ByeBye, Saddam
Friday, December 29, 2006 by Jafo | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Can't say it was 'nice knowing you'.
The world is theoretically now a slightly 'better' place.
Some improve the world with their arrival....others by their departure.
 |
|
Page 2 of 2 | |
|
|---|
RadialFX
Reply #22 Saturday, December 30, 2006 11:57 AM
Starkers, I'm not trying to create too much of an argument here, BUT, what you quoted and your response was VERY selective. My VERY next sentence was:
You chose to comment on one sentence leaving the very next one out. Not only that, but your comment implied that my attitude was just the opposite. Why don't you take the very next sentence in reply #13 up there and let me know what you think. Thanks
Reply #22 Saturday, December 30, 2006 11:57 AM
| Benifits? Given there are 20+ Iraqis dying every day, I don't know there any benifits to measure, and it'd be certain if you were able to ask the people of Iraq themselves, they'd tell you there were none. There are no winners in war...just casualties. |
Starkers, I'm not trying to create too much of an argument here, BUT, what you quoted and your response was VERY selective. My VERY next sentence was:
| Although it is pretty easy to measure the negative. |
You chose to comment on one sentence leaving the very next one out. Not only that, but your comment implied that my attitude was just the opposite. Why don't you take the very next sentence in reply #13 up there and let me know what you think. Thanks
Chasbo
Reply #23 Saturday, December 30, 2006 12:58 PM
Reply #23 Saturday, December 30, 2006 12:58 PM
Zubaz: It is because of Bush's invasion that many many innocent lives have been lost and that invasion was based on LIES. Lies told to the people by their so-called president. Don't say that this fiasco is the will of the people when they were mis-lead about the reasons for it. This situation is outrageous! Bush needs to be held accountable for it.
I wouldn't be bringing up the death penalty in Texas. Check this article out
WWW Link
I hope this isn't the kind of Democracy we are bringing to Iraq.
God will fix this? I am getting disturbed now. This is 2007, right?
I wouldn't be bringing up the death penalty in Texas. Check this article out
WWW Link
I hope this isn't the kind of Democracy we are bringing to Iraq.
God will fix this? I am getting disturbed now. This is 2007, right?
Bichur
Reply #24 Saturday, December 30, 2006 1:13 PM
Reply #24 Saturday, December 30, 2006 1:13 PM
Texas
where "He deserved killing" can be a viable defense.
where "He deserved killing" can be a viable defense.
ZubaZ
Reply #25 Saturday, December 30, 2006 1:26 PM
We have no way of telling how many more Iraqis would have died if Saddam was still in power. And remember, it wasn't Bush's invasion, it was a coalition. And I don't agree with your arguement about lies. The WMD lies were first spread by Saddam and the governmetns of the UK and the US believed them to be credible.
The local cases that have ended in the death penalty seemed warrented. If I trust the local cases . . I'll trust the remote ones too.
And while I think that Amnesty Internation serves a good purpose, I trust thier statistics as little as almost any other and less than some. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
I don't understand what you mean by this. God doesn't exist because it's 2007 and we should know that God is no real? You can believe what you want and I'll do the same but if that's your arguement, you might want to try a little harder.
I believe (on faith and no more . . .not the strongest argument either
) that there is something beyond us that has a larger purpose. And if we whack someone wrongly, that person will be taken care of appropriatly by that higher power.
Reply #25 Saturday, December 30, 2006 1:26 PM
| It is because of Bush's invasion that many many innocent lives have been lost |
We have no way of telling how many more Iraqis would have died if Saddam was still in power. And remember, it wasn't Bush's invasion, it was a coalition. And I don't agree with your arguement about lies. The WMD lies were first spread by Saddam and the governmetns of the UK and the US believed them to be credible.
| I wouldn't be bringing up the death penalty in Texas. |
The local cases that have ended in the death penalty seemed warrented. If I trust the local cases . . I'll trust the remote ones too.
And while I think that Amnesty Internation serves a good purpose, I trust thier statistics as little as almost any other and less than some. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
| God will fix this? I am getting disturbed now. This is 2007, right? |
I don't understand what you mean by this. God doesn't exist because it's 2007 and we should know that God is no real? You can believe what you want and I'll do the same but if that's your arguement, you might want to try a little harder.
I believe (on faith and no more . . .not the strongest argument either
) that there is something beyond us that has a larger purpose. And if we whack someone wrongly, that person will be taken care of appropriatly by that higher power.
Lantec
Reply #26 Saturday, December 30, 2006 1:51 PM
To apply that Historically would be to say that most French people would have been much better off if the Allies had just left Hitler and his buddies in France or maybe left the Japanese in the Phillipines. There is always a period after liberation that includes adjustments to freedom, vengeance & retalliation for prior acts and involves grabs for power. Whats going on there now is vengenace for things which happened during Saddams reign and the fight for control with not only Iraqis involved but also folks from Iran, Yemen, and every other muslim sect that wants more power in the region. There's also groups from outside of Iraq who've taken the opportunity to strike at the infidels.
Reply #26 Saturday, December 30, 2006 1:51 PM
| U.S. soldiers commenting that many, many Iraqi's are much worse off since the invasion, I have to wonder if they were truly liberated or further plunged into deeper chaos, given almost 60,000 Iraqi civilians have died in needless violence since Saddam was deposed....not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqi military and police personel. |
To apply that Historically would be to say that most French people would have been much better off if the Allies had just left Hitler and his buddies in France or maybe left the Japanese in the Phillipines. There is always a period after liberation that includes adjustments to freedom, vengeance & retalliation for prior acts and involves grabs for power. Whats going on there now is vengenace for things which happened during Saddams reign and the fight for control with not only Iraqis involved but also folks from Iran, Yemen, and every other muslim sect that wants more power in the region. There's also groups from outside of Iraq who've taken the opportunity to strike at the infidels.
starkers
Reply #27 Saturday, December 30, 2006 4:39 PM
My apologies, RadialFX. However, my comment was more a generalised 'how could there be any benifits' than a direct response to what you said. I guess it's just that I can't see ant benifits to the Iraqi people at this stage....so yeah, I am seeing the negative of which you speak and agree that learning how to do it better (without a war) next time would be the greatest positve to come from this debacle of modern history. So in essence, then, my comment supports yours....it is pretty easy to measure the negative, and that's largely due to there being too few benifits to mention, if any.
When modern warfare is largely seen as mechanised with tanks, guns, bombs and other military hardware, it's much easier to say "well we sure kicked his arse", but when you put a human face to it and tally the bodies of soldiers and civilians alike, it takes on a completely different perspective....moreso if one of those casualties happens to be a loved one.
Serial killers in many parts of the world are summarily executed for mutilating their victims, yet here we have a president and dozens of politicians who sanctioned this war and who are responsible for mutilating tens of thousands of people...yet they still walk free and are even applauded for their actions. I doubt there'd be any applause if the horrors of war were on the doorsteps of those clapping loudest...if the lies which secured a mandate to send young men into battle were fully exposed.
Totally different scenario and not a fair comparison. Hitler and the Japanese were seeking world domination and were invaders in other peoples countries to steal their wealth and resources. Saddam Hussein was a leader in his own country and far from imposing his will on anyone but his own people....and he certainly wasn't on foreign soil as an aggressor stealing others' national resources. The question that remains unanswered here is this, if there are other dictators who are equally responsible for atrocities and other equally evil acts, why was Saddam Hussein alone singled out for removal and not the others?
Sadly, we will never know the truth because the powers that be will never publicly reveal the truth/subterfuge/hidden agendas behind the decision to invade Iraq. We can be almost certain it wasn't the alleged WMD's, so perhaps the public should be backing the powers that be into a corner and asking those hard questions. The outcome won't be the truth, but hopefully those hard questions would have them thinking twice about ever sending young men to die on foreign soil again.
Reply #27 Saturday, December 30, 2006 4:39 PM
You chose to comment on one sentence leaving the very next one out. Not only that, but your comment implied that my attitude was just the opposite. Why don't you take the very next sentence in reply #13 up there and let me know what you think. Thanks |
My apologies, RadialFX. However, my comment was more a generalised 'how could there be any benifits' than a direct response to what you said. I guess it's just that I can't see ant benifits to the Iraqi people at this stage....so yeah, I am seeing the negative of which you speak and agree that learning how to do it better (without a war) next time would be the greatest positve to come from this debacle of modern history. So in essence, then, my comment supports yours....it is pretty easy to measure the negative, and that's largely due to there being too few benifits to mention, if any.
When modern warfare is largely seen as mechanised with tanks, guns, bombs and other military hardware, it's much easier to say "well we sure kicked his arse", but when you put a human face to it and tally the bodies of soldiers and civilians alike, it takes on a completely different perspective....moreso if one of those casualties happens to be a loved one.
Serial killers in many parts of the world are summarily executed for mutilating their victims, yet here we have a president and dozens of politicians who sanctioned this war and who are responsible for mutilating tens of thousands of people...yet they still walk free and are even applauded for their actions. I doubt there'd be any applause if the horrors of war were on the doorsteps of those clapping loudest...if the lies which secured a mandate to send young men into battle were fully exposed.
| To apply that Historically would be to say that most French people would have been much better off if the Allies had just left Hitler and his buddies in France or maybe left the Japanese in the Phillipines. |
Totally different scenario and not a fair comparison. Hitler and the Japanese were seeking world domination and were invaders in other peoples countries to steal their wealth and resources. Saddam Hussein was a leader in his own country and far from imposing his will on anyone but his own people....and he certainly wasn't on foreign soil as an aggressor stealing others' national resources. The question that remains unanswered here is this, if there are other dictators who are equally responsible for atrocities and other equally evil acts, why was Saddam Hussein alone singled out for removal and not the others?
Sadly, we will never know the truth because the powers that be will never publicly reveal the truth/subterfuge/hidden agendas behind the decision to invade Iraq. We can be almost certain it wasn't the alleged WMD's, so perhaps the public should be backing the powers that be into a corner and asking those hard questions. The outcome won't be the truth, but hopefully those hard questions would have them thinking twice about ever sending young men to die on foreign soil again.
ZubaZ
Reply #28 Saturday, December 30, 2006 5:04 PM
While there are still large sections of Iraq that are not better off, there are large sections that are. I don't know about the press in Oz, but the press in the US is almost exclusively reporting on the negative, not the posative aspects of the war. Reconstruction has been going on and many Iraqi people are better off than they were.
Most of the casualties have been caused by Iraqis killing other Iraqis; not Coalition soldiers killing them. The problem isn't with the Coalition occupation, it's with some Iraqis not wanting a democracy of any kind.
Coalition force casualties are higher than they might be because the rules in place put a higher priority on peacekeeping than on keeping themselves safe.
War is a terrible thing. It's sad that we have to settle national or global problems this way. But there is one less tryrant out there today. Maybe Iraq can move forward a little faster now and less people have to die.
Reply #28 Saturday, December 30, 2006 5:04 PM
| it is pretty easy to measure the negative, and that's largely due to there being too few benifits to mention, if any. |
While there are still large sections of Iraq that are not better off, there are large sections that are. I don't know about the press in Oz, but the press in the US is almost exclusively reporting on the negative, not the posative aspects of the war. Reconstruction has been going on and many Iraqi people are better off than they were.
| yet here we have a president and dozens of politicians who sanctioned this war and who are responsible for mutilating tens of thousands of people... |
Most of the casualties have been caused by Iraqis killing other Iraqis; not Coalition soldiers killing them. The problem isn't with the Coalition occupation, it's with some Iraqis not wanting a democracy of any kind.
Coalition force casualties are higher than they might be because the rules in place put a higher priority on peacekeeping than on keeping themselves safe.
War is a terrible thing. It's sad that we have to settle national or global problems this way. But there is one less tryrant out there today. Maybe Iraq can move forward a little faster now and less people have to die.
Chasbo
Reply #30 Saturday, December 30, 2006 8:04 PM
Reply #30 Saturday, December 30, 2006 8:04 PM
TAPPER: What happened to the Kurds was in the 1980's. At the time of The U.S. invasion, after the Gulf War, the WMD's were gone. The U.N. inspections proved that and there haven't been any found since the invasion. Bush has even admmitted it.
Zubaz: I am not questioning your belief in God or God's power. I just think that when people follow an agenda which wrongly ends someones life it has nothing to do with God. Human beings can and should make the difference then. We shouldn't "whack" someone wrongly. If we fix that then we don't have to worry about God taking care of them. I am trying to say that in 2007 we should be enlightened enough to do what is right and I think that is truly what God wants.
You say local cases in Texas seem warrented. My God man we are deciding someones fate here! You say Amnesty Intl. lies but can you prove it? We see that Bush lied about the reason for invasion. That is a fact and not a lie. It's plain for all to see. So because you don't like what Amnesty Intl. is saying you call it lies even though much of what they are saying is based on actual events, facts.
Last of all you say that the deaths are caused by Iraqi killing Iraqi. This is true BUT this would not be going on if Bush had not invaded. You keep saying coaltion forces but in reality the vast majority of forces are U.S. forces. Britain is no more than a puppet for the U.S. anymore and that is sad. 900 Polish troops, what a joke. That's a coaltion? When the U.S. went into Afganistan they had to fly over Pakistan and the way they got the rights was to tell the Pakistanis that if they didn't let them then they'd be bombed into the Stone Age. This is how we spread Democracy and make coaltions.
Zubaz: I am not questioning your belief in God or God's power. I just think that when people follow an agenda which wrongly ends someones life it has nothing to do with God. Human beings can and should make the difference then. We shouldn't "whack" someone wrongly. If we fix that then we don't have to worry about God taking care of them. I am trying to say that in 2007 we should be enlightened enough to do what is right and I think that is truly what God wants.
You say local cases in Texas seem warrented. My God man we are deciding someones fate here! You say Amnesty Intl. lies but can you prove it? We see that Bush lied about the reason for invasion. That is a fact and not a lie. It's plain for all to see. So because you don't like what Amnesty Intl. is saying you call it lies even though much of what they are saying is based on actual events, facts.
Last of all you say that the deaths are caused by Iraqi killing Iraqi. This is true BUT this would not be going on if Bush had not invaded. You keep saying coaltion forces but in reality the vast majority of forces are U.S. forces. Britain is no more than a puppet for the U.S. anymore and that is sad. 900 Polish troops, what a joke. That's a coaltion? When the U.S. went into Afganistan they had to fly over Pakistan and the way they got the rights was to tell the Pakistanis that if they didn't let them then they'd be bombed into the Stone Age. This is how we spread Democracy and make coaltions.
Island Dog
Reply #31 Saturday, December 30, 2006 8:54 PM
Actually sectarian violence was very common before the U.S. invaded. The only difference now is we have the U.S. media involved.
Reply #31 Saturday, December 30, 2006 8:54 PM
| This is true BUT this would not be going on if Bush had not invaded. |
Actually sectarian violence was very common before the U.S. invaded. The only difference now is we have the U.S. media involved.
_TAPPER_
Reply #32 Saturday, December 30, 2006 9:27 PM
I stand corrected...
True, been killing themselves in one way or another for hundreds of years. Radicals on two sides of the same religion.
Reply #32 Saturday, December 30, 2006 9:27 PM
| TAPPER: What happened to the Kurds was in the 1980's. |
I stand corrected...
| Actually sectarian violence was very common before the U.S. invaded. The only difference now is we have the U.S. media involved. |
True, been killing themselves in one way or another for hundreds of years. Radicals on two sides of the same religion.
Threi
Reply #33 Saturday, December 30, 2006 9:55 PM
Reply #33 Saturday, December 30, 2006 9:55 PM
flame on me if you want but i see people glorifying a man's death as wrong...just...wrong.
Even though he was a ruthless dictator and murdered thousands i wish him to rest in peace. And with that i will not speak of this topic again.
Even though he was a ruthless dictator and murdered thousands i wish him to rest in peace. And with that i will not speak of this topic again.
Chasbo
Reply #34 Sunday, December 31, 2006 12:39 AM
Reply #34 Sunday, December 31, 2006 12:39 AM
I am done. Said all I'm gonna say!
Despite all I said: GOD BLESS AMERICA!
And God Bless The Chicago Bears!
Despite all I said: GOD BLESS AMERICA!
And God Bless The Chicago Bears!
Edwin724
Reply #35 Sunday, December 31, 2006 2:23 AM
Reply #35 Sunday, December 31, 2006 2:23 AM
While I'm glad to see him gone, I don't think the violence in Iraq will end anyday soon...those suicide bombers and extremist clerics are not going to give up.
starkers
Reply #36 Sunday, December 31, 2006 6:57 AM
We're not getting a lot of press coverage here in Oz these days, but what we do get is less than encouraging in terms of the quality of life for millions of Iraqis...and I speak not of material possessions or modern goods and services. For most Iraqis, quality of life would be being able to take the dog for a walk without fear of being blown to kingdom come by a roadside bomb....being able to send their children off to school with the knowledge they'll return home safely and not be abducted or killed by insurgents....
Furthermore, I think 'reconstuction' is the key word here...if Iraq's infrastructure hadn't been bombed into obliteration in the first place, there would be no need to rebuild it. It's true there were sectors in the Shi-ite South without adequate power, water and sewerage, and perhaps in parts of the Kurdish North as well, but since the invasion there's a majority, rather than a minority of Iraqis, without those services we're able to take for granted. I can not see any positives in the reconstruction of that which needn't have been destroyed to begin with.
Whilst it is true that the recent spates of killings are due to sectarian violence, Iraqis against Iraqis, there are reports which indicate Iraqi military casualties were under-estimated and could be upwards of 50.000 - 60,000. If that's the case, given there'd be thousands upon thousands of bereaved families and friends, then not only is that horrific in itself, it probably explains the anti-U.S. sentiment and why most Iraqis want it out of their country...and I can't say that I blame them. Despite my intense dislike for 'evil' lil Johnny Howard and his cronies, I wouldn't want a superior military power invading and occupying Oz to shift the balance of power here, either.
Oh, and BTW, I don't blame the military personel for following orders that were based on lies....their oathes to 'service' exonerate and exclude them from all blame.
Furthermore, the Iraqis killing are each other off because the only authority they've known for more than two dacades has been removed....because previously contained sectarian violence is again able to run rampant. Law and order as they knew it was suddenly gone and all hell broke loose in its absence. The whole world condemned Saddam for his iron fist rule, but as is evidenced in the escalation of sectarian violence since his removal, maybe? he saw it was a 'necessary evil' (the lesser of two evils) to establish some semblance of order. I do not condone Saddam's methods, but in light of all the recent violence and talk of civil war, perhaps there was some method to his madness after all. More is the pity that Bush didn't consider the sectarian differences, demographics and political landscape of Iraq before jumpinmg in boots n' all.
Yes, Saddam was ruthless and many innocents lost their lives in the crossfire, but in terms of bloodshed, is that any worse than Bush saying casualties (civilian and/or otherwise) are an accepted fact of war, then sacrificing others lives in order to get the job done? At the end of the day, both leaders knowingly condemned people (both military and civilians alike) to death, and that's a fact I can not happily come to terms with.
BTW, Zubaz, my comments are not directed towards you personally and are not intended to be argumentative....I used the quotes to launch a generalised opinion on the subject at hand, okay!
Reply #36 Sunday, December 31, 2006 6:57 AM
| I don't know about the press in Oz, but the press in the US is almost exclusively reporting on the negative, not the posative aspects of the war. Reconstruction has been going on and many Iraqi people are better off than they were. |
We're not getting a lot of press coverage here in Oz these days, but what we do get is less than encouraging in terms of the quality of life for millions of Iraqis...and I speak not of material possessions or modern goods and services. For most Iraqis, quality of life would be being able to take the dog for a walk without fear of being blown to kingdom come by a roadside bomb....being able to send their children off to school with the knowledge they'll return home safely and not be abducted or killed by insurgents....
Furthermore, I think 'reconstuction' is the key word here...if Iraq's infrastructure hadn't been bombed into obliteration in the first place, there would be no need to rebuild it. It's true there were sectors in the Shi-ite South without adequate power, water and sewerage, and perhaps in parts of the Kurdish North as well, but since the invasion there's a majority, rather than a minority of Iraqis, without those services we're able to take for granted. I can not see any positives in the reconstruction of that which needn't have been destroyed to begin with.
| Most of the casualties have been caused by Iraqis killing other Iraqis; not Coalition soldiers killing them. The problem isn't with the Coalition occupation, it's with some Iraqis not wanting a democracy of any kind. |
Whilst it is true that the recent spates of killings are due to sectarian violence, Iraqis against Iraqis, there are reports which indicate Iraqi military casualties were under-estimated and could be upwards of 50.000 - 60,000. If that's the case, given there'd be thousands upon thousands of bereaved families and friends, then not only is that horrific in itself, it probably explains the anti-U.S. sentiment and why most Iraqis want it out of their country...and I can't say that I blame them. Despite my intense dislike for 'evil' lil Johnny Howard and his cronies, I wouldn't want a superior military power invading and occupying Oz to shift the balance of power here, either.
Oh, and BTW, I don't blame the military personel for following orders that were based on lies....their oathes to 'service' exonerate and exclude them from all blame.
Furthermore, the Iraqis killing are each other off because the only authority they've known for more than two dacades has been removed....because previously contained sectarian violence is again able to run rampant. Law and order as they knew it was suddenly gone and all hell broke loose in its absence. The whole world condemned Saddam for his iron fist rule, but as is evidenced in the escalation of sectarian violence since his removal, maybe? he saw it was a 'necessary evil' (the lesser of two evils) to establish some semblance of order. I do not condone Saddam's methods, but in light of all the recent violence and talk of civil war, perhaps there was some method to his madness after all. More is the pity that Bush didn't consider the sectarian differences, demographics and political landscape of Iraq before jumpinmg in boots n' all.
Yes, Saddam was ruthless and many innocents lost their lives in the crossfire, but in terms of bloodshed, is that any worse than Bush saying casualties (civilian and/or otherwise) are an accepted fact of war, then sacrificing others lives in order to get the job done? At the end of the day, both leaders knowingly condemned people (both military and civilians alike) to death, and that's a fact I can not happily come to terms with.
BTW, Zubaz, my comments are not directed towards you personally and are not intended to be argumentative....I used the quotes to launch a generalised opinion on the subject at hand, okay!
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Saturday, December 30, 2006 11:38 AM
I am so very glad that he was found guilty and hanged by the Iraqi courts. It really is an Iraqi problem that the US (and the rest of the coalition) is assisting with. Most of the deaths since the initial invasion have been Iraqis killing Iraqis over who controls the country.
There are those who support the new government and those that want a new tyranical dictatorship. It is better for the people of Iraq and the global community to not let that happen.
The fact is that for umteen presidents the US has been the global police force. It's not a position that I always support but it is the will of the people as a whole and that's that. If we are going to do the job then we have to do the job right. Staying in Iraq as long as it's needed while power is transferred is what we have to do.
I have lived in Texas most of my life. We kill a good number of criminals here. I don't actually think it deters new crime from others. But you can be damn sure THAT guy won't be hurting anyone else. Same thing here.
{as an aside, God (or whoever) is a better judge than any of us and I am confident that anything that was mis-managed here can be straightened out there