THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

revel wrote:

Furthermore, this was out of line:

Quote:
Carry on feigning concern for the victims of collateral damage while pretending you don't know Saddam averaged a like number of innocents murdered throughout his rule.

You cannot divine into our minds and know if we are feigning or not over an impersonal internet message board.

Do the math on Saddam's average murder rate including starvation (which has to be about 1 rung above being tortured to death on the worst-ways-to-go scale), compared to even the less conservative estimates on collateral damage and you'll see that the net result is almost guaranteed to end up less Iraqi dead. Now I know a million dead is such a big number it's hard to get your head around so compare it to your hometown. Use your calculator. You are correct in assuming Saddam wasn't the worst out there (Kim is) but he's a contender you wouldn't switch hands if you were ranking them. Anyway you slice it; downplaying a million murders while whimpering about thousands of accidental deaths is disingenuous at best. I was NOT out of line. Want proof? Look at Gel's last idiotic post. Idea

Ps. Dennis Miller was hilarious tonight and they're replaying it on CNBC now.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

revel wrote:
Furthermore, this was out of line:

Quote:
Carry on feigning concern for the victims of collateral damage while pretending you don't know Saddam averaged a like number of innocents murdered throughout his rule.

You cannot divine into our minds and know if we are feigning or not over an impersonal internet message board.
Do the math on Saddam's average murder rate including starvation (which has to be about 1 rung above being tortured to death on the worst-ways-to-go scale), compared to even the less conservative estimates on collateral damage and you'll see that the net result is almost guaranteed to end up less Iraqi dead. Now I know a million dead is such a big number it's hard to get your head around so compare it to your hometown. Use your calculator. You are correct in assuming Saddam wasn't the worst out there (Kim is) but he's a contender you wouldn't switch hands if you were ranking them. Anyway you slice it; downplaying a million murders while whimpering about thousands of accidental deaths is disingenuous at best. I was NOT out of line. Want proof? Look at Gel's last idiotic post.

Ps. Dennis Miller was hilarious tonight and they're replaying it on CNBC now.

Not idioic at all. Why do you insist on name calling, it does little to bolster any arguement you have. I am trying to understand your penchant for reducing human misery to a statistic. I've given up on your never answering a question.

0 Replies

anybody that likes dennis miller...

Anyway, since you concede that Saddam is/was not the worse killer dictator operating right now, then it made little sense to invade a country based on the fact that he killed and/or tortured innocent people. You are only supposed to go war when it is necessary and urgent. If Saddam was doing a genocide at the time that George Bush wanted to go to war I would have been 100% behind it. There are simply too many other countries that have dictators that abuse their citizens for Iraq to have to stood out based on that reason.

Calling Gelisgesti's post idiotic is out of line as well.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

anybody that likes dennis miller...

Anyway, since you concede that Saddam is/was not the worse killer dictator operating right now, then it made little sense to invade a country based on the fact that he killed and/or tortured innocent people. You are only supposed to go war when it is necessary and urgent. If Saddam was doing a genocide at the time that George Bush wanted to go to war I would have been 100% behind it. There are simply too many other countries that have dictators that abuse their citizens for Iraq to have to stood out based on that reason.

Calling Gelisgesti's post idiotic is out of line as well.

We invaded Iraq to create a modern relatively democratic state in one of the worst Moslem countries of the former Ottoman Empire, and the one which, based on its remarkable history and culture, had the best chance to thrive under such a system and therefore influence the development of neighboring Moslem countries. We also took a particularly cruel tyrant off the backs of his people and removed a regime that had started two aggressive wars with its privncipal neighbors, attempted to exterminate the Kurdish portion of its population and which had suppressed an uprising by its Shi ite minority with particular ferocity. We did all this because the regime and the supra-national problems of islamist zealotry and terrorism were a direct and serious threat to our security.

I believe these reasons are more than sufficient, whether or not Saddam was "doing a genocide" at the moment of our invasion. There was no evidence whatsoever that he had reformed or would not repeat his previous crimes. On the contrary he was cornered, desperate, and particularly dangerous.

There are many tyrannical regimes in the world that abuse their citizens, From Sudan to Zimbabwe, North Korea, Myammar, China, and many others. We strike at the ones that threaten us: that is what makes it "necessary and urgent".

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

We strike at the ones that threaten us: that is what makes it "necessary and urgent".

Yes ... I remember, you usually do so, e.g. in Grenada ...

0 Replies

We supported that tyrant in one of his wars against his neighbors because that war was convenient to our interests seeing as how that neighbor had ousted the tyrant we had installed there, reacting with rabid anti-American sentiment thereof. Those tyrants were our tyrant.

There was no threat of "supra-national problems of islamist zealotry and terrorism" emanating from Iraq at the time our tyrant was in power. Our tyrant's regime was thoroughly secular, and regularly put down islamist uprisings. The islamists were actually against our tyrant. Our tyrant harshly put down the Kurdish uprising there because they had colluded with, and were supported by, the aforementioned neighbor, one of the persons of the triumvirate and trinitarian axishead of evil. The "direct and serious threat to our security" amounted to a lot of hot air, bluster and outright fraudulent incitement by our administration.

At the moment of invasion our tyrant was an urgent danger in our own minds.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
We strike at the ones that threaten us: that is what makes it "necessary and urgent".

Yes ... I remember, you usually do so, e.g. in Grenada ...

Hah, good one, Walter. And right on, Infrablue.

The stench of hypocrisy here is appalling.

0 Replies

It was just a rehersal. Less significant than the recent French intervention in Ivory Coast, but not quite up to the British in the Falklands.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

... not quite up to the British in the Falklands.

Oops, forgot and/or didn't know that Grenada was an US territory.

0 Replies

georgeob1

infrablue's answer was better than I could do, so I will just let his answer, answer for me.

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

Not idioic at all. Why do you insist on name calling, it does little to bolster any arguement you have. I am trying to understand your penchant for reducing human misery to a statistic. I've given up on your never answering a question.

I called you no names and your question remains idiotic. I had already sourced the number for Joe, here. Your question:

Gel wrote:

You piss and moan about a million people murdered ...... is that number a breaking point for you or did you pull it out of the air?

... is the perfect example of looking past a cited horror in hopes of scoring political points... I have already made it vividly clear that I find the total significant because it so dramatically overshadows the smaller number of collateral damage. It was pointless baiting on your part, so I accurately labeled it an idiotic post because an idiotic post it was. Got that?

revel wrote:

Anyway, since you concede that Saddam is/was not the worse killer dictator operating right now, then it made little sense to invade a country based on the fact that he killed and/or tortured innocent people. You are only supposed to go war when it is necessary and urgent. If Saddam was doing a genocide at the time that George Bush wanted to go to war I would have been 100% behind it.

You sound like the UN quibbling over the definition of genocide. Willfully starving millions (including 500,000 kids 5 and under) to death doesn't qualify as genocide to you? This didn't happen because Iraq is a poor nation the OFF program provided the necessary funding and Saddam built Billion Dollar Castles instead. That's 1 person out of every 25 living in the country murdered by a minority leadership for dog's sake. How do you define genocide?

revel wrote:

There are simply too many other countries that have dictators that abuse their citizens for Iraq to have to stood out based on that reason.

Sadly there are many countries who the world powers (especially us) allow to suffer dictator abuse. But, make no mistake Revel; if you were to rank them in terms of heinousness or numbers murdered, you wouldn't make it to your second hand. Saddam was no run of the mill A-hole the way some partisan fools would have him portrayed. Slobodan Milosevic was a piker compared to this guy. What you are doing now; is repeating ci's groundless, idiotic assertion that people think we invaded to free Iraqis. The fact that that's untrue doesn't mean we shouldn't have the Millions of victims are just as dead whether that fits your political predisposition or not. Ignoring that fact in favor of partisan squabbling is disgusting.

revel wrote:

Calling Gelisgesti's post idiotic is out of line as well.

No, Gel's post was idiotic and shouldn't have required the topic diverting explanation above.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
... not quite up to the British in the Falklands.

Oops, forgot and/or didn't know that Grenada was an US territory.

Yes. I don't think Ronald Reagan and his advisers knew that Granada is actually British sovereign territory, head of state, Her Madge. If they did know, and went ahead anyway, what does that say about our "alliance" and all these fine words more recently said to Mr Blair in Washington and New York?

The Falklands, also British, invaded by Argentina, were populated by British and we attacked back. Not all Americans were in favour of granting us access to the base on Ascension Island to make that possible. So the "alliance" is called upon when it suits the US, not necessarily at other times.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Gelisgesti wrote:
Not idioic at all. Why do you insist on name calling, it does little to bolster any arguement you have. I am trying to understand your penchant for reducing human misery to a statistic. I've given up on your never answering a question.
I called you no names and your question remains idiotic. I had already sourced the number for Joe, here. Your question:

Gel wrote:
You piss and moan about a million people murdered ...... is that number a breaking point for you or did you pull it out of the air?
... is the perfect example of looking past a cited horror in hopes of scoring political points... I have already made it vividly clear that I find the total significant because it so dramatically overshadows the smaller number of collateral damage. It was pointless baiting on your part, so I accurately labeled it an idiotic post because an idiotic post it was. Got that?

revel wrote:
Anyway, since you concede that Saddam is/was not the worse killer dictator operating right now, then it made little sense to invade a country based on the fact that he killed and/or tortured innocent people. You are only supposed to go war when it is necessary and urgent. If Saddam was doing a genocide at the time that George Bush wanted to go to war I would have been 100% behind it.
You sound like the UN quibbling over the definition of genocide. Willfully starving millions (including 500,000 kids 5 and under) to death doesn't qualify as genocide to you? This didn't happen because Iraq is a poor nation the OFF program provided the necessary funding and Saddam built Billion Dollar Castles instead. That's 1 person out of every 25 living in the country murdered by a minority leadership for dog's sake. How do you define genocide?

revel wrote:
There are simply too many other countries that have dictators that abuse their citizens for Iraq to have to stood out based on that reason.
Sadly there are many countries who the world powers (especially us) allow to suffer dictator abuse. But, make no mistake Revel; if you were to rank them in terms of heinousness or numbers murdered, you wouldn't make it to your second hand. Saddam was no run of the mill A-hole the way some partisan fools would have him portrayed. Slobodan Milosevic was a piker compared to this guy. What you are doing now; is repeating ci's groundless, idiotic assertion that people think we invaded to free Iraqis. The fact that that's untrue doesn't mean we shouldn't have the Millions of victims are just as dead whether that fits your political predisposition or not. Ignoring that fact in favor of partisan squabbling is disgusting.

revel wrote:
Calling Gelisgesti's post idiotic is out of line as well.
No, Gel's post was idiotic and shouldn't have required the topic diverting explanation above.

I'm out of patience with you .... yes my question was baiting. You use numbers to serve as the substance of your logic ..... a million people gosh, that has got to be serious .... never mind the more substantive question 'how could this happen' or 'how could it be prevented'?
Let me phrase it this way .... would a million million murders place Saddam above or below Jim Jones?

0 Replies

http://www.jordantimes.com/fri/news/news6.htm

sense and against all odds hold out hope for Iran). But if you read yesterday's news, this was happening all over the ME and elsewhere. There were women demonstrating for their rights in Bahrain, people in Egypt were demonstrating against the hereditary rule, Kuwaitis are seriously hunting down the bad guys, Danish imams were telling Islamic thugs to take a hike.

Let the hand-wringing continue, but let's remember there are those like Kadivar, who remains optimistic, and deserves our attention, too.

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

I'm out of patience with you .... yes my question was baiting. You use numbers to serve as the substance of your logic ..... a million people gosh, that has got to be serious .... never mind the more substantive question 'how could this happen' or 'how could it be prevented'?

Who ignores the more substantive questions? I happen to be a very solution oriented guy, Gel.
Step one: Identify the problem.
Step two: Eradicate it.
Where'd I lose you?

Gelisgesti wrote:

Let me phrase it this way .... would a million million murders place Saddam above or below Jim Jones?

Resisting a near overpowering urge to label this idiotic. What the hell are you asking me? Would a trillion murders be worse than a handful? Rolling Eyes

Is that not a rhetorical question?

JW- Good story, thanks.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Gelisgesti wrote:
I'm out of patience with you .... yes my question was baiting. You use numbers to serve as the substance of your logic ..... a million people gosh, that has got to be serious .... never mind the more substantive question 'how could this happen' or 'how could it be prevented'?
Who ignores the more substantive questions? I happen to be a very solution oriented guy, Gel.
Step one: Identify the problem.
Step two: Eradicate it.
Where'd I lose you?

Gelisgesti wrote:
Let me phrase it this way .... would a million million murders place Saddam above or below Jim Jones?
Resisting a near overpowering urge to label this idiotic. What the hell are you asking me? Would a trillion murders be worse than a handful? Is that not a rhetorical question?

JW- Good story, thanks.

Once again questions for answers ..... then again maybe you don't have any.

0 Replies

Revel writes

Quote:

There are simply too many other countries that have dictators that abuse their citizens for Iraq to have to stood out based on that reason.

One of the lamest bits of political rhetoric out there is that we 'shouldn't have done A' because 'we weren't doing B'. That makes as much sense as passing up the sale on celery because there is no sale on lettuce that day. When you clean your house, do you do every room all at the same time or pick one to start in? Does any thinking person think we have the capability, resources, or inclination to take on all the world's problems/dictators/evils simultaneously?

We went into Iraq to deal with WMD. Though those were not found (yet--there are still plenty of experts who think they are somewhere--) we found plenty else to justify the invasion, not the least of which were mass graves containing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, starving children and adults, and one of the most brutal regimes on the planet.

The result to date: no more brutal regime, no more mass graves, no more starving children and adults, an infrastructure that is slowly being rebuilt, a nation more friendly than hostile to the United States, and a real opportunity for there to be a shining jewel of democratic government in the midst of one of the most repressive, regressive areas on earth. This coupled with the fact that Lybia, to avoid a similar fate as Iraq, is voluntarily cleaning up its own act and Iran and North Korea are at least talking to us again.

Was it worth it? Time will tell. But all but the most bitter partisan and angry anti-war people out there seem to think it is and/or will be.

From my e-mail today (I have the last names but have omitted them as I do not have permission to post them on the internet):

"Hi:

I just wanted to share this email with everyone. This came from Mark tonight. What an incredible story to tell... I pray that you will share this email with others to show what kind of impact our military service men and women are truly having in Iraq.
A special thank you to Debbie Jacks, she is Mark's brother's wife's mother; she sent over several boxes of toys/stuffed animals to Mark for the Iraqi children. This little girl was holding a bear she sent, how do we know? Mark said it was an "Ohio beanie baby", and she sent over lots and lots of them.
So thank you very much, your simple gift easily saved the life of my husband and many other Marines.... Thank you Debbie for your heart, and for children who may never see until you see them in heaven.... Read the story and you'll see why!

In His Grip,
Colleen F.
Honored wife of GySgt Mark F. USMC
December 12th, 2004

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Beautiful,

Just wanted to write to you and tell you another story about an experience we had over here. As you know, I asked for toys for the Iraqi children over here and several people (Americans that support us) sent them over by the box. On each patrol we take through the city, we take as many toys as will fit in our pockets and hand them out as we can. The kids take the toys and run to show them off as if they were worth a million bucks. We are as friendly as we can be to everyone we see, but especially so with the kids. Most of them don't have any idea what is going on and are completely innocent in all of this.

On one such patrol, our lead security vehicle stopped in the middle of the street. This is not normal and is very unsafe, so the following vehicles began to inquire over the radio. The lead vehicle reported a little girl sitting in the road and said she just would not budge. The command vehicle told the lead to simply go around her and to be kind as they did. The street was wide enough to allow this maneuver and so they waved to her as they drove around.

As the vehicles went around her, I soon saw her sitting there and in her arms she was clutching a little bear that we had handed her a few patrols back. Feeling an immediate connection to the girl, I radioed that we were going to stop. The rest of the convoy paused and I got out the make sure she was OK. The little girl looked scared and concerned, but there was a warmth in her eyes toward me. As I knelt down to talk to her, she moved over and pointed to a mine in the road. Immediately a cordon was set as the Marine convoy assumed a defensive posture around the site. The mine was destroyed in place.

It was the heart of an American that sent that toy. It was the heart of an American that gave that toy to that little girl. It was the heart of an American that protected that convoy from that mine. Sure, she was a little Iraqi girl and she had no knowledge of purple mountains' majesty or fruited plains. It was a heart of acceptance, of tolerance, of peace and grace, even through the inconveniences of conflict that saved that convoy from hitting that mine. Those attributes are what keep Americans' hearts beating. She may have no affiliation at all with the United States, but she knows what it is to be brave and if we can continue to support her and her new government, she will know what it is to be free. Isn't that what Americans are, the free and the brave?

If you sent over a toy or a Marine (US Service member) you took part in this. You are a reason that Iraq has to believe in a better future. Thank you so much for supporting us and for supporting our cause over here.

Semper Fi,

Mark J. F.

GySgt / USMC"

0 Replies

Foxfrye, I see no reason to get into the whole WMD again; you read and respond to how you want so it is a waste of time.

JW, I hope that Iran does end up being more democratic and I hope that the Shitte's that will probably will be in power does not enforce strict taliban like rules and shares powers with other factions in Iraq.

However if they do, we will have no choice but to let them since they were elected by democratic means with the people voicing their desires.

bill, like foxfrye said we are not the savior of the entire world. Iraq was not worse than other nations in the same way that Saddam starved and oppressed his citizens. Some of those nations actually do have WMD.

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know