No one has to die! Right?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Grasshopper27

Banned
Sep 11, 2002
7,013
1
0
I understand the feelings of the anti-war people. They don't want civilians to die, they figure if we don't attack, no one has to die...

This is because they are thinking with their hearts, not their heads...

The truth is, civilians will die either way and they have been dying for some time. Over 1 million Iraqi civilians have died since 1991. We didn't kill them, Saddam did. He did it with tanks, troops, and by starving them.

He has also killed his own civilians in the past using chemical weapons.

Dead Iraqi civilians, killed via Iraq's own chemical weapons
(picture provided by nick1985)

So while it is true that if we don't attack, some Iraqi civilians may live that otherwise would have died, others that could live will die because we did nothing.

If you are against the war because you believe Saddam is actually not such a bad guy, that's one thing.

If you are against the war because you don't want Iraqi civilians to die, then you are not making that decision based on the facts. Your heart is gold, but your brain has been turned off, and you are wrong. Not just an opinion, the facts speak against you. If you're at all interested in actually being right, rather than just having "good feelings", then you'll have to start processing the facts.

: ) Hopper
 
T

tweakmm

Lifer
May 28, 2001
18,436
4
0
We are not attacking Iraq to save the Iraqis from an oppressive leader, we are attacking them because they have weapons of mass destruction that only the United States and Britain know the location of
If we got in the business of liberating oppressed peoples we'd have our work cut out for us
 
D

DanJ

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
3,509
0
0
This war is not about saving the Iraqi people, no matter what they tell you. Its a nice spin but its not the reason.

Bush on Rwanda in 2000:
"We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interest. I would not send the United States troops into Rwanda."

Bush must be Pro-Genocide/Ethnic Cleansing then right?
 
G

Grasshopper27

Banned
Sep 11, 2002
7,013
1
0
Originally posted by: tweakmm
We are not attacking them to save the Iraqis from an oppressive leader, we are attacking them because they have weapons of mass destruction that only the United States and Britain know the location of
If we got in the business of liberating oppressed peoples we'd have our work cut out for us
Click to expand...
That is true...

But the arguement from a lot of anti-war people is, "Oh no, civilians will die if we attack! It isn't worth civilian deaths to disarm Iraq".

What they don't understand is that civilians will die anyway, Saddam will see to that. Not attacking actually doesn't save lives, in the long run it will kill more people than attacking will.

But that doesn't "feel good" to people who just don't want to accept that Saddam is an evil bastard who the world will be better off without.

: ) Hopper
 
datalink7

datalink7

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
16,765
6
81
Originally posted by: tweakmm
We are not attacking them to save the Iraqis from an oppressive leader, we are attacking them because they have weapons of mass destruction that only the United States and Britain know the location of
If we got in the business of liberating oppressed peoples we'd have our work cut out for us
Click to expand...

QUIT PLAYING DE PING PONG!
 
K

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
Oh how I love inflammatory, propagandist _pictures_ with no article or evidence of any kind

I love how back in 1988 when this happened, we had no problem with it. But now, it is at the forefront of our reason for attacking Iraq! HE GASED HIS OWN PEOPLE DAMNIT HE HAS TO DIE. 15 years later. Hah.

Not to mention we were on Iraq's side in 1988 during the Iraq-Iran war. We supplied them with intelligence, we turned a blind eye to their chemical weapons use. Who loves hypocrisy? I do I do.

read up, kiddies
 
D

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
a bit off topic, but who said: "The last time the French asked for more proof, it came marching into Paris under a German flag"?
 
T

tweakmm

Lifer
May 28, 2001
18,436
4
0
Originally posted by: Dari
a bit off topic, but who said: "The last time the French asked for more proof, it came marching into Paris under a German flag"?
Click to expand...
The Hitler/Saddam comparisons are getting really old, really fast
rolleye.gif

The closest person to being a nazi on today's political radar is John Ashcroft
 
G

Grasshopper27

Banned
Sep 11, 2002
7,013
1
0
Originally posted by: konichiwa
Oh how I love inflammatory, propagandist _pictures_ with no article or evidence of any kind

I love how back in 1988 when this happened, we had no problem with it. But now, it is at the forefront of our reason for attacking Iraq! HE GASED HIS OWN PEOPLE DAMNIT HE HAS TO DIE. 15 years later. Hah.

Not to mention we were on Iraq's side in 1988 during the Iraq-Iran war. We supplied them with intelligence, we turned a blind eye to their chemical weapons use. Who loves hypocrisy? I do I do.

read up, kiddies
Click to expand...
Oh, you're right... I guess we just shouldn't try and get the bad guys...

rolleye.gif


Your logic excapes me I'm afraid, it sounds like you support letting dictators who support terrorism and want to attack America go free...

*shrug*

BTW, for those of you who are not Americans... A CNN poll done in the past two days shows that 81% of Americans believe that Saddam is supporting terrorists that are trying to attack America and that 51% of Americans believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't... But that is what we believe right now...

: ) Hopper
 
G

Grasshopper27

Banned
Sep 11, 2002
7,013
1
0
Originally posted by: Dari
a bit off topic, but who said: "The last time the French asked for more proof, it came marching into Paris under a German flag"?
Click to expand...
Right, and by the time we get "concrete proof" of Saddam's connections to terrorists might be when NYC is a smoking crater.

: ) Hopper
 
B

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
We are not attacking Iraq to save the Iraqis from an oppressive leader, we are attacking them because they have weapons of mass destruction that only the United States and Britain know the location of
Click to expand...

Why would the British and Yanks be the ONLY knowledgeable parties? My guess would be they aren't. France, Russia, and China likely have the similar intel' to the US and UK. This Axis of Inaction has apparently decided Saddam's cache of WMD does not warrant armed intervention at this time.

We are not attacking Iraq b/c they have these weapons (allegedly). We are attacking Iraq b/c they have these weapons and we think they might give them to someone intent upon hurting the US . . . plus we think we can take Saddam out. We will not confront Turkey, Isreael, Pakistan, North Korea, or Iran even though all of these countries have WMD and several are known proliferators.
 
G

Grasshopper27

Banned
Sep 11, 2002
7,013
1
0
Originally posted by: tweakmm
The Hitler/Saddam comparisons are getting really old, really fast
rolleye.gif

The closest person to being a nazi on today's political radar is John Ashcroft
Click to expand...
That is the most absurd thing yet...

If you think John Ashcroft is more evil than Saddam, then you obviouslly have no knowledge of the facts and are simply anti-Bush/anti-America

: ) Hopper
 
Hayabusa Rider

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
We are not attacking Iraq to save the Iraqis from an oppressive leader, we are attacking them because they have weapons of mass destruction that only the United States and Britain know the location of
Click to expand...

Why would the British and Yanks be the ONLY knowledgeable parties? My guess would be they aren't. France, Russia, and China likely have the similar intel' to the US and UK. This Axis of Inaction has apparently decided Saddam's cache of WMD does not warrant armed intervention at this time.

We are not attacking Iraq b/c they have these weapons (allegedly). We are attacking Iraq b/c they have these weapons and we think they might give them to someone intent upon hurting the US . . . plus we think we can take Saddam out. We will not confront Turkey, Isreael, Pakistan, North Korea, or Iran even though all of these countries have WMD and several are known proliferators.
Click to expand...

BBDoc, are you making sense in a Grasshopper thread? You know that is not allowed. :p
 
J

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
Originally posted by: Dari
a bit off topic, but who said: "The last time the French asked for more proof, it came marching into Paris under a German flag"?
Click to expand...
Right, and by the time we get "concrete proof" of Saddam's connections to terrorists might be when NYC is a smoking crater.

: ) Hopper
Click to expand...

Now who is thinking with their heart and not their head??
 
A

abaez

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
7,155
1
81
Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
I understand the feelings of the anti-war people. They don't want civilians to die, they figure if we don't attack, no one has to die...

This is because they are thinking with their hearts, not their heads...

The truth is, civilians will die either way and they have been dying for some time. Over 1 million Iraqi civilians have died since 1991. We didn't kill them, Saddam did. He did it with tanks, troops, and by starving them.

He has also killed his own civilians in the past using chemical weapons.

Dead Iraqi civilians, killed via Iraq's own chemical weapons



: ) Hopper
Click to expand...

I point you to the Marine Corps Historical Publication FMFRP 3-203 - Lessons Learned: Iran-Iraq War,  10 December 1990 
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/appb.pdf

More specifically Appendix B, Page 100, third paragraph down...

"...Blood agents were allegedly responsible for the most infamous use of chemicals in the war -- the killing of Kurds at Halabjah. ....we conclude that the Iranians perpetrated this attack."


Entire Publication is here:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/
 
K

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
Originally posted by: konichiwa
Oh how I love inflammatory, propagandist _pictures_ with no article or evidence of any kind

I love how back in 1988 when this happened, we had no problem with it. But now, it is at the forefront of our reason for attacking Iraq! HE GASED HIS OWN PEOPLE DAMNIT HE HAS TO DIE. 15 years later. Hah.

Not to mention we were on Iraq's side in 1988 during the Iraq-Iran war. We supplied them with intelligence, we turned a blind eye to their chemical weapons use. Who loves hypocrisy? I do I do.

read up, kiddies
Click to expand...
Oh, you're right... I guess we just shouldn't try and get the bad guys...

rolleye.gif


Your logic excapes me I'm afraid, it sounds like you support letting dictators who support terrorism and want to attack America go free...

*shrug*

BTW, for those of you who are not Americans... A CNN poll done in the past two days shows that 81% of Americans believe that Saddam is supporting terrorists that are trying to attack America and that 51% of Americans believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't... But that is what we believe right now...

: ) Hopper
Click to expand...

If my logic is escaping you, maybe you should read it again. We support Saddam and Iraq for years, supplying them with weapons and intelligence and turning our back when they commit war crimes. (Sounds a lot like Israel). Then 15 years later, we decide that all of a sudden we have to do something immediately. And we flaunt ourselves as the bastion of righteousness throughout the world, saving the disenfranchised from their evil dictator. Where were we in 1988? Where were we in Rowanda? Where are we now in Chechnya? Where are we now in Israel?

If you look at the facts it's quite clear that "liberation of the Iraqi people" is FAR down on our list of reasons for attacking Saddam.
 
T

tweakmm

Lifer
May 28, 2001
18,436
4
0
Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
Originally posted by: tweakmm
The Hitler/Saddam comparisons are getting really old, really fast
rolleye.gif

The closest person to being a nazi on today's political radar is John Ashcroft
Click to expand...
That is the most absurd thing yet...
If you think John Ashcroft is more evil than Saddam, then you obviouslly have no knowledge of the facts and are simply anti-Bush/anti-America
Click to expand...
I said he was the most naziesque, does Total Information Awareness ring any bells?
Saddam may or may not have some weapons; John Ashcroft wants to destroy the ideals that this country were founded on
 
L

lowtech1

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2000
4,644
1
0
Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
I understand the feelings of the anti-war people. They don't want civilians to die, they figure if we don't attack, no one has to die...

This is because they are thinking with their hearts, not their heads...

The truth is, civilians will die either way and they have been dying for some time. Over 1 million Iraqi civilians have died since 1991. We didn't kill them, Saddam did. He did it with tanks, troops, and by starving them.

He has also killed his own civilians in the past using chemical weapons.

Dead Iraqi civilians, killed via Iraq's own chemical weapons

So while it is true that if we don't attack, some Iraqi civilians may live that otherwise would have died, others that could live will die because we did nothing.

If you are against the war because you believe Saddam is actually not such a bad guy, that's one thing.

If you are against the war because you don't want Iraqi civilians to die, then you are not making that decision based on the facts. Your heart is gold, but your brain has been turned off, and you are wrong. Not just an opinion, the facts speak against you. If you're at all interested in actually being right, rather than just having "good feelings", then you'll have to start processing the facts.

: ) Hopper
Click to expand...
100 000 Iraq childrens died per year from starving due to the embargo.

Soaring death rates among Iraqi children -- UK & US study.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom