Iraq training children to soldiers

[Pekka]

The way I see this, is that Saddam is the one sacrifising these kids. I think it's necessary that these kind of leaders are toppled. I'm not going to pretend that I don't find it sad that some of these kids will die, it is a tragedy. But looking further in the future, it's more important that Saddam gets the boot, so kids like them can have a better future.

[Az]

Azazel, you do listen Serb too much... Lithuanian forces fought against occupation by Hitler and Lithuanian civilians helped Jews to escape from Gestapo, hiding them in their homes, etc. Yes however, Russians driven Hitler out of Lithuania, but their occupation was billions times crueler. BTW, if you think that it was good for Jews in Soviet times in Lithuania don't think so. Soviets for example destroyed all 164 synagogues there were in Vilnius.

I don't care for synagogues. One would have thought that after the holocaust no jews would be left believing in god.

And yes, many people from different countries did help the jews. But I am not talking generally in the defence of jews. I am talking generally. Stalin's rule, no matter how bad, wasn't as bad as hitler's. And after stalin, things got much better.

[Pekka]

Boris, Do you think this kind of dictator should stay in power?

[chequita guevara]

In Africa, the most vicious fighters are often children. They're the ones who did most of the mutilations in Liberia and Sierre Leone. No, MtG is right, it is a human rights violation, and it should be condmened. I still don't doubt for a minute that we'd send our own children into battle if we thought it necessary.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
If it was about global hegemony (I like imperialism better, it flows ), why would we pick a relatively useless chunk of real estate like Iraq, when we could simply take Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and install "democracies" of our choosing there?

While I'm willing to place money on the fact that most Americans would back an overthrown or invasion of the Saudis, given their funding of al-Qaeda, I'm not sure anyone else in the world would go along with us. Hussein is the posterchild for evil, making him an easy target. There will be some repercutions for attacking, but nothing like we'd face if we attacked the "Holy" country. And as long as Kuwait does our bidding, why should we replace them with a government that might be less pliant?

Global hegemony is a little better than imperialism because the latter implies in many people's minds colonialism. It's just one less argument to have with people who get stuck on words and not facts. I think it also reflects a qualitative difference between what Lenin described and a system where there is only one world power.

[Pekka]

Besides, if these kids come across, I bet they give up easily, so they can be taken as prisoners, make special barracks for them to stay in. I don't see them putting up a hell of a fight anyway. They don't want to fight.

Some of them are going to die in bombings, like civilian kids, just like in every war there is and has been. So this should not stop the demands. There should be an effort to take these kids prisoners, treated well, rather than killing them.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Pekka
Boris, Do you think this kind of dictator should stay in power?

In a perfect world, no. But in this world we have no right to be invading a sovereign nation without provocation (by which I mean a direct act of aggression towards us). The U.S. has plenty of its own human rights concerns, and there are plenty of dictators around the world who treat their people far worse than Saddam does. Why should the U.S. be the police for the rest of the world? Why should I favor sending my people to go get killed in combat over something that does not affect our country and we have no right to interfere with in the first place?

Besides, If I was going to rank them in order of most cruel regimes, I'd say we should be going after Mugabe, the House of Saud, Sudan, Chad, etc. before going after Saddam.

To be blunt, it's none of our business.

[Jac de Molay]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


If it was about global hegemony (I like imperialism better, it flows ), why would we pick a relatively useless chunk of real estate like Iraq, when we could simply take Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and install "democracies" of our choosing there?

Mecca and Medina. Otherwise we would have invaded a long time ago. We'll take the next best alternative in invading Iraq and keeping close tabs on Saudi stability.

[Pekka]

Boris, I agree with some of your stuff there. I'd go with other leaders first. Or at least I'd go at them, and not stop after Saddam.
But now you're going over about if this war is justified or not.. I'm not going to debate over that, I'm pro-war in this situation.

All I'm saying is, I would understand this, if it was about survival of the people, but I think this is not about survival of the people. I see these kids as Saddams sacrifical lambs, and I think it's unacceptable.

[Ramo]

Yes, we should attack so we can butcher a bunch of innocent 12-year olds. That makes perfect sense.

[Sonic]

I agree with Boris. Azazel, Stalin killed more people than Hitler...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


So your answer is to attack and then actually kill these boys to get to their leader? Well, if that works for you...

As opposed to let them be oppressed indefinitely by Hussein and whatever successor (Uday, Quinsay, or whoever) he chooses?

These kids won't fight - they'd hide, or break and run, or surrender at first opportunity.

And just because some murderous bastard uses kids and others as human shields to perpetuate his own grip on power doesn't mean we have to let him remain in power.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay


Mecca and Medina. Otherwise we would have invaded a long time ago. We'll take the next best alternative in invading Iraq and keeping close tabs on Saudi stability.

{Jack Nicholson voice}So what, we'll still let 'em in. Just charge 'em admission is all. {/Jack Nicholson voice}

[Az]

Stalin killed more people than Hitler...

sure.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ramo
Yes, we should attack so we can butcher a bunch of innocent 12-year olds. That makes perfect sense.

Yes, we should let Hussein's use of 12 year olds as forced cannon fodder dictate that he remain in power unhindered. That makes perfect sense.

In fact, let's make it general policy - if any thug dictator threatens to commit genocide, or use nukes, or whatever, let's all just kiss his ass and say "you can do whatever you want, just don't hurt those people."

They won't be butchered - they won't even fight, once things hit the fan.

[Pekka]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


As opposed to let them be oppressed indefinitely by Hussein and whatever successor (Uday, Quinsay, or whoever) he chooses?

These kids won't fight - they'd hide, or break and run, or surrender at first opportunity.

And just because some murderous bastard uses kids and others as human shields to perpetuate his own grip on power doesn't mean we have to let him remain in power.

This is what I think too. I think letting Saddam stay is higher price for these Iraqi children in the long run. Sure, Saddam won't live decades, but looks like his son is next in line, ready to continue. It won't end, until someone puts an end to it. The sooner the better.

But there should be every effort taken that these kids wouldn't get butchered. I believe like MTG said, they'll run the first chance they get, or at least surrender.