BEHEADING....WHO'S TO BLAME?

[HERESY]

O.K. we had several beheadings within the last couple of weeks. In fact we've had several during this year alone. In your opinion whose to blame for this? Would you leave Iraq (if "terrorist" asked you to leave) or would you stay? Who does the blame fall on? Is the blood on AMERICAS hands? The criminal jr bush? Or should does who participated in the beheadings carry the blame?



:h:

 

[L Mac-a-docious]

I can understand that there is money to be made...but if you are going to work over there, you know what they do to hostages...so if you're there, and you get your head cut off, there better not be a surprised look on your face.

 

[Ethereal]

I think the better question to ask is; ]Are they justified in beheading these people? Because you can sit down day and night placing the blame on America, Bush, those who elected him, how they were able to elect him, who created the standards that enabled those to elect him etc. And no they are not justified because these victims are innocent civilians.

 

[L Mac-a-docious]

I think the better question to ask is; ]Are they justified in beheading these people? Because you can sit down day and night placing the blame on America, Bush, those who elected him, how they were able to elect him, who created the standards that enabled those to elect him etc. And no they are not justified because these victims are innocent civilians.

Yes they are innocent civilians, who decided to go to work in a war torn part of the world...this is how they decided to make their money...they knew the risk, and they lost...I'm saying that if people were in my country, and I was very angered by their presence, I would want to lash out violently as well...this is the most viscious way that they can send their message...is it worse than dropping a bomb? What's the difference? Should we blame the bombs for exploding when we drop them?

 

[I. Cold]

first to blame is obviously the terrorist who beheaded him

second to blame is Bush

 

[2-0-Sixx]

the blood on AMERICAS hands[!]

If we never invaded Iraq, would these people be headless today?

If we never placed sanctions on Iraq, woould 2 Million + still have a beating heart?

If we never bombed Iraq back to the stone age, would the majority of Iraqi's have clean drinking water, education, (free) healthcare, food etc.?

 

[nefar559]

I think the better question to ask is; ]Are they justified in beheading these people? Because you can sit down day and night placing the blame on America, Bush, those who elected him, how they were able to elect him, who created the standards that enabled those to elect him etc. And no they are not justified because these victims are innocent civilians.

no the beheadings are not justified, and neither is the war.

 

[nefar559]

If we never invaded Iraq, would these people be headless today?

If we never placed sanctions on Iraq, woould 2 Million + still have a beating heart?

If we never bombed Iraq back to the stone age, would the majority of Iraqi's have clean drinking water, education, (free) healthcare, food etc.?

but still u gotta punish murderers, if the US wasnt in IRaq those people would still be doing some type of shit outside of iraq.

they didnt become murderers during this war

 

[2-0-Sixx]

oh they didn't?? Hmm, how many beheadings were there before the Iraq war?

I never said murderers shouldn't be punished, I simply am saying "the blood is on america's hands."

 

[Merciedez]

sound like everyone has a point on this one, but i think we can all agree killing is wrong no matter the reason. The war has began and all hell WILL break loose, that is war. What will happen to end or continue the killings is the question at hand.

 

[ColdBlooded]

i think we can all agree killing is wrong no matter the reason.

I don't agree

 

[Merciedez]

I don't agree

what type killing is acceptable?

 

[Merciedez]

I typed too soon. I'll kill an animal to eat. I mean any type of human killings.

 

[Ethereal]

Should we blame the bombs for exploding when we drop them?

Yes because that is what they were designed to do. You can't blame these victims because they worked in Iraq. People gotta eat.

If we never invaded Iraq, would these people be headless today?

If we never placed sanctions on Iraq, woould 2 Million + still have a beating heart?

If we never bombed Iraq back to the stone age, would the majority of Iraqi's have clean drinking water, education, (free) healthcare, food etc.?

LOL You have got to be one of the most one sided humans on this planet. And you question the arrogance of conservatives?

1. If we never invaded Iraq... You can go back further then that. Why did we invade Iraq, and why this, and why that. It is rediculous that you even make a slight attempt to take blame away from those who swiped the sword. It is not that hard not to kill someone on videotape.

2. "We" never placed sanctions on Iraq, so why do you constantly place all of the blame on the United States? The United Nations placed these sanctions, and they were maintained by Iraq for non-cooperation.

If Iraq never invaded Iran and Kuwait, would there have been sanctions placed on them? Would we have invaded them? Would they still have drinking water? of course not, because that would eliminate any possibility to blame the U.S. for something. How can you question me defending this country when you blame the U.S. for sanctions (and not those who placed them - or the country who caused it to happen, Iraq). 2-0-Sixx, your making obvious that your intentions are not to point out what is right, but to utilize any methods you can to criticize this country. I don't mean to come off on a bad foot here, but this looked like an ignorant question in the first place, one I thought not even 2-0 himself could turn around against the U.S. I was wrong.

no the beheadings are not justified, and neither is the war.

Agreed.

oh they didn't?? Hmm, how many beheadings were there before the Iraq war?

I never said murderers shouldn't be punished, I simply am saying "the blood is on america's hands."

I don't get it, do we always stop at America?

1. Iraq invades Kuwait.
2. United States invade Iraq.
3. United Nations Sancations get placed.

We blame the U.S.? LMAO!

What about Saddam invading Iran?
What about Saddam invading Kuwait?
What about Saddam killing his own people?
What about Saddam refusing to allow weapons inspectors (which lead to continued sanctions)?
What about Saddam living in a palace with a zoo while civilians had no driking water?

United States blah blah blah. Just be reasonable man. Think logic.

 

[HERESY]

Interesting views from all sides. Nitro asked a good question when he asked if they were justified. Thats something I can't answer right now. I mean seriously you have thousands of troops invading your land, killing your people, bombing your homes to hell etc etc etc. On the flipside to that you have people trying to make a living (as dangerous as it may be). They didn't bomb the homes (will they reap the benefits?), kill the people etc etc etc. When it's all said and done people will simply look at this as "all is fair in love and war".


Both sides loose and the people who gain are never in harms way.



:h:

 

[2-0-Sixx]

I don't get it, do we always stop at America?

1. Iraq invades Kuwait.
2. United States invade Iraq.
3. United Nations Sancations get placed.

We blame the U.S.? LMAO!

I don't have time to reply in depth, but I will quickly point out that before 1. Iraq invades Kuwait, there was 0. U.S GIVES THE GREEN LIGHT TO INVADE KUWAIT

You need to completely understand the reasons for the first gulf war and the true motives behind the war in order to understand my arguement.

 

[HERESY]

And yes they did give the green light.


:h:

 

[2-0-Sixx]

1. If we never invaded Iraq... You can go back further then that. Why did we invade Iraq, and why this, and why that. It is rediculous that you even make a slight attempt to take blame away from those who swiped the sword. It is not that hard not to kill someone on videotape.

You’re twisting my words. I never said those who swiped the sword are not to blame for murder…I simply said “the blood is on america’s hands.” Listen, you poke a dog with a stick enough times eventually the motherfucker is going to bite back. We fucked Iraq; we killed 2 million + civilians; we destroyed their basic infrastructure. We, as in the U.S did this, not Saddam, not the Iraqi’s. What do you expect these people to do? Sit in the ruins and watch as their countrymen get slaughtered?

2. "We" never placed sanctions on Iraq, so why do you constantly place all of the blame on the United States? The United Nations placed these sanctions, and they were maintained by Iraq for non-cooperation.

LOL. And what do you think the U.S’s role in the United Nations is? Where is the U.N headquarters? What does the U.S do to certain countries who oppose them? Does the US use high-pressure tactics on these countries? (Example: Baker warned Yemeni president Saleh that the US would cut off its $70 million aid package if Yemen voted against them LINK)

If Iraq never invaded Iran and Kuwait, would there have been sanctions placed on them?

Iran has nothing to do with Kuait, Nitro and I’m sure you are aware we were allies with Saddam/Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. What did the U.S say/do when Iraq threatened to invade Kuait?

How can you question me defending this country when you blame the U.S. for sanctions (and not those who placed them - or the country who caused it to happen, Iraq).

Nitro- we COMPLETEY annihilated Iraq’s infrastructure. No Drinking water, No Sewage system, No Electrical power grid, No National healthcare, NO Telecommunications, etc. WHY WOULD WE NEED TO PLACE SANCTIONS ON IRAQ WHEN THEY VIRTUALLY HAD NO ECONOMY? The U.S Secretary of State James Baker admitted in a testimony on Capitol Hill in 1991 that the US's goals in Iraq exceeded the terms of the UN ceasefire resolution. Baker stated that the US would never permit the UN to lift its sanctions against Iraq as long as Saddam Hussein remained in power. The U.S and Britain maintained that ''for so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power'' they would veto any attempts to lift sanctions against Iraq. It has long been clear that the sanctions aim at removing Saddam Hussein rather than disarming him. But why was the removal of Saddam NEVER a goal in the 1st gulf war? Why didn’t we use our hundreds of thousands of troops and invade Iraq and remove Saddam?

2-0-Sixx, your making obvious that your intentions are not to point out what is right, but to utilize any methods you can to criticize this country.

Bullshit. You have made it obvious you have little or no intelligence on the motives of the 1st gulf war.

I don't mean to come off on a bad foot here, but this looked like an ignorant question in the first place, one I thought not even 2-0 himself could turn around against the U.S. I was wrong.

I figured you would respond in the same ignorant ‘blame the terrorists for Iraq’s problems’ mentality. I was correct.

What about Saddam invading Iran?

Who was allies with Saddam at the time? Who was providing weapons to both countries?

hat about Saddam invading Kuwait?

Who gave the green light?

What about Saddam killing his own people?

What about the 2 million dead because of America AND the U.N?

What about Saddam refusing to allow weapons inspectors (which lead to continued sanctions)?

LMAO

What about Saddam living in a palace with a zoo while civilians had no driking water?

What about Bush never fighting in Vietnam while his countrymen were being slaughtered?

nited States blah blah blah. Just be reasonable man. Think logic

I am thinking logically. United states/Capitalism/IMF/World Bank etc. = World destruction, war and poverty,

 

[Ethereal]

There is no green light. We are not between those countries, it is a freeway my friend. I'm going to put it like this. Rather then tell you trhat we didn't give the the green light (which is what I believe), and then have you post 10 articles saying we did, I will resolve this matter another way.

BEFORE the gulf war started, the U.N. security council told Iraq they had to withdraw from Iraq. They DID NOT COMPLY. So Operation Desert storm was launched, and they were driven out.

What is a green light? Our president saying "go ahead", "sure thing", "I don't care"? Do you have anything other then an article to show we gave them a "green light"? Is it an U.S. ambassador telling Saddam we are not interested in their border disagreement with Kuwait?

You need to completely understand the reasons for the first gulf war and the true motives behind the war in order to understand my arguement.

I can probably already make your arguement for you. I'm sure it invloves 100 things about how the U.S. is to blame for Iraq invading Kuwait. But not a thousand articles will convince me. 2-0-Sixx, you have a tendancy to believe what you read on the internet, so long as it corresponds with your arguement that, the United States is a horrible, terrible, no good, very bad nation. I believe in logic over [conspiracy] theory. I believe that the invasion of Kuwait can be summed up like so:

Kuwait's oil sales were destroying Iraqi revenues.
-They believed it was because they were drilling into feilds that were not theirs.
-They believed some of the oil was theirs (Iraq's).
-While Iraq raised prices to repay debts, Kuwait dropped prices.

Iraq believed Kuwait was using the Iran-Iraq war to profit. They thought Kuwait was in alliance with Western countries waging economic war against Iraq.

Iraq believed Kuwait was it's own land (and it was), which was granted independance by the british in the late 1800's. They felt the British had no right to seperate the country.

These are what I believe are the most significant causes of the war, there are more, some of which I can not possibly know.

Oh yeah, if your idea of a "green light" has *anything* to do with the meeting between April Glaspie and Saddam Hussein, then you need to rethink your idea of "support" for war.

 

[HERESY]

@Nitro I have a question for you. Who was supposed to handle the current Iraqi situation?