What's the Difference?

[David Floyd]

You ARE a drunk bastard, though

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by David Floyd
You ARE a drunk bastard, though

i actually don't drink.

i'm nto down with the social aspect of drinking. things like beerpong and assh0le have me all flabberghasted.

that and the whole social anxiety thing.

oh, and the few times i drank i realized i'm a sad drunk.

[David Floyd]

My mistake

But social drinking is fun, and drinking games are better

Stop threadjacking my thread

[Inverse Icarus]

back on topic then:

it's ok to kill iraqis because they're evil. and not christian. and stuff.

[David Floyd]

[MRT144]

"sorry i'm not a gayologist."

i gotta tell the guys at work this one. its a classic

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by MRT144
"sorry i'm not a gayologist."

i gotta tell the guys at work this one. its a classic

classic uber

on that note i'm going to bed.

[KaiserIsak]

According to the leader of the weapon inspections who were taken out by the US before the bombing in 98, at least 95% of the iraqi arsenal were disarmed by them. So i can not really see how they could be starting anything at all in the middle east. But countries like the US, who have the biggest arsenals of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in the world, may really be a treat to peace. Not only in the middle east but in the hole world.
USA is not the "good" in this conflict. It is rather the evil. If you take a look upon the history of the democratic USA, all the wars they have fought they have fought out of their own egoistic economic interest. Why should this be any different? They helped Pinochet, Suharto and even Saddam Husein himself to gain power when that was in their interest, why should they not do something similar now if it is in their interest? We have no guarante that Saddam huseins dictatorship will be replaced by a democratic society. The only guarante we have is that we will get a society that will export almost free oil to the US. And that a bunch of iraqis will die. But who cares? They are neither anglosaxon OR christians.

[Dinner]

The 95% satistic refers to 95% of the weapons that we knew about. That of course begs the question of how much of the program did we really know about to begin with? Especially since they've been hiding everything from the get go.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
I'm taking this a different direction now... assuming you are against Saddam Hussein's dictatorship and that (despite your leftist beliefs) an American-supported Iraqi republic would be at least an improvemnt over Saddam... then the deaths of a certain number of Iraqis can be minimal compared to the greater good of deposing a dictator

Improvements in what?

Living standards? Don't forget the Iraqis had been quite well off, until Bush Sr decided to drop bombs on their infrastructures. Oil embargo didn't help them, either.

Political freedom? What gives you an idea that an US-backed regime will give the people more political freedom than Saddam? Given that the average Iraqi hates the US more than Saddam, an elected government will be anti-US of all likelihood. That cannot be allowed to happen.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The 95% satistic refers to 95% of the weapons that we knew about. That of course begs the question of how much of the program did we really know about to begin with? Especially since they've been hiding everything from the get go.

Is that why the US bombed an aspirin factory?

[Drogue]

Re: What's the Difference?

Originally posted by David Floyd
In the latest thread about Iraq, I made the comment that if the US attacks Iraq, I hope that the US loses, or at least takes a massive military beating.

Obviously, I got jumped on because of that comment. I even got called a traitor (oh no, not THAT ).

But my question is, why is it OK for US soldiers to kill Iraqis, but not OK for Iraqis to kill US soldiers? Why is it OK to wish that the US conducts a bloodless (for the US) campaign, destroying the Iraqi military (and incidentally killing thousands), but not OK to wish that the US gets frustrated in its aggression, and takes several thousand (several tens of thousands, even) of casualties?

I just don't see the difference. Maybe someone can help me out here.

For once I agree completely with you. I hope the US loses, not in terms of loss of life, but in terms of conquering Iraq, because it will (hopefully) dissuade them interfering militarily in any more countries. What right does the US have to enforce it's beliefs on another nation. This would also go for Bush's call for Yasser Arafat's removal. Bush has not business calling for the removal of another nations leader, any more than, say France, would have in calling for Bush's removal. It is not OK for US soildiers to kill Iraqis, and it is not OK for Iraqis to kill US soldiers. If peace is only present because of a military enforcing it, it is a very unstable peace. If Iraq attacks first, then let us remove those that attacked us, but until then, it is an unprevoked attack upon an independant nation. As such, it is wrong.

[KaiserIsak]

The 95% satistic refers to 95% of the weapons that we knew about. .

Actually this is true, but the same weapon inspector said that they had full control and knew about all of Huseins weapon. So then it does´nt matter. And i trust this weapon inspector a little bit more then i trust Bushs war-mongering propaganda.

[Ned]

I would just like to point out that Iraq is the one who made the unprovoked attacks - twice. Of course this is wrong. This is why the world put Saddam on probation.

I find it amazing how so many can ignore the facts in their determined propagandistic effort to blame the US for every world problem.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Ned
I would just like to point out that Iraq is the one who made the unprovoked attacks - twice. Of course this is wrong. This is why the world put Saddam on probation.

I find it amazing how so many can ignore the facts in their determined propagandistic effort to blame the US for every world problem.

they're pretty good at it, aren't they?

saddam needs to be ousted. can we all agree to that?