There you go again Lixy blame shifting. You are like a six year old. Whenever someone brings up a fact that you cannot refute with a logical arguement you respond by trying to change the subject by bringing in a third party like the US or Israel.
So thank you for resorting to such a childish response. Again. You have proven the strength of my arguement.
Let me make sure I understand: You people find it outrageous that somebody points out to the support America has been giving Saddam at the height of his atrocities in Iran. Yet, it’s perfectly OK to bring up that war when trying to justify the bombing and invasion of Iraq by the US.
Some here say that the US was not the only country supporting Saddam, and that is perfectly true. But, those countries didn’t invade Iraq and kill innocents, so the point is moot.
You can’t make the case that causing the death of Iraqis is better than what Saddam might potentially have caused for a multitude of reasons:
Nobody gave you the authority to decide the fate of Iraqis.
The US (and others) supported Hussein throughout some of his most awful atrocities
The US has a history of supporting tyrants.
Saddam cracked down on dissenting parties
not on the average Joe doing his shopping in the Baghdad market.
You don’t have a crystal ball to know how many people Hussein would have killed had he remained in power
The dictator agreed to go into exile
The popularity of the Baathists was decreasing by the day (Saddam couldn’t go anywhere without a full-blown escort)
The arguments you guys are making can be boiled down to the following:
[i]- We know we kill people, but give us credit for having (and making) less casualties than the ol’ days thanks to cutting-edge (killer?) technology.
We’re not the only ones with a record of supporting dictators.
We killed Iraqis for their own good. They don’t know it yet, but what we did was the least of two evils.
Lixy is an anti-Semitic toddler.[/i]
I think that sums it up pretty well, but if I missed a point - or you think there’s an exaggeration somewhere - let me know. Till then, I’ll continue to consider GWII a war of aggression and a crime against humanity.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Nobody gave you the authority to decide the fate of Iraqis.
The US (and others) supported Hussein throughout some of his most awful atrocities
The US has a history of supporting tyrants.
Saddam cracked down on dissenting parties
not on the average Joe doing his shopping in the Baghdad market.
You don’t have a crystal ball to know how many people Hussein would have killed had he remained in power
The dictator agreed to go into exile
The popularity of the Baathists was decreasing by the day (Saddam couldn’t go anywhere without a full-blown escort)
[/quote]
2.Make note of the “and others”.
3.So do many other nations. So what?
4.I’m sure a lot of average Joe citizens were killed when he came down on the Shia and slaughtered them. Were the Kurds political party the ones his army was shooting at from helecopters when it sprayed civilians? In that case their technology must be better than ours if it allowed his bullets to strike only party members.
Marsh Arabs anyone?
5.We can judge by how many he already killed and take it from there
6.But did not.
Lixy whenever someone raises an action by Saddam you come to his defense by trying to change the subject to America did this or Israel did that.
We all no what America has done. If America does something bad it does not all of a sudden make Saddam someone who wasn’t dangerous.
I know people who had to live under Saddams rule. The impression I get from them is that they feel that the invasion was a neccessary evil. Sure people have died who didn’t deserve to, but there is a greater good that is being served.
America is home to a huge Iraqi exile community. As soon as they get their five years in America they go get their citizenship. American citizens have the right to petition their government. The Iraqi exiles were asking the government to do something about Saddam. So it did. That’s democracy in action get over it.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Lixy whenever someone raises an action by Saddam you come to his defense by trying to change the subject to America did this or Israel did that. [/quote]
Not true.
If someone is blasting Saddam for the sake of blasting him, you won’t hear a peep from me. It’s when said actions are used to justify the invasion that I bring up America’s support to dictators.
Statistically speaking and as far as dangerous countries go, the USA takes the cake.
I have a feeling they were watching the invasion on TV.
In any case, proportionally, Sweden has many times more Iraqis than the USA and I am yet to meet one who doesn’t curse your country’s name.
That’s one of the point which crumble under their own weight. See my post above.
Now that’s a sensible point.
Indeed, Americans have every right to influence and petition their government, just like Germans had every right to ask for more lebensraum. It is not that right that I am contesting. Rather, it is the ludicrous idea that invading countries unprovoked can ever be OK.
And no, I will never get over a war of aggression. Get over that!
[quote]lixy wrote:
And no, I will never get over a war of aggression. Get over that![/quote]
And since Saddam started two of them you should be happy that the US prevented him from starting another.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
And no, I will never get over a war of aggression. Get over that!
And since Saddam started two of them you should be happy that the US prevented him from starting another.[/quote]
And there really was no “Gulf War II”. It was one long - entirely too long, thanks to the UN and its infinite wimpiness - war stemming from the initial invasion in Kuwait.
The Lancet Report was a bad faith propaganda tool to try and undermine the war in Iraq. It’s little wonder Lixy is fuming about its death - he abused that piece of propaganda as much as anyone.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
And no, I will never get over a war of aggression. Get over that!
And since Saddam started two of them you should be happy that the US prevented him from starting another.
And there really was no “Gulf War II”. It was one long - entirely too long, thanks to the UN and its infinite wimpiness - war stemming from the initial invasion in Kuwait.
The Lancet Report was a bad faith propaganda tool to try and undermine the war in Iraq. It’s little wonder Lixy is fuming about its death - he abused that piece of propaganda as much as anyone.[/quote]
If I had a nickel for every time he quoted it I could retire.
[quote]
Sifu wrote:
When Saddam decided to add part of Iran to Iraq…
lixy wrote:
America helped him.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Goddamn Jimmy Carter and his “realist” tendencies…
Gkhan wrote:
It was Reagan, I believe. Carter let us down by not attacking Iran and nipping Islamism in the bud.[/quote]
Reagan continued to aid Saddam against Iran. Jimmy C. encouraged Saddam to enter into the conflict in the first instance.
See here for timelines: Iran–Iraq War - Wikipedia
I’m looking for the reference to back up my idea that Carter encouraged the Iraqi invasion.
Addendum: Can’t find what I was thinking of - but see here:
[quote]lixy wrote:
…
Statistically speaking and as far as dangerous countries go, the USA takes the cake.[/quote]
One of the reasons for that is that we keep the best statistics…
lixy, your understanding of geopolitics is very simplistic at best. Although your ability to twist comments is quite average. (Or simply a sign you really do not understand what we are saying.)
[quote]lixy wrote:
Let me make sure I understand: You people find it outrageous that somebody points out to the support America has been giving Saddam at the height of his atrocities in Iran. Yet, it’s perfectly OK to bring up that war when trying to justify the bombing and invasion of Iraq by the US.[/quote]
And here again you are singling out America. Saddam does bad things, so blame America. But here comes the twist:[quote]
Some here say that the US was not the only country supporting Saddam, and that is perfectly true. But, those countries didn’t invade Iraq and kill innocents, so the point is moot.[/quote]
So let me understand you. All these other countries supplied Iraq with the weapons to commit atrocities, which is ok, but America went in to remove his ability to commit atrocities, and that is bad?
Gee, how could anybody disagree with that?
[quote]You can’t make the case that causing the death of Iraqis is better than what Saddam might potentially have caused for a multitude of reasons:
Who is deciding their fate? That is and always will be up to them. But if you want authority, look at the UN resolutions. So why not blame the UN?
What exactly were we supporting, and how much? Because we decided to support his side in that war does not mean we supported any atrocities. It also does not mean we supported him when he gassed his own people. (Well, other Iraqis.)[quote]
Problem here is what exactly do you mean by support. Also who, when, how much support, and what exactly did we know.
You do know we fought with Stalin against Hitler. Stalin was a brutal dictator who killed about as many people as Hitler did. (Hate to bring up Hitler again.) Why would America fight with Stalin? Should we also be held responsible for his atrocities?
Here is what you either do not understand, or are intentionally avoiding. America must live in the world. Sometimes we need to decide if we choose a side or not. Sometimes choosing a side is between one mild evil, and a worse evil.
It always sounds like a good idea to simply not get involved, but when people do not get involved, Hitlers rise up.
Reagan had this crazy idea that the extremist Islamo-fascist terrorists are a bad thing. Iran was known to support terrorism, and some real crazy ideas were coming out of the leader’s mouth.
But how exactly were we supposed to know what Saddam was going to do? If I understand right, when he started using WMD’s, we immediately sent Rumsfeld over there. This is twisted into him supposedly supporting this, but I think he was actually leaning on him to stop it, or cut down on the use.
I also believe that by us being involved, we learned first hand what kind of a person Saddam was. This may have been why we thought it necessary to step in with Kuwait.
[quote]4) Saddam cracked down on dissenting parties
not on the average Joe doing his shopping in the Baghdad market.[/quote]
That makes it better. Including the people he poured gasoline on, and lit on fire.
And neither do you. But we do know that estimates run as over 1.5 million deaths at his hands.[quote]
Not quite true. The idea of exile was brought up by leaders of Mid-Eastern countries. Saddam’s reaction was not all that supportive. There may have been some crazy demands that were impossible to give. (This is from memory.) But I do remember that the leaders were practically shaking their heads at Saddam’s response.
Try not to make it like he offered to leave.[quote]
He never could. Few leaders can.
Saddam was headed for loosing his power, but the food for oil scam gave him back his power. I guarantee he would have been out of power if the bleeding heart liberals had not caved at all the suffering going on over there. The did not result in helping a single Iraqi who needed it, but instead made Saddam rich again, and funded his Baathist party.[quote]
The arguments you guys are making can be boiled down to the following:
That’s less innocent casualties. We are not attacking the innocent people. We avoid it. But you need to remember that the “insurgents” are actually blowing up the Iraqi people for political reasons. But again that gets added into the blame America numbers.[/quote]
Why do we care about penis potatoes? (Hey, an e.) But while you acknowledge at least part of what I have said, you still act like you only blame us. Another point you do not get.[quote]
So you prefer the worse of 2 evils?
[/quote]- Lixy is an anti-Semitic toddler.[/i][/quote]
Hey, you got one right.[quote]
I think that sums it up pretty well, but if I missed a point - or you think there’s an exaggeration somewhere - let me know. Till then, I’ll continue to consider GWII a war of aggression and a crime against humanity.[/quote]
It does not matter what we say. It does not matter if we were to find 10,000 nearly build nukes, and enough fissionable material to make them work. It does not matter if we find mass grave after mass grave over there. (Oh wait, that ones true.) It does not matter if we find video of Saddam with a plan to poison the world.
You will not ever, never, not once, ever change your mind, nor accept being incorrect.
Every single thing brought up against Saddam is interestingly blamed on us. If others are involved, they do not matter, because it is the USA that is to blame.
If the food for oil scam wasn’t manipulated into place, there would have never been any action on Iraq in 2003. If you do want to blame America for something, it should be for not supporting the anti-Saddam groups that popped up after the Gulf War. (See, I am giving you one.)
I am not blinded by hate like you are. We should have had more troops over there from the start. We should have actually fought harder then we did, and maybe been a little less worried about the “collateral damage” in the short run because it would have prevented more of it in the long run.
There have been soldiers who did not act as they should have, and they have gotten into trouble for it. (And probably some who shouldn’t have gotten into trouble.)
I do not think Bush is a great president, and can point out many things he has done that were wrong, including in this “war”.
But based on the intelligence we had at the time, and due to what we have learned since going in, we did the right thing.
But again you will never accept that.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
lixy, your understanding of geopolitics is very simplistic at best. Although your ability to twist comments is quite average. (Or simply a sign you really do not understand what we are saying.) [/quote]
If opposing wars of aggression makes me “simplistic”, so be it.
No matter how you turn it, it was the US which attacked Iraq NOT the other way around.
Look here, if anyone has been committing atrocities lately, it’s the US of A. Should people go in and remove your ability to commit atrocities?
Let’s see…the crushing majority of the human race.
But you couldn’t care less. You know better, ey?
Because the UN didn’t KILL innocent people in Iraq.
And here’s the position of the UN Secretary-General:
On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.”
Seek and ya shall find.
plenty of documents have been declassified, that show the US was sending the tyrant equipment fully aware of the atrocities he committed.
I mean support. Be it money, technology, weapons, intelligence or vetoes.
Strawman.
I never held you responsible for Saddam’s atrocities. However, I did point out that “spreading democracy”, “neutralizing the tyrant”, “bringing freedom” and other crappy justification don’t stand scrutiny.
Morality, Iraqi lives, democracy or freedom had nothing to do with the decision to go to attack Iraq. You therefore can’t invoke any of it to rationalize the murdered babies.
Everybody lives in the world.
No problem here.
Goodwin’s law never fails, does it?
No matter how you twist it, 2003’s Iraq was as inoffensive as a kitten. Shit, at the peak of his power and with the support of the all the Western powers, Saddam couldn’t even take a country that had just undergone a major revolution and whose military structure has just been dismantled.
Some Hitler…
Tom Cruise? Is that you?
Now THAT is twisting of the facts.
I’ll refer you to the compilation of declassified documents I linked to above.
Not following.
You mean to tell me that the way he ruled the country and his wars of aggression couldn’t have tipped you off as to the kind of person he was? You needed “first hand” involvement to figure out that he was a monster? Gimme a break!
Who exactly are you referring to, cause…
This is really getting silly.
So, because I don’t know how many people Saddam might have killed if he remained in power, we’re supposed to assume that it’ll still be less than the wreck your troops caused to the country?
[quote]Not quite true. The idea of exile was brought up by leaders of Mid-Eastern countries. Saddam’s reaction was not all that supportive. There may have been some crazy demands that were impossible to give. (This is from memory.) But I do remember that the leaders were practically shaking their heads at Saddam’s response.
Try not to make it like he offered to leave. [/quote]
Nuance. He did not offer to leave. He was offered to leave.
We know today (from Spanish, Egyptian and UAE officials) that he accepted.
How many have body doubles and limit their visits to a handful of visits?
I heard he got so much power back that he constituted a Jedi army that was about to invade the US with their minds.
Take your partisan crap elsewhere.
Well, shouldn’t it? Would Al-Qaeda have such a stronghold in Iraq if your troops weren’t there?
And you did attack the innocent people plenty. I’ll refer you to the bombings of civilian area, rapes, murders, etc…
You got the last part right. I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Check out Sifu’s posts. He states that pretty clearly.
No, you moron! What you did was the definition of evil.
You attacked a country unprovoked, invaded the land, killed the people, set up military bases and unleashed terrorist scum.
[quote]It does not matter what we say. It does not matter if we were to find 10,000 nearly build nukes, and enough fissionable material to make them work. It does not matter if we find mass grave after mass grave over there. (Oh wait, that ones true.) It does not matter if we find video of Saddam with a plan to poison the world.
You will not ever, never, not once, ever change your mind, nor accept being incorrect. [/quote]
How does one poison the world?
If you mean the Iraq-Iran war brought up to justify the Iraqis killed by the US, then yes. I will bring up the fact that you were accomplices there.
You are a stupid fsck!
If the others involved were killing Iraqis, of course it would matter!
When it comes to wars of aggression, I blame people for their actions, not the lack thereof.
[quote]But based on the intelligence we had at the time, and due to what we have learned since going in, we did the right thing.
But again you will never accept that.[/quote]
What intelligence? That cheap PowerPoint presentation by Powell? Sounds more like dumbness to me.
Invading a country on the other side of the planet that’s no threat to you, and on false pretense is “the right thing” to do?
Boy, you cause the deaths of God knows how many Iraqis plus 3909 Americans, exacerbate terrorism, turn the world population against you, spend trillions of dollars, rape little girls and call it the “right thing”.
I hope you burn in Hell - and I mean it!
Oh no you didn’t.
And here’s the position of the UN Secretary-General:
On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.”
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has been cleared of wrongdoing over an Iraq oil deal involving his son but a report has queried his handling of the affair.
The inquiry, which examined the UN’s oil-for-food programme, found “significant” questions over the integrity of Kojo Annan’s dealings.
It found insufficient evidence to show the father was aware of his son’s work with a contractor.
But the UN boss was faulted over an “inadequate” inquiry into the affair.
The UN leader said he was happy with the findings of the interim report and he brushed aside a reporter’s question about whether he would resign with the words, “Hell, no”.
THE official investigation into corruption in the £20 billion United Nations oil for food programme is now looking at the brother of Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general.
Kobina Annan, the Ghanaian ambassador to Morocco, is said by investigators to be �??connected�?? to an African businessman at the centre of the scandal.
Kofi was angry that the invasion had ended his families gravy train. That is why he said that. If you are going to quote people Lixy you should find people who are beyond reproach. The Annans were as thick as thieves with Saddam.
The fact is Saddam had attacked Americans. He was constantly taking shots at American planes that were enforcing the UN mandated no fly zone. Saddam was also paying Thirty Five thousand dollars to the families of suicide bombers.
Oh and one other thing. I like statistics. So why don’t you present your statistics that show that America is the head of the class for atrocities. Because I think you are talking shit, Lixy.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Boy, you cause the deaths of God knows how many Iraqis plus 3909 Americans, exacerbate terrorism, turn the world population against you, spend trillions of dollars, rape little girls and call it the “right thing”.
I hope you burn in Hell - and I mean it![/quote]
You are the pedophilic piece of shit that enjoys raping little girls. You have admitted as much. You even get off on calling the innocent victims sluts, and having them punished.
How is terrorism exacerbated? Ain’t shit happening on our soil you baby fucking little bitch.
Honestly? I don’t really care what happens in Iraq as long as we can kill as many of you homicide bombing baby fuckers as possible on your own soil, or Iraq’s soil, or Iran’s soil.
And the really cool thing is - there’s not a single thing a punk assed college bitch in Sweden can do about it except what you are doing now, and that is running your baby-fucking little mouth.
[quote]lixy wrote:
The Mage wrote:
. . .
I hope you burn in Hell - and I mean it![/quote]
Hey, anything to make you feel better about the fact that Muslims terrorists are attacking sites around the globe as we speak.
Lixy, were you one of the people bashing the US when the muslims were being slaughtered in Kosovo and we did noting to help?
I saw a lot of muslims bitching about that on line.
Then, when we did attack, they bitched about using depleted uranium.
Hell, we can never win. In any situation.
But I can understand how an opinion of some place you have never been can be altered if it is referred to as “Great Satan” from the time you were born.
Plus the fact that the muslims must always be victims according to the Koran to justify their terrorist attacks on innocent civilians.
Tell me again how America is responcible for terrorist attacks in India, and in Uzbekistan? You never did (or can) explain that one.
P.S. I hope Iran burns in hell also.
Oh yeah, btw, we did not support Saddam when he killed the Kurds and Shia after the Gulf War. Your friends the Russians, Germans and French did.
And there really was no “Gulf War II”. It was one long - entirely too long, thanks to the UN and its infinite wimpiness - war stemming from the initial invasion in Kuwait.
This is as close to the truth as it gets.
50x
[quote]lixy wrote:
You attacked a country unprovoked, invaded the land, killed the people.
[/quote]
Grow up. You act like there was never war before the Iraq War.
You wanna talk war, read some Muslim History.
[quote]50x wrote:
And there really was no “Gulf War II”. It was one long - entirely too long, thanks to the UN and its infinite wimpiness - war stemming from the initial invasion in Kuwait.
This is as close to the truth as it gets.
50x
[/quote]
I must point out that these sanctions were supported by the Clinton Administration. If the sanctions and tactical air-strike policy of the UN resolution was too wimpy for the then administration it would have been vetoed.
In 1996, when asked if the estimated 500,000 child deaths (at that time) that had resulted from the sanctions was an acceptable price to pay, Madeline Allbright stated, “We believe the price is worth it.”
The sanctions were phase two in a magnificently orchestrated modern genocide (all parties acting knowingly or not), where the medieval siege went high tech. In 42 days of “hot” war 110,000 aerial sorties were flown over Iraq (one every 30sec 24hrs a day). At the end of those 42 days nearly all of Iraq’s food storage and processing infrastructure had been destroyed by the new and highly touted “smart bombs.”
If I were you, assuming you had been chomping at the bit to remove Saddam since the start of the Gulf War, I wouldn’t lament the fact that it didn’t happen until 2003. The occupation forces can’t handle the the current levels of resistance and insurgency in Iraq. The US military is in terrible shape. Can you imagine how strong the resistance would have been right after desert storm? A country with a large, experienced army that had been recently trained and armed by most of the world powers (with weapons in strict violation of international law)? Imagine all of them had disappeared and dug into the urban jungles of Baghdad and Fallujah. And don’t forget that the Afghan jihad had recently ended. Thousands of experienced fighters that had also been recently trained and equipped by unnamed governments would have been ecstatic at the opportunity to begin another jihad. And then there are the hundreds of thousands (at least) of ordinary Iraqis that are not alive today to cause problems for the occupying forces.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Grow up. You act like there was never war before the Iraq War.
[/quote]
Ah, I see. A real man. A steely eyed realist. The kind that chooses one of history’s greatest monsters as his avatar and realizes that violent conflict is eternal.
Every hear of a self fulfilling prophecy?