Kyushoguy
Are you even reading the posts?
1st Osama killed 3000 + innocent people long before the prison scandal.
See, thats PRIOR so you can't really link Osama's action to the prison scandal.
2nd Where was your moral outrage when Saddam was torturing--ie, hanging people from meathooks, putting live people into barrels of acid, throwing from off 3 story roofs-and tapeing it?
The rape of 100's or 1000s of girls by his sons?
See, thats seems much worse a violation of human rights to me than some naked pictures.
And yet I don't recall any posts about that from you--why the silence??
Are you really that cold??
Do you really care so little for your fellow human beings, suffering horriifc torture and brutal murder (several 100,000 +) at the hands of an insane butcher that you feel their suffering is beneath your notice or comment??
Oh, be the way I--and no-one on this board --had anything to do with torture of ANY Iraqies.
Does not seem all that stable an observation on your part.
Poll Question - Retribution
Dana
With all respect--the "they" are the folks trying their level best to kill us--without regard to innocent life.
And yes--that means some civlians are going to be killed.
People are killed in wars, many people died in WW2.
Should we not have opposed Hitler on the basis of people OTHER than soldiers getting killed?
Should we have stood around wringing our hands over the plight of Germans civilians while Hitlers SS were rounding up a couple of million Jews and carting them off to the death camps.
Should we have just let them ALL die??
Should we have not bomded Desden? Invaded France, Italy, Poland?? Berlin??
Ask the people of Russia if the sacrifices they made to stop a ruthless, brutal madman where worth it?
Civlians die in war--its a horrific fact--but that is the nature of war--always has been, always will be.
Unless of course your hoping the bad guys--ie. the ones makeing innocent folks beg for their lives on camra--then beheading them.
Are just going to stop??
If history teachs anything, its allowing brutal madmen to work thier will unopposed CAUSES MORE DEATH AND SUFFERING IN THE LONG RUN.
The most humane thing is do whatever is needed to nip it in the bud.
Let me ask you a question Dana.
Your a martial artist--someone attacks you with the intent to really hurt you.
You know the guy has a small child--do you let him beat you to a pulp, perhaps kill you, in order to spare his child pain???
What do you do??
With all respect--the "they" are the folks trying their level best to kill us--without regard to innocent life.
And yes--that means some civlians are going to be killed.
People are killed in wars, many people died in WW2.
Should we not have opposed Hitler on the basis of people OTHER than soldiers getting killed?
Should we have stood around wringing our hands over the plight of Germans civilians while Hitlers SS were rounding up a couple of million Jews and carting them off to the death camps.
Should we have just let them ALL die??
Should we have not bomded Desden? Invaded France, Italy, Poland?? Berlin??
Ask the people of Russia if the sacrifices they made to stop a ruthless, brutal madman where worth it?
Civlians die in war--its a horrific fact--but that is the nature of war--always has been, always will be.
Unless of course your hoping the bad guys--ie. the ones makeing innocent folks beg for their lives on camra--then beheading them.
Are just going to stop??
If history teachs anything, its allowing brutal madmen to work thier will unopposed CAUSES MORE DEATH AND SUFFERING IN THE LONG RUN.
The most humane thing is do whatever is needed to nip it in the bud.
Let me ask you a question Dana.
Your a martial artist--someone attacks you with the intent to really hurt you.
You know the guy has a small child--do you let him beat you to a pulp, perhaps kill you, in order to spare his child pain???
What do you do??
It's not that complicated, folks. People feel less of a need to speak out against Saddam's crimes because they're universally condemned and obviously wrong. People are speaking out against the proposed torture and terrorist acts suggested in this thread because:
1) It's being debated, that is, there is an obvious group who thinks it's normal to abuse corpses and terrorize children. With Saddam's actions, any condemnation would just be preaching to the choir.
2) The proposed terrorist acts would have an obvious impact on the previously good, now worsening image of America, as well as on its citizens, as obvious cruelty only will breed more resentment.
There are those who say the wackos can't hate us anymore and will always hate us (tho I think there's a chance they might stop if we abandoned the mideast, nonoption that that is), and that's true of Osama and his ilk. Problem is, there are millions of Arabs on the fence, potential terrorists each and every one, who the would-be-torturers on this thread would eagerly convert into hardened antiAmericans. Guess what--you can't kill them all. Osama's goal was to start a war--to bring christian and jew against arab in a raging, cruel war. People who stoop to terrorism are just going to fuel his delusions and those of his recruits, and reduce America from fighting the good fight to being no better than their opponents. Really, what is the point of complaining about their behavior if we are going to mock it? I spose there is always something to be said about being on the winning side regardless, but if we're going to torch all the ideals that made America worth fighting for in the process, what's the point?
1) It's being debated, that is, there is an obvious group who thinks it's normal to abuse corpses and terrorize children. With Saddam's actions, any condemnation would just be preaching to the choir.
2) The proposed terrorist acts would have an obvious impact on the previously good, now worsening image of America, as well as on its citizens, as obvious cruelty only will breed more resentment.
There are those who say the wackos can't hate us anymore and will always hate us (tho I think there's a chance they might stop if we abandoned the mideast, nonoption that that is), and that's true of Osama and his ilk. Problem is, there are millions of Arabs on the fence, potential terrorists each and every one, who the would-be-torturers on this thread would eagerly convert into hardened antiAmericans. Guess what--you can't kill them all. Osama's goal was to start a war--to bring christian and jew against arab in a raging, cruel war. People who stoop to terrorism are just going to fuel his delusions and those of his recruits, and reduce America from fighting the good fight to being no better than their opponents. Really, what is the point of complaining about their behavior if we are going to mock it? I spose there is always something to be said about being on the winning side regardless, but if we're going to torch all the ideals that made America worth fighting for in the process, what's the point?
--Ian
IJ
No, its not "simple" almost no-one "spoke out against Saddams crimes" and they were not "universally condemed."
Heck the entire arab world allowed him to invade, sack, and rape his way thu Kuwait with almost no outcry--and NO-ONE took arms to stop him.
Where were the "holy warriors" then??
Where was Osama?--oh, yeah, his AlQueda agents were being given a place to hide and re-group by Saddam.
Other than some human rights groups--NO-ONE was voiceing anger at his actions.
Even the UN was made little comment--course they were getting paid to look the other way.
Everyone wants to NOW say that they were "stand up" folks about the insititional torture and murder in Iraq--problem is that remarkably few people that can back it up.
No, its not "simple" almost no-one "spoke out against Saddams crimes" and they were not "universally condemed."
Heck the entire arab world allowed him to invade, sack, and rape his way thu Kuwait with almost no outcry--and NO-ONE took arms to stop him.
Where were the "holy warriors" then??
Where was Osama?--oh, yeah, his AlQueda agents were being given a place to hide and re-group by Saddam.
Other than some human rights groups--NO-ONE was voiceing anger at his actions.
Even the UN was made little comment--course they were getting paid to look the other way.
Everyone wants to NOW say that they were "stand up" folks about the insititional torture and murder in Iraq--problem is that remarkably few people that can back it up.
Two points. The first is that they may not have been vocally condemned, but they were universally condemned. At least as far as I know, nobody on these forums would have responded to an outcry against Sadaam's iniquities by saying that it was a good idea to gas the Kurds. That is why it would have been preaching to the choir to post about Sadaam's wrongdoings. I could probably hunt around and find a dozen tragedies that are occuring in different countries around the globe. But chances are nobody is going to root for the human suffering in those cases the way they are in this.No, its not "simple" almost no-one "spoke out against Saddams crimes" and they were not "universally condemed."
The other point is that we have a responsibility to rein in our government. If we believe in our ideals at all, this country is of, for and most importantly *by* the people. This means that we all share personal responsibility for what our government does. We're not personally responsible for what Sadaam does.
People use the argument that horrors happen in war. Civilians accidentally get slaughtered and yes, that's something you have to figure into your decision whether you should go to war in the first place. But even once you've worked out the calculus of human loss and decided that you have to go to war, that doesn't excuse an unlimitted amount of devastation and mayhem.
-
Dana Sheets
- Posts: 2715
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
Iraq didn't declare war on the US and neither did Afghanistan. We "declared war" on Terrorism and swept Iraq and Afghanistan under that umbrella. Iraq had plenty of reasons to declare war on the US - we've been bombing them constantly since the Gulf War.
http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html
However I'm not going to enter into the argument of if we should or should not have invaded - that's a different discussion.
I object to parallel lines being drawn between our war against Hitler's Germany and our "war" against a decentralized network that for now closely resembles a "whack-a-mole" game at a county fair.
I've never said we should stand by and do nothing. I keep saying over and over again that a brutish show of force cannot be used against a decentralized terrorist network the way it is used against geographic front lines from previous wars.
"Just kill them all" worked when we knew where the battle lines were. There are no clear battle lines in this war and I completely object to the notion that we should just start killing lots of people wherever we think there might be some terrorists that our intel seems to indicate.
Nation-building is not a quick-easy thing and neither is dismantling a terrorist netowrk. Those are two of the most important messages being repeated by the Bush administration. Killing them all is a quick-fix solution that is appealing when things don't seem to be going well. But now that we're in Iraq and Afghanistan we've got to finish the job as best we can. To me that doesn't mean killing until we leave. To me that means doing our damndest to counter the indoctrination they've already received and try our best to demonstrate a way of life with more freedoms and more equality.
http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html
However I'm not going to enter into the argument of if we should or should not have invaded - that's a different discussion.
I object to parallel lines being drawn between our war against Hitler's Germany and our "war" against a decentralized network that for now closely resembles a "whack-a-mole" game at a county fair.
I've never said we should stand by and do nothing. I keep saying over and over again that a brutish show of force cannot be used against a decentralized terrorist network the way it is used against geographic front lines from previous wars.
"Just kill them all" worked when we knew where the battle lines were. There are no clear battle lines in this war and I completely object to the notion that we should just start killing lots of people wherever we think there might be some terrorists that our intel seems to indicate.
Nation-building is not a quick-easy thing and neither is dismantling a terrorist netowrk. Those are two of the most important messages being repeated by the Bush administration. Killing them all is a quick-fix solution that is appealing when things don't seem to be going well. But now that we're in Iraq and Afghanistan we've got to finish the job as best we can. To me that doesn't mean killing until we leave. To me that means doing our damndest to counter the indoctrination they've already received and try our best to demonstrate a way of life with more freedoms and more equality.
Did you show compassion today?
-
Dana Sheets
- Posts: 2715
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
I do what I need to do to to him keep myself safe. I don't go by his house later and kill his child nor do I kill the five people standing next to him because I needed to make sure that anyone he might be associated with was also dead.cxt wrote:Let me ask you a question Dana.
Your a martial artist--someone attacks you with the intent to really hurt you.
You know the guy has a small child--do you let him beat you to a pulp, perhaps kill you, in order to spare his child pain???
What do you do??
Did you show compassion today?
Valkenar
Two point as well.
1st--Don't think that anyone really expressed outrage at Saddams actions prior.
A-Because I checked.
Saddam hurling people off 3td story roofs was only mentioned (only one example at the time) by some human rights groups--no front page articles--no in depth reports--no masses of outraged Arab world folks--or Westerners for that matter.
B-Saddams actions were generally ACCEPTED in the Arab world.
You saw very little to zero coverage about his mass torture and murder--and what did come out was back page news--if it got mentioned at all.
Heck, the guy invaded, sacked and raped Kuwait and the only folks who actually did something about it were the US.
The various "holy warriors" and "muslum brothers" as well as the rest of the Arab organizations, OPEC etc.
Did NOTHING to help there belegured "brother state."
2-Overall the same folks who pretty much turned a blind eye to wholesale torture, murder and rape NOW want to "re-write" history so to speak.
You yourself in effect claim that it was so widly condemed that it required no specfic statement--need I point the logical problem here??
Absence of proof may not be proof of abscene--but absence is not proof either.
Perhaps more thot he point--what was done about it??
Not giving myself a "pass" here either--I did know about the torture (I read the human rights watch reports) I was not out posting my outrage either.
But that being said, it does not mean I can ignore my own actions here--I should have said something then.
I am saying it now.
And what we have done and will do needs to be put in perspective with the history of the region and the conflict.
And I just don't feel that it is.
Two point as well.
1st--Don't think that anyone really expressed outrage at Saddams actions prior.
A-Because I checked.
Saddam hurling people off 3td story roofs was only mentioned (only one example at the time) by some human rights groups--no front page articles--no in depth reports--no masses of outraged Arab world folks--or Westerners for that matter.
B-Saddams actions were generally ACCEPTED in the Arab world.
You saw very little to zero coverage about his mass torture and murder--and what did come out was back page news--if it got mentioned at all.
Heck, the guy invaded, sacked and raped Kuwait and the only folks who actually did something about it were the US.
The various "holy warriors" and "muslum brothers" as well as the rest of the Arab organizations, OPEC etc.
Did NOTHING to help there belegured "brother state."
2-Overall the same folks who pretty much turned a blind eye to wholesale torture, murder and rape NOW want to "re-write" history so to speak.
You yourself in effect claim that it was so widly condemed that it required no specfic statement--need I point the logical problem here??
Absence of proof may not be proof of abscene--but absence is not proof either.
Perhaps more thot he point--what was done about it??
Not giving myself a "pass" here either--I did know about the torture (I read the human rights watch reports) I was not out posting my outrage either.
But that being said, it does not mean I can ignore my own actions here--I should have said something then.
I am saying it now.
And what we have done and will do needs to be put in perspective with the history of the region and the conflict.
And I just don't feel that it is.
Al Quaeda Training Manual
Straight out of the Al Quaeda Training Manual:
"The confrontation that we are calling for with the apostate regimes does not know Socratic debates...,Platonic ideals..., nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun."
They will deal with us only using violence. They are not into debating. They are not going to be our friends. Now, propaganda might work on little children that are part of the main populace. But as for those already indoctrinated, the only proper way to cleanse them is the way they wish to cleanse us. Except, of course, we don't use suicide bombers, we use bombers.
At some point you have to pick a side. I don't want to become a Moslem, and live in a society where women walk around with tents on their heads. Call me crazy, but I like our side better even though its not perfect. And the other guys will not rest until we are all either dead or one of them.
nb
"The confrontation that we are calling for with the apostate regimes does not know Socratic debates...,Platonic ideals..., nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun."
They will deal with us only using violence. They are not into debating. They are not going to be our friends. Now, propaganda might work on little children that are part of the main populace. But as for those already indoctrinated, the only proper way to cleanse them is the way they wish to cleanse us. Except, of course, we don't use suicide bombers, we use bombers.
At some point you have to pick a side. I don't want to become a Moslem, and live in a society where women walk around with tents on their heads. Call me crazy, but I like our side better even though its not perfect. And the other guys will not rest until we are all either dead or one of them.
nb
Dana
But what your argueing is that you should consider the ramifaications of your actions upon OTHER than the person DIRECTLY involved.
In this case, you seem to have no problem leaving a child fatherless in order to protect yourself.
You are not considering the effects the loss or severe injury of the father will cause the child.
And I'm NOT bagging on you about it.
Speaks very well of you that you even asked the question.
But its really no different---any war will have casulities--is tragic, its horrific, but its unavoidable.
There were many civilian casualities during WW2--have met no-one that would argue it should not have been fought.
We can and must grieve for the fallen, we can and must take all appproate steps to minimize the casualities--but to suggest we don't do everything we can to stop these wackjobs because it might cause loss of life is shortsighted.
How many innocent people are being killed right now??
I notice as we have been having this discussion the kiddnapped Korean man was beheaded.
Does he not count as an "innocent man?" Was his life somehow not worth protecting??
Lets expand the question a bit.
Say we know right where the guys that killed him are lurking.
But to go and get them quite possibly is going to get civilians killed--not like they are all that concerned about hurting their own people.
Do we go in and stop them from kiddnaping and murdering MORE people?--do we use a "smart missle" knowing it very well might kill some other folk--or do send in the Marines--thereby risking MORE of our troops lives--more fathers, mother and sons and daughters.
Not to mention killing some civlians in the process.
Seriously what do you think we should do??
What should we do??
But what your argueing is that you should consider the ramifaications of your actions upon OTHER than the person DIRECTLY involved.
In this case, you seem to have no problem leaving a child fatherless in order to protect yourself.
You are not considering the effects the loss or severe injury of the father will cause the child.
And I'm NOT bagging on you about it.
Speaks very well of you that you even asked the question.
But its really no different---any war will have casulities--is tragic, its horrific, but its unavoidable.
There were many civilian casualities during WW2--have met no-one that would argue it should not have been fought.
We can and must grieve for the fallen, we can and must take all appproate steps to minimize the casualities--but to suggest we don't do everything we can to stop these wackjobs because it might cause loss of life is shortsighted.
How many innocent people are being killed right now??
I notice as we have been having this discussion the kiddnapped Korean man was beheaded.
Does he not count as an "innocent man?" Was his life somehow not worth protecting??
Lets expand the question a bit.
Say we know right where the guys that killed him are lurking.
But to go and get them quite possibly is going to get civilians killed--not like they are all that concerned about hurting their own people.
Do we go in and stop them from kiddnaping and murdering MORE people?--do we use a "smart missle" knowing it very well might kill some other folk--or do send in the Marines--thereby risking MORE of our troops lives--more fathers, mother and sons and daughters.
Not to mention killing some civlians in the process.
Seriously what do you think we should do??
What should we do??
No one had suggested that Saddam was a good guy, that his actions were ok, that Arab states responded appropriately, or that the current terrorists aren't hypocrites for doing nothing to stand in his way. I mean, I think we all pretty much understand that most of the reason they hate us is based on mutual prejudice and religious distrust. They'd rather have a supposedly islamic dictator than suffer the indignation of americans in their country. No one said that made sense.
What people DID say was that torture, indiscriminant violence, and terrorizing villages thru corpse desecration is 1) beneath us and 2) counterproductive as it will stir up antiamerican sentiments in the millions of arabs on the fence.
As for terrorist conventions, they ought to be blown up with smart bombs. What gave anyone the impression that we didn't want to even defend ourselves? We just don't want to sink to the level that its sadist against sadist, making the only thing that's better about our side the fact that we're on it. We're better than that.
And we ought to be smarter than to take the bait Al Qaeda has set for us, to become nothing more than another snarling animal to grapple with. We're ultimately going to beat them not by blowing up everyone who doesn't like us... but by setting an example of how things can be better in government, and by showing them alternatives in business, religion, and culture that will gradually reduce the pool of young men who long for religious extremism, stoneage philosophies, ancient prejudices against women and everyone else, and lust for blood instead of big macs.
What people DID say was that torture, indiscriminant violence, and terrorizing villages thru corpse desecration is 1) beneath us and 2) counterproductive as it will stir up antiamerican sentiments in the millions of arabs on the fence.
As for terrorist conventions, they ought to be blown up with smart bombs. What gave anyone the impression that we didn't want to even defend ourselves? We just don't want to sink to the level that its sadist against sadist, making the only thing that's better about our side the fact that we're on it. We're better than that.
And we ought to be smarter than to take the bait Al Qaeda has set for us, to become nothing more than another snarling animal to grapple with. We're ultimately going to beat them not by blowing up everyone who doesn't like us... but by setting an example of how things can be better in government, and by showing them alternatives in business, religion, and culture that will gradually reduce the pool of young men who long for religious extremism, stoneage philosophies, ancient prejudices against women and everyone else, and lust for blood instead of big macs.
--Ian
Good point.What people DID say was that torture, indiscriminant violence, and terrorizing villages thru corpse desecration is 1) beneath us and 2) counterproductive as it will stir up antiamerican sentiments in the millions of arabs on the fence.
I, for one, am not in support of degrading american servicemen/women to the point where they become thugs. I just think we need to respond in the fashion of professionals, and spare nothing in the way of military force to end the reign of the extremists. And I know that means civilian casualties. But, who should the blame for the civilian casualties fall to? We seem to try as hard as we can to limit the amount of harm done to innocent civilians. We sure can't say that about our enemies.
Correct me if I'm wrong .... but doesn't this conversation go back to the arguement about weather we belong in Iraq in the first place? It seems to me that those who would constrain our military, harp and harp on about a few captive terrorsts with panties on their heads, and insist that the war in Iraq is "illeagal" are all the same people.
I can sympathize with the anger and frustration that is being felt and the desire to kill and mutilate these animals, BUT, as Americans we all know that is not an option. I also think that after the presidential election in November, we will start responding with a great deal more force than we are now ....politics as usual.
-
kyushoguy
cxt wrote:Kyushoguy
Are you even reading the posts?
1st Osama killed 3000 + innocent people long before the prison scandal.
See, thats PRIOR so you can't really link Osama's action to the prison scandal.
I know you're finding this har dto follow not me.
The Irqis had NOTHING to do with 9/11
Osama is not an Iraqi. got it?
2nd Where was your moral outrage when Saddam was torturing--ie, hanging people from meathooks, putting live people into barrels of acid, throwing from off 3 story roofs-and tapeing it?
The rape of 100's or 1000s of girls by his sons?
See, thats seems much worse a violation of human rights to me than some naked pictures.
And yet I don't recall any posts about that from you--why the silence??
I think whatever Saddam did was evil but lets not forget your president has been shown over and over to lie about this ma WOMD connection to Bin Laden.
Obviously if saddam did half of what he is reported to havbe done hes evil.
what does that make the americans doing the same?
You killed over 15000 iraqis in a year how many do you thinmk were guilty?
How many do you falsely believe were connected to 9/11
Are you really that cold??
No you are obviously and deluded.
Do you really care so little for your fellow human beings, suffering horriifc torture and brutal murder (several 100,000 +) at the hands of an insane ? If hes
insane ???
butcher ????
that you feel their suffering is beneath your notice or comment??
Oh, be the way I--and no-one on this board --had anything to do with torture of ANY Iraqies.
but you are sticking up for the insane butchers who are
Does not seem all that stable an observation on your part.
You are wrong
KG
Kyushoguy.
Although I can't really match the stunning, breathtakingly clever retort of "your wrong."
No exposition, no actual detail, no point-counter point--just the flat "your wrong."
Well, that settles it then--why bother with discusion of any issue at all??
Just ask kyushoguy--he will read your post then pronounce judgement--much like God speaking to Moses from the burning bush.
No questions, no explaination, no actual debate, but hey who needs that??
Sorry dude, could not help it.
In case your actually serious about talking about this issue--talking not just ranting.
Here are a couple of things you might want to get a better grip on.
1st "Lets not forget that your pres has been shown to lie about the WOMD connection to Bin Lden."
Well, that would be WMDS--not WOMD--but that a fine point.
An area of major concern is that WMDs and Ben Laden are 2 SEPERATE ISSUES--course you could just post where Bush lied about a connection between Bin Laden and WMDs.
An again what does a prsion scandal have to do with 9/11--your claiming some sort of link--please be more specific.
2nd you have not established that there were ANY "insane butchers" conncected with the prison scandal--in fact we had no "insane butchers" at all.
We had a guy die of heart attack--don't really know exactly how it happned.
And we have had some naked pictures taken.
So if naked pictures EQUALS "insane butchers" in your world I assume your haveing the publisher of Playboy and the "page 3 girls" in England brought up on charges??
3td We killed any number of Iraqs in a shooting war--ie we did not line them up and execute them--sorry this is over the top.
I don't think they "all gulity of 9/11" I do think they were our enemy and they were shooting at us.
By the way, how many of those Iraq soldiers were the same crew that gassed the Kurds or invaded, looted, raped their way into Kuwiat?
Been a while--time enough for many of them to have risen in the ranks.
By the way are you claiming we killed 15,000 or 1500 soldiers??
Although I can't really match the stunning, breathtakingly clever retort of "your wrong."
No exposition, no actual detail, no point-counter point--just the flat "your wrong."
Well, that settles it then--why bother with discusion of any issue at all??
Just ask kyushoguy--he will read your post then pronounce judgement--much like God speaking to Moses from the burning bush.
No questions, no explaination, no actual debate, but hey who needs that??
Sorry dude, could not help it.
In case your actually serious about talking about this issue--talking not just ranting.
Here are a couple of things you might want to get a better grip on.
1st "Lets not forget that your pres has been shown to lie about the WOMD connection to Bin Lden."
Well, that would be WMDS--not WOMD--but that a fine point.
An area of major concern is that WMDs and Ben Laden are 2 SEPERATE ISSUES--course you could just post where Bush lied about a connection between Bin Laden and WMDs.
An again what does a prsion scandal have to do with 9/11--your claiming some sort of link--please be more specific.
2nd you have not established that there were ANY "insane butchers" conncected with the prison scandal--in fact we had no "insane butchers" at all.
We had a guy die of heart attack--don't really know exactly how it happned.
And we have had some naked pictures taken.
So if naked pictures EQUALS "insane butchers" in your world I assume your haveing the publisher of Playboy and the "page 3 girls" in England brought up on charges??
3td We killed any number of Iraqs in a shooting war--ie we did not line them up and execute them--sorry this is over the top.
I don't think they "all gulity of 9/11" I do think they were our enemy and they were shooting at us.
By the way, how many of those Iraq soldiers were the same crew that gassed the Kurds or invaded, looted, raped their way into Kuwiat?
Been a while--time enough for many of them to have risen in the ranks.
By the way are you claiming we killed 15,000 or 1500 soldiers??
-
Dana Sheets
- Posts: 2715
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
Think it all the way through before we act.Do we go in and stop them from kiddnaping and murdering MORE people?--do we use a "smart missle" knowing it very well might kill some other folk--or do send in the Marines--thereby risking MORE of our troops lives--more fathers, mother and sons and daughters.
Not to mention killing some civlians in the process.
Seriously what do you think we should do??
What should we do??
It think it's pretty evident that our leaders failed to think it all the way through in Iraq. They thought as far as topping Baghdad and then...well - it seems like then they made it up as they went. It's going better now, but I think it could have gone a WHOLE LOT better if there had been more thoughtful reflection on how we would go about doing nation-building in Iraq. How we would plan for the influence from Iran, how we would work together with the Kurds and Turkey to keep the Kurds from cedeeding into a Kuristan, and how paying for this whole thing was going to severly tax our domestic finances.
I am dismayed by the quantity of knee-jerk reactions on the part of the leadership on BOTH sides of the political fences. I understand wanting to get even, I understand wanting someone to pay. But I'd rather we do it right than do it over, and over, and over again.
And someday we can take these lessons and move forward toward helping the nations in Africa that are under the control of despots just as evil as Saddam. They just don't happen to be sitting on top of oil reserves.
Then we can work on how to build and develop freedom and democracy within nations that would otherwise exist soley to benefit the ruler.
But now I'm daydreaming.
So again my answer to your question is - Think it all the way through.
Did you show compassion today?
