[quote=ftc]in the vid i see a wounded old man (he is said to be wounded the day before when the mosque was attacked who was then treated by the marines which leads me to conclude that he would be unarmed) being shot at point-blank range with no evidence of posing any possible threat. i'm sorry, i don't know what else to call this.

yes, perhaps there are more details behind this incident but if it wasn't filmed i doubt anyone would hear about it. atleast now justice has a chance to prevail should the marine be found guilty.[/quote]

fortunately, none of us are over there, and I think it's fair to assume that we don't know what we'd do if we were in the middle of all that shit...I saw the exact same thing as you FTC, but as Garrick had stated earlier, there have been instances of people pretending to be dead, only to blow themselves up while taking others with them...we shouldn't get ourselves too riled up about it because whatever is gonna happen, is gonna happen...war is a nasty business....I only wish the media showed some of the good things coming out of Iraq. I have close friends over there and they're all pissed off at how the media is portraying everything. Schools are being built, they have fresh running water, and most of the Iraqi's surprisingly still want the coalition there....hopefully we can all look back on this in our lifetimes and realize that eventhough it was a shitty deal in every way, it was worth it....lets pray for that...

[quote=Marimba] dont you know a word called "tolerance"? with killer that you have for president im very concerned about the future...[/quote]

With all due respect....the U.S. "tolerated" Saddam's defiance of the resolutions set forth by the coalition for 12 years while he bribed France, Russia, China, and the U.N. with oil for money...dollar figures are reported to be about 4 billion...Saddam then took some of that money and paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers to carry out terrorist attacks on Israelis...also, some of the money went to supply the very insurgents that the coalition is fighting in Iraq. So common sense would tell you that this war may have been over with a long time ago had the previously mentioned countries and the U.N. not accepted bribes. If you want to argue that the U.S. should never have gone to war with Iraq in the first place because of the absence of weapons of mass destruction, you must remember that the U.S. wasn't the only country to believe so...Saddam himself admitted that he had these weapons; remember that he used them on his own people, but he claims to have destroyed them...now considering what a tyrrant and a liar Saddam was, and how greedy and power hungry he was, it's a logical assumption that he most likely did possess these weapons. In fact, intelligence points to the notion that Saddam snuck these weapons into Syria...

([url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36463[/url])

Keep a clear mind my friend. It's okay to speak with passion and emotions on this subject, but do some research and try to keep emotions out of it while you're searching for facts....After you have found your facts, instead of speculation or wild conjecture, speak with as much emotion as you want...Good day...

Also true Gokada.

I think the UN is to blame as much as the US for this war. I still am against it, but I do not support the way the UN has handled the situation.

I don't know who said it, but this is quite a famous quote from a famous person: "Sometimes for things to get better, they fist have to become worse". Or something alike.

People have been displeased (to say the least) by the fact that the embargo hit the population of Iraq harder than Saddam, but that could have been foreseen. A dictator always has the means to gather all there is left in the country for his own use. In this case that would have meant: no food-for-oil, no nothing.

I know this is a very inhumane way of making politics, but it would have eventually led to an uprising of the people. If you make circumstances bad enough for a people, they will revolt. That is an [i]almost[/i] scientifically proven fact. You could argue that you would be harming the people, but I personally think that makes little difference: virtually all the money that came in was seized by Saddam, so to the common man on the street it made little difference. But they could've kept Saddam on a shorter leash like that.

It will always be a guess which method was preferrable in this case (as it is in any case), and maybe the US would've gotten my support I they had been honest about their reasons. Because to me this invasion has been based on lies.

And I still haven't forgiven my PM that he has shown so little backbone in international politics: he should have said Yes or No, but all he did was saying that he supported the war politically but not military. And after the dirty work was done he sent in troops which are stationed in the most remote and calm area of Iraq.

How f*cking weak can you be?