That has to be one of *the* worst exaggerated generalizations I've ever seen up here. Congrats.
Given that there is no official body count, I'm afraid your claim that "Bush is responsible for more dead civilians than Saddam" is entirely without merit. We all know that Civilians are the unintended victims of wars, that should come as no surprise. If you want to cast about blame, how about tossing some the way of Russia, who sold Saddam missile guidance system jammers knowing full well they would be used to knock weapons OFF military targets ONTO civilian ones.
I am COMPLETELY serious about the humanitarian issues, and you should be as well. In addition to Saddam's own crimes, at least one more entire GENERATION of Iraqi's was doomed to suffer under his sons, who were reportedly WORSE than even he was, and it's not much of a stretch to think it would continue to their sons as well.
For god sakes man, there's more to this than your stupid WMD crap. There were GOOD reasons for removing Saddam LONG before Bush II got into office. If his father had had any balls or integrity at all, the time to do it was in 1991.
Jason
Many in my party? What party is that, do you estimate? I doubt you know but have instead made ASSumptions.
Regardless of whether other countries were worse off, which I agree is true, Saddam was *still* a bad guy, *still* a genocidal maniac and his sons were more than set to keep up the same act for another *generation*.
yes, there were and *are* others who also deserve to be helped. Does that mean that the Iraqi's didn't deserve our help? I don't think so.
Jason
What are you trying to say Jason? That we should or shouldn't have invaded. What you're inferring is somewhat confusing....
Actually yes, I think quite a lot, thank you very much, and certainly more so than your "Liberal" buddies (who really have no idea what the word Liberal actually MEANS, incidentally.)
As for what *I* do, I routinely give money and time to those in need. I help teach young kids to work with computers, I regularly give away computer hardware to those who can't afford it. I donate generously to charities I believe are worthy, mostly ones that work on *educating* young people and *motivating* them to work hard and do well for themselves.
As for "You do realize that more women and children have been killed by U.S. weapons since the war began that were killed by Saddam, right?", the answer is NO, and neither do you. There is NO OFFICIAL COUNT, either of the casualties of the war nor of the numbers Saddam and his minions murdered over the last two decades. Your claim is bogus and falacious and you damn well know it.
Just for your info, I am NOT a Bush supporter, NOR a Republican NOR a Conservative. The ONE thing Bush did that was *right* is removing Saddam and his sons from power, and even that he hasn't managed to do *well* for whatever reason.
As I've said a thousand times before: Bush is an idiot and a piss-poor president, but you can't blame him for *everything*.
Jason
Oh I ABSOLUTELY agree that we were 100% wrong to NOT BACK UP the Iraqi's when we encouraged them to rebel in 1991. Bush Sr. was DEAD WRONG, and the UN is to blame for their stance that Saddam ought not to be removed. We SHOULD have kicked his ass back then.
In either case, Saddam should have been removed, it was RIGHT to remove him and it should have been done long ago. Saddam's crimes alone were justification enough for his removal.
Jason.
Wars aren't fought because of humanitarian reasons. (although it may be a side effect) The current war in Iraq is no different.
While Bush's stated primary reasons are clearly false (whether they are "fraudulent" is a matter as yet unproven, but that they were "false" is certainly accurate), the fact remains that the removal of a dictator such as Saddam is a legitimate action with more than enough moral justification.
Jason
That's true. Remember when those guys, just after 9/11, went and *lynched* a middle eastern man who was waiting for Pizza? If I recall he was the same guy they dragged behind their truck for several miles. I was absolutely *horrified* when that happened, but it reminded me of the truth I do my best not to forget: Human beings, by and large, are stupid, stupid creatures.
Jason
If it is, then let me be clear: Regardless of the state of affairs in other countries run by dictators, there was *still* enough reason to justify the toppling of Saddam in Iraq. Yes, there are other countries worse off, yes there are STILL other countries whose governments are incredibly corrupt and abusive (Mexico, anyone? Rwanda?) to their own people, and they should be STOPPED as well. However, just because there are WORSE cases of individual rights abuses does *not* let someone like Saddam off the hook.
Jason
And I'm not arguing that that's the case. I am saying that *regardless* of the official reasons, there *are* good reasons for toppling Saddam and others like him. That we pretty much never go to war on those bases doesn't make them less true.
Jason
First off let me say how many of you have been to Iraq? Second no matter what the reason we went over there for WMD's Oil, it doesn't matter. Why, because once we had a reason to be over, we COMITTED ourselves to the end. Saddam was a very evil dictator. Why did desert storm campaign go so quick??? Anyone??? because his own republican army gave up as soon as they saw american troops. They dropped their weapons literally and ran to the troops. They thought we were there to liberate them of Saddam. What we did was leave them with their d!ck in their hands (which garnished very much hatred for us) where as after we pulled out Saddam went on a killing spree of his own troops to regain discipline. He controls through fear and killing. This time Sadaam got removed but now external forces are creating fear and death in the streets ie Iranians, Syrians, and Al-Queda. They don't want to see a democracy in Iraq so they use terrorist ploys to achieve their objective which the media gladly indirectly helps them for ratings. Yes there is bigger threats than Iraq we should have pursued (N. Korea being the biggest) but nonetheless these were crimes against humanity and Saddam needed to be "removed". Did Bush use WMD's as an excuse? Maybe but realise all his top intelligence is saying they have them so should we blame Bush or the CIA, NSA etc? Also they did find evidence of storage of WMD's in an airfield in Iraq. Remember this is the same man that used anthrax in the early 90's to try and commit genocide. Now did Bush push for this because oil interest...probably. Now were soon going to start pumping oil out of Alaska which Bush has been trying to push for ever and now it's soon going to happen. Maybe he got his way who knows. What I do know these people need us and no matter what the media shows the don't show when were (marines) passing chow to everyone or building schools and hospitals. Just another person died or was assasinated by a terrorist. I would love to rant for days about this issue but i'm getting heated up by it and need to shut up. Sorry if I offended anyone here.
No one is saying Saddam isn't gulity of any crimes. I doubt he'll ever actually have a trial. It feels like to me you still support the reasons for the war. Yes, Saddam was a asshole and deserves to die but a full scale invasion? Sorry, thats pushing it way too much. I would have no problem if he put some money under the table to Kurdish Rebels and the such to try and "remove" Saddam.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
On a related note:
Saddam's laywers are now acting for the US to beef up security for him.
There are afraid that some disgruntled IRaqi may attempt to assinate him before he comes to trial.
Saddam's laywers are now acting for the US to beef up security for him.
There are afraid that some disgruntled IRaqi may attempt to assinate him before he comes to trial.
I didn't say I still accept or support Bush's reasons for the war. Clearly, as I said, it turned out to be false that there were WMD's, but as I mentioned above it is FAR from clear whether that's due to bad intelligence, intentional deceit by an *inordinate* number of persons (Bush wasn't the only one making the assertion, after all) or whatever else. I'm sure you've read that in fact Saddam's own people may have been deceiving him as to WMD's existence in Iraq is certainly cause for a second look.
Those issues, however, remain immaterial to the purpose of determining whether it is *moral* to have removed Saddam Hussein and his sons from power. That determination is easily made simply by taking what we know of him and his sons and looking at it. They were tyrants who engaged in rape, murder, torture, even the imprisonment of *children* for alleged political crimes, to say nothing of the genocides that occurred under Saddam's rule.
We could bicker all day long about the right *method* by which it would be best to remove Saddam Hussein. I fully support the idea of an invasion and occupation on the grounds that simply killing Saddam alone would have accomplished nothing but his immediate replacement by his sons, both allegedly as destructive as he was and perhaps more so. Further, a people oppressed for as long as the Iraqi's have been CANNOT immediately and easily adjust to a new way of living that is so drastically different from that to which they have been accustomed. They naturally *needed* a guiding hand and the influence of those who live and understand the concept of freedom in their day to day lives. This is a worthy cause, as well. When they become well accustomed to the ideas of living as equals with the freedom to make their own choices and live their own lives as they see fit I rather suspect that they and their children will never be prone to surrendering those rights easily without a fight.
Maybe Bush intentionally mislead us all. Maybe he didn't. The evidence is hardly conclusive either way, but it's really not the point anyway. The point is that an oppressed people--ANY oppressed people--deserve the chance for Liberty. In this case Bush's push for war, whether his motives were truly noble or merely motivated by a desire for some as yet unclear personal profit--has lead to a state in which the Iraqi people are *beginning* to see Freedom and to acclimate. It won't happen overnight, it won't be easy, and we shouldn't expect it to be. Nothing worth having is *ever* easy to acquire, and I suspect that the centuries of distance today's generation of Americans has from the founding times, when thousands upon thousands of men and women fought, sacrificed and died to secure the very freedoms we take for granted today, has been exactly what has prevented us from understanding the *value* of such an effort.
It's easy to criticize these sacrifices as "not worth it" when we sit here comfortably either at work or at home posting to an internet forum. I suspect the perspective we enjoy would be rather different if we were closer to and more aware of the times when our ancestors fought and died valiantly to secure freedom for themselves and those they loved.
Jason
Well, I dunno if he'll ever get to trial, but I rather hope so. I'm pretty sure he'd get (and deserve) the death penalty.
Jason
Hehe yup. Man are people pissed for him just hiding out in a hole and giving up instead of killing himself or fighting till the end.
I don't in any way shape or form think that the oppression of certain people is cause for at all for us to go to war, unless of course, we're the one being oppressed. Make sense?
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
MidasKnight
Diamond Member
- Apr 24, 2004
- 3,288
- 0
- 76
That and they say we " only " went in for the WMD's. That's not true at all. The WMD's were the #1 reason but was not the sole reason. We and our allies had the legal authority to remove Saddam and his government because of his failure to comply with the UN resolutions made. But because the WMD's were the #1 reason and none were found ( or at least finding out what happened to his known programs/weapons ) the left uses a spin of these facts so they can Hate our current administration IMO.
That would be wrong. The UN has the legal authority to remove Saddam... not America. At least, so long as we're looking at UN law.
No it doesn't. So I take it you find it morally acceptable if you're at your front window and you see someone raping a woman across the street, and instead of helping or calling the police you simply draw the drapes. That's the summary of your moral stance.
Jason
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter