Still opposed to war?

Jeslek

Jeslek

Banned
For those who are still under any delusions about Saddam Hussein:

"There are some professions American colleges simply don't prepare you for. Consider Aziz Salih Ahmed. He works for the Iraqi government. His technical specialty? He's a "violator of women's honor," according to his Iraqi identity card. In other words, he rapes women. Presumably he likes it. But he does it on the government's dime so whether he likes brutally raping women or not, he's probably good at it or at least he's good enough for government work.

Mr. Ahmed is just one of the examples cited in the British government's dossier on Iraqi human-rights violations. The report includes evidence of political prisoners slowly dipped into tubs of acid, the use of eye gouging, drilling hands, mock executions, real executions, mass-murder, run-of-the-mill torture, confinement in coffin-like cages, and so on. According to the report, since about two years ago, the official punishment for publicly insulting or criticizing Saddam Hussein or any members of his family was to have your tongue cut out. These punishments were actually broadcast on Iraqi TV..." - Jonah Goldberg

Download the British government's report here (Adobe Acrobot needed):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/sp...hts_dossier_on_iraq/pdf/iraq_human_rights.pdf


Ugh...
 
Perhaps we should rename it so that war wouldnt seem so terrible. We could call it : Agressive Flower Arranging ... or Global Scale Synchronized Mosh Pit.
 
If only the government-paid rapist were the whole problem... things would be so much simpler.
 
Squiggy said:
War? Over one person deemed a rapist?......Nah.....
Click to expand...

It's not one person deemed a rapist, it's a country that would give that one person the right to rape whomever he sees fit. Did you read the link he posted?
 
Luis G said:
still opposed to war?
yes.......
Click to expand...

'tis better to allow attrocities to continue than to risk professional soldiers who could render said purveyor of attrocities benign?
 
Luis G said:
Like no civilians are going to die.
Click to expand...

'tis worse a few innocents die freeing their country than a criminally insane dictator with a penchant for toture remain?
 
It's the population decision if they want to get rid of the dictator, it isn't US' job.
 
Luis G said:
It's the population decision if they want to get rid of the dictator, it isn't US' job.
Click to expand...
Please rewind yourself 50 years. Go and ask the average person in South Korea how he feels about US intervention.

Now forward yourself 5 years after we demolished Saddam AND rebuilt the country as we usually do. You will find that the United States has a 95% approval rating of sorts. Much like South Korea.

The people can't exactly just get rid of a dictator. It isn't that easy. Most of them don't even care because all they want is to tend to their goats and sheep and be left alone. Its a few troublemakers that are the problem.
 
Luis G said:
It's the population decision if they want to get rid of the dictator, it isn't US' job.
Click to expand...

That's why the UN Security Council has allowed one more chance at weapons inspections.

Can we at least ship them muskets & black powder? Luis, how pray tell, does one take over a country that lives in fear of it's duly elected leader (not) & it's far superior governemntal firepower? This ain't 1776 & they aren't 3000 miles from the homeland.
 
I think Saddam is a bad guy. That's for sure, but should the US attack him? I can't answer that. What about North Korea? Is it that Saddam is weakened and North Korea isn't?
 
N Korea has proven to be willing to be acceptable to treaties, Iraq hasn't.
 
I wonder how long after North Korea starts exporting nukes that the US will ignore them. There was a load of scuds on the way to Yemen found today from North Korea.
 
Those scuds were legal. Purchased before (whatever it was that made arms trade with NK a bad thing).
 
Why did they go to so much trouble to conceal them? Don't you think they would sell nukes if they could?
 
Yeah, they probably would, especially given the likely market price for them. Why wouldn't they. What would we do? Nuke them in response? That hardly seems likely. What could we do? Ok, we can "declare" war on them too.

Oh well, I don't see answers to any of this. The truth is, the Bush war/propaganda campaign has worked just fine on me. I'm indifferent now. You hear it long enough, and finally you get to the point of thinking, "just do it it, lets just get it over with, I'm sick of hearing it. You're gonna do it anyway, whether we like it or not." That WAS and IS the point of all this. It worked for Clinton, and it works for Bush. Ok, I think I have adopted the Nike slogan for this. Just do it! I'm sick of hearing about it. NOTHING they will do will EVER make Bush happy. Its gonna happen no matter what concessions are made. In fact, we usually set the demands so high, and so unreasonable that there would never be any chance of compliance. We don't want complaince to any of this, we never did, so lets not pretend. The war was planned long before there was talk of agreeing to inspections. We don't want inspections, we never did. Lets not pretend. Just do it already, and be done with it. Thats my view!!! Right or wrong is irrelevent, because it doesn't change the fact that we are going to attack Iraq, and later obviously, NK is on the list (at least at some point).

And yes, I agree, we will "rebuild" and they will be better off for it in the long run. But it still doesn't make it right!!!

Of course, in that part of the world, it could end up all being for nothing too. It depens how long the US friendly regime will hold power. This isn't post war Europe or Asia. There are certain differences. But there is no point arguing this, any of this, because only a fool would believe that there is any way for Sodomy to get out of this one with out a major US attack/invasion. Nothing will persuade Bush not to attack. Lets not pretend otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top