Saddaam Hussein given death sentence

[Windu Chi]

I think you inferred Spider Al's post incorrectly: he probably meant that a mugger will kill in order to mug; likewise Bush's war will and has end up killing civilians in the process of "securing freedom" for the Western world. Neither the mugger nor Bush have it planned out to kill in cold blood, but it is still their responsibility if it happens.

If you got to guess at what he had said, Tyrion.

Then it is a high probability that is exactly what he meant, by his statement.

That Bush really meant to killed the Iraqi people.

[Maxstate]

A few weakly related things I'd like to put out:

 

The death sentence is not a punishment, it's a relief. You're giving him a get-out-of-jail(life)-free card with which he is excused for any punishment but

just gets killed. For a man like him, death really isn't a good choice.

 

Death does not justify death. Whatever he did, I don't think anyone deserves to die.

It's kinda like you're saying: "We're killing him because he killed people to show that killing is wrong." Not only doesn't it make any sense but it's just wrong ethically if you ask me. By this logic, the executioners, judges, jury and everyone involved in the verdict or the killing itself should be sentenced to death too, as they killed someone?

 

Sure he has quite a few deaths on his name, but so do a lot of other leaders in our world. The difference is though, Sadam is in a weak, practically unguarded country, and America is like a big bully only attacking the weak, small and unguarded countries expecting a clear victory. You can trace it back as long as you want.

I'm not one for hatin' the US, I always correct friends on misconceptions on muslims, the middle-east and America too, but this is just out of line.

 

And don't give me that 'It's an iraqi tribunal' bullschnitt, we all know what's up. Hell I'm 16 and I'm not that naive.

[Mace MacLeod]

Well, this thread went to hell in a hurry...

 

By that logic then maybe Kosovo, Kuwait and Somalia shouldn't have had any intervention, as obviously it was the intent to kill the people there by invading and overthrowing the occupational forces there. For that matter, Vietnam probably should have been left to communisn, Korea should have been ignored and most definetly no action should have been taken against the Nazi takeover of Europe, because the intention was to kill the people who were in those countries rather than fight against Hitler.

There's a very big difference between intervening in war or fighting back against an aggressor and starting a war yourself. I don't understand why you're having so much trouble with that concept. Saddam Hussein waged an aggressive war against Kuwait in 90-91, and was rightfully repulsed by the US and UN. There was no such aggression taking place in 2003, nor did he even have the capability to do so. There isn't so much as a shred of evidence that Saddam was involved in any terrorist attack or plot against the US or its allies in 2003. The gassing of the Kurds occurred in the early 90's after Desert Storm, and the US just sat back and watched him do it. They didn't intervene to prevent this, they just trot out Saddam's crimes to justify the war now.

 

And btw, the US did just leave Vietnam to communism in 1973, and it didn't do a damn thing about the Nazi takeover of Europe. The US only entered WWII in December 1941, long after the Nazis had swept through western Europe and were busy fighting the Russians, remember?

 

And no, I never said Bush plotted or intended genocide against the Iraqis. I said that he and his buddies knew full well there'd be civilian casualties if they invaded, and they went in anyway. That's what happens when you invade a country, and there's no way around that. This has nothing to do with Israelis, Palestinians, Nazis or anybody else. Yes, Iraqi sectarian bloodshed has claimed more lives than the US invasion itself, but it wouldn't be occurring had the US not taken it upon itself to "liberate" the Iraqis without bothering to check with them first. I never said that Bush or the US troops went in saying, "Yee-haw! Let's go kill us a whole mess of Iraqi civilians!", it's that dead civilians are an unavoidable consequence of an invasion. And that invading Iraq at a time where it posed no clear and present danger to any other nation in the world was illegal, immoral and unethical. Bush didn't deliberately intend to wantonly wipe out Iraqi civilians, but their blood is still on his hands.

 

I just want to point this particular quote out and ask, keeping in mind it was wrong to go to war with Iraq, whether the same people who criticise Bush now would criticise him if we did nothing and something like this happened?

 

I'd venture to say yes, because of criticism over not preventing September 11 and then attacking when action is taken to prevent it from happening again (the foiled London hijackings).

Well, we'll never know, will we? If something like Pearl Harbour had happened in 2003 and Iraq was behind it, then there would have been a valid reason to invade. As long as Bush and the neocons continue blaring "9/11!!" to justify marching off to war in case a foreign country might pose a threat, there will be massive critcism, and rightly so. Because unprovoked military aggression is unprovoked military aggression, no matter if it's Bush, Saddam or whoever else doing it.

 

The US is funneling in huge amounts of money into the nation. The new bridges, rebuilt roads (rebuilt far better than what they were to start with), new schools, rebuilt and restocked hospitals, new de-salinization plants and new sewage systems and treatment plants weren't the result of spontaneous generation. However, pictures of a sewage treatment plant has been deemed by the media as "Not Exciting and/or Sexy" like pictures of exploding roadside bombs, so it doesn't get any press.

But does rebuilding a school qualify as "Exciting and/or Sexy" to the children and teachers who were in the original school when it was destroyed by American bombs, I wonder? Rebuilding stuff falls a little below not blowing stuff up in the first place on the grand scale of ethics.

 

So finally, Saddam deserves his impending hanging, Bush isn't quite as bad, but he's still responsible for hundred of thousands of needless deaths, and maybe just maybe the way to prevent terrorism isn't to become a terrorist yourself.

 

@Mace--the 'space navy' and assorted related statements reminds me of the saying on a t-shirt 'Beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here.'

And remember when you're feeling very small and insecure

how amazingly unlikely was your birth,

And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space

Cause there's bugger-all down here on Earth.

[Spider AL]

I would quote Maxstate here, but pretty much everything he said I agree with, so I'll just say "props" and leave it at that.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

This may sound like an obvious question, but if we were to claim Bush intended to kill Iraqi people, then the suicide bombings that Palestine had conducted against Israel, would it be fair to say they intended to kill Jews or does another rule apply to them?

"Palestine" hasn't conducted suicide bombings. Palestinian terrorists have. They're quite simply not organised enough to be called a campaign of the state.

 

And the same moral rule applies to everyone. If someone sets out on a course of action that they know will result in the deaths of innocents, THEY ARE GUILTY OF TEH MURDURZ. George Bush, Saddam Hussein, Tony Blair, Osama Bin Laden, they're all guilty of knowingly causing the deaths of civilians. You've said nothing, and I do mean NOTHING to contradict this. It effectively remains uncontested.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

American GIs, and I'm assuming the soldiers and sailors of any other well-trained force in any other country, do not 'set out to kill the people.'

No offence Jae, but if you believe that I've said at any point that individual soldiers "set out to kill civilians" then you just haven't been reading properly.

 

I said and still say that since the US government were perfectly aware of the potential cost of their invasion in Iraqi civilian lives but went ahead anyway, they are guilty of intentionally causing the deaths of the civilians. They knew the civilians would die en-masse, but they went ahead anyway.

 

Like a mugger who beats people up and steals their purse/wallet. He may want the wallet above all else, but his violence is nonetheless an intentional part of his crime.

 

Just as George Bush (and his handlers) decided that he was willing to "beat up the Iraqi people" (kill them) in order that he might "steal their wallet." (Install a friendly puppet regime in order to further US interest in the region.) The violence is once again a predictable and an intentional part of the crime.

 

The parallel is pretty exact.

 

As for individual soldiers, they're not guilty of the war crimes the US government is guilty of. Soldiers are only guilty of the lesser immoral act of ignorantly signing up to do the bidding of a clearly corrupt government.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

The truth is, 'the people' are killing far more of 'the people' than the Americans have.

Supposing we accept your assertion as fact for a moment... we must come to the conclusion that this is also the US government's fault. If the US hadn't illegally invaded, the nation wouldn't have been de-stabilised and militant groups would not be able to do the damage that they're currently doing. Indirectly or directly, it's the responsibility of the illegally invading nation. And it was predictable. I predicted it before the invasion, (both Iraq and Afghanistan) and my predictions are still online somewhere in fact. If I can predict such things, US government analysts CERTAINLY predicted them.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

I've spoken with a number of 'Nam vets (both pro and con-Bush, so their politics don't factor into this). They uniformly and without hesitation say this war is absolutely nothing like Vietnam.

I didn't say the dynamic of the conflict was like Vietnam, Nancy did. I quoted her and laughed.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

The US is funneling in huge amounts of money into the nation.

Not enough to repair all the damage that the US and the UK have done over the years to the people of this battered nation. If we were to put enough money in to make up for our crimes, our countries' economy would be ruined.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

I think Bush made a big mistake invading--that decision was based on bad information

It was based on GOOD information. The information was: "Saddam still isn't playing ball. We need to go in there and install someone friendlier to US interests as Iraqi leader." All the WMD crap was outright fabrication, as was the totally illegal "installing democracy" claim.

 

-

 

And once again, I'm not bothering to respond to Windu's blatant trolling. I hope there's a mod who will pop in and do something about him.

[Windu Chi]

And once again, I'm not bothering to respond to Windu's blatant trolling. I hope there's a mod who will pop in and do something about him.

And once again, I don't give a damn.

Why are you talking to me, just act like I am not here.

We are already adversaries.

So stop talking about me; I won't ever care if don't respond to me.

Ignore me, can you do that?

Is that to hard to ask?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I think Bush made a big mistake invading--that decision was based on bad information

Downing Street Memo

 

And remember when you're feeling very small and insecure

how amazingly unlikely was your birth

Aw, c'mon, it's only a matter of your parents being lucky enough to survive until they found each others, then fall in love, decide to have sex, and have an orgasm at exactly the right millisecond for "your" sperm cell to reach the egg. Not to mention that this also applies to their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on down to the earliest one-cell organisms. Add to this the chance of being aborted, stillborn, early death, and so on.

 

You're lucky to be here.

[Point Man]

As for individual soldiers, they're not guilty of the war crimes the US government is guilty of. Soldiers are only guilty of the lesser immoral act of ignorantly signing up to do the bidding of a clearly corrupt government.

I strongly resent you calling my comrades and me ignorant. I proudly serve my country's "clearly corrupt government," not because I do not know what is going on, but because I want to make it better. I agree we have made some serious mistakes in our execution of the war effort, but I do not believe that we should be blamed for the deaths caused by Iranian-backed insurgents. It is not the coalition forces that plant the car bombs. Nobody from the West is forcing the terrorists to kill innocent people.

 

I would ask you what would happen in Iraq if Saddam Hussein were still in power? Innocent people would be killed for opposing his corrupt government. It is painful to all to see the destruction going on right now. However, in the long run, Iraq will be better off for not having Hussein in power.

[Tyrion]

I would ask you what would happen in Iraq if Saddam Hussein were still in power?

 

The hell that has been already unleashed would have been kept under firm control. Hussein was an amoral and cruel dictator, but at the same time he was an iron-willed tyrant which was exactly what Iraq needed to keep all the different sects who inhabited that land from exploding into wanton violence, much like it has with the US invasion.

[Spider AL]

I strongly resent you calling my comrades and me ignorant.

I call 'em as I see 'em, Jimbo. Soldiers elect to do whatever they're told to do. Anyone who can look at world history and then decide that it'd be a good idea to do what an amoral, corrupt government wants them to do... Well. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that bad things will result from such a decision.

 

One HAS to be a bit of a noodle-head to want to do what the likes of Bush, Rummy and Wolfy tells one to do.

 

I'm not telling you this to insult you, I'm telling you this because there's an infinitesimally slim possibility that you might actually decide to question your presence in the military if my arguments are cogent and logical enough.

 

We both know it's not going to happen. But it's worth the five seconds it takes me to type the words.

 

I agree we have made some serious mistakes in our execution of the war effort,

No Jim, No "mistakes" were made. It's practically undeniable at this stage that the goal of the invasion was to supplant Saddam with a US-friendly regime. A totally illegal and immoral goal. But it was achieved nonetheless. And the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis... the de-stabilised nation without a working infrastructure... We all knew that this would be the result of the invasion. We all knew there'd be mountains of corpses, poverty and destruction.

 

Your government knew it.

 

We invaded anyway. Draw your own conclusions from that, you don't have to be a rocket-scientist.

 

but I do not believe that we should be blamed for the deaths caused by Iranian-backed insurgents. It is not the coalition forces that plant the car bombs. Nobody from the West is forcing the terrorists to kill innocent people.

If we hadn't invaded Iraq, these radical elements would NEVER have attained the freedom and power within Iraq that they have attained. They simply wouldn't have had the opportunity, nor would they have found so many recruits among the populace. So it's our fault that they're able to kill. And it was predictable that this would happen.

 

You have to stop and realise... You're part of an invading force. An INVADING force. Not good guys, not world-police... invaders. The Iraqi people were NEVER going to like you. They were ALWAYS going to resent you. I predicted it, many people predicted it... It was obvious. OBVIOUS.

 

I would ask you what would happen in Iraq if Saddam Hussein were still in power? Innocent people would be killed for opposing his corrupt government.

Less people would have died with Saddam in power than have died following the US/UK invasion. You can't "save people's lives" by causing their deaths.

 

It is painful to all to see the destruction going on right now. However, in the long run, Iraq will be better off for not having Hussein in power.

That's just the "party line", Jimmeh. Try reading some unbiased news reports from Reuters... Hell, get some counter-culture in there. Some dissident views to balance out the neo-con guff. Go to Youtube and listen to some Chomsky lectures... Just try injecting some logic into your brain every so often. You won't think the same things you do now.

 

The things you say you think now... are illogical. Wrong. Incorrect. Propaganda.

 

Show me I'm wrong. Give me some logical debate here. Let's compare our reasoning, justify our views with evidence and when we've finished, we'll know what the truth is.

[Windu Chi]

The hell that has been already unleashed would have been kept under firm control. Hussein was an amoral and cruel dictator, but at the same time he was an iron-willed tyrant which was exactly what Iraq needed to keep all the different sects who inhabited that land from exploding into wanton violence, much like it has with the US invasion.

These are hard questions to answer, I really don't like the idea of keeping evil in power to quail a civil war.

But Tyrion might be right, I hate to say.

But if this was Adolf Hitler, I would say, oh hell nah.

If we leave the place is f**ked; if we stay the place is f**ked.

We just going to have throw the dice an see what happens.

Politics is unfair !

 

Saddaam ass will be grass soon so putting him back into power, is just not going to happen.

We just going have to see if all this chaos settle back down to a equilibrium.

But I doubt that will happen.

[Nancy Allen``]

For the 'hate Bush, hate America' mob, take a look at these and tell me the soldiers over there don't give a damn.

 

http://www.grouchymedia.com/other_videos/divine_intervention/video_on_demand.cfm

 

http://www.grouchymedia.com/other_videos/our_heroes/video_on_demand.cfm

[Windu Chi]

For the 'hate Bush, hate America' mob, take a look at these and tell me the soldiers over there don't give a damn.

 

http://www.grouchymedia.com/other_videos/divine_intervention/video_on_demand.cfm

 

http://www.grouchymedia.com/other_videos/our_heroes/video_on_demand.cfm

I don't think all soldiers over there give a damn, Nancy.

But that will be another topic, I bet.

Someone here will make sure of that.

[Jae Onasi]

I call 'em as I see 'em, Jimbo. ...

One HAS to be a bit of a noodle-head to want to do what the likes of Bush, Rummy and Wolfy tells one to do. ...I'm not telling you this to insult you,

And calling someone 'noodle-head' is not insulting how? You can express disagreement without the rude name-calling.

 

No Jim, No "mistakes" were made. It's practically undeniable at this stage that the goal of the invasion was to supplant Saddam with a US-friendly regime.

You've read all the documents that went back and forth between the CIA, the Secretaries and the President? You've read all the intelligence reports? You've talked personally with people who've been there? Spoken with Bush?

No?

Then you have no more information on what _really_ drove the decision than any other person who's not in the loop. Until we all can see the documents when they get declassified, all we've got right now is conjecture and educated guesses.

I've studied documents at the Johnson Presidential library, and compared them with what the press knew/didn't know on Civil rights issues and Dr. Martin Luther King. Sometimes the press got it right. Sometimes the press got it very, very wrong.

The same thing is happening here--some of the things we've seen/heard in the military (both through the 'grapevine' and through official channels) and what we've heard in the press are sometimes very different. Unless you also have military sources and access to government officials who were really in the know as part of your information driving your decisions, the base for your decision is incomplete.

We invaded anyway. Draw your own conclusions from that, you don't have to be a rocket-scientist.

So if someone disagrees with you on this issue they're 'not rocket scientists'?

 

If we hadn't invaded Iraq, these radical elements would NEVER have attained the freedom and power within Iraq that they have attained. They simply wouldn't have had the opportunity,

That would be because they would have all been dead for breathing a word against Hussein, and we'd be uncovering even more mass graves than we already have.

The Iraqi people were NEVER going to like you. They were ALWAYS going to resent you.

The assumption that all Iraqis hate the US is incorrect.

Less people would have died with Saddam in power than have died following the US/UK invasion. You can't "save people's lives" by causing their deaths.

There's absolutely no way to prove how many 'would have died' under Saddam. No one's even sure how many did die under Saddam's rule or were the recipient of Uday and Qusay's 'ministrations.'

That's just the "party line", Jimmeh. Try reading some unbiased news reports from Reuters... Hell, get some counter-culture in there. Some dissident views to balance out the neo-con guff.

What makes you so sure we haven't? It's quite presumptuous to assume that because we don't agree with you that we are somehow 'less informed'. I've watched/listened to the UN proceedings and read transcripts of speeches by Blair, Powell, Rice, Bush, and many others. I enjoyed some of Villepin's speeches in Le Monde and followed some of the commentary on Aljazeera (unfortunately, I don't know enough Arabic to be able to watch it in the native language). We've both spoken with military folks who've actually been _in_ Iraq treating wounded or fighting--those are the people who are _really_ seeing what's going on. Have you gone out of your way in the same manner to make sure you have as many different sources, pro and con, as possible? Or are you depending on a couple ultra-liberal, anti-war news sources because they happen to go along with what you believe?

 

Go to Youtube

Oh, yes, there's a reputable, scholarly, peer-reviewed source. "And brought to you by the same people who brought you Claymation Palpatine asking 'What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?!?', we present for your viewing pleasure, perspective on the Iraq war that is so liberal even _we_ can't find it on the left side of the continuum anymore. Your mileage on the truth may vary."

Just try injecting some logic into your brain every so often. You won't think the same things you do now.

The things you say you think now... are illogical. Wrong. Incorrect. Propaganda.

Show me I'm wrong. Give me some logical debate here. Let's compare our reasoning, justify our views with evidence and when we've finished, we'll know what the truth is.

After being treated in such a patronizing way in this post, why would anyone want to continue to debate?

[Windu Chi]

Wow! Spider you really piss Jae off.

[Nancy Allen``]

I don't think all soldiers over there give a damn, Nancy.

But that will be another topic, I bet.

Someone here will make sure of that.

 

Well maybe not the soldiers Michael Moore got to portray themselves as child killers, but hopefully this'll show that soldiers aren't the great evil people think they are. I won't hold my breath however.

 

With what you wrote Jae, you're right in saying that the Chiefs of Stass at the Pentagon, Special Agents at the FBI, operatives for the CIA, code breakers at the NSA, computer experts at the NRO, security consultants at DHS and everyone else you can think of has worked on the issue with Iraq. What Spider Al has to ask himself is if he really thinks he's smarter than them.

[Mace MacLeod]

I would ask you what would happen in Iraq if Saddam Hussein were still in power? Innocent people would be killed for opposing his corrupt government.

And innocent people were killed all through the 70's and 80's as well, when the US was quite happy to call Saddam Hussein an ally. As I said before, when he was gassing the Kurds in what was arguably his greatest crime, the US still didn't think Iraq was worth invading or Saddam was worth taking out.

However, in the long run, Iraq will be better off for not having Hussein in power.

This is far from certain. The country is teetering on the brink of full-out civil war between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, not to mention the roving al-Qaeda cells attracted by the opportunity to shoot at US soldiers. And if the US actually does allow Iraqis full democracy, there's the chance they might just elect an Iranian-style fundamentalist muslim theocracy, and preventing something like that is one of the biggest reasons the US buddied up to Saddam in the first place.

I agree we have made some serious mistakes in our execution of the war effort

No, the mistakes weren't made in the execution of the war effort, IMHO. The military operation worked almost perfectly. US forces swept through Iraq almost unopposed, and the Iraqi military proved to be only the most minor inconvenience in most cases. The mistake was that the US had no plan for what to do afterwards. The US government very arrogantly and very naively assumed the Iraqi people wouldn't mind being invaded, especially as nasty Saddam was running for cover, which leads into the next part.

I do not believe that we should be blamed for the deaths caused by Iranian-backed insurgents. It is not the coalition forces that plant the car bombs. Nobody from the West is forcing the terrorists to kill innocent people.

None of those insurgents would be there if not for the US invasion. The terrorism in Iraq is happening as a direct reaction to the invasion. Had Bush listened to saner and more sober counsel, none of that would be going on.

Then you have no more information on what _really_ drove the decision than any other person who's not in the loop. Until we all can see the documents when they get declassified, all we've got right now is conjecture and educated guesses.

Well, don't you think that the American public deserve more than just conjecture or educated guesses? Your government has started a war that's killed hundreds of thousands of people, not the least of which more than 3000 of your own military. US forces have now been in Iraq longer than they were fighting in WWII, and there's no end in sight in the forseeable future. Don't you think you should know why? Don't you think there are very dark implications if the US can just arbitrarily decide to start wars for no coherent reason?

 

Just saying "Saddam is a bad man and we're better off without him" simply can't be enough justification, especially as he's been a bad man for decades and the US counted him as a key ally in the Middle East. Saying so doesn't mean I hate the US or like Saddam Hussein or think US soldiers are evil or any such simple-minded rubbish. Soldiers just usually aren't a good choice for maintaining civil order, as they're generally not trained to deal with civilians. Especially in situations like Iraq, where enemy combatants are often indistinguishable from the civilian population around them.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

And calling someone 'noodle-head' is not insulting how? You can express disagreement without the rude name-calling.

Oh believe me, I could have called professional soldiers much worse things. Like "wilfully ignorant puppets who abrogate responsibility for their actions more easily and willingly than they draw breath"... I think "noodle-heads" is a relatively mild- but accurate- description.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

You've read all the documents that went back and forth between the CIA, the Secretaries and the President? You've read all the intelligence reports? You've talked personally with people who've been there? Spoken with Bush?

No?

Then you have no more information on what _really_ drove the decision than any other person who's not in the loop. Until we all can see the documents when they get declassified, all we've got right now is conjecture and educated guesses.

Conjecture shmecture. We have your government's own words. Once the WMD fallacy was clearly not going to fly anymore, our governments changed the "official" reason for going to war to facilitate regime change. That is the official reason that we are there. It's a totally illegal reason for invading a country, under international law, but it's the stated reason that we're there nonetheless.

 

Now, since I don't think that US policy makers are complete morons, they MUST have been aware of the easily predictable fact that the act of deposing Saddam would totally destabilise Iraq and cause masses of deaths. And in fact, they were aware, according to "the people who've been there":

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6128630.stm?ls

 

So the only question becomes: "Was regime change ALWAYS the main goal of our invasion of Iraq"? In other words, was the claim that Iraq was invaded to look for WMDs merely a fabricated excuse? Well for that answer, we can turn to various sources. But for the moment, let's look at the Downing Street Memo that Eagle cited earlier in the thread.

 

It's a leaked memo from an official meeting of key UK government and UK intelligence officials which took place in July 2002. In the memo, the head of intelligence, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister himself make comments which clearly state that during their official interactions with the US government, it had become clear that Georgie and his handlers intended to depose Saddam long before the invasion began, and that intelligence and facts were being "fixed around the policy", i.e: cherry-picked to conform with an already existing conclusion. QED.

 

In addition, here's an article by some right-wing congressman called Ron Paul, published in December 2002. Seems pretty clear that the prevailing mood within the US government at the time- quite openly- was "REGIME CHANGE! WAAAAAAH!"

 

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst121602.htm

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

The same thing is happening here--some of the things we've seen/heard in the military (both through the 'grapevine' and through official channels) and what we've heard in the press are sometimes very different. Unless you also have military sources and access to government officials who were really in the know as part of your information driving your decisions, the base for your decision is incomplete.

Sorry, are you making the ludicrous assumption that what you hear "through military channels" is necessarily accurate? Excuse me while I stare open-mouthed at my monitor for a moment.

 

Ah, that's better. Now ask yourself this simple question. If you are a government... let's say the US government, and you want your troops to do what they're told... would you allow information to trickle down through the ranks that would suggest that your government's policy was illegal and self-interested? Of course you bloody wouldn't. I'll let you draw your own conclusion from that.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

So if someone disagrees with you on this issue they're 'not rocket scientists'?

If they disagree with the facts that I'm consistently referring to, then yes, they're noodle-heads. I don't hold these opinions because I believe myself to be "teh intellectual maist0r", I hold these opinions because after examining all the available evidence, they're the only logical and moral opinions to hold.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

That would be because they would have all been dead for breathing a word against Hussein, and we'd be uncovering even more mass graves than we already have.

Yes, Saddam would have executed the "Iranian backed insurgents" as Jimmeh insists on calling them. What's your point? Hussein was an evil dictator, but as Tyrion pointed out earlier in post #133, he kept the country together even through the hellish period of US/UK sanctions, and the country was stable. Less death, less impoverishment, less danger, less disease. Better education. Less radical Islamism.

 

Now the US invades, and POP! The whole powder keg blows. But the US Government knew it would blow, (unless they were fools) and they came to the conclusion that all this death and destruction (that was predictable by anyone with half a brain) was an acceptable price to pay to install a puppet regime in Saddam's place.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

The assumption that all Iraqis hate the US is incorrect.

Well go and find someone who has said that "all Iraqis hate the US" and tell them. Nobody here has said that.

 

However, polls after polls after polls of Iraqi opinion DO show that the majority of Iraqis view the US and UK as "occupiers" rather than "liberators", which shows the astuteness of Iraqi people. In 2005, A British MOD poll turned up similar results, and also noted that only one per-cent of Iraqis believe that US/UK forces are providing any security to the Iraqi people at all. A recent poll also showed that roughly half of Iraqis support attacks on US troops.

 

So yeah, not all Iraqis hate the occupying forces. Pfffffft....

 

2004:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

 

2005:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml

 

2006:

 

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=brme

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

There's absolutely no way to prove how many 'would have died' under Saddam. No one's even sure how many did die under Saddam's rule or were the recipient of Uday and Qusay's 'ministrations.'

Is that the best you can do? "Well, half a million Iraqis may be dead because of us in the space of three years... But... umm... YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT SADDAM AND HIS EVIL SONS WOULDN'T HAVE KILLED HALF A MILLION PEOPLE TOO!!!!11"

 

I mean that's what you're implying, isn't it. Quite pathetic. Even when the man was intentionally massacring Kurds, he never broke the 200,000 mark. And as I understand it, that's the Kurds' own estimate of the Kurdish death toll. How the hell was he going to cause the number of deaths we've caused in the same space of time? And WHY would he do it? Your stance is pathologically propagandist in nature.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

What makes you so sure we haven't? It's quite presumptuous to assume that because we don't agree with you that we are somehow 'less informed'. I've watched/listened to the UN proceedings and read transcripts of speeches by Blair, Powell, Rice, Bush, and many others.

Remember, if you listen to speeches, you are listening to what they want you to hear. Is that all you want to learn? What they want to tell you?

 

Don't get me wrong, you have to listen to as many speeches as you can. But then you have to go off and fact-check all the nonsense they came out with. I mean SERIOUSLY.

 

And quite frankly, yes, if you don't hold opinions which are the only logical opinions to hold when the available evidence is dispassionately evaluated... I can only assume it's because you're ill-informed.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

I enjoyed some of Villepin's speeches in Le Monde and followed some of the commentary on Aljazeera (unfortunately, I don't know enough Arabic to be able to watch it in the native language). We've both spoken with military folks who've actually been _in_ Iraq treating wounded or fighting--those are the people who are _really_ seeing what's going on.

No, they're the people who really have to justify their actions to themselves and others. If you talk to a soldier who is fighting an unjust war, what's he going to tell you? "Oh yeah, I've been shooting people for no good reason." Of course he isn't going to tell you that. He's going to lie to himself and to you. Or better still, he'll just believe and repeat the obvious lies that his government has told him through his superiors. Much easier than making up your own falsehoods.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Have you gone out of your way in the same manner to make sure you have as many different sources, pro and con, as possible?

Yeah... Actually, in addition to this, I look for optimally unbiased news coverage. And then I check the facts spouted by the "pro and con" camps against this unbiased coverage. There's a step you might want to add.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Or are you depending on a couple ultra-liberal, anti-war news sources because they happen to go along with what you believe?

Ah, Reuters and the BBC are ultra-liberal now, apparently...

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Oh, yes, there's a reputable, scholarly, peer-reviewed source.

I take it that you don't want to look at anything on Youtube? You do realise that people post all sorts of things on Youtube, from "claymation palpatine" to scholarly lectures by academics on all topics, movie clips, whole documentaries and even political speeches, don't you? Good. Go and watch some Chomsky then.

 

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

After being treated in such a patronizing way in this post, why would anyone want to continue to debate?

Ohh, let's see... because of a GENUINE DESIRE TO FIND THE TRUTH THROUGH LOGICAL DEBATE, PERHAPS?

 

Jeeze...

 

-

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

With what you wrote Jae, you're right in saying that the Chiefs of Stass at the Pentagon, Special Agents at the FBI, operatives for the CIA, code breakers at the NSA, computer experts at the NRO, security consultants at DHS and everyone else you can think of has worked on the issue with Iraq. What Spider Al has to ask himself is if he really thinks he's smarter than them.

Once again Nancy, you manage to crassly stumble over the truth while rushing to ignoring that truth completely.

 

It is precisely BECAUSE I believe the US government to be populated by highly intelligent men that I have to come to the conclusion that all the horrible things that are happening in Iraq MUST have been predicted by them prior to the conflict. But they went ahead anyway.

 

I mean, if I could predict prior to the invasion- fairly accurately- the current situation in Iraq, the death toll, the instability, the anti-US and UK feeling... they could DEFINITELY predict it. But they went ahead anyway. End of story.

[SkinWalker]

This is obviously no longer about Saddam's death sentence.