-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Where's the compassion for Saddam's victims?
- Thread starter Riprorin
- Start date
It appears that the number of killed and maimed under the US occupation is approaching the number of killed under Saddam. The high-tech army is showing its adavantage: whereas Saddam needed many years to kill his victims, our army is getting the same job done in just a year or two! Where's your Christian compassion for the tens of thousands killed by the US army and their mercenaries, oh Riprorin?
Who says liberals WANT Saddam in power and/or killing people?
You simplify situations too much. You assume that just because people oppose Bush approach that they support the only other alternative YOU can see, which is Saddam killing people. It's also a trade-off, having compassion isn't enough, you need a reasonable and efficient PLAN. Removing Saddam has cost HOW much money, time and people resources? How much effect would all that effort go to helping people in other situations around the world? Would that be a better use of our power?
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
*shrugs* I think part of the general idea is because Iraq was supposedly taken over for nefarious imperialistic reasons. Seizing oil, kicking some Muslim ass, paying off Cheney's old company, kowtowing to our Israeli overlords...something lame and countlessly disproven like that.
The classic and most effective means of hegemony the United States has implemented in the world to date has been through purely financial and social influence. I would imagine that if Iraq was never invaded but instead the Bush administration diverted those trillions of dollars into the tsunami-affected region, many would be suspicious of the U.S. for taking advantage of a catastrophe to remake a part of the world in its image and spread its tentacles into the area. Religious relief agencies. New Western-style schools. Economic assistance to irrevocably bind the region into the world economy. The idea is that nobody ever donates that kind of money without some amount of self-interest involved, right?
There's also the thought that Iraq should have been left to deal with itself no matter what - if the citizens of the country want it so bad, let them shed their own blood for it! Seems like a pretty shortsighted view to me - one Saddam loyalist with a machine gun is the equal of many, many poorly armed/trained civilians, and the ensuing chaos would leave the country ripe for takeover by its neighbours. Someone would have to step in, and we all know who the natural candidate is for that.
The classic and most effective means of hegemony the United States has implemented in the world to date has been through purely financial and social influence. I would imagine that if Iraq was never invaded but instead the Bush administration diverted those trillions of dollars into the tsunami-affected region, many would be suspicious of the U.S. for taking advantage of a catastrophe to remake a part of the world in its image and spread its tentacles into the area. Religious relief agencies. New Western-style schools. Economic assistance to irrevocably bind the region into the world economy. The idea is that nobody ever donates that kind of money without some amount of self-interest involved, right?
There's also the thought that Iraq should have been left to deal with itself no matter what - if the citizens of the country want it so bad, let them shed their own blood for it! Seems like a pretty shortsighted view to me - one Saddam loyalist with a machine gun is the equal of many, many poorly armed/trained civilians, and the ensuing chaos would leave the country ripe for takeover by its neighbours. Someone would have to step in, and we all know who the natural candidate is for that.
Furthermore, neither Russia nor France attacked Iraq.
I would like to know where Rip's sympathy is for the innocent people the U.S has slaughtered in the quest for weapons of mass distraction.
Can you link me to some threads where you support attacking other countries where genocide is taking place, where a brutal leader oppresses his people? What about some countries in Africa? What about North Korea?
Come on, show me your argument here isn't a pile of horsehockey.
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: 25K
-
-
-
