300,000 Iraqis May Be in Mass Graves

[Odin]

Originally posted by skywalker
Again, does it matter whether he does it on humanitarian grounds or he does is because he got up on the wrong side of the bed? As long as it is a good thing to do, the reason is irrelevent.

YES IT DOES! I can already tell that the elections are going to be rigged to favor Haliburton, I raq is going to turn into a US-backed Thugocracy, like countries always do after we "free" them. That, or else the country will collapse into civil war because our armed forces are over-streached. As I have said before, we should of waited untill we are done with Afganistan and then get the UN's approval (france objected because the US would get all the spoils, Haliburton and Bush's refusal to hand Iraq over to the UN has proved them right ). Because of Bush's pet war the Taliban is making a comebake if Afganistan. Finally, to ad insult, to injury, Bush has shown his gratitude to our troops by cutting their pay and benifits.

[johncmcleod]

Skywalker, it is blatant violation of international law. First off, according to the UN's charter, unauthorized regime change is illegal. Second, 1441 only says "Suffer the consequences" it says nothing of allowing invasion. It is standard UN protocol that you must create a second resolution to approve war when that type of language is used. The US did this, but the resolution wasn't voted on.

And, JohnC, you are especially amazing for arguing that restoring Saddam to power is the thing to do because he will now not kill so many people. This kind of thinking is simply stunning.

And Ned, you are especially amazing for saying that I argued to restore him to power. This kind of thinking is simply stunning.

I did not say once that he should be restored to power.

And for all the chickenhawks that think the world is a better place, you're wrong.

The US now has no credibility. The world hates us even more, and now so many more terrorists will join terrorist organizations and kill more people. We are now in a huge debt and our troops are in a horrible position, so many more of them are dying. We now have less troops in Afghanistan, and they're badly needed there. We got rid of one brutal dictator who now is very weak and hasn't been very brutal for a while. Now, the Iraqi people have no security or infrastructure, and thousands have been killed by the war. And instead of having Saddam in power, we will have a US puppet or the people will elect another brutal dictator. Either way the people of Iraq aren't in a better position.

Now will one of the chickenhawks tell me why we should do this instead of going into the Congo? We can't go into the Congo now, because we have so many in Iraq. If we would not have gone into Iraq, we could have sent more to Afghanistan to fix the situation there, and we could have deployed more forces to Africa. This would not create the harms going into Iraq would because we wouldn't be destroying our credibility, we wouldn't need as many troops to be deployed, we'd spend less money, we'd save way more lives, and less terrorists would be recruited.

Why couldn't we have done this?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Is there anyone participating in this thread not holding the following opinons?

1- The Ba'athists were, and remain, utterly monstrous by any sane standards.

2- That we should have finished them in 1991.

3- That it's one less genocidal regime on the face of this planet.

I agree with #1, but not with 2. I do not see countries topple other regimes for humanitarian reasons. Otherwise, you will see them - particularly the US - act differently.

[Kuciwalker]

re: Odin

YES IT DOES!

Explain to me, then, how the motive behind an action determines whether or not the action was "good" or "bad". Also, return to my corporation analogy - should we forbid corporations from donating money to charity if they are doing it for good publicity?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


Ted Onanist

The only BS I smell here is the BS plan B attempt at justifying attacking Iraq after the WMD and terrorist links were found to be, err, wrong...

You know, when I saw this title I thought it was all the poor conscripts that were blown up and bulldozed on the 1991 frontline by the US...



I am afraid I can only repeat Piaktis' sentiments...

OK, what about Liberia then - why did the US sit on their hands when asked to intervene. All they had to do was show up, but they were too chicken**** to do that...

Call me when the hypocritometer stops going off the scale as it is now - how pathetic some people actually believe this sh*t...

Which sh!t are you referring to? That Saddam murdered up to 300,000 of his own people?

Oh, yea, and we're too ckickensh!t to invade Liberia? How many combat casualties has your nation sustained in the last 50 years? Care to compare on a per capita basis? And if you consider yourself such a brave stud, how is it that you aren't protecting the world and your ideals with your own life? You're a hater, and no number of weepy smilies can disguise it.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


Well if it were all about the little Bush installing a puppet regime in Iraq that is half way tolerable, for whatever rotten motives, I'd say fine.

The problem is that in the process, we get a monumental ****up that will breed islamist terrorists like rabbits and discredit democracy in the arab world for decades. Then there's the possivility it will leave Iraq with a regime that is a lot like Saddam or in civil war.

Come on, do you see evidence that Iraq is breeding Islamist terrorists like rabbits? I'm not seeing that, as the terrorists that seem to be showing up there are mostly secular Saddamites or previously established Islamic terrorists and militants from other countries. I'm not saying that what you suggest is impossible, but I don't see the evidence for your apparant belief that this is what's happening.

[johncmcleod]

Come on, do you see evidence that Iraq is breeding Islamist terrorists like rabbits? I'm not seeing that, as the terrorists that seem to be showing up there are mostly secular Saddamites or previously established Islamic terrorists and militants from other countries. I'm not saying that what you suggest is impossible, but I don't see the evidence for your apparant belief that this is what's happening.

How can you say that? The Muslims in the Middle East are outraged. Many foreign fighters have come to Iraq. The whole invasion has tarnished our world opinion. You can't deny that many more terrorists will take up arms.

[Kuciwalker]

Iraq isn't breeding terrorists - it's bringing them in from abroad. The Iraqis themselves aren't becoming ba'athists.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by skywalker
Iraq isn't breeding terrorists - it's bringing them in from abroad. The Iraqis themselves aren't becoming ba'athists.

Bingo.

[Ted Striker]

[johncmcleod]

OK. So the many new terrorist recruits aren't from Iraq. That makes it perfectly OK then.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by skywalker
Iraq isn't breeding terrorists - it's bringing them in from abroad. The Iraqis themselves aren't becoming ba'athists.

Rumsfeld said in a mem ohe isn't sure what is going on. He needs to fire his staff and hire skywalker.

And foreigners are not becoming ba'athists either, since it is a farily national phenomenon.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Sikander

Come on, do you see evidence that Iraq is breeding Islamist terrorists like rabbits? I'm not seeing that, as the terrorists that seem to be showing up there are mostly secular Saddamites or previously established Islamic terrorists and militants from other countries.

Well no one knows what's really going on in Iraq. From the few insights one can get, it appears that the baathist remnanats story is just another case of Bushist wishful thinking. Much of it seems to be rooted in Iraq's clan structure.

"I'm not saying that what you suggest is impossible, but I don't see the evidence for your apparant belief that this is what's happening."

First I'm more concerned about outside Iraq, second we are just at the beginning. What do you think is the arab or muslim view of the Iraq invasion? Another colonialist war to loot a country. What will pictures of the US forces now bombing areas in Tikrit do? What when the happy little democracy story gets abandonned? Etc.

I'm sometimes amazed by the level of hatred for the US I see here, you can only imagine how arabs feel. A part of that hatred will be recruited into terrorism. You will reap the fruits of Bush's Iraq war some years down the line.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
BTW: What's the point of this thread other than to remind us that running a dictatorship requires getting your hands dirty? Even if there were a million people in those graves, how would that justify using force to remove the previous regime?

So you're defending Saddam's dictatorship? 300k, 1m - more? Dino here doesn't seem to care how many people a dictator kills, killing people apparently isn't a justification to remove them from power...

See. He doesn't even bother to form a real response to the post and only resorts to cheap and quite frankly idiotic attacks on myself. Not that he could considering the fact his posts here prove my point more than anything he can say in his defense.

Actually that was a perfectly viable response to your post - seeing as you are the one that "normally doesn't bother to form a real response to the post and only resorts to cheap and quite frankly idiotic attacks on myself. Not that he could considering the fact his posts here prove my point more than anything he can say in his defense"

You summed yourself up quite nicely...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I've changed my name several times so I can understand why it might be hard for the slow witted to keep up but this is my original name.

Not hard at all - you appear to have this interesting tendency of changing your handle about the time you're losing a bunch of arguments and making an embarrassment out of yourself.

To your credit I see that you have stopped doing this - but only because you have stopped posting any credible arguments yourself or backing anything up that you say...

Rather, as I repeatedly call you on, you have resorted to snidey, sniping comments from the sideline...

We all understand if you have nothing constructive to say, but if that is the case - shut the f*ck up...