Celebration in Iraq follow Hussein's Hanging

Iron Maiden · **Posted:** January 1st, 2007, 10:39 pm

Well done, he killed like one hundred persons and its took about 10 years for the police to catch him and about 2 year to decid to kill him. What the...

Adbot · **Posted:** January 1st, 2007, 10:39 pm

Robbie · **Posted:** January 1st, 2007, 10:41 pm

I love how some people think this war is one of the worst wars ever.

A death toll of a few thousand isn't even comparable to the previous wars of the 1900s.

Pat · **Posted:** January 1st, 2007, 10:43 pm

it's not that the war doesn't have as many casualties as other wars, it's whether these lives were meaningfully lost or lost over some country's oil craze or what.

Robbie · **Posted:** January 1st, 2007, 10:46 pm

Which wars were fought for a meaningful cause?

Pat · **Posted:** January 1st, 2007, 10:49 pm

civil war? ww1 and ww2? maybe even the chinese civil war?

Robbie · **Posted:** January 1st, 2007, 10:56 pm

Civil War. That's it.

WWII was started because a guy wanted everyone that's not like him dead.

Adbot · **Posted:** January 1st, 2007, 10:56 pm

Pat · **Posted:** January 1st, 2007, 11:00 pm

and the fact that he was allied with the country that attacked pearl harbor, actually did kill millions of Jews/homos/others, and wanted to take over the world and had already conquered Europe.

Quite a pointless war we fought, disregarding the fact that the world was essentially saved from a maniac who would kill everyone who wasn't like him.

Robbie · **Posted:** January 1st, 2007, 11:02 pm

This war was about the same thing, in a smaller sense.

Why is this war, but not that one, pointless?

Mushroom Queen · **Posted:** January 2nd, 2007, 2:21 am

Robbie wrote:

I love how some people think this war is one of the worst wars ever.

A death toll of a few thousand isn't even comparable to the previous wars of the 1900s.

Considering the troop presence of former wars was a lot larger and the technology used was less superior, I don't see how you can compare the two. Many past wars were fought on multiple fronts, with the exception of the Vietnam Conflict (where about 58,000 died). I do see your point though. Our generation isn't used to large-scale wars and we often think there will be no end. This situation is different though. Like Vietnam, the US and its allies were up against an enemy that used guerrilla tactics. This is difficult to fight and there is never any assurance of victory.

Brandt · **Posted:** January 2nd, 2007, 2:26 am

This war in Iraq is a new kind of warfare. Its based mostly on guerilla tactics, not formations or nething like that. Its strike and go. Battles are now in cities, and not in meadows or fields, ect

Pat · **Posted:** January 2nd, 2007, 6:40 pm

1. Bush says that WMD will be found in Iraq and that the fact that Saddam has them is a threat to the world. What he fails to mention is that when Iraq was warring Iran, it was the Soviets and the United States who mainly supplied the two sides with the weapons. However, WMD have still not been found after years of searching. Strange....

2. I hate the idea the US being "international police." What business does the US have in other countries. And what disgusts me even more is that when an oil rich country has a bad leader, the government pounces on the chance to invade. But when a poor country like Cameroon or Nigeria has a brutal civil war, the government stands idly by. They're going for Iran next too :roll:

3. As you said, this is on a much smaller level than ww2. Iraq is not a world power, as Germany was during the 1930-40's.