What did they expect???

[Thraxen]

IRAQ Body Count estimates around nine hundred civilian deaths thus far.

And what makes you think their estimate is anywhere near correct?

No, but it is up to the people of Iraq to depose of their leaders, not a foriegn invading force.

They have tried many times through the decades. They have all failed with horrible retribution from Saddam.

 

[Morph]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Morph, I'm just curious... if you were the President, would you have made the decision to go to war without U.N. support, as Bush did, or left the Iraqi regime in place and just kept patrolling the no-fly zone to keep him from massacring the Kurds, or left Saddam to do whatever he wants, or what?

No, of course I would not have invaded a sovereign nation without support from the UN. By doing that you just make a joke out of an organization that is trying to promote world peace. I'm not saying that Saddam's regime ruling Iraq is a good thing, but you cannot just invade countries to change their government whenever you feel like it. Now, what to do about him is a tough question, but it's only been made worse by 12 years of sanctions that have caused misery to the people and strengthened Saddam's regime. These sanctions should have been lifted long ago, on strict conditions by the UN as to how their oil proceeds were spent to ensure that the people were being taken care of. It's partly our own fault that Saddam became the isolated, maniacal dictator that he is now. He was actually doing good things for Iraq back in the day before he was prodded by the US into pursuing a bloody 8-year war with Iran.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Morph
These sanctions should have been lifted long ago, on strict conditions by the UN as to how their oil proceeds were spent to ensure that the people were being taken care of.

Simple question, Morph: So, hypothetically speaking, suppose the UN had lifted the sanctions, thus causing large additional amounts of money to funnel into the country. How exactly does the UN enforce these "strict conditions" as to how these proceeds are spent? Keep in mind that in reality, Hans Blix and his merry men were only allowed to return to Iraq thanks to the growing US military force and threat of action on Iraq's borders. I suppose in your happy little ideal world you would put your faith in Saddam's compassion, humanity, and vast commitment to the betterment of his people...? Remember that this is a regime that commits atrocities on a regular basis; hospitals contain torture chambers, schools double as ammo dumps.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Morph, I'm just curious... if you were the President, would you have made the decision to go to war without U.N. support, as Bush did, or left the Iraqi regime in place and just kept patrolling the no-fly zone to keep him from massacring the Kurds, or left Saddam to do whatever he wants, or what?

No, of course I would not have invaded a sovereign nation without support from the UN. By doing that you just make a joke out of an organization that is trying to promote world peace. I'm not saying that Saddam's regime ruling Iraq is a good thing, but you cannot just invade countries to change their government whenever you feel like it. Now, what to do about him is a tough question, but it's only been made worse by 12 years of sanctions that have caused misery to the people and strengthened Saddam's regime. These sanctions should have been lifted long ago, on strict conditions by the UN as to how their oil proceeds were spent to ensure that the people were being taken care of. It's partly our own fault that Saddam became the isolated, maniacal dictator that he is now. He was actually doing good things for Iraq back in the day before he was prodded by the US into pursuing a bloody 8-year war with Iran.

"Now, what to do about him is a tough question, but it's only been made worse by 12 years of sanctions that have caused misery to the people and strengthened Saddam's regime. These sanctions should have been lifted long ago, on strict conditions by the UN as to how their oil proceeds were spent to ensure that the people were being taken care of. It's partly our own fault that Saddam became the isolated, maniacal dictator that he is now. He was actually doing good things for Iraq back in the day before he was prodded by the US into pursuing a bloody 8-year war with Iran."

The sacntions should have not been lifted until Saddam fully complied AS HE AGREED BEFOREHAND. There are already "strict" guidelines on how the money from the food for oil program was to be spent, BTW Mirage parts from France and GPS equipment from Russia were what was banned, not allowed. The fact that he has not complied is nobody's fault but his own, how dare you blame anyone else. I guess the last line explains everythign, Saddam would be a great man if not for "prodding by the US"....

So you blame the US for Saddams actions and for not stopping sanctions......

Maybe your problem is that you are anti-US.

 

[ManSnake]

Originally posted by: vicvonglahn
Hey elzmaddy, if you don't like the way this country is run then feel free to live elsewhere.


I for one won't miss ya.

You can leave as well, I sure as hell won't miss you.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Morph is a tool

 

[SpideyCU]

He's not so much a tool...well, I guess he is, but the attitude that he could've done everything better is just SUCH an easy position to take. Shoulda, coulda, woulda. Takes the heat off of realizing that people didn't get a chance to look into the future before making their decisions and did the best they could at the time.

 

[elzmaddy]

It's been said before but I still don't think You should not punish a whole nation for what one person does or does not do. Ultimately it was Bush who started the war, not Saddam. Bush turned the images of Baghdad from relatively peaceful to a fireworks display. Saddam did not attack or threaten to attack the US. Bush & co tried as hard as they possibly could to sell us this war, and they succeeded. All the motives for this war are in the realm of thoughts, of mental content -- not any real immediate danger, just speculations.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: elzmaddy
It's been said before but I still don't think You should not punish a whole nation for what one person does or does not do. Ultimately it was Bush who started the war, not Saddam. Bush turned the images of Baghdad from relatively peaceful to a fireworks display. Saddam did not attack or threaten to attack the US. Bush & co tried as hard as they possibly could to sell us this war, and they succeeded. All the motives for this war are in the realm of thoughts, of mental content -- not any real immediate danger, just speculations.

I was under the impression that Saddam made many attempts to shoot down American aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone over the past decade or so, but our HARM missles eventually taught him not to waste his equipment trying. Or am I just having some "mental content" here?

 

[swifty3]

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: mechBgon

With what, 20000 sorties flown? and who knows how many bombs dropped, it's surprising there aren't more civilian casualties than there are.

According to one source, over 25,000 bombs dropped so far. The question that needs to be asked is, was it really necessary to drop so many bombs? Did we really need to rain so many bombs on Baghdad? Or were we just trying to use up our stockpile of bombs so we could get some shiny new ones and stimulate our weapons industry? My contention is that we could have dropped far, far fewer bombs (with that many less civilian casualties) and still would have won this conflict handily.

25,000 bombs. What a complete waste of taxpayers money. For every bomb that blows up in Iraq, US education suffers, health care suffers, the economy suffers, the environment suffers, the american tax payer suffers.

 

[swifty3]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Morph, I'm just curious... if you were the President, would you have made the decision to go to war without U.N. support, as Bush did, or left the Iraqi regime in place and just kept patrolling the no-fly zone to keep him from massacring the Kurds, or left Saddam to do whatever he wants, or what?

Morph has trouble answering direct questions. Trolls only like to offer up flamebait and spout out biased opinions.

Yes, and your contribution is just so insightful and unbiased. Thank you. Without your clarification we would all be lost.