Written 9-12-01

Re: To Ziggie:

King of the Americas said:

AND, what IF they DID, only want to live their lives in THEIR country, how THEIR population decided they wanted to.
Click to expand...

What if pigs could fly? I thought we were talking about the reality we live in, not some hypothetical one.


Then WHY aren't you MUCH more inraged about the possible danger represented by tobacco, alcohol, or falling debris in Walmart? ALL of these are statistically more dangerous than an attack from international terrorists.
Click to expand...

Who says that I'm not enraged by tobacco companies? And again, it's not just me, or even just americans, that I'm concerned about. Are drunk drivers, for example, really more of a threat to the Kurds than Saddam? But you don't care about them, because you're a selfish worm.
 
In short:

No, I don't care about the Kurds.

If you aren't going to fight for your own freedom, then WHY the hell should WE have to provide lives to liberate you?

No one came in and told us that we NEEDED to be liberated from King George. WE took it upon OURSELVES to fight for Our Freedom and Liberation. If the Kurds aren't willing to rise up and throw off the shackles of Saddam's rule, then why in hell would WE be willing to do the fighting for them???

It would be one thing is the Kurds were ACTIVELY fighting for a democratic style freedom, then SURE I'll sell them ammunition and guns to aid their endeavor, and I could more easily allow our troops to go in. However, in this case, these people were happy ENOUGH with Saddam's rule to NOT overthrow him... Regardless of his brutality, everyone has a breaking point. His citizens obviously hadn't reached it.
 
Re: In short:

King of the Americas said:
No, I don't care about the Kurds.

If you aren't going to fight for your own freedom, then WHY the hell should WE have to provide lives to liberate you?

No one came in and told us that we NEEDED to be liberated from King George. WE took it upon OURSELVES to fight for Our Freedom and Liberation.
Click to expand...

Yeah...France (a superpower at the time) didn't help us at all... :rolleyes:
 
*Then WHY aren't you MUCH more inraged about the possible danger represented by tobacco, alcohol, or falling debris in Walmart? ALL of these are statistically more dangerous than an attack from international terrorists.
Click to expand...

This is an asinine analogy. The reason why these are statistically more dangerous is because we're paying people to protect us from international terrorists and foreign dangers in general. Commit a third of our national budget to the stated goal of eliminating the threat of any of your three examples and those statistics will go to nearly zero too.

Also, there is the small matter of distribution. If those 18,000 people died on the same day, do you really think nothing would be done about it? 3,000 deaths in one day from anything will get a problem noticed. Walmart would be shut down in a second.

Accidental death or taking known risks that lead to it are in a completely different realm than something forcibly taking your life away.
 
Re: In short:

King of the Americas said:
If the Kurds aren't willing to rise up and throw off the shackles of Saddam's rule, then why in hell would WE be willing to do the fighting for them???

It would be one thing is the Kurds were ACTIVELY fighting for a democratic style freedom, then SURE I'll sell them ammunition and guns to aid their endeavor, and I could more easily allow our troops to go in. However, in this case, these people were happy ENOUGH with Saddam's rule to NOT overthrow him... Regardless of his brutality, everyone has a breaking point. His citizens obviously hadn't reached it.
Click to expand...

Would you have the gall and audacity to say the same thing about the german jews during Hitler's reign??
 
To Kodiak:

Almost...

...the difference being that one was threatened with sincere extermination, and the other just brutal or even tryannical rule.
 
Re: To Kodiak:

King of the Americas said:
Almost...

...the difference being that one was threatened with sincere extermination, and the other just brutal or even tryannical rule.
Click to expand...

What do you call the gassing of villages and the torture and execution of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens since the beginning of Saddam's regime??
 
To Furious:

Are you suggesting that We are unable to decipher sincere loss, unless it happens all at once?

Now THAT is ignorant.

3,000 lives ONE time, in ONE year. vs. 18,000 lives EVERY year

How about addressing numeric priority.
 
To Kodiak:

"Brutal and tyrannical rule."

Mass extermination was never Saddam's goal. However, Hitler constantly verbalized this AS his objective, the elimination of the Jewish culture. Saddam was more about punishing the Kruds for their uprising.
 
Re: To Kodiak:

King of the Americas said:
"Brutal and tyrannical rule."

Mass extermination was never Saddam's goal. However, Hitler constantly verbalized this AS his objective, the elimination of the Jewish culture. Saddam was more about punishing the Kruds for their uprising.
Click to expand...

Using your ignorant twisted logic, you should have nothing against any of US actions, because US are merely punishing.
 
Re: In short:

King of the Americas said:
No, I don't care about the Kurds.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought, you selfish worm.


If the Kurds aren't willing to rise up and throw off the shackles of Saddam's rule, then why in hell would WE be willing to do the fighting for them???
Click to expand...

They were willing to, and they did. But without our protection, Saddam would have been able to crush them, killing tens of thousands of civilians, like he has done in the past. Next time you want to spout off about something, I suggest you learn a thing or two about the subject.


It would be one thing is the Kurds were ACTIVELY fighting for a democratic style freedom, then SURE I'll sell them ammunition and guns to aid their endeavor, and I could more easily allow our troops to go in. However, in this case, these people were happy ENOUGH with Saddam's rule to NOT overthrow him... Regardless of his brutality, everyone has a breaking point. His citizens obviously hadn't reached it.
Click to expand...
[/B][/QUOTE]

The Kurds did rebel. The Shia rebelled too, although they were crushed. The people of Iraq did reach a breaking point. The problem is they WERE broken. They had no ability to overthrow Saddam from within. You obviously know nothing about what life is like under a repressive dictatorship, or even any basic history of Iraq. You are not only selfish, but ignorant as well, worm.
 
To Ziggie:

I think your are confusing historically events with current events.

I would have had no problem if we WOULD have continued the rebellion when the Kurds WERE rising up against Saddam, during the end of the last Gulf War. However, we failed to restrict Saddam from flying his helicopter gunships, so he managed to put down that rebellion.

The Kurds were NOT 'actively' partaking in a rebellion against Saddam's rule when we took part in this last invasion of Iraq.
 
Re: To Ziggie:

Originally posted by King of the Americas
The Kurds were NOT 'actively' partaking in a rebellion against Saddam's rule when we took part in this last invasion of Iraq.
Click to expand...

That depends what you mean by "actively". They were not marching on Baghdad, but they had their own autonomous region free of Saddam's rule, protected on the ground by their own troops and in the air by the NATO-enforced no-fly zone. I'd call that actively rebelling.
 
Kodiak said:

Am I sensing a theme here, Zig? ;) :D
Click to expand...

You are indeed. I am quite vocal in my criticism of the anti-war croud (such as Malachi, Manifesto, etc) because I think they are terribly mistaken in their assesment of the threat Saddam posed not only to us but to the world (as well as the effectiveness of institutions like the UN), but most of them have basically good intentions. But all worm can offer is selfishness and ignorance.
 
Kodiak:
Nothing more than pretense.
Click to expand...
More specifically, it is propaganda. Whether it represents the motivation of Osama bin Laden in particular does not so much concern me; he's only one man. What it DOES represent is what that one man thinks will appeal to potential recruits, and in THAT aspect it IS important. I would say it is MORE important than whatever may lie under your assumption of pretense.
 
Upchurch said:
NPR this morning had a piece about the effects of the Iraqi war on Al Queda. I don't remember what was exactly said (I was still waking up), but the gist was that our invasion and occupation of Iraq is fueling muslim hatred of America and there have been massive amounts of recruits to Al Queda. While those in charge of Al Queda pre-9/11 are mostly gone, there are plenty of new members to replace and fill the ranks.

Essentially, we played into the islamic fundamentalists' hands.
Click to expand...

Saddam's Defeat is Bin Laden's Victory
 
This is a really oneteresting discussion, and it seems that new territory has been broached. If I squit out the xtremeist rhetoric it seems there is a discussion occuring.

KOA: has stated that he feels we are overreacting to the 9-11 attack, and that we are giving the terrorists power by responding so strongly. It is a very valid point that so far the war on terrorism will do little to protect us from terrorism.

Zig; has stade an interesting point that he may support the war without supporting the Bush administration's reasoning.

Kodiak: sorry, I can't encapsulate your well written posts.

Thanks to all , including Crossbow for you intelligent discussion.

This time there is a dialouge.

KoA: You have said things that make sense to me, I don't agree with all that you say, but you do have some points about ,perhaps, that American response to war.

Did you all know that 14,000,000 million children die each year from preventable causes, a good reason to stop the fighting if you ask me.

Respectfully.
 
Malachi151 said:


I was not talking about Saddam, I was talking about Al-Queda. The guys from Al-Queda hated Saddam too, it has validated the ideology of Islamic Fundamentalists that aggression is the way to do things.
Click to expand...

In Bin Laden's 1998 Fatwa, he mentions Iraq quite a bit as a reason why he hates America, but there is no mention of hatred towards Iraq or Saddam.

Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom