US MILITARY ACTION IN IRAQ Y or N?
by Kristov » Sun Feb 23, 2003 2:55 am
Going a bit off tangent here, but Keekano seems a wee bit confused about some basics...so...
The US is a Democratic Republic, and it's worked for a few hundred years now. Everyone who wishes to have a hand in the government literally has the ability to do so. They all have a say, if they so desire to voice it. Our society is primarily Capitolist. The rich get richer, and the poor get whatever they choose, be it richer or poorer. I know this from personal experience, watching my mother, single at 19 with 2 kids and without a high school education, rise to the top of her chosen field, computer programming, before she was 35, without a high school education or college still. All of this while living in a rural state. She retired before she was 50, bought a yacht and lived on it in the Bahamas. So much for the poor getting poorer..it's a choice they make, nothing else. Capitolism rewards those who strive, and it's very 'natural' to the human psyche.
Now, that should clear up the bs about imperialism and democracy about in the US. We are the most free nation and people on the planet. We see less of the evils of the world in our own backyard because of this. Given the ability to help control their own government if they wish, the ability to advance in the culture if they so wish, and the ability to voice any dissatisfaction with the culture, if they so wish, the people tend to not have a reason to use violence to make their point. We, the US, see the evils elsewhere and want to fix them. You know, that whole 'make the world a better place' line you try to imply with your messages. See, we actually have the ability and the desire to MAKE a difference in the world, instead of stand around and parrot moral platitudes. Started as a national trend in the early 1900s, around 1917 or so, you might remember it, World War I, the War To End All Wars. We further showed this desire in the 30's, which you might remember as World War II, the Last War To End All Wars. Then again in the 50's, Korea, the Police Action. Again, the 60's, Vietnam, The Big Mistake. And so on through the last century, Americans, going to foriegn countries on the other side of globe, bleeding and dying for other people's freedom. I know, BAD habit we have, actually thinking other people would want what we have and trying to help them achieve it. I believe the UK did it for a while, as did Spain, Germany, Italy, even a few religous groups over the past few 10,000 yrs or so. At the least the US doesn't use force as our standard way to help people, as most of the previous world powers did. I didn't list all the non-military actions the US has done, because they far too numerous, and every single one is selfishly based. We get off on helping other people...sorry, it's an addiction, should we seek help?
The US is a Democratic Republic, and it's worked for a few hundred years now. Everyone who wishes to have a hand in the government literally has the ability to do so. They all have a say, if they so desire to voice it. Our society is primarily Capitolist. The rich get richer, and the poor get whatever they choose, be it richer or poorer. I know this from personal experience, watching my mother, single at 19 with 2 kids and without a high school education, rise to the top of her chosen field, computer programming, before she was 35, without a high school education or college still. All of this while living in a rural state. She retired before she was 50, bought a yacht and lived on it in the Bahamas. So much for the poor getting poorer..it's a choice they make, nothing else. Capitolism rewards those who strive, and it's very 'natural' to the human psyche.
Now, that should clear up the bs about imperialism and democracy about in the US. We are the most free nation and people on the planet. We see less of the evils of the world in our own backyard because of this. Given the ability to help control their own government if they wish, the ability to advance in the culture if they so wish, and the ability to voice any dissatisfaction with the culture, if they so wish, the people tend to not have a reason to use violence to make their point. We, the US, see the evils elsewhere and want to fix them. You know, that whole 'make the world a better place' line you try to imply with your messages. See, we actually have the ability and the desire to MAKE a difference in the world, instead of stand around and parrot moral platitudes. Started as a national trend in the early 1900s, around 1917 or so, you might remember it, World War I, the War To End All Wars. We further showed this desire in the 30's, which you might remember as World War II, the Last War To End All Wars. Then again in the 50's, Korea, the Police Action. Again, the 60's, Vietnam, The Big Mistake. And so on through the last century, Americans, going to foriegn countries on the other side of globe, bleeding and dying for other people's freedom. I know, BAD habit we have, actually thinking other people would want what we have and trying to help them achieve it. I believe the UK did it for a while, as did Spain, Germany, Italy, even a few religous groups over the past few 10,000 yrs or so. At the least the US doesn't use force as our standard way to help people, as most of the previous world powers did. I didn't list all the non-military actions the US has done, because they far too numerous, and every single one is selfishly based. We get off on helping other people...sorry, it's an addiction, should we seek help?
The enemy is attacking, let us prey.
- Rule of Wrist
by Rule of Wrist » Sun Feb 23, 2003 4:16 am
I am reminded of a quote by Winston Churchill. "Democracy is an abhorrent form of government. Were it not less abhorrent than all other forms, it would not be used."
(may not be exact quote, current post influenced by beer)
Keekanoo, the only problem I have with your line of arguments is that you offer no solutions or ideas about how to move forward. All you do is try to point out what is wrong. That is fine, but to truly have an impact on people's thought processes, you must offer some way forward. Without some kind of positive outcome offered, people resort to a futilistic point of view. Woe is me, I can't change anything, fuck everything.
I believe it is Taoism that you are trying to present. The theory that you can never know anything. One cannot proceed in life with this belief. Some things MUST be assumed to be true to proceed with anything. Gravity must pull things down. You must breathe. Simple things. To believe that none of the processes in government are as they seem is statistically impossible. It's like my friend says about government conspiracies. "From my experience, nobody in the government is smart or good enought to pull off something like that."
Perhaps you have heard of Occam's Razor?
(may not be exact quote, current post influenced by beer)
Keekanoo, the only problem I have with your line of arguments is that you offer no solutions or ideas about how to move forward. All you do is try to point out what is wrong. That is fine, but to truly have an impact on people's thought processes, you must offer some way forward. Without some kind of positive outcome offered, people resort to a futilistic point of view. Woe is me, I can't change anything, fuck everything.
I believe it is Taoism that you are trying to present. The theory that you can never know anything. One cannot proceed in life with this belief. Some things MUST be assumed to be true to proceed with anything. Gravity must pull things down. You must breathe. Simple things. To believe that none of the processes in government are as they seem is statistically impossible. It's like my friend says about government conspiracies. "From my experience, nobody in the government is smart or good enought to pull off something like that."
Perhaps you have heard of Occam's Razor?
- Gweed
Herr Renz
by Gweed » Sun Feb 23, 2003 5:28 am
Why the hell do these posts always have to have a person pointing the finger at the "War Mongering Americans"? It is usually some young kid that watches too much of the trash that the media spits out on TV. In this case Herr, I would say that you should not listen to your Mother. Form your own opinion, that is what makes you an individual.
When Europeans get on that anti-American soapbox it pisses this Veteran off too much to comment! Europeans seem to quickly forget what America did for them. How many Americans died for the freedoms that you Europeans enjoy? It makes me feel like you don't deserve our sacrifices. Go take a look at the American cemetaries in your countries, yeah the ones with all the white crosses, and tell me how much you appreciate what those Americans gave up for you. Shit I feel like I am repeating from a prior thread.
Tutti i europei, se avete scordato quello che e' veramente successo nella storia del mondo, vaffanculo. Imparate a leggere.
All You other Vets Say aye!
When Europeans get on that anti-American soapbox it pisses this Veteran off too much to comment! Europeans seem to quickly forget what America did for them. How many Americans died for the freedoms that you Europeans enjoy? It makes me feel like you don't deserve our sacrifices. Go take a look at the American cemetaries in your countries, yeah the ones with all the white crosses, and tell me how much you appreciate what those Americans gave up for you. Shit I feel like I am repeating from a prior thread.
Tutti i europei, se avete scordato quello che e' veramente successo nella storia del mondo, vaffanculo. Imparate a leggere.
All You other Vets Say aye!
- Anton
by Anton » Sun Feb 23, 2003 10:44 pm
Well, well, well....I didn't exactly expect a highly intellectual response in this forum, but neither did I expect a level of argument below the infantile..."Kick some Iraqi ass"?...Are you guys 12 years old, or just morally insane?
Some brave fellow actually asked why those "3 No's" voted as they did. Well, I'll give you a brief response (It has to be brief...I've been writing and researching these matters for over 25 years and I can't summarize all that)..Probably a conveniant place to begin is the last Gulf War...Actually it should properly be called the Gulf Massacre seeing as aprrox. 100,000 Iraqi conscripts (who had about as much to do with Hussein's policies as we grunts do with our government's) were killed outright. Most never even had a chance to fire their weapons. Thousands were buried alive in their trenches by US bulldozers. Thousands more were incinerated on the Basra road 'incident' when US jets bombed both ends of the 70 mile highway (sealing it off) and then massacred the entire traffic jam of fleeing soldiers.
As for civilians? Estimates range from 25,000 to well over 50,000 killed by American 'top guns'. (America's finest were so trigger happy, they sparked an international incident when they carelessly blew up - broad daylight, perfect visibility - a number of British tanks).
Following the 'war', the economic sanctions, in conjunction with the total (and deliberate) destruction of Iraqi infrastructure (i.e. water, sewage plants, factories, hospitals, dams, power facilities, museums, libraries, oral rehydration tablet plants - everthing) has since resulted in the deaths of over 1.5 million Iraqis - 3/4 of whom have been children (they're the most vulnerable)....These are UN and Red Cross figures by the way. Absolutely no one who knows *anything* disputes them.
That amounts to almost 2 World Trade Towers worth of victims every month for over a decade.
And exactly how many deaths did the 'allies' sustain during this glorious adventure?......156.
I repeat - 156.
And the vast majority of these were due to either friendly fire or accidents.
So who are the terrorists?
As for the present 'war'. Even the most elementary reasoning leads ineluctably to the notion that the US 'humanitarian' concern is sheer propaganda....Mere codswallop for domestic consumption. A barely veiled (really, not even 'barely') cover for what are transparently imperial strategic motives.
And for the benefit of that lone questioner, I'll spell those motives out.
Sure the US wants the oil. That goes without saying. Afterall, it's hardly an accident that the target of all this 'humanitarian' concern just happens to possess the 2nd largest proven oil reserves in the world (after Saudia Arabia)...or that those reserves are easily accessible, high grade reserves (i.e. very, very profitable)....It's more than that....The US already has enough oil.
It's not about *access*, it's about *control*. In the next 15 years the burgeoning economy of China is expected to double its energy requirements. Both Europe and Japan are entirely dependent on foreign oil. Both are major imperial and economic competitors with the US. And Russia, while on its knees, well the great bear still has a bite that the US control of world oil reserves is very likely to remove - permanently. Moreover, the US economy is in trouble...
IN short, the US is resorting the tryed and tested, time honoured strategy of resorting to imperial conquest to shore up what is otherwise a declining economic future.
Other factors include:
- the need to maintain the 'eternal war' (anyone read their George Orwell lately?) to help keep the rank-and-file in permanent thrall to a military economy that handsomely transfers hundreds of billions of dollars annually of their tax dollars to the ruling economic elite
- the positioning to retake that great 'pillar of the Gulf'....Iran, lost to American hegemony since the revolution of 1979.
- the strategic positioning of military outposts throughout Eastern Europe, the Near, Middle, and eventually, Far East in pursuance of the American Reich.
Finally, as to the whole propaganda about 'weapons of mass destruction'. ...Where does one begin? ....Well, let's begin with the US.
The US....the country which spends more money than the sum *all other developed countries combined* on 'weapons of mass destuction'.....The only country that regularly uses them to crush any oppostion to its global hegemony, no matter how puny i.e half a million have been killed in Central American death squad riddled states alone over the last quarter century...all supported, armed, trained - and in most instances - directed by US military and intelligence services. The only country to have employed nuclear weapons (merely to 'impress' the Russians and warn them off at the beginning of the Cold War). The only country to have used both chemical and biological weapons on a protracted, mass basis (Vietnam and Cuba).
One can in fact, easily make an airtight case that the most prolific terrorist training operation in the world is the Pentagon / CIA establisment (They were the ones, after all, that financed the Taliban and al Quaida in an effort to bankrupt the Soviets during the Afghan conflict of the '80's).
Indeed, their crimes, over the last 50 years, outshine their nearest competitor as does the sun to a candle.
If one were then to move on to a discussion of such US proxy forces such as Israel....well, it's common knowledge that Israel has a massive (undeclared) nuclear arsenal (This was well known 30 years ago, even before the Israeli scientist, Mordecai Vannunu, released classifed documents to the British press proving it....He was then, by the way, kidnapped by Israeli intelligence and is now the longest serving prisoner in *solitary confinement* (i.e. over 20 years!) in the world...Torture by any other name?
"Weapons of mass destruction"?........You have to be either totally stupid, ignorant ...or complicit...to buy what is transparently the rankest hypocrisy, the most blatant of propaganda ploys.
I could go on for several more days....but that'll do for now. Enough to rile you boys up....Hopefully, enough for that one lone questioner to start doing his *own* research....his own thinking.
Anton
Some brave fellow actually asked why those "3 No's" voted as they did. Well, I'll give you a brief response (It has to be brief...I've been writing and researching these matters for over 25 years and I can't summarize all that)..Probably a conveniant place to begin is the last Gulf War...Actually it should properly be called the Gulf Massacre seeing as aprrox. 100,000 Iraqi conscripts (who had about as much to do with Hussein's policies as we grunts do with our government's) were killed outright. Most never even had a chance to fire their weapons. Thousands were buried alive in their trenches by US bulldozers. Thousands more were incinerated on the Basra road 'incident' when US jets bombed both ends of the 70 mile highway (sealing it off) and then massacred the entire traffic jam of fleeing soldiers.
As for civilians? Estimates range from 25,000 to well over 50,000 killed by American 'top guns'. (America's finest were so trigger happy, they sparked an international incident when they carelessly blew up - broad daylight, perfect visibility - a number of British tanks).
Following the 'war', the economic sanctions, in conjunction with the total (and deliberate) destruction of Iraqi infrastructure (i.e. water, sewage plants, factories, hospitals, dams, power facilities, museums, libraries, oral rehydration tablet plants - everthing) has since resulted in the deaths of over 1.5 million Iraqis - 3/4 of whom have been children (they're the most vulnerable)....These are UN and Red Cross figures by the way. Absolutely no one who knows *anything* disputes them.
That amounts to almost 2 World Trade Towers worth of victims every month for over a decade.
And exactly how many deaths did the 'allies' sustain during this glorious adventure?......156.
I repeat - 156.
And the vast majority of these were due to either friendly fire or accidents.
So who are the terrorists?
As for the present 'war'. Even the most elementary reasoning leads ineluctably to the notion that the US 'humanitarian' concern is sheer propaganda....Mere codswallop for domestic consumption. A barely veiled (really, not even 'barely') cover for what are transparently imperial strategic motives.
And for the benefit of that lone questioner, I'll spell those motives out.
Sure the US wants the oil. That goes without saying. Afterall, it's hardly an accident that the target of all this 'humanitarian' concern just happens to possess the 2nd largest proven oil reserves in the world (after Saudia Arabia)...or that those reserves are easily accessible, high grade reserves (i.e. very, very profitable)....It's more than that....The US already has enough oil.
It's not about *access*, it's about *control*. In the next 15 years the burgeoning economy of China is expected to double its energy requirements. Both Europe and Japan are entirely dependent on foreign oil. Both are major imperial and economic competitors with the US. And Russia, while on its knees, well the great bear still has a bite that the US control of world oil reserves is very likely to remove - permanently. Moreover, the US economy is in trouble...
IN short, the US is resorting the tryed and tested, time honoured strategy of resorting to imperial conquest to shore up what is otherwise a declining economic future.
Other factors include:
- the need to maintain the 'eternal war' (anyone read their George Orwell lately?) to help keep the rank-and-file in permanent thrall to a military economy that handsomely transfers hundreds of billions of dollars annually of their tax dollars to the ruling economic elite
- the positioning to retake that great 'pillar of the Gulf'....Iran, lost to American hegemony since the revolution of 1979.
- the strategic positioning of military outposts throughout Eastern Europe, the Near, Middle, and eventually, Far East in pursuance of the American Reich.
Finally, as to the whole propaganda about 'weapons of mass destruction'. ...Where does one begin? ....Well, let's begin with the US.
The US....the country which spends more money than the sum *all other developed countries combined* on 'weapons of mass destuction'.....The only country that regularly uses them to crush any oppostion to its global hegemony, no matter how puny i.e half a million have been killed in Central American death squad riddled states alone over the last quarter century...all supported, armed, trained - and in most instances - directed by US military and intelligence services. The only country to have employed nuclear weapons (merely to 'impress' the Russians and warn them off at the beginning of the Cold War). The only country to have used both chemical and biological weapons on a protracted, mass basis (Vietnam and Cuba).
One can in fact, easily make an airtight case that the most prolific terrorist training operation in the world is the Pentagon / CIA establisment (They were the ones, after all, that financed the Taliban and al Quaida in an effort to bankrupt the Soviets during the Afghan conflict of the '80's).
Indeed, their crimes, over the last 50 years, outshine their nearest competitor as does the sun to a candle.
If one were then to move on to a discussion of such US proxy forces such as Israel....well, it's common knowledge that Israel has a massive (undeclared) nuclear arsenal (This was well known 30 years ago, even before the Israeli scientist, Mordecai Vannunu, released classifed documents to the British press proving it....He was then, by the way, kidnapped by Israeli intelligence and is now the longest serving prisoner in *solitary confinement* (i.e. over 20 years!) in the world...Torture by any other name?
"Weapons of mass destruction"?........You have to be either totally stupid, ignorant ...or complicit...to buy what is transparently the rankest hypocrisy, the most blatant of propaganda ploys.
I could go on for several more days....but that'll do for now. Enough to rile you boys up....Hopefully, enough for that one lone questioner to start doing his *own* research....his own thinking.
Anton
- COL.BUKKAKE
by COL.BUKKAKE » Sun Feb 23, 2003 11:01 pm
Originally posted by Doug the Unforgiven
Alright!!!! I think Anton found that higher horse that I was looking for!:lol:
Should have known Doug, Only in Canada can a horse that size be found:D But he does sound like he has his shit together, must be a professor at Berkley.
- Anton
by Anton » Sun Feb 23, 2003 11:10 pm
Well, it's nice to know the boys have a sense of humour....Not all is lost....
Still, just ask yourself this question:
What if it were *my* family, *my* kids that were about to be incinerated, to be peppered with a blitzkrieg the likes of which the world has, to date, probably never seen....
'Distance of perspective' is one thing......
Sheer callous disregard for the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in another country - a country which has not the slightest chance of retaliating - is another.
It's strange, if high falutin' to say, but all these ebullient, if facile, remarks ...are entirely 'post-modern'
....meaning, 'We don't give a damn 'cause we're under no conceivable threat whatsoever'.
Still, just ask yourself this question:
What if it were *my* family, *my* kids that were about to be incinerated, to be peppered with a blitzkrieg the likes of which the world has, to date, probably never seen....
'Distance of perspective' is one thing......
Sheer callous disregard for the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in another country - a country which has not the slightest chance of retaliating - is another.
It's strange, if high falutin' to say, but all these ebullient, if facile, remarks ...are entirely 'post-modern'
....meaning, 'We don't give a damn 'cause we're under no conceivable threat whatsoever'.
- Doug the Unforgiven
by Doug the Unforgiven » Sun Feb 23, 2003 11:31 pm
"It's strange, if high falutin' to say, but all these ebullient, if facile, remarks ...are entirely 'post-modern'
....meaning, 'We don't give a damn 'cause we're under no conceivable threat whatsoever'." --'Susan' Anton (hehe!)
That's funny, I thought the people saying those things were the ones arguing against the war. Someone saying "we shouldn't go after Saddam because he can't hurt us here" is definitely NOT an argument FOR the war. Am I missing something?
....meaning, 'We don't give a damn 'cause we're under no conceivable threat whatsoever'." --'Susan' Anton (hehe!)
That's funny, I thought the people saying those things were the ones arguing against the war. Someone saying "we shouldn't go after Saddam because he can't hurt us here" is definitely NOT an argument FOR the war. Am I missing something?
- Ralph Wiggum
by Ralph Wiggum » Mon Feb 24, 2003 12:14 am
Anton,
I notice there was no mention of Kuwait in your retelling of the Gulf War. How come? I wonder if there is anything that you wouldn't support if the alternative was "American hegemony"?
Also, according to Human Rights Watch, that mouthpiece of American Hegemony, there were not as many civilian casualties in the Gulf War as you assert. "Middle East Watch concludes that the number of Iraqi civilians killed as a direct result of injury from allied bombs and missiles will ultimately be calculated in the thousands, not the hundreds. At the same time, we are reasonably confident that the total number of civilians killed directly by allied attacks did not exceed several thousand, with an upper limit of perhaps between 2,500 and 3,000 Iraqi dead." (see http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/gulfwar/INTRO.htm).
I notice there was no mention of Kuwait in your retelling of the Gulf War. How come? I wonder if there is anything that you wouldn't support if the alternative was "American hegemony"?
Also, according to Human Rights Watch, that mouthpiece of American Hegemony, there were not as many civilian casualties in the Gulf War as you assert. "Middle East Watch concludes that the number of Iraqi civilians killed as a direct result of injury from allied bombs and missiles will ultimately be calculated in the thousands, not the hundreds. At the same time, we are reasonably confident that the total number of civilians killed directly by allied attacks did not exceed several thousand, with an upper limit of perhaps between 2,500 and 3,000 Iraqi dead." (see http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/gulfwar/INTRO.htm).
by bayotanzk » Mon Feb 24, 2003 12:26 am
Glad to see Anton that you have conviction in your words. Unfortunatly it is unclear to me where the US used nuclear weapons to impress or otherwise the USSR. We dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to end a war and save untold thousands of lives. American, British, other allies and the Japaneese themselves, all were spared the losses that an invasion of there home islands would have cost ( I believe half a million American lives was the estimate). By the way the fire bombing of tokyo killed many more than both A bombs.
Now I am not aware how Canada deals with traitors, it has been some time since we have executed someone, but usually that is taken seriously. Maybe not in your country, but in most. Mordecai Vannunu is lucky to be alive and able to wack off, because in my eyes anyone that sells, gives, or in anyway underminds the national security of his/her own country should be executed.
To address you comments about the poor Iraqi soldiers killed during the Gulf War, the fellows sure did seem to have a real good time throwing down in kuwait. You remember the folks those kuwaiti women provided recreation, the gentlemen you stated our top-guns wasted. I say and it is only my opinion, which like you I am free to state, "good shooting old boy(s)" looks like those billions of dollars we waste on our military does come in quite handy from time to time.
By the way I do respect you opinion, but again, you not being a US citizen means you have no say in how we run our country. Canada is a nice place, good beer and nice folks, but do not think for a minute that the prosperity you enjoy is not in some small part because of your southern neighbor.
Now I am not aware how Canada deals with traitors, it has been some time since we have executed someone, but usually that is taken seriously. Maybe not in your country, but in most. Mordecai Vannunu is lucky to be alive and able to wack off, because in my eyes anyone that sells, gives, or in anyway underminds the national security of his/her own country should be executed.
To address you comments about the poor Iraqi soldiers killed during the Gulf War, the fellows sure did seem to have a real good time throwing down in kuwait. You remember the folks those kuwaiti women provided recreation, the gentlemen you stated our top-guns wasted. I say and it is only my opinion, which like you I am free to state, "good shooting old boy(s)" looks like those billions of dollars we waste on our military does come in quite handy from time to time.
By the way I do respect you opinion, but again, you not being a US citizen means you have no say in how we run our country. Canada is a nice place, good beer and nice folks, but do not think for a minute that the prosperity you enjoy is not in some small part because of your southern neighbor.
by Kristov » Mon Feb 24, 2003 4:46 am
Anton/Keekano/whatever you wish to call yourself, please, if you wish to bash America, kindly do so with some actual factual statements next time, thanks!
100,000 Iraqi soldiers died in the Gulf War..ok...I rather find that hard to believe, but, hey, whatever, we killed 100,000 soldiers who were arrayed against the Coalition forces, sworn to destroy the enemies of Iraq. They died with honor if they died in combat, whether their leader was a nutcase or not, they at least did what duty demanded of them. You try to make them out to be martyrs...only..I can't figure out what cause it is they died for? They weren't following a religous edict, nor a moral one, simply the orders of their leader of state, who makes no claims to either religous or moral standards. So, they were martyrs to despotism? Interesting, I don't think there's ever been any of those before...wonder why?
As for civilian casualities, yes, there were around 2500 to 3500 of them. That's going to happen when the targetted country tends to put civilians literally on top of his military emplacements without regard to their safety. I mean, last time I checked, no UE, NATO or even Warsaw Pact country does that shit. Guess we're all just behind the times or something?
And as for the civilians dying in Iraq due to the embargos..once again, you totally neglict to mention that aid IS being sent, but it's being diverted by Saddam Hussien for the military, and not going to the civilians it's meant for. So, the UN and it's sanctions are not to blame for the 1+million deaths at all, Saddam Hussien is, since HE'S the one not allowing them to recieve the aid that's been sent for over a decade now. Why the hell do you keep neglecting to say that? What the fuck is your twisted agenda? Do you support this sick bastard and what he's doing? Or do you simply hate the US so much that you don't give a shit who you ignore if it means taking a stab at the US?
We know Saddam isn't a direct threat to the US...not via the missles he's got. He is a direct threat via the terrorists he's trained and equipped and given money to. He's a direct threat to the entire Middle East, as he's clearly proven more then a few times. We don't need the oil, and we won't go in and take or control the oil, that's been made abundantly clear, which you've also neglected to mention, time and again. The US wants to put and end to the bullshit that's been going on for over a decade now. Saddam agreed to certain terms when he surrendered, and he has yet to abide by them. Enough is enough. The US is willing and able to enforce the UN terms, but we're TRYING to get the UN to do it, peacefully if possible. Certain countries do NOT want anything to happen to Saddam, since the potential embarrassment for them is extremely high. The world KNOWS these countries have been breaking the embargos, we KNOW they've made under the table deals for their oil, and we're tired of looking the other way while so many people die because of it.
You want to blame someone for the Iraqi civilians who've died over the last 12 yrs? France, Belgium, Germany...they've paid for the executions, so give them their credit.
100,000 Iraqi soldiers died in the Gulf War..ok...I rather find that hard to believe, but, hey, whatever, we killed 100,000 soldiers who were arrayed against the Coalition forces, sworn to destroy the enemies of Iraq. They died with honor if they died in combat, whether their leader was a nutcase or not, they at least did what duty demanded of them. You try to make them out to be martyrs...only..I can't figure out what cause it is they died for? They weren't following a religous edict, nor a moral one, simply the orders of their leader of state, who makes no claims to either religous or moral standards. So, they were martyrs to despotism? Interesting, I don't think there's ever been any of those before...wonder why?
As for civilian casualities, yes, there were around 2500 to 3500 of them. That's going to happen when the targetted country tends to put civilians literally on top of his military emplacements without regard to their safety. I mean, last time I checked, no UE, NATO or even Warsaw Pact country does that shit. Guess we're all just behind the times or something?
And as for the civilians dying in Iraq due to the embargos..once again, you totally neglict to mention that aid IS being sent, but it's being diverted by Saddam Hussien for the military, and not going to the civilians it's meant for. So, the UN and it's sanctions are not to blame for the 1+million deaths at all, Saddam Hussien is, since HE'S the one not allowing them to recieve the aid that's been sent for over a decade now. Why the hell do you keep neglecting to say that? What the fuck is your twisted agenda? Do you support this sick bastard and what he's doing? Or do you simply hate the US so much that you don't give a shit who you ignore if it means taking a stab at the US?
We know Saddam isn't a direct threat to the US...not via the missles he's got. He is a direct threat via the terrorists he's trained and equipped and given money to. He's a direct threat to the entire Middle East, as he's clearly proven more then a few times. We don't need the oil, and we won't go in and take or control the oil, that's been made abundantly clear, which you've also neglected to mention, time and again. The US wants to put and end to the bullshit that's been going on for over a decade now. Saddam agreed to certain terms when he surrendered, and he has yet to abide by them. Enough is enough. The US is willing and able to enforce the UN terms, but we're TRYING to get the UN to do it, peacefully if possible. Certain countries do NOT want anything to happen to Saddam, since the potential embarrassment for them is extremely high. The world KNOWS these countries have been breaking the embargos, we KNOW they've made under the table deals for their oil, and we're tired of looking the other way while so many people die because of it.
You want to blame someone for the Iraqi civilians who've died over the last 12 yrs? France, Belgium, Germany...they've paid for the executions, so give them their credit.
The enemy is attacking, let us prey.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 17 guests