Quote
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I do not believe that there was any mass murder executed.
There were deaths within the context of combat.
There is no targeting of civilians anywhere near the scope of what happened in GWI and WWII.
There are military estimates for the numbers who will die innocently. When you choose military action you choose to murder these. It is a pitiful justification to say you're now going to murder fewer than before
Saddam was informed well in advance that the situation was about to happen.
He chose then to commit his forces into combat and lost.
You are entitled to sin because somebody else is a fool?
Iraq may not have been an immediate threat, however, it was a threat and had the potential and desire to be a more serious one. Preemptive strikes may have saved a larger conflict and/or casualty list on our side.
It is morally repugnant and indefensible to kill other people because you poop in your pants. You open the door for any other psychopath to murder you on the very same basis.
In 80, Saddam was close to having nuclear capability. In 90, he was again pushing the limits. We had evidence that he was trying again.
Remember it was peace & isolationists that felt Japan was not a threat in '40.
When did you or we become the arbiters of who can have nuclear energy. And given that we don't attack people who can attack us back with nuclear weapons one can understand the intent, no? I thought we were messing with Japan's oil, no? Not something an isolationist would do.
Regretfully, once one goes to war, there is no turning back the clock. Ignorance and disbelief has been show to be as fatal as arrogance.
There is no turning back the clock, but there can be a turning out of the clowns who took us to war. The evidence that Iraq was not a threat is not ignorance and disbelief, it is overwhelming.
Quote
There are military estimates for the numbers who will die innocently. When you choose military action you choose to murder these. It is a pitiful justification to say you're now going to murder fewer than before
Was the World Trade Center #1 an act of war? It is documented that is was planned/authorized by from Saddam.
It is known that innocents will die in any conflict. The moral delima is should you target the civilians to get to the opponent or try to by avoid the civilians, place your own people in harms way.
It has been shown that the Iraqi resistance has no morals about targetting civilians.
One sin justifies another?
Quote
Saddam was informed well in advance that the situation was about to happen.
He chose then to commit his forces into combat and lost.
You are entitled to sin because somebody else is a fool?
Eventually, one can no longer turn the other cheek. the situation turned into a decision was Saddam bluffing. His track record showed that he did not bluff. If we ignored him, he could have accomplished what he was stating he wanted to do.
yes it's always the other guy. I myself am reasonable, but everybody else is insane[/b}
Quote
When did you or we become the arbiters of who can have nuclear energy. And given that we don't attack people who can attack us back with nuclear weapons one can understand the intent, no? I thought we were messing with Japan's oil, no? Not something an isolationist would do.
The difference is is the nuclear power intended for peaceful use or destructive use.
Saddam was threatening others and making statement that had to be believed based on his track record. Remember that he was trying to play a shell game with the UN inspectors. His actions created credibility to his words.
Japan went after Indonesia to ensure their oil after the threat of intervention in their expansionist plans. They had already taken over Korea and moved into China and were rolling through the PI (McArthur - I shall return). The military establishment in Japan was concerned about to potential of the US Navy, that they felt that a pre-emptive stike against our fleet would allow them to go all the way down to Australia/New Zealand and consolidate the territory before the US would be able to respond. Had they gotten our carriers, they would have succeeded.
]You can pump it for all your worth, but Saddam wasn't a threat
Quote
Iraq may not have been an immediate threat, however, it was a threat and had the potential and desire to be a more serious one. Preemptive strikes may have saved a larger conflict and/or casualty list on our side.
It is morally repugnant and indefensible to kill other people because you poop in your pants. You open the door for any other psychopath to murder you on the very same basis.
at what point should one defend themselves. After they have been attacked, or while the attacker is on the way. A good offense when the opponent is off balance provides a great advantage. It is an old saying with respect to weapons. Do not draw the weapon unless you intended on using it. If you use it, do so, so that the opponent does not have a chance to retaliate.
War is not a sport. Go for the kill as quickly as possible to remove the chance of a response from the opponent.
That concept even works in sports.
Apparently morally indefensible doesn't mean anything to you
Quote
There is no turning back the clock, but there can be a turning out of the clowns who took us to war. The evidence that Iraq was not a threat is not ignorance and disbelief, it is overwhelming.
I will side on the issue of needing to do something with Iraq, however, I am not satisfied with the handling of information used to justify it.
Needing to do something doesn't have to equate to war.
Facebook
Twitter