Casualties in Iraq. Here is some perspective.

A great many people suspect he trained the hamburg cell in poisons, and that sheik mohammed said he worked a guy(iraqi) in Indonesia who was involved in the first world trade center bombing.

Some also suspect that he trained terrorists in the art of hijacking...they had a 707 fuselage that was visible from satellite and three Iraqi dissidents swear that the men who did 9/11 were trained in that camp at one time.


Take from that what you want, I'm only giving you what you asked for.

 

I take from that nothing, considering that the Bush Admin has been searching constantly for real Saddam / 9-11-01 ties and has found nothing. Bush and Rumsfeld both said as much last week. But that's neither here nor there.

Meanwhile, manny, do you know what each of those genocides I mentioned earlier in this thread have in common? In no case did the US do anything about it. We have never had a policy of invading countries where there are internal human rights violations, and we don't now. Saddam's HR record, as deplorable as it was, has been used strictly as a public relations tool, not as a real reason for the US to invade.

 

I'm not suggesting that we invaded because of the genocide. We invaded for a couple of different reasons.

But I am saying just becuase we haven't found WMD's yet,we shouldn't be mad about taking down a man who has perpretrated genocide.

 

It is good that Hussein is no longer in power. But President Bush should not have ordered the invasion. Too many lives were lost.

 

But please acknowledge that Saddam's horrible human rights record was not one of them.

As someone who over the past 15 years has gotten periodic updates by mail and e-mail from Amnesty International regarding the deplorable actions of Saddam's minions, I agree 100% that his demise is, when viewed in a vacuum, a good thing. The problem is that we cannot have that alone as the only good thing to come out of this from a public policy perspective because it alone is not enough to justify unilateral invasion of a sovereign country. We should not have our troops occupied with this country. We should not have our people dying over this very bad man when he is not a reasonable threat to us. We are not the world's cop.

Would you put your son or daughter's life at risk to depose Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe right now? (Mugabe is as close to a human rights peer to Saddam as exists right now in power, IMO.) If you would not, then you cannot reasonably expect people to like the fact that we sent Americans into battle to take out an insular, paranoid dictator who posed no threat to our land, liberty, or security.

 

Obie, i understand what you're trying to say. I know saddam's human rights record is not why we did what we did. We did it for a couple of reasons.

At first, i denied the notion that there were any ties between AQ and Saddam. But over the last couple of weeks, i have taken another look. Hearing Khalid Sheihk Mohammed finger an Iraqi agent who was involved with WTC attack number one made a big impression. This illustrates a possible partnership between AQ and Saddam. Also, those three Iraqi dissidents swear that the 9/11 hijackers were trained in Iraq using that 707 fuselage. I know that Saddam was brutally secular, but he and AQ have the same enemy. Us. I think they hate us more than they hate each other.I am starting to find the notion of an AQ/Saddam connection more and more possible.

Saddam helped with the first attack on the WTC, and i'm starting to think he had somehting to do with the second one.


I also think we took down Saddam partly to show everyone that we weren't afraid to take on our enemies in the post 9/11 world.

Saddam had wmd's, and he has never accounted for them, and I have a feeling we will find them in time.

Say what you will about me, but that is how i feel now. I have looked at some new information, and that has led me to believe this may be more possible
than we once thought.

 

I love this thread. We have the liberals defending Saddam as a "not-so-bad" genocidal maniac. Hope to see you guys continue with that rhetoric right thru the 2004 elections.

 

No problem - I'm sure the families of the dead will be glad to hear it.

Oh, and be sure to keep telling us about the 9/11 link, the WMD, and literally every single public pronouncement from the Bush administration on the topic, up to and including "My fellow Americans."

 

It can't be dismissed as a statistical abberation if it happens on a regular, albeit not yearly, basis. That is yet to be determined.


Seocnd, no matter how rational we try to be about this, a large terrorist attack will have major consequences which go beyond the number of fatalities.

If you really think terrorism is a boogeyman, take a look:
http://www.google.com/search?q="ter...&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&start=30&sa=N

Third, and most important, a terrorist attack potentially could kill massive numbers, which is why we were supposed to be focusing on WMDs. The thing that bothers me the most about the war in Iraq is that we've lost our credibility while more dangerous threats are developing.

 

Sounds like Iran is buckling to US/Russian pressure.

 

What's the real-world difference between what you said, and the above? And if there is no difference, why not just say the above, and stop hiding behind fluffy b.s.?

If life had real value in the U.S., other than as a part of the consumer and commodification complex, than hospital workers would wash their *#*#*#*#ing hands...

Strict adherence to clean-hand policies alone could prevent the deaths of up to 20,000 patients each year, according to the CDC and the U.S. Health and Human Services Department.

20,000 lives a year. And you are focused solely on the terrorism boogeyman? Look around the corner; its not Bin laden coming to get you, its Nurse Rottencrotch.

Where's the outrage from that? Where's the outrage from the 5,000 accounted for workplace deaths a year?

NOTHING MUST INTERFERE WITH PROFIT ENTERPRISES...NOT EVEN LIFE.

Oops, sorry, the party line burst out of me...sometimes the mind control is so powerful, I can't fight it...

WE LOVE TO SEE YOU SMILE (singing)

Oops...see?

 

No they aren't. If anything, they're working twice as fast. The only quesiton is whether Israel will take them out. If they do, there will be hell to pay, which wasn't the case with Iraq.

 

Only the most vile of necrophilic pederasts would stoop to such name-calling.

 

I hope you have the strength to re-evaluate some of your new information. I read today that the CIA has deemed the Iraqi dissidents (INC, etc) about as truthfull as a Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter.

How much credibility are you willing to give them?

Believe or think what you want, but beware of believing what you want to hear.

 

There weren't INC. They were locals near Salman Pak. They saw what kind of people went there. Saudis, Syrians etc. They knew what they were doing there. I happen to believe bad things were going on there, and thats what they say.

 

Yes you can. Just please arrive with some facts, proof, or logic please.

We can have an honest discussion with these people.[/QUOTE]

Honest discussions typically stem from honest news, facts, opinions

But it seems that a majority of the posters here tie the issue of Iraq to their own personal hatred of president Bush, and so they will believe only the arguments, news, rummors, gossip or innuendos that will make our president look bad. [/QUOTE]

Pity, scorn and disdain are what I feel for Bush. Hate is reserved for his masters.

Anyway, maybe you read the David Brooks NYTimes op-ed on this subject - that people are attacking Bush and not what he stands for? Curiously absent was any assertation that critques of the Bush administration were unfounded. Why? Because there is no defense on many accusations against the administration.

Hey, I'm willing to have my mind changed. Bring me something that can't be so easily dismissed.

 

This is all like a bad movie. Substitute Viet Nam, Korea, Russia, communism, McCarthy, Eisenhower, Regan: with
Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, terrorism, Ashcroft and Bush.
There a people who buy into it and defend it.

Un-*#*#*#*#ing believable.

 

For me, it would have to be a place where we could bring back to life all of the dead American soldiers, and get our hundreds of billions of dollars back.

 

I'm sorry, but this question is totally irrelevant.

 

There better be more hookers than Thailand, but cuter and cleaner. And cheaper. My share of the $87B better get me some good oral loving, cuz I don't drive a car and don't care about prices at the pump.

That and democracy, human rights, fewer terror attacks than an Amish community, and so much love for the US that american backs break from the lais draped on every visitors shoulder.

Ok, maybe that's too much to ask for. I'll probably settle for those good BJs