40 people killed after wedding party
 

wondering what bush will say about that on his speech today!

Its a toss-up between terrorists or collateral damage. The former will be used in spite of evidence to the contrary. The latter will be used to steel the resolve of US troops and/or the Iraqis.

What you won't hear him calling for is for the Iraqis to hang from the lightposts the people that bombed this wedding party, and you sure won't hear about any reimbursements for our seemingly intentional massacre. No apology will be forthcoming either.

Adrian

Well wiping out wedding parties might cut down amount of children in the future to come.......so in one generation there will be less "terrorists" to kill :wink:

I find it ridiculous that they're presenting their ideas to the UN about how to solve the problem in Iraq... They created the problem themselves without bothering to consult UN, or despite UN's objection. So they should also do the aftermath themselves... It's like "we know what we're doing" ... "oh no, it backfired" ... "please help us" ... :roll:

You make your bed you lie in it, you don't ask others to lend you a new bed, especially when they told you not to put the sheets in in the first place.

So you are willing to let the people of Iraq suffer just to prove a point to the US? :?

I think the point is that US made the mess without UN, and they should clean it without UN.

What I meant is what Stonedeaf said.

I've made a decision not to get involved in these discussions over here, and I had a temporary slip... I'm not WILLING to let the people of Iraq suffer at all! That wasn't what I was saying at all. Maybe they should've had a plan to start with, and not go running to UN after a few months when the problem didn't go away... I don't know if htey thought that just by getting rid of Saddam Iraq would be happy and free... I don't know.

And I don't want to get into these discussions, I should've kept my mouth shut in the first place. I've got way too many opinions, and admittedly probably not enough data to back it all up, and not enough energy or online-time to follow the discussions up...

I understand what was meant but my question would remain the same. Would you deny the help of the UN to the people of Iraq in order for the US to "pay" for what has happened there?

I really didn't mean to get into a debate with it. It really was just a simple question based on your statement. And the reason I ask is because Mike, and you already know how he feels, thinks the UN getting involved with Iraq would be a good thing. I was just curious to see how others felt.

Mike who? :oops:

If it solves the problem, then of course I think it's good if UN goes there. I just think they should've been the ones to initiate it in the first place. Maybe UN will be sensible and kick Americans out of Iraq :)

Oh sorry. Mike the mod. The person who I love to hate sometimes. :lol: Thanks for answering the question, but I do have to say one more thing. What else is new? :P How come people focus on kicking the "Americans" out and what the "Americans" are doing, but make no mention of our British counterparts that are there too, and that supported this war along with the US?

**I am not trying to be wise either. I really am just curious.**