Posted by Lobofan at 84.250.95.24.cfl.rr.com on December 08, 2003 at 11:35:45:
In Reply to: You don't attack those who didn't attack you. posted by Smalls on December 08, 2003 at 04:50:09:
Mike says:
: We've already killed more Iraqis than he ever could have in the last couple of months... and the ones who've survived are in infinitely worse shape than they were before.
They are Al-Queda soldiers. We've killed them. That's the idea about war. Kill or be killed. You think we've been walking into houses and killing non-threatening civilians for shits and giggles? Hardly. I believe they found over 3000 bodies in one of the mass graves. All reports indicate that there have not been as many casualities as some of the media's leading you to believe.
: Now instead of subsisting with a tyrant from within, they're starving with a tyrant from without. Good fucking trade.
Never heard anything about a famine over there. Must be news to me only then. I also recall the new government is starting to act upon themselves without our involvement.
: And, beyond that, we've set a dangerous international precedent: America's gonna kill whoever it damn well wants.
Let's see... Saddam signed an agreement to destroy and remove weapons of mass destruction back in 1991(?). Since then, he had not done so. He violated the agreement signed by the UN. We went in to remove him due to the agreement that he breached. Did he possibly move serious weapons before the war? There is a chance. I believe it to be so. One thing I disappoved about Bush was that he said that there will be an attack from us. Where and when, we won't tell. Two weeks later, he gave a deadline. That was rather stupid.
Anyway, The UN unapproved thanks in part for Russia, Germany and France. The 3 countries refused to participate. 2 months ago, we found a hidden warehouse where they found hundred of crates of weapons. The crates from shipped from Germany, France, Saudi Arabia and Russia (though not as much as the other 3). The 3 countries that stopped the UN from helping were supplying Saddam. Does it take 2 + 2 here? Why us, Britain, Austrailia and Spain? Well, intelligence from the Clinton Administration was the source of the intelligence (which Clinton ignored) and we acted upon it with George Bush. Bush decided to act upon it. We have the manpower, technology and the force to do so. The UN Peacekeepers haven't done much good in the past 10 years with their support and actions. It was obviously going to be up to us. Were we acting like bullies? I don't see it that way. If somebody agreed with me on a contract on something, I'm going to make sure his side of the deal is going to be held up. Saddam didn't.
: Not to mention a whole new generation of Al-Queda crawling from beneath their parents bodies on the streets of Baghdad... and waiting for someone to hand them a gun.
There is always that chance. Can't agrue too much there. Brainwashed people can only be taught what they know. Your example is a little extreme though.
: In short: Sadaam in power in Iraq was better for the world and the Iraqi people in general, monstrous though he be, than America going in and taking him out for the wrong reasons.
Wrongo. That sort of logic is like: "John Doe is on death row for mass murder. If we keep him on death row for life without parole, it's ok because our tax dollars are helping him eat better than the homeless and maybe he'll realize what he did wrong. And if we kill him, it's inhuman." We're keeping John Doe around for the wrong reasons. I assume you didn't see the torture video of Saddam's men back in October? That was brutal.
: And history will bear that out. It is already.
I am going to need an example of that before I can believe that.
: Honestly, all we can do as Americans is slowly wake up, throw the bums out who did this and apologize profusely to the world for how badly we've fucked up.
: "Sorry. Seriously, we're gonna stop electing power-mad fundamentalist oil barons as our leaders. Back to over-educated horndog Southern liberals who clawed their way up from the trailer parks. They seem to have their shit together more."
What makes you think this is about oil? That excuse is as passe as the old Mr. T cartoon. It has nothing to do with oil. We don't even get our oil from Iraq!!! Jesus. We have no need to apologize. Though Bush's approach on the situation was a little hasty and some measures could have been better timed, I still support our involvement. I'm an independant personally.
Hearing idiotic celebrities like Dixie Chicks, Springsteen, Sheryl Crow and sadly, Ben Affleck talk about this in all of the media makes me sick. The last thing I want to do is going on Kev's website and hash it out even more. War sucks. I want our people to come back safe and sound. We have to do what is necessary though. As much as it seems to be, it is necessary for us to be there.
If it came down to Bush and any of the 9 Democrats, I'm going to go for Bush. At least he seems to know what to do in a position of power. Those 9 morons have no stance on anything except for to bashing Bush...Great leadership. One of the candidates (Dean I believe) said at Disney World in Orlando said that the African American people need to be able to get computers in order for them to catch up with us. My co-worker (who is black) said that "he's a fucking idiot for thinking that I can't afford a computer". Hearing stuff like that makes you wonder how some people can be nominated for such a position.
I respect your opinion but I feel it is not right.
: Mike