Sorry, but the logic of this escapes me. For one dictator, we must blow off the heads of Iraqi children. For one dictator, we must lob a cruise missile or two at a residential marketplace, killing at least a dozen civilians and injuring many more. Can you imagine how many more dictators the US has just created with these sorts of acts of terror?
Thank you, Malik, for sharing those links.
Look at the bewilderment in the eyes of the Iraqi child above. What sort of liberation does he feel right now? If this is not terrorism, then God only knows what is.
So are we running a score count here - to see who can kill more civilians? Saddam or Bush... ? That's how it appears to me right now. Why stoop to his level?
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
So are we running a score count here - to see who can kill more civilians? Saddam or Bush... ? That's how it appears to me right now. Why stoop to **his* level?
[/QUOTE]
There's an end to to killing after Saddam. There's an end to the sanctions after Saddam. There's an end to the torture after Saddam. Saddam has had 20+ years to add to his scorecard. Give the US 20 weeks to end it. Then the scorecard will stop adding up.
There's an end to to killing after Saddam. There's an end to the sanctions after Saddam. There's an end to the torture after Saddam. Saddam has had 20+ years to add to his scorecard. Give the US 20 weeks to end it. Then the scorecard will stop adding up.
[/QUOTE]
...And there is a beginning of an occuption, the beginning of civil war, tribal clashes...well lets say a second Afghanistan.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Seminole: *There's an **end to to killing* after Saddam. There's an end to the sanctions after Saddam. There's an end to the torture after Saddam. Saddam has had 20+ years to add to his scorecard. Give the US 20 weeks to end it. Then the scorecard will stop adding up.
[/QUOTE]
Seminole, Saddam Hussein should not be one of the leading variables towards ending all of the above. The best way to prove that this is not terrorism, is to stop committing acts in the name of Saddam Hussein - "we would stop bombing if only Saddam would step down, we would end sanctions if only Saddam would leave office, aid would arrive in Basra if only Saddam would die".
By that logic, i believe the US has put itself at an equivalent par with Saddam Hussein. There is no difference if one govt. is going to commit acts - against innocent civilians - thereby using their suffering as a leverage against Saddam. Neither Saddam cares for the Iraqi civilians, and neither does the US.
Seminole, think about it this way - prior to the invasion, how many armchair generals were predicting that even Shi'ites in southern Iraq would not rise up against the Sunni-majority Ba'ath party? These Shi'ites, who have every reason to hate Saddam Hussein, have not risen up against their govt. Indeed why should they - because, from their perspective, what the US is committing against their country is no better than what they have suffered at the hands of Saddam Hussein.
[thumb=B]cluster_comp.JPG[/thumb] A boy cries in a Baghdad hospital after being injured by what Iraqis claim were cluster bombs dropped by US planes. (The Age News)
A boy cries in a Baghdad hospital after being injured by what Iraqis claim were cluster bombs dropped by US planes, pictured below during operations in Afghanistan. Iraq claims that more than 350 civilians have been killed in the first week of the war, and has accused the United States of dropping cluster bombs on civilians in Baghdad. The charges were made amid vows of “maximum damage” to US-led forces as state television twice showed President Saddam Hussein meeting with top officials from the government, military and his ruling Baath party.
Iraqi Health Minister Umid Medhat Mubarak told reporters in Baghdad that more than 350 people had been killed and 3,650 wounded since the United States and Britain launched the war to topple Saddam on March 20. He said the figures were “approximate” but that women, children and the elderly accounted for most of the victims. He said coalition forces had used cluster bombs on civilians in Baghdad and Iraq’s second-largest city, Basra.
Up to 300 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the military conflict, but the true picture of the horrors of the war was not being given to the British public, anti-war campaigners said today. The Stop The War Coalition said between 227 and 307 civilians had been killed, mostly since the outbreak of hostilities a week ago. The group said opposition to the conflict was as strong as ever in this country and announced that more demonstrations than ever will be held against the war this weekend in towns and cities across the UK.
A national protest will be held in London on April 12 to coincide with a demonstration outside the White House in Washington. Lindsey German, convenor of the coalition, told a Westminster press conference: “It is clear there is a high level of civilian casualties already.” Ms German said the British public was not being given a true account of what was happening in Iraq or Baghdad. "We are not seeing the true casualties or hearing about the political ramifications throughout the Middle East. We are only being told what the military wants us to hear.
Left-wing Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn told the press conference: “I cannot be the only person who feels a sense of revulsion every time there is coverage of B-52s taking off from RAF Fairford, followed by coverage of bombs being dropped on Iraq.” Mr Corbyn questioned the TV coverage in this country of the war and praised the Arab TV station al-Jazeera, which has been criticised for showing pictures of dead British soldiers.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
What escapes me is that you think (1) dictactor cannot be responsible for the torture, killing and rape of millions.
[/QUOTE]
Seminole, give it a rest will you. US inavded a soverign country with a help of their loyal friends (see dog...Brits)? Whatever saddam is/was is not the point. The fact of the matter is that US is the agressor and is responsible for killing of the innocent civilians. You want to remove dictators with brutal regime, start with Saudi Arabia, go to Kuwait, maybe North Korea. Oh no we cannot go to kuwait and Saudi they are our allies...hypocrsy at its best.
BTW US is responsible for the economic sanctions placed on Iraq for almost a decade. This sanctions resulted in many deaths. US and Brits were involved in patrolling the "illegal" no fly zon. Contraryto popular belief, no fly zone is not part of any UN resolution. So quit your bellyaching and watch the ZNN(pun intended) in Florida.
Seminole, give it a rest will you. US inavded a soverign country with a help of their loyal friends (see dog...Brits)? Whatever saddam is/was is not the point. The fact of the matter is that US is the agressor and is responsible for killing of the innocent civilians. You want to remove dictators with brutal regime, start with Saudi Arabia, go to Kuwait, maybe North Korea. Oh no we cannot go to kuwait and Saudi they are our allies...hypocrsy at its best.
BTW US is responsible for the economic sanctions placed on Iraq for almost a decade. This sanctions resulted in many deaths. US and Brits were involved in patrolling the "illegal" no fly zon. Contraryto popular belief, no fly zone is not part of any UN resolution. So quit your bellyaching and watch the ZNN(pun intended) in Florida.
[/QUOTE]
So your saying? Better U.S./U.K. troops be slaughtered so that Saddam can go back to killing thousands of his own people because he is the leader of that soverign country? Better that U.S./U.K. boys and girls be slaughtered so that Saddam may repress his people? And threaten neighboring countries?
Yup then you can go back to losing sleep over the Iran/Iraq war and campaiging for removal of Saddam through peaceful means....wait don't tell me you didn't give a sh*t about Iraq or the middle east before your 'boys' were sent over there?
**Originally posted by AvgAmericanGirl: *
So your saying? Better U.S./U.K. troops be slaughtered so that Saddam can go back to killing thousands of his own people because he is the leader of that soverign country? Better that U.S./U.K. boys and girls be slaughtered so that Saddam may repress his people? And threaten neighboring countries? *
Probably thats the only way you can see it. Can you please fill me in, how many thousand Iraqis were killed after Iraq retreated from Kuwait? By Saddam directly? and by sanctions indirectly?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Thap: *
Yup then you can go back to losing sleep over the Iran/Iraq war and campaiging for removal of Saddam through peaceful means....wait don't tell me you didn't give a sh*t about Iraq or the middle east before your 'boys' were sent over there?
[/QUOTE]
Thap,
Now back then we did have a bone to pick with Iran. They were responsible for kidnapping our people for over a year remember? And we mistakenly thought that Saddam was balanced.
Is this your way of sidestepping the questions I ask?
Maybe I didn't care about the MiddleEast when I was young. Probobly I didn't pay attention as it didn't affect me. If I ignored issues today, probobly wouldn't affect me. But I can't ignore them. Doesn't make me evil.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Changez_like: *
*Originally posted by AvgAmericanGirl: *
So your saying? Better U.S./U.K. troops be slaughtered so that Saddam can go back to killing thousands of his own people because he is the leader of that soverign country? Better that U.S./U.K. boys and girls be slaughtered so that Saddam may repress his people? And threaten neighboring countries? *
Probably thats the only way you can see it. Can you please fill me in, how many thousand Iraqis were killed after Iraq retreated from Kuwait? By Saddam directly? and by sanctions indirectly?
[/QUOTE]
I don't know the answer to that Changez. I don't think if I even had one it would matter. You would still be angry. You would still keep hating me, and you wouldn't believe that I could possibly ever have good intentions towards you.
