-
Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net
alternative to war?
- Thread starter allanh
- Start date
AmericanPatriot
New Member
I protest! That is to violent!!!
:angry2:
:angry2:
Indeed we deserve criticism for supply Saddam with anything. At the time it seemed wise but hindsight is 20/20. Your comparison is so ridiculous that I seriously question your viewpoints. I just find it hard to believe that anyone could honestly make that comparison.
Have you reviewed Saddam's past? He has killed far more innocent civilians then George Bush has. Even worse he did it intentionally and if you don't see that distinction then I honestly feel sorry for you.
I haven't extensively researched this as far as researchers and yet I know off the top of my head these atrocities:
- Raping at gun point
- Throwing people in to industrial grade wood chippers.
- Chemical Weapons Use
- Torturing scientists that refused to help him.
- Killing peoples families who oppose him.
- Killing entire villages of people.
- Using death squads to kill those who oppose him.
- Offering rewards to Palestine suicide bombers for killing innocent civilians just going about their days.
- Destroying their own oil fields and causing large environmental concerns.
- Using children as human shields and threatening their lives in order to influence their parents/loved ones.
Just looked for links to back these up:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/2001/0425sadd.htm
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82879,00.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq_scientists030210.html
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/33177.htm
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2003/n01232003_200301234.html
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20030401-76882080.htm
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31961
Then to read things like this it sickens me:
http://www.irna.com/en/head/030410122641.ehe.shtml
Who truly here is the misinformed? Those reading both sides of an argument or those using propaganda to further their own motives and to create greater tensions between groups of people. Heck, they couldn't even give us this opposing view point if it wasn't for the Internet and who is largely responsible for its creation?
To me the hypocrisy is unreal. It's much like the anti-war protestors who didn't want us to remove Saddam's regime from power. There they couldn't even oppose their government without fear of the above atrocities. Yet many of these protestors don't seem to realize that and they oppose the war based on ideological reasons, anti-Bush reasons, or anti-USA reasons. For those who simply felt the UN weapons inspectors could do the job I respect the opinion but disagree.
I hate to even go back to a past debate but the hypocrisy of it all is unreal. I think a basic moral across all races of people is that life is precious and murder is wrong. If we aren't willing to stop an evil man and an evil regime like this then when would we be willing to step in? That's without even getting in to the threat he poses to the world at large with his weapons of mass destruction.
After all of that if you still comparing Bush to Saddam is realistic then there is no hope of me getting through to you. It's really unfortunate and I usually chalk things like this up to other people receiving only one side of the story from their local media. However, you clearly are here and at a minimum reading these opposing view points and still think that way. It's really difficult to comprehend how there can be such huge viewpoint differences if we're both seeing and hearing the same information.
If you want to make your case for why Bush is evil feel free but it really seems like you aren't making distinctions on why such action was taken.
AngelaAndJewel
New Member
Way to go Todd! Hindsight is always 20/20.
If people are going to blame the U.S. for it's past's actions then point the finger at the Iraqi regime too. Compare the two people (Bush and Sadam). If anyone honestly feels that Bush is as bad as Sadam, then I truly feel sorry for you. It is interesting how people debate the issue because they have their freedoms. Now, listen to the what the Iraqi's are saying now that their proverbial gags have been removed. Do their thoughts matter to anyone who has disagreed with the war all along. What about the scenes of Iraqi's in the streets waving U.S. flags? What about Iraqi's destroying every image of Sadaam they can find?
If people are going to blame the U.S. for it's past's actions then point the finger at the Iraqi regime too. Compare the two people (Bush and Sadam). If anyone honestly feels that Bush is as bad as Sadam, then I truly feel sorry for you. It is interesting how people debate the issue because they have their freedoms. Now, listen to the what the Iraqi's are saying now that their proverbial gags have been removed. Do their thoughts matter to anyone who has disagreed with the war all along. What about the scenes of Iraqi's in the streets waving U.S. flags? What about Iraqi's destroying every image of Sadaam they can find?
I'm listening to what they're saying, are you? Or just what you want to listen to?
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=395707
I'm not the least argueing that they're not happy and better off now with Saddam gone or on the run but from at I've seen it's at best mixed reactions.
I only heard this on the radio and I couldn't find anything to verify or dismiss it but they said the criticism in south of Iraq on the "occupation" has been rising steadily and they've been 'liberated' for 2-3 weeks now. They are free now but if the US is going to actually listen to them is a whole other question to me.
The foreign ministry here received a letter from the US embassy yesterday with a "to do" list, which included most importantly: seizing the assets of the Iraqi embassy and deportation of any remaining Iraqi officials. The note ended with: "If the goverment takes immediate action it will be showing that it's commited to future of Iraq and not supporting the old regime" which is a nice way of saying: "do what we tell you or you'll be assumed to be supporting Saddam's regime".
You wondered why there's so much anti-US sentiment all over the world? Maybe it's in part because of things like this. First the US includes us in the "coalition of the willing" when we weren't going to support any miltary action outside of the UN and now we're "Saddam supporters"
Last edited:
AngelaAndJewel
New Member
I read the article and I listen to both sides. I just disagree. I don't like your sources and you don't belive mine. So lets leave it at that. You read and listen to what news stories you want prefer to hear. The ones that support your opinion suit you better. So asking me if I listen is extremely hypocritical.
Some Iraqis are afraid most probably because they have being watching false propaganda. Most have figured out that the Coalition are trying to free them from an evil man.
Protesters don't give a shit because they live a thousand miles away and don't know what pain they are suffering.
Protesters don't give a shit because they live a thousand miles away and don't know what pain they are suffering.
I realize that wasn't directed at me but I had to comment on this article. It wasn't nearly as bad as the one I linked to but a few points:
Comparing the USA and our actions to the baath party, which is responsible for the atrocities listed above. Does that honestly seem like a fair or accurate comparison? Then he applies that we can't be liberators because we have a different culture, language, we look different, and many of us have different beliefs. Are those valid reasons on why we aren't truly liberating the Iraqi people? It seems like he has an agenda and is trying to imply something here.
Implying that the torture cells will carry forward and will still be used by the coalition and/or the new Iraqi government. Unreal. He did at least have a good idea about turning them in to memorials but he keeps implying otherwise.
He mentions many other things such as the names of the tanks, the origin of the people fighting the coalition,
That's an excerpt from a telephone conversation a Marine had with his mother. Does the reporter think that he would tell his own mother that he would be there for a long time in order to keep the peace? Of course not, he says what he feels would most comfort his mother. The Marines are trained far better then most realize and they are briefed constantly so I'm sure the soldier truly knows that he won't return in three days. Consider the context used.
They go on to imply the Iraq will never be ruled by foreigners and that they'll be labeled terrorists for defending their country. If they truly believe that then they have been beyond misinformed by their news sources.. To further add to that they claim the Army lied about killing two journalists in the Palestine hotel. In fact I saw just the opposite, they admitted to the actions, the exact videotape was shown, and clearly they did shoot the hotel killing those two men.
I think this reporter makes his motives clear with the way he finishes the story: "The "real" story for America's mastery over the Arab world starts now."
The only thing that can prove we aren't there to take over Iraq for some will be time. If they only believe media that is slanted to their viewpoints and they don't trust our government then only time will prove our true motives. If five years from now you look back and say I wish Saddam Hussein were still ruling with an iron fist then I would be shocked. In time we'll see and I hope in time people like this will come to again trust us.
Yes, most of the atrocities you have listed above are true. Note the word "most" -- I honestly believe that many of them are fabricated. But in any case, nobody is denying that Saddam was evil. But the fact that the Iraqi people didn'[t revolt against the leadership as the Russians did is very important. (I continue to use this analogy again and again, yet nobody ever responds to it.) It shows that although Saddam was an oppressive leader, he wasn't oppressive enough to justify a revolution. Obviously, the Iraqi people felt that their life was worth living -- whereas the Russians were so desperate that they preferred corrupt Communist leaders to the czar.
Oh, and one more thing...I see the issue of the Palestinian suicide bombers in that list. Many Muslims support his aggressive stance towards Israel. Without that, the Iraqis would only hate Hussein more, so that does not deserve to be included on the "atrocities" list.
Last edited:
It might not be receiving a response because they tried it once and when the USA incorrectly backed off they were slaughtered. Many of the citizens didn't have the weapons to defend themselves and they fear for their families’ lives. Your analogy is like someone being assaulted but because the victim didn't report it the criminal action is acceptable? It just seems foolish and atrocities of any kind are unacceptable regardless of the action the victims take.
Again regardless of perception it's an atrocity. If you intentionally kill innocent civilians then you've committed an atrocity. Without trying to get to off topic that's also one of the big reasons the Palestinian people don't have as much support as Israel in the USA. It doesn't help when they are shown celebrating the death of innocent civilians, whether it be a suicide bombing or the World Trade Center attack. Many American's are able to look beyond that realizing it's only a portion of their population but regardless it hurts their cause more then it helps.
Hi,
I'm not saying that Saddam's actions are acceptable, by any means! However, America should let the Iraqi people figure it out for themselves. The Russian civilians failed time and time again -- for example, Bloody Sunday and the bread riots -- yet they persisted because the czar was really that bad. Moreover, not only did the Russians do this without foreign support, they did this against foreign support. The Iraqis, with the power of international support, should not have as much trouble as the Russians did in turning against their leader, but they have chosen not to do so.
And if we really cared about the suffering of people, why did we put Pinochet and Mobutu in power, and defend them when the people rioted against these leaders?
I agree. It is an atrocity, but it isn't an atrocity committed against the Iraqi people. Therefore, if you used this argument against many Iraqis, they would probably get angry.
In any case, the only reason Palestine doesn't have support of America is because of the massive influence the Jewish people have on American businesses and politics. The fact that the Palestinians feel no sympathy towards the death of so many innocent Americans is only an effect of American indifference to the Palestinian plight. But we shouldn't get off topic.
I'm not saying that Saddam's actions are acceptable, by any means! However, America should let the Iraqi people figure it out for themselves. The Russian civilians failed time and time again -- for example, Bloody Sunday and the bread riots -- yet they persisted because the czar was really that bad. Moreover, not only did the Russians do this without foreign support, they did this against foreign support. The Iraqis, with the power of international support, should not have as much trouble as the Russians did in turning against their leader, but they have chosen not to do so.
And if we really cared about the suffering of people, why did we put Pinochet and Mobutu in power, and defend them when the people rioted against these leaders?
I agree. It is an atrocity, but it isn't an atrocity committed against the Iraqi people. Therefore, if you used this argument against many Iraqis, they would probably get angry.
In any case, the only reason Palestine doesn't have support of America is because of the massive influence the Jewish people have on American businesses and politics. The fact that the Palestinians feel no sympathy towards the death of so many innocent Americans is only an effect of American indifference to the Palestinian plight. But we shouldn't get off topic.
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t Pinochet arrested for war crimes in the past couple years? If so he received what was coming to him. I know Mobutu has already died and that all took place in the 60’s. Granted that isn’t an excuse for any aid that may have been given but after news came out about the human rights violations and corruption we did stop the aid. Also to be fair some people opposing this war also provided aid to him so it’s not really relevant.
If you believe the USA wants evil dictators in power then I think you’re misguided. If you want to play the history game we can go back to all the countries we’ve provided aid to and the countries we’ve helped defend. The USA isn’t perfect by any means but no country is. Anyway, that’s getting this even further off topic..
I still believe your revolting point is incorrect for reasons stated before. I have a feeling we’ll have to agree to disagree but who am I to question why someone isn’t willing to sacrifice him or herself to try and rebel? You also have to remember that many did oppose him and they were swiftly killed. Are we then going to criticize them for not having communication means to rebel as a large group rather then small groups?
I think we’ll also have to agree to disagree on the Palestine support. Yasser Arafat is a terrorist in American’s eyes and anyone related to suicide bombings (even their supporters) will receive no sympathy from most of us. There is no valid reason to intentionally kill innocent civilians. The politicians represent the American people and trust me when I say you won’t get either group to support a cause backed by suicide bombers. The terrorist attacks have to stop, both sides of leaders need to have cleans hands and be willing to negotiate, and finally the Palestinians cause will have merit and they’ll gain credibility.
I’m not helping the thread get back on topic so if a moderator wants to yell at me I’d recommend it.
If you believe the USA wants evil dictators in power then I think you’re misguided. If you want to play the history game we can go back to all the countries we’ve provided aid to and the countries we’ve helped defend. The USA isn’t perfect by any means but no country is. Anyway, that’s getting this even further off topic..
I still believe your revolting point is incorrect for reasons stated before. I have a feeling we’ll have to agree to disagree but who am I to question why someone isn’t willing to sacrifice him or herself to try and rebel? You also have to remember that many did oppose him and they were swiftly killed. Are we then going to criticize them for not having communication means to rebel as a large group rather then small groups?
I think we’ll also have to agree to disagree on the Palestine support. Yasser Arafat is a terrorist in American’s eyes and anyone related to suicide bombings (even their supporters) will receive no sympathy from most of us. There is no valid reason to intentionally kill innocent civilians. The politicians represent the American people and trust me when I say you won’t get either group to support a cause backed by suicide bombers. The terrorist attacks have to stop, both sides of leaders need to have cleans hands and be willing to negotiate, and finally the Palestinians cause will have merit and they’ll gain credibility.
I’m not helping the thread get back on topic so if a moderator wants to yell at me I’d recommend it.
That's anti-jewish brainwashing. Jews control a little as do many races, but let me tell you, the Japanese control a great deal more. The Jews dont control anywhere near enough to have any significant influence.
The fact that the Americans feel no sympathy towards Palestinians is because they have always tried to solve problems thru terrorism. America doesnt actively get involved in that situation, and I can tell you why. Our government doesnt want the controversy, it's like the debate over abortion. Most denominations in this country are forms of Christianity. The Palestinians are tresspassing on the lands God gave to the Jews. Americans have their views also, and wouldnt actively go against God to take away what he has given to people. At the same time, we don't have the answers to solve the problem for the modern situation. We also cant condone just kicking the Palestinians out either. So we stay out of it and let them deal with it.
