(CNN)October bloodiest month yet for Iraqi civilians

[DMC_Freeride]

Dude - my point was - if Al-Qaeda is after us and we want to protect these people in Iraq - why do we fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq and risk the very people we are trying to protect..???

Doesn't that send a mixed message to these poor people?

[XtremeJibber2001]

Dude - my point was - if Al-Qaeda is after us and we want to protect these people in Iraq - why do we fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq and risk the very people we are trying to protect..???

Doesn't that send a mixed message to these poor people?

Well, the original reason was to get rid of Saddam because of his countless UN violations and possession of WMD's.

I don't think anyone anticipated Al-Qaeda's HUGE presence in Iraq and I don't think we went there for that reason primarily.

If we leave Iraq today, we still put the same people we want to protect in harms way because of Al-Qaeda's presence in Iraq.

We can't eat our cake and have it too. We're damned if we leave and damned if we stay.

Now that we're there, it makes more sense to annihilate the problem in Iraq instead of leaving, allow Al-Qaeda to set-up training camps, recruit, and regroup ... and bring the fight to our shores.

[BigKahuna13]

I know this was pointed at DMC but I'll answer it anyway.

If you care SOOOOOOOOOOOOO much about these poor people - why do we allow OUR fight to occur in their country?? How is that fair??!?!?!

A few questions.

We could have kept the troops home and let Saddam continue his killing, would we be any less guilty today if that was the case?

Yes. We can't, nor should we be, the world's police. It's a UN issue, if it's anyone's. It's not our responsibility to save the world. (Not that I think the administration was even thinking about saving Iraq but that's another story).

We could have removed all of our troops from around the World and allowed the World to be tormented by terrorist and let the fight come to our home land, would we be any less guilty today if that was the case?

See above. Our concern should be protecting our homeland and that's it. Andbtw - statements like "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" - really, REALLY piss off most of the rest of world. Even if that's the ultimate justification for what we're doing, saying so is about the dumbest dumb-fu*k thing one could do


We could have flew in, bombed the sh*t out of Iraq and kill Saddam and then left their infrastructure in ruble, would we be any less guilty today if that was the case?

We get a pat on the back for at least trying to minimize civilian casualties. That doesn't justify the initial invasion....just makes it a little less bad.

We could leave today, leaving the Iraqi's to fend for themselves and kill each other amidst a civil war and leave prime terrorist recruiting/training grounds, would we be any less guilty today if that was the case?

We need to get out. Period. Our presence there is just exacerbating what's going on now. You cannot justify the deaths of more American troops by trying to "give meaning" - whatever the f*ck that idiocy means - to the deaths of the 2500 already killed. Iraq needs to know in no uncertain terms that we're out of there in 6 months or whatever regardless of whether they're able to pick up the slack or not. Whatever's going to happen in Iraq is going to happen regardless of what we do.

We f*** up by voting for GWB. Congress f*** up by voting for the war. GWB f*** up for allowing Rummy to keep his job. GWB and his remaining generals f***-up and continue to do so because they won't dedicate the troops and the resources to properly secure Iraq and get it off it's feet. I'm f***-up because I'm not enrolling in the Marines.

All of the above can be answered and IMHO we're guilty on all accounts. As for people f***-up, it is what it is and it's probably not going to change.

With all that said, what would you do, DMC?

[Bubba]

Read my post you friggin KKKarl Rove wannabe asswipe...

Why is it that you always seem to resort to personal attack instead of just sticking with the discussion? "Read my post" would've been enough, don't you think?

[DMC_Freeride]

Read my post you friggin KKKarl Rove wannabe asswipe...

Why is it that you always seem to resort to personal attack instead of just sticking with the discussion? "Read my post" would've been enough, don't you think?

Because the asswipe obviously didn't take the time to read my post...


And that's how I roll...

[DMC_Freeride]

We can't eat our cake and have it too. We're damned if we leave and damned if we stay.

using that logic - lets leave - cause our soldiers won't die anymore if we leave...

[XtremeJibber2001]

We can't eat our cake and have it too. We're damned if we leave and damned if we stay.

using that logic - lets leave - cause our soldiers won't die anymore if we leave...

We're damned either way. If we leave, we risk bringing the fight to the US ... much worse than it's already been brought.

[Dr. NO]

Sounding like the old Xjibber DMC show is back on the air. New flare added with Atomic joining in. Guess I'll tune out again.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I know this was pointed at DMC but I'll answer it anyway.

If you care SOOOOOOOOOOOOO much about these poor people - why do we allow OUR fight to occur in their country?? How is that fair??!?!?!

A few questions.

We could have kept the troops home and let Saddam continue his killing, would we be any less guilty today if that was the case?

Yes. We can't, nor should we be, the world's police. It's a UN issue, if it's anyone's. It's not our responsibility to save the world. (Not that I think the administration was even thinking about saving Iraq but that's another story).

You're right, it's not our job. As you can see; however, the UN is a useless tool that is only used as a tool of corruption. I also agree that wasn't the Admins premise going in, but all those un-enforced UN sanctions that were broke made the case easier for GWB to prove. Imagine if the UN sanctions we actually enforced, my what a difference it would have made.

We could have removed all of our troops from around the World and allowed the World to be tormented by terrorist and let the fight come to our home land, would we be any less guilty today if that was the case?

See above. Our concern should be protecting our homeland and that's it. And btw - statements like "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" - really, REALLY piss off most of the rest of world. Even if that's the ultimate justification for what we're doing, saying so is about the dumbest dumb-fu*k thing one could do

I would be for pulling out of everywhere and protecting ourselves only, but if the whole world becomes a cluster f***, that puts us at risk economically.

We could have flew in, bombed the sh*t out of Iraq and kill Saddam and then left their infrastructure in ruble, would we be any less guilty today if that was the case?

We get a pat on the back for at least trying to minimize civilian casualties. That doesn't justify the initial invasion....just makes it a little less bad.

It wouldn't look less bad, the Iraqi people wouldn't know the alternative. People would still be on the streets, the news, and in front of the capitol crying about it.

We could leave today, leaving the Iraqi's to fend for themselves and kill each other amidst a civil war and leave prime terrorist recruiting/training grounds, would we be any less guilty today if that was the case?

We need to get out. Period. Our presence there is just exacerbating what's going on now. You cannot justify the deaths of more American troops by trying to "give meaning" - whatever the f*ck that idiocy means - to the deaths of the 2500 already killed. Iraq needs to know in no uncertain terms that we're out of there in 6 months or whatever regardless of whether they're able to pick up the slack or not. Whatever's going to happen in Iraq is going to happen regardless of what we do.

Good point.

We f*** up by voting for GWB. Congress f*** up by voting for the war. GWB f*** up for allowing Rummy to keep his job. GWB and his remaining generals f***-up and continue to do so because they won't dedicate the troops and the resources to properly secure Iraq and get it off it's feet. I'm f***-up because I'm not enrolling in the Marines.

All of the above can be answered and IMHO we're guilty on all accounts. As for people f***-up, it is what it is and it's probably not going to change.

With all that said, what would you do, DMC?

[DMC_Freeride]

Sounding like the old Xjibber DMC show is back on the air. New flare added with Atomic joining in. Guess I'll tune out again.

Actually XJib is a guy I want to buy a beer for...
Atomic - well I'd just like to spit in it... :)

If you really want me gone - just get ShortSki into the mix and I'm history...

[XtremeJibber2001]

Sounding like the old Xjibber DMC show is back on the air. New flare added with Atomic joining in. Guess I'll tune out again.

Actually XJib is a guy I want to buy a beer for...

Right back at ya ...

Gonna be up 1/7 - 1/11?

I def think you, CS, Dr. No, BK, and Atomic should come out one night. I was hoping to be up earlier, but no luck.

Hoping to meet others too, Bubz, Dork, JTJ, whiteout, Hal, bling, g-smashed, and others can't name em all haha

[Dr. NO]

Sounding like the old Xjibber DMC show is back on the air. New flare added with Atomic joining in. Guess I'll tune out again.

Actually XJib is a guy I want to buy a beer for...

Right back at ya ...

Gonna be up 1/7 - 1/11?

I def think you, CS, Dr. No, BK, and Atomic should come out one night. I was hoping to be up earlier, but no luck.

Hoping to meet others too, Bubz, Dork, JTJ, whiteout, Hal, bling, g-smashed, and others can't name em all haha

Sorry jibberjabber, but I be in Maine with the grandkids that week. The Deal is just too good to pass up.

[Cityskier]

This sucks.... More people died last month in Iraq then died in the WTC on 911... I personally feel terrible for these people..

And even more people died in Darfur yet many of the same people who argue for us to immediately get out of Iraq argue for troops to enter Sudan. Huh?

Of course there's the obvious difference that those in Iraq are either directly or indirectly dying as a result of our actions, while those in Darfur aren't and presumably our presence there would stop or mitigate that slaughter.

OK...so Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and caused several wars that killed over a million. We stopped or mitigated that slaughter.

Your arguments of convenience are very disheartening. The US government made Saddam what he was. We armed him. We financed him. We encouraged him to engage Iran on our behalf when it served our purposes. Not we're going to hang him for the gasing of Kurds with chemical weapons we provided to him.

WTF dude? Tell the whole story. We know you know how it goes.

[ski_adk]

Your arguments of convenience are very disheartening. The US government made Saddam what he was. We armed him. We financed him. We encouraged him to engage Iran on our behalf when it served our purposes. Not we're going to hang him for the gasing of Kurds with chemical weapons we provided to him.

WTF dude? Tell the whole story. We know you know how it goes.

Then all the more reason that the Iraqis should be thankful we're there. We're finally correcting the horrible mistake that Saddam was.

Kinda funny how we feel that we know what's best for the people who live over there. I mean, maybe it's not such a good idea to force bitter rival nations to live within 1 common country. Maybe it's not such a good idea to support their dictator's power while simultaneously starving the whole country with sanctions. Maybe it's not such a good idea to set up Green Zones and handout rebuilding contracts to foreign companies like Haliburton while unemployment rates in Iraq reside at ridiculously high numbers. Maybe it's not such a good idea to impose your help on a people who really don't want it.

But then again, perhaps it's also not such a good idea to understand history. Decent knowledge of 20th century American history tends to weaken one's patriotism and loyalty towards the troops.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Your arguments of convenience are very disheartening. The US government made Saddam what he was. We armed him. We financed him. We encouraged him to engage Iran on our behalf when it served our purposes. Not we're going to hang him for the gasing of Kurds with chemical weapons we provided to him.

WTF dude? Tell the whole story. We know you know how it goes.

Then all the more reason that the Iraqis should be thankful we're there. We're finally correcting the horrible mistake that Saddam was.

Kinda funny how we feel that we know what's best for the people who live over there. I mean, maybe it's not such a good idea to force bitter rival nations to live within 1 common country. Maybe it's not such a good idea to support their dictator's power while simultaneously starving the whole country with sanctions. Maybe it's not such a good idea to set up Green Zones and handout rebuilding contracts to foreign companies like Haliburton while unemployment rates in Iraq reside at ridiculously high numbers. Maybe it's not such a good idea to impose your help on a people who really don't want it.

But then again, perhaps it's also not such a good idea to understand history. Decent knowledge of 20th century American history tends to weaken one's patriotism and loyalty towards the troops.

Excellent point, but I'm curious what you meant by weaken one's 'loyalty towards the troops'? I would qualify my 20th century American history has less-than decent.

On another note, I saw a special on Discovery last night ... it's surprising to see just how un-effective sanctions are.