Publius
12-13-2003, 09:36 AM
Okay, I have no problem with you burning the American flag in your signature, however I do have a problem with the text beneath it...
yes, the flag is burning. chill. i dont pick on you for condoning the killing of innocent civilians everyday.
How do the rest of us condone the death of innocent civilians? Has ANYONE here said "I'm glad innocent people are dying in Iraq" EVER? No, not a single person has, and if anyone thinks that then they have serious mental issues.
I'm, once again, assuming you're referring to post-war Iraq here. However if you'd delve deeper into the issue you'd see that, of the 1,500 or so civilian deaths since the end of the war in Baghdad, the VAST majority of them have been IRAQI ON IRAQI violence. Granted there have been a select few times when U.S. forces have accidently killed innocent civilians in the post-war situations during mop-up actions on the street, but no soldier is going around just randomly shooting people as the IRAQIS THEMSELVES ARE.
So you want to preach about the deaths of innocent civilians? Book a flight to Baghdad and go talk to the average Iraqi walking around Baghdad with a submachine gun and shooting at anyone that gets in his way. You continually complain about the U.S. presence in Iraq, yet it is that very presence which has prevented the country from falling into TOTAL anarchy and thus sending the casualty rate even HIGHER.
Now, lets examine why it is the United States was right when it went into Iraq. Not Bush's various explanations (save for one), but the REAL reasons why the U.S. military was just and right in overthrowing Hussein by force.
1979: Hussein comes to power in Iraq and massacres all opposition by drawing them into a single chamber for a supposed "welcoming" speech, then having them taken out one by one and shot. This is the sort of thing done by dictators the world over throughout time, the brutal and swift destruction of political opposition upon one's ascent to power. This became the norm for Hussein throughout his reign, never once could a political opposition form because the moment he caught a whiff of it that opposition and its families were brutally murdered by Hussein's forces.
"Some years ago a European interviewer nervously quoted reports that the Baghdad authorities might, on occasions, have tortured and perhaps even killed opponents of the regime.
Was this true? Saddam Hussein was not offended. Rather, he seemed surprised by the naivete of the question. 'Of course,' he replied. 'What do you expect if they oppose the regime?'"
THIS is the kind of man we were dealing with, one who was perfectly at ease killing off every bit of his opposition.
So what did Hussein do to his people as a whole? Well lets see... He systematically used chemical weapons to obliterate as much of the Kurd population as possible in the north. Thats right, he gassed an ethnic group because it was different from his own... Sounds a lot like Hitler to me, and did we not go in and remove Hitler from power for such atrocities along with his aggression? Is this not the killing of innocents on a MUCH larger scale than the U.S. has EVER done?
To put down a rebellion of Shi'ia Muslims in the south he razed entire towns and drained the marshland upon which they relied to grow food and get drinking water. Thus children and women were starved and dehydrated by this cruel dictator. Are we not justified in removing such a man?
In 1980 the Iraqi dictator launched an invasion of neighboring Iran, expecting to quickly snatch the Shatt al-Arab waterway from the Iranians. What resulted was an eight year long war in which hundreds of thousands of people died on both sides (and few received proper burials, as the U.S. discovered after the invasion this year when we unearthed warehouses filled with the decomposed bodies of Iraq-Iran war casualties). Finally in 1988 he agreed to a ceasefire with the Iranians.
In 1990 he again became an aggressor, invading Kuwait on August 2nd. We all know what happened next, the U.S. intervened at the request of the Kuwaiti government, touching off the Persian Gulf War in which the U.S. quickly repelled the Iraqi troops from Kuwaiti soil, but not before Hussein ordered his troops to set fire to the Kuwait oil fields, burning off millions of barrells of oil and causing immense ecological damage.
As a result of this war Iraq found itself under heavy U.N. sanctions which Hussein refused to follow, resulting in stronger sanctions which brought misery to his people.
So, as it comes down to it, what kind of leader was Hussein? A cruel self-interested dictator with no regard for human life nor the environment. During his reign of terror he killed millions of people, directly and indirectly, and caused immense damage to the environment of the area.
And to top it all off, Hussein also had a long history of supporting terrorist operations against Israel and the West. Not only did he provide financial support from his own vast supply of money (while 95% of his citizens lived in squalor, mind you), but he also provided them with safehavens and the moral support of a government backing their work. So not only was he cruel to his own citizens and the environment, but he actively supported such things as bus bombing is Israel cities, hijackings, etc.
Though he may not have had a direct hand in September 11th, the fact remains that many of those who were involved in planning and execution at one time took asylum in Iraq and were supported by the Iraqi dictator.
Now that we've covered WHY we took Hussein out of power, lets examine the facts once again...
Iraq under Hussein was crippled by sanctions. Post-Hussein Iraq is being rebuilt almost exclusively with American and British money, leaving the vast oil fields of Iraq for later economic profit.
Iraqis under Hussein lived in constant and unending fear of death at the hands of a dictator who had no qualms with gassing his own citizens. Post-Hussein Iraq has experienced a period of lawlessness which is beginning to subside and be replaced by a system of justice which was nonexistent under the Hussein regime.
Hussein killed MILLIONS PURPOSEFULLY. The United States military has killed a few thousand UNINTENTIONALLY. During World War II civilian casualties were measured in the hundreds of thousands and the millions, today for civilian casualties to breech 10,000 is considered a travesty. U.S. soldiers have not inflicted 10,000 civilian casualties in Iraq, especially when you consider that the VAST majority of civilian deaths are as a result of IRAQIS THEMSELVES attacking each other and provoking American soldiers in areas where civilian casualties are practically impossible to avoid.
So are you saying we should just let our soldiers be shot and killed if theres even the possibility that someone not shooting back may get caught in the crossfire? The Iraqis shooting at our troops have no such misgivings, why should our troops have to sustain unnecessary casualties, when the possible civilian deaths are far outnumbered by those that occurred under Hussein?
yes, the flag is burning. chill. i dont pick on you for condoning the killing of innocent civilians everyday.
How do the rest of us condone the death of innocent civilians? Has ANYONE here said "I'm glad innocent people are dying in Iraq" EVER? No, not a single person has, and if anyone thinks that then they have serious mental issues.
I'm, once again, assuming you're referring to post-war Iraq here. However if you'd delve deeper into the issue you'd see that, of the 1,500 or so civilian deaths since the end of the war in Baghdad, the VAST majority of them have been IRAQI ON IRAQI violence. Granted there have been a select few times when U.S. forces have accidently killed innocent civilians in the post-war situations during mop-up actions on the street, but no soldier is going around just randomly shooting people as the IRAQIS THEMSELVES ARE.
So you want to preach about the deaths of innocent civilians? Book a flight to Baghdad and go talk to the average Iraqi walking around Baghdad with a submachine gun and shooting at anyone that gets in his way. You continually complain about the U.S. presence in Iraq, yet it is that very presence which has prevented the country from falling into TOTAL anarchy and thus sending the casualty rate even HIGHER.
Now, lets examine why it is the United States was right when it went into Iraq. Not Bush's various explanations (save for one), but the REAL reasons why the U.S. military was just and right in overthrowing Hussein by force.
1979: Hussein comes to power in Iraq and massacres all opposition by drawing them into a single chamber for a supposed "welcoming" speech, then having them taken out one by one and shot. This is the sort of thing done by dictators the world over throughout time, the brutal and swift destruction of political opposition upon one's ascent to power. This became the norm for Hussein throughout his reign, never once could a political opposition form because the moment he caught a whiff of it that opposition and its families were brutally murdered by Hussein's forces.
"Some years ago a European interviewer nervously quoted reports that the Baghdad authorities might, on occasions, have tortured and perhaps even killed opponents of the regime.
Was this true? Saddam Hussein was not offended. Rather, he seemed surprised by the naivete of the question. 'Of course,' he replied. 'What do you expect if they oppose the regime?'"
THIS is the kind of man we were dealing with, one who was perfectly at ease killing off every bit of his opposition.
So what did Hussein do to his people as a whole? Well lets see... He systematically used chemical weapons to obliterate as much of the Kurd population as possible in the north. Thats right, he gassed an ethnic group because it was different from his own... Sounds a lot like Hitler to me, and did we not go in and remove Hitler from power for such atrocities along with his aggression? Is this not the killing of innocents on a MUCH larger scale than the U.S. has EVER done?
To put down a rebellion of Shi'ia Muslims in the south he razed entire towns and drained the marshland upon which they relied to grow food and get drinking water. Thus children and women were starved and dehydrated by this cruel dictator. Are we not justified in removing such a man?
In 1980 the Iraqi dictator launched an invasion of neighboring Iran, expecting to quickly snatch the Shatt al-Arab waterway from the Iranians. What resulted was an eight year long war in which hundreds of thousands of people died on both sides (and few received proper burials, as the U.S. discovered after the invasion this year when we unearthed warehouses filled with the decomposed bodies of Iraq-Iran war casualties). Finally in 1988 he agreed to a ceasefire with the Iranians.
In 1990 he again became an aggressor, invading Kuwait on August 2nd. We all know what happened next, the U.S. intervened at the request of the Kuwaiti government, touching off the Persian Gulf War in which the U.S. quickly repelled the Iraqi troops from Kuwaiti soil, but not before Hussein ordered his troops to set fire to the Kuwait oil fields, burning off millions of barrells of oil and causing immense ecological damage.
As a result of this war Iraq found itself under heavy U.N. sanctions which Hussein refused to follow, resulting in stronger sanctions which brought misery to his people.
So, as it comes down to it, what kind of leader was Hussein? A cruel self-interested dictator with no regard for human life nor the environment. During his reign of terror he killed millions of people, directly and indirectly, and caused immense damage to the environment of the area.
And to top it all off, Hussein also had a long history of supporting terrorist operations against Israel and the West. Not only did he provide financial support from his own vast supply of money (while 95% of his citizens lived in squalor, mind you), but he also provided them with safehavens and the moral support of a government backing their work. So not only was he cruel to his own citizens and the environment, but he actively supported such things as bus bombing is Israel cities, hijackings, etc.
Though he may not have had a direct hand in September 11th, the fact remains that many of those who were involved in planning and execution at one time took asylum in Iraq and were supported by the Iraqi dictator.
Now that we've covered WHY we took Hussein out of power, lets examine the facts once again...
Iraq under Hussein was crippled by sanctions. Post-Hussein Iraq is being rebuilt almost exclusively with American and British money, leaving the vast oil fields of Iraq for later economic profit.
Iraqis under Hussein lived in constant and unending fear of death at the hands of a dictator who had no qualms with gassing his own citizens. Post-Hussein Iraq has experienced a period of lawlessness which is beginning to subside and be replaced by a system of justice which was nonexistent under the Hussein regime.
Hussein killed MILLIONS PURPOSEFULLY. The United States military has killed a few thousand UNINTENTIONALLY. During World War II civilian casualties were measured in the hundreds of thousands and the millions, today for civilian casualties to breech 10,000 is considered a travesty. U.S. soldiers have not inflicted 10,000 civilian casualties in Iraq, especially when you consider that the VAST majority of civilian deaths are as a result of IRAQIS THEMSELVES attacking each other and provoking American soldiers in areas where civilian casualties are practically impossible to avoid.
So are you saying we should just let our soldiers be shot and killed if theres even the possibility that someone not shooting back may get caught in the crossfire? The Iraqis shooting at our troops have no such misgivings, why should our troops have to sustain unnecessary casualties, when the possible civilian deaths are far outnumbered by those that occurred under Hussein?