to the streets in the millions, and taking over the state.

"Elections are controlled by the bourgeoisie; are not the means through which basic decisions are made in any case; and are really for the primary purpose of legitimizing the system and the policies and actions of the ruling class, giving them the mantle of a "popular mandate", and of channeling, confining, and controlling the political activity of the masses of people."-pp 68 Democracy: Can't We Do Better Than That?, Bob Avakian, Banner Press
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: April 08, 2008 06:55PM

Clinton turned Osama Loose,So "All" of the people who have died are his fault.
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: April 08, 2008 08:47PM

=== Clinton turned Osama Loose,So "All" of the people who === have died are his fault.

No. Actually the guy who sent our troops in is responsible for the deaths of 4000 soldiers and the crippling injuries of nearly a thousand other soldiers. We could have bombed Iraq into the stone age. We could have used chemical weapons or dirty bombs to contaminate the area of the oil fields so that the would never be able to recover their economy or technology. What IS Iraq without oil money? A bunch of desert goat farmers. Can impoverished, subsistence farmers REALLY threaten the most powerful country in the world? Nope. We are the masters of the air, the gods of hellfire and lightning. We can destroy our enemies people, technology, and raze their soil without a single soldier setting foot on the earth. But we did not.
ORLANDO399 Report This Comment
Date: April 09, 2008 12:03AM

uhhhh shadez,how many iraqi civilians died under sadaam's rule?
90130_ Report This Comment
Date: April 09, 2008 02:04AM

Good point 'Lando.

And anon's post preceding yours.

If we were allowed to finish things prim and proper the first time around, this one would never have been necessary.

In 1991, we blew the shit out of every living thing on the road to Basra, and we're at the fucking doorsteps to Saddam's palace and then told to stop and go home.
Mint Report This Comment
Date: April 09, 2008 02:53AM

PW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> not only that...
>
> Germany NEVER attacked us until we were attacking
> them.
>
> Korea never attacked us
>
> Vietnam never attacked us


Correction. WWII Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us. THEN we attacked them. WWI They attacked our Atlantic ships first.

Vietnam. Although Johnson may have been the one that declared war, the conflict started with Eisenhower. North Vietnam asked us for help with the French..we sided with France so they turned to USSR and China

Korea. /shurg. no way we would let those commies win spinning
smiley sticking its tongue out

Love how it conveniently left off Gulf War and Iraq/Afganistan
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: April 09, 2008 10:35AM

And may I add:
Afghanistan & Iraq is payback to the ragheads for 911,
and next time you fuck with us it's Iran & Siria MF....drinking
smiley
ORLANDO399 Report This Comment
Date: April 09, 2008 12:33PM

Good point minty,but the real terrorist was clinton by allowing sadaam to waste innocent kuwaitanseye rolling
smiley
shaDEz Report This Comment
Date: April 10, 2008 11:19PM

>ORLANDO399

>uhhhh shadez,how many iraqi civilians died under sadaam's rule?

so the U.S. then is a "lesser evil" is what you're saying; right?

>the real terrorist was clinton by allowing sadaam to waste innocent kuwaitans

the U.S. imperialists are also terrorists, it was afterall the sanctions imposed by the U.S. during the Clinton years that killed a million Iraqi civilians. And Clinton did bomb Bagdhad before the impeachment hearings, killing Iraqis, to distract from the scandle. The reason the U.S. is in Iraq now is because it is necessary to hold this strategic position, in the interests of imperial expansion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2008 11:29PM by shaDEz.
ORLANDO399 Report This Comment
Date: April 11, 2008 03:02AM

I will agree with ya on the stategic position.When Mcain takes over,all eyes will be on syria and iran.Might as well,since were already over there.
PW Report This Comment
Date: April 12, 2008 06:10PM

it was the U.N. that imposed sanctions not just the U.S.

i dont think anyone would miss the iraqis if they were all killed.
the middle east as a whole should be wiped off the map.

then we drop a luxor hotel smack dab on top of mecca. those people are savages and not 1 has earned the right to live.
zxz555 Report This Comment
Date: April 13, 2008 05:50AM

and the winner is...

there are no winners, only losers. with a skewed view of history that they got from TV.