3,000 Soldiers For Saddam, Was it worth it?

[truethat]

That tired old argument is so out of date , im not even going to bother discuss it with you. If your own leaders don't believe that saddam was a threat , why should I listen to a half wit like you ?

That's a rude comment and you didn't answer his actual question. Not a threat? Not a threat to the US is not the same thing as not a threat.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

So 2 millions deaths is considered stability to you?

It may be, depending on how quickly those deaths occured, not to sound callous, but that situation as compared to the current one was stable, it was in Saddam's best interest to maintain that stability.

[truethat]

So you are judging the situation as it is now in the middle of the war. Anything is more stable than in the middle of the war. That doesn't mean it won't be more stable after the war.

[Fluffybunny]

, why should I listen to a half wit like you ?

There is no need for namecalling, that was out of line. Please read the PM coming your way.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

So you are judging the situation as it is now in the middle of the war. Anything is more stable than in the middle of the war. That doesn't mean it won't be more stable after the war.

Ah ,but we don't know that at the moment, it could continue to get worse

[truethat]

truethat.

[Ashigaru]

Ah ,but we don't know that at the moment, it could continue to get worse

Ah, but we don't know that at the moment, it could get better.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Ah, but we don't know that at the moment, it could get better.

Which is why its not worth it, since we are left with an indeterminate result, whereas before the war we had a known result, which is better to have.

[Ashigaru]

You don't know what the outcome of a situation will be so it's not worth it? You must live a boring life.

[truethat]

Which is why its not worth it, since we are left with an indeterminate result, whereas before the war we had a known result, which is better to have.

Do you really mean what you are saying? That's like saying "Well at least as slaves we know that the masters will only beat us when they are drunk, so lets not try for freedom because then we don't know what will happen."

That's pretty messed up.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

You don't know what the outcome of a situation will be so it's not worth it? You must live a boring life.

I don't gamble with people's lives

Do you really mean what you are saying? That's like saying "Well at least as slaves we know that the masters will only beat us when they are drunk, so lets not try for freedom because then we don't know what will happen."

The Slaves in your example chose their own conflicts to get into, the Iraqi civilians and the soldiers dead in this war for the most part had it thrust on them.

[Ashigaru]

I don't gamble with people's lives

Then I suggest you stay out of any managment positions.

The Slaves in your example chose their own conflicts to get into, the Iraqi civilians and the soldiers dead in this war for the most part had it thrust on them.

They were being killed before the war anyways.

[Atheist God]

I don't gamble with people's lives

The Slaves in your example chose their own conflicts to get into, the Iraqi civilians and the soldiers dead in this war for the most part had it thrust on them.

I don't gamble with lives either it's a dangerous and unethical game.

Iraq never chose to goto war with the US and it's allies infact I am pretty sure Saddam never wanted to either. I mean do you want someone dropping bombs and shooting missiles at you of course not.

What I think is disturbing is how quickly US forces are being privatized, the second largest military on the ground in Iraq is infact private military forces otherwise known as mercs. Many soldiers say they have a hard time saying no to private recruiters when they are offered at least 4 times the pay and way better benefits for doing the same job.

I think serious investigations need to begin in regards to activities overseas. Starting of course with Halliburton and KBR and then progressing down the line to smaller contractors.

This war is not being fought in the best interests of the people of America or Iraq it is being fought in the name of corporations and big banks so as they can turn profits and power.

Edited January 5, 2007 by GanjaGuru

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Then I suggest you stay out of any managment positions.

They were being killed before the war anyways.

-Most manger's decisions don't get people killed

-Not in the same numbers as since the war started

[Ashigaru]

Managers have a direct impact on the quality of peoples lives. They can even be indirectly responsible for peoples deaths. Guy gets fired, guy gets drunk, guy crashes his car killing himself and 2 others.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Ashigaru

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Managers have a direct impact on the quality of peoples lives. They can even be indirectly responsible for peoples deaths. Guy gets fired, guy gets drunk, guy crashes his car killing himself and 2 others.

Yeah, that's a little stretching it

I'm talking about directly causing people's death's

[AROCES]

That tired old argument is so out of date , im not even going to bother discuss it with you. If your own leaders don't believe that saddam was a threat , why should I listen to a half wit like you ?

Oh I'm not expecting you to listen to me, but I'm not going to let your claim go unchallenged. You say Saddam was not a threat, I say how come the UN didn't say so and OFFICIALLY declared it to the world that Saddam is not a threat and we can leave him alone. Instead they made Resolutions after Resolutions. Who is a half wit now?

Edited January 5, 2007 by AROCES

[AROCES]

I don't gamble with people's lives

The Slaves in your example chose their own conflicts to get into, the Iraqi civilians and the soldiers dead in this war for the most part had it thrust on them.

- You won't, but the ones who wants to be free from a Tyrant and would do something about it would gamble their lives.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

- You won't, but the ones who wants to be free from a Tyrant and would do something about it would gamble their lives.

-So when did Bush, Cheney and the others pick up a gun and go into Iraq and fight?

[AROCES]

-So when did Bush, Cheney and the others pick up a gun and go into Iraq and fight?

FYI, the President and the Vice President of this country are civilians. No Military Junta here.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

FYI, the President and the Vice President of this country are civilians. No Military Junta here.

Ah, but that's my point, its easy for people who hide behind desks to send others to die for their desires

[AROCES]

Ah, but that's my point, its easy for people who hide behind desks to send others to die for their desires

The desires you are bitter about is simply an illusion because of the policy you disagree with and therby painting malice on it.

[truethat]

This is why I think people lash out because frankly AROCES makes a very clear point. The emotional reaction of disagreeing with a policy doesn't make the policy evil. And when it is carefully deconstructed without the use of insults and hostile words thrown around like half wit and neocon etc etc etc. its quite obvious that the level of anger is based on emotional frustration and not the reality of the situation.

[el midgetron]

- Maybe because he was not that bad as you said, that is why we didn't remove him in 91?

Could be, up untill then our relations with Iraq had been peachy.

If his expansionist dreams had not been checked when they were, he might have ended up controling a large portion of the one thing that the world needs to continue functioning like we're accustomed to. With the turn of one "knob", so to speak, one man would've effectively had the power to shut down the U.S. economy every time we did something that he didn't like. He could've ended up being more powerful than all the OPEC nations combined in at least that sence. That would have been a danger to the U.S. It would've been a danger to the free world.

That is not to say that there will never be another wacko with similar intensions in the future.

I think oil is controlled the same way diamonds are. I hear about huge oil reserves all over, some which remian largely untapped. Reserves larger than there ever was in Sadia Arabia. I don't think its so much about controlling the "tap" but controlling the price.

Wait a minute here, you talk like Bush is the coming of another Hitler or Saddam, just went in there to invade a country and rule it.

You simply don't agree with how he wants to defend his country that was attacked on 9/11, you think it would have been a more peaceful world if Bush didn't go into Iraq and get rid of a Tyrant once and for all that has been a headache for the World since he ruled Iraq?

Anti war people thinks that they are serving humanity at best when they simply go against any war. At times in doing so, the dead bodies keep piling up, but there is no war. And when the Tyrant is gone, we dig up the mass graves. BUT NO WAR!

As Americans, I think our first duty is to make sure its not our leaders who are the tyrants wreaking havok on the world. Since there is no connection to 911 and there are no WMDs, I think we need to be very careful with the reasons we accept for the war, even in hindsight. Considering the Bush, Cheney connections to big oil and the defense industry, there is enough of a reason to take pause and question the course of the war.

I simply don't buy the "bodies piling up" even without war argument in this case. Where was this justification prior to 91'? There are dozens of examples where the bodies piled up while the US did nothing. If we are at war with terrorism, we need to fight terrorism. If we are going to fight brutal dictators, then lets fight brutal dictators, but justifing the means of one as an end to another is a slippery slope I think we should avoid.

Does anyone else see the addtitional troops slated to be sent to Iraq, as yet another possible sign of the coming war with Iran? I think Iran being brought into the war is inevitable and getting close.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

The desires you are bitter about is simply an illusion because of the policy you disagree with and therby painting malice on it.

Nope not at all, i'm just pointing out the fact that the people who created the policy and are supporting this war are not the ones out there fighting it and dying in it

This is why I think people lash out because frankly AROCES makes a very clear point. The emotional reaction of disagreeing with a policy doesn't make the policy evil. And when it is carefully deconstructed without the use of insults and hostile words thrown around like half wit and neocon etc etc etc. its quite obvious that the level of anger is based on emotional frustration and not the reality of the situation.

Since when is Neocon a hostile word, its a legitimate term for members of a political movement, methinks you are tryng to cover up insecurity truethat. And the reality of the situation is clear, its a pointless war, that has coat us stability and lives and money, for no gain.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Avinash_Tyagi