Why I think War with Iraq Is justifiable

[Lyzel]

Read this:

So many deaths...

It is the FACTS

 

[Mr. Moustache]

Read this:

So many deaths...

It is the FACTS

 

[Lyzel]

Originally posted by Mr. Moustache@Mar 16, 2003 @ 07:26 AM

Read this:

So many deaths...

It is the FACTS

Um, after reading that.. where are the facts?? Do you really consider the opinion of ONE person, not even backed by any independent agency, to be FACTS???

Geez. You can be in denial all you want, but atleast show some actual proof that can be proven. Yes?

 

[Mr. Moustache]

". . . shameful dependence on and uncritical acceptance of Pentagon handouts instead of substantial, critical coverage of the ground situation in Afghanistan. The US corporate media seems to be muting any talk of civilian casualties first by framing any such news with ``Taliban claims that . . .'' and then happily putting the matter to rest with Pentagon spokesman . . ." [Joel Lee, "civilian casualties -- notes from India", Znet Inter Active]

read this

It's essentially the same, but more comprehensive than what the BBC provides. And whether or not it is independetly verified shouldn't matter, no matter what precautions are taken civilian deaths are a fact of war. And that reason alone is enough to question why war is considered necessary. His estimates are conservative and non-objective, and they come from the same mainstream media that you seem to so heavily rely on.

This war in Iraq will kill more civilians than one could comprehend.. 5000 is almost uncomprehendable as is.

But with the guarantee of urban warfare, and the largest airial onslaught in the history of man we should expect the number of civilian deaths to grow by leaps and bounds.

And I doubt it would be realistic thinking to expect cheering when we enter the streets of Baghdad, rather I would expect to hear the cries of a people that have been massacred by foreign troops. I suggest you go tell the mother that will be looking for her child in the rubbel of a building blown to pieces by a U.S. bomb that this war was necessary to free her.

 

[Lyzel]

Again, you have posted opinions, not facts.

As for civilian casualties, yes it will happen. Mistakes do happen after all. But I think that's part of the price to pay for freedom / indepence. Just like there are civil wars??

Anyways, are you saying that you would rather have your head up your ass and ignore Saddam Hussein, because civilians will be killed?? No offense, just curious??

 

[Lyzel]

By the way, if you don't mind me asking.. where are you from???

 

[Curtis]

Lyzel, you're entitled to your opinion I guess, but I can't see why you are so enthusiastic to engage in armchair warfare. You won't be on the ground on either side. You acknowledge that there will be civilian casualties, yet this doesn't bother you. How? Why?

Would it bother you if the roles were reversed?

Why do you see America's role as the aggressor in this situation as better than Saddams crimes? Sure Saddam is an evil man, but will George W Bush become as evil when he orders devices like the so-called "Mother Of All Bombs" on non-military targets, or when they "accidentally" hit a hospital? My guess is no.

 

[antime]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why gassing civilians was considered perfectly acceptable until the day Kuwait was invaded when it suddenly became a serious faux pas.

 

[Curtis]

Don't hold your breath...

 

[mal]

Originally posted by antime@Mar 16, 2003 @ 10:42 PM

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why gassing civilians was considered perfectly acceptable until the day Kuwait was invaded when it suddenly became a serious faux pas.

Because oil supplies weren't threatened by the gassings.

Once he'd invaded Kuwait however...

 

[mal]

For those that are undeterred by the concept of war and casualties of any sort, take a look at this:

Warning: contains very disturbing images and text

This is war

Hard to look at, but it doesn't make it any less real.

 

[antime]

Now, now, Bushy boy has said this has nothing to do with oil, and if we don't take everything the White House says in blind faith we're in denial with our heads up our asses and that just won't do.

 

[mal]

Well it can't be because of any links that Iraq has with al Qaeda:

Originally posted by Interview with Bush and Blair

Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question. The one thing I would say, however, is I've absolutely no doubt at all that unless we deal with both of these threats, they will come together in a deadly form. Because, you know, what do we know after September the 11th? We know that these terrorists networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction. And we know also that they will do whatever they can to acquire the most deadly weaponry they can. And that's why it's important to deal with these issues together.

Full interview

I didn't realise that Blair could see into the future.

 

[Daniel Eriksson]

And I doubt it would be realistic thinking to expect cheering when we enter the streets of Baghdad, rather I would expect to hear the cries of a people that have been massacred by foreign troops. I suggest you go tell the mother that will be looking for her child in the rubbel of a building blown to pieces by a U.S. bomb that this war was necessary to free her.

I agree. War is like that, whatever its reasons are.

This is war

Hard to look at, but it doesn't make it any less real.

I cant understand how anyone still wants a war after seen this.

Why cant US destroy their weapons first? Going as a good example? But then they would be vulnerable to an attack? Wouldn´t it be the same for Iraq? But Saddam is evil... Might be, but he is not the one attacking this time. And if we count, US has killed FAR more people in wars than Iraq would ever be able to. But that doesn´t justify it. No, but making a crater out of Iraq doesnt either.

See, this discussion can go on forever. I believe there is another option. Not vaporize Iraq, not let Saddam keep his power. Why not try to assasinate Saddam

We should try to discuss solutions, not problems.

 

[Lyzel]

Originally posted by Curtis@Mar 16, 2003 @ 11:30 AM

Lyzel, you're entitled to your opinion I guess, but I can't see why you are so enthusiastic to engage in armchair warfare. You won't be on the ground on either side. You acknowledge that there will be civilian casualties, yet this doesn't bother you. How? Why?

Would it bother you if the roles were reversed?

Why do you see America's role as the aggressor in this situation as better than Saddams crimes? Sure Saddam is an evil man, but will George W Bush become as evil when he orders devices like the so-called "Mother Of All Bombs" on non-military targets, or when they "accidentally" hit a hospital? My guess is no.

You know why??? Because the CRIMES won't continue if the person was eliminated?

 

[Lyzel]

Originally posted by antime@Mar 16, 2003 @ 11:42 AM

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why gassing civilians was considered perfectly acceptable until the day Kuwait was invaded when it suddenly became a serious faux pas.

Who said it was perfectly acceptable?? 1988 was a different time. Not all the information was in the table at the time. This is now, and they have seen what Saddam is capable of doing.

 

[Lyzel]

Originally posted by mal@Mar 16, 2003 @ 12:24 PM

For those that are undeterred by the concept of war and casualties of any sort, take a look at this:

Warning: contains very disturbing images and text

This is war

Hard to look at, but it doesn't make it any less real.

That's pretty sad... but you know what? If no one stops these sick people from raping women, etc, etc, it will continue. Just seeing atrocities like that, just reinforces my belief to do something, rather than picking my nose.

 

[Lyzel]

Originally posted by mal+Mar 16, 2003 @ 12:34 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mal @ Mar 16, 2003 @ 12:34 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> Well it can't be because of any links that Iraq has with al Qaeda:

<!--QuoteBegin-Interview with Bush and Blair

Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question. The one thing I would say, however, is I've absolutely no doubt at all that unless we deal with both of these threats, they will come together in a deadly form. Because, you know, what do we know after September the 11th? We know that these terrorists networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction. And we know also that they will do whatever they can to acquire the most deadly weaponry they can. And that's why it's important to deal with these issues together.

Full interview

I didn't realise that Blair could see into the future.

[/b][/quote]

Um, it is possible to predict what someone might do in the future. Look at osama, I'm sure they are trying/plotting right now to harm America.

 

[antime]

The US knew Iraq was using chemical weapons years before that, and decided to continue giving them military support even after the 1988 gassings. All the info was available, but it didn't matter until the invasion of Kuwait. Just one of life's small coincidences, eh?

 

[Lyzel]

And if we count, US has killed FAR more people in wars than Iraq would ever be able to. But that doesn´t justify it. No, but making a crater out of Iraq doesnt either.

That is such bullshit. At the speed Saddam has killed innocent people, America has killed less. America does not intentionally tries to kill civilians, like some countries has done.