[quote]Sifu wrote:
All you democrats have done since the invasion of Iraq is whine about how poor Saddam didn’t deserve to get took out and we didn’t need to go into Iraq. And you throw your whiny bullshit out there as if it’s an undeniable fact, when it isn’t.
What is an undeniable fact is Saddam wasn’t coming out any other way. And despite all the whining you never come up with a reasonable suggestion as to how his removal was to be accomplished without the use of force.
Nor do you ever give any reasonable reasons why Saddam or his sons deserved to have the kind of power the Iraqi oil fields provided. These were dangerous people who needed to be removed so the world could move forward.[/quote]
I haven’t gotten one valid reason for invading another soverign state. There’s plenty of dictators around the world that we don’t take out, and at least you acknowledged that the oil fields is the big, and only, reason.
You might say we’re whining (which I’m not), but at least I’m not kidding myself by being a chickenhawk on a message board calling for others to go to war because I want oil fields, as most of the people on here are.
[/quote]
So your belief is that because there are dictators in this world that don’t get dealt with we should give all of them a pass. That is a stupid philosophy. We had history with Saddam. The only reason why Bush the first let Saddam live after the gulf war is because people in the region assured him that Saddam was done, that his own people were going to take him out. It didn’t work out that which left us with a dangerous person to deal with.
For someone who thinks he knows a lot about fighting and self defense I am surprised that you are having a hard time understanding that with some people it is not enough to just beat them down. There are some people who if you get into it with them you have to take them out. Saddam was one of those people who if you are going to tangle with him you better be prepared to kill him or you leave him alone and don’t ever cross him. Once we went to war in 91 that was it, he had to go.
Sifu, I really want you to read a book that I guarantee will change your thoughts about whether going into Iraq was right or not. I really don’t know how some people still think it was the right thing to do, especially now with all the problems we have in Afghanistan.
Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror - Richard A. Clarke
Richard Clarke was the chief counter-terrorism adviser for the NSC under both Clinton and Bush. In his book he basically explains why it was not just to go to war with Iraq, point-by-point.
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
Sifu, I really want you to read a book that I guarantee will change your thoughts about whether going into Iraq was right or not. I really don’t know how some people still think it was the right thing to do, especially now with all the problems we have in Afghanistan.
Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror - Richard A. Clarke
Richard Clarke was the chief counter-terrorism adviser for the NSC under both Clinton and Bush. In his book he basically explains why it was not just to go to war with Iraq, point-by-point.
[/quote]
I’ll have to see if the library has it. I read a brief description of it. One of the things Clarke points out is the failure to remove Saddam after the gulf war meant that the US had to station forces in Saudi Arabia. The American forces in Saudi Arabia was a major irritant for jihadists. It was a major reason why we had to take out Saddam, because maintaining the status quo there was making us enemies.
I also notice that the book was written in 2004 and there is a lot of information that has come out since then. ie One of the things the Iraq Study group found out was that Saddam’s own people were lying to him about their WMD programs. They were telling Saddam that he had weapons he didn’t have.
No dumbass being a citizen does not make you a civilian. When a civilian takes up arms to fight they become a combatant.
[/quote]
The US military are foreign invaders. Did you expect blowjobs from the Iraqis in return for bombing them?
I don’t blame them one bit for fighting back. I know some you think they are supposed to just bend over and take it.
No, I’m trying to point out your retarded reasoning for military aggression.
Are you that indoctrinated?
I’m not even going to spend the time to try de-program you. You’re hopeless.
[quote]
Reasonable people would accept they are there for a legitimate reason and get on with rebuilding the country so they can go home. [/quote]
You haven’t the foggiest idea of what you are talking about.
Reasonable people would understand that Iraq has nothing to do with the government’s fictitious war on terror or the 9-11 attacks.
But I should understand that you aren’t reasonable. You’re the same person who is butthurt over a Muslim community center being built in an abandon Burlington Coat factory.
Sifu I stand behind you, this pacifist individuals sound like pansies to me but I could be wrong. If they could only see the rest of the world or have suffered through a painful life outside the US.
[quote]jre67t wrote:
Liftivs it is not moral to kill innocent people, we do not do it on purpose my friend.
[/quote]
How is going to war on people that have done nothing to us an accident?
You and every voter who supports military aggression is guilty of murder.[/quote]
There are more just reasons for physical force than an attack on your person. for example intervening in an attack on another innocent person. Saddam was torturing killing and gassing his own people.
[/quote]
In the 80s… with weapons supplied from the US during the Iran-Iraq war… so you’re basically invading and removing a dictator for crimes that you also facilitated. Nice.
Why anyone thinks that invading a country and forcing the civilians at gunpoint to enact (not mentioning some of the dodgy attacks carried out by Coalition forces - Hadija and the beating to death of Baha Mousa spring to mind) to change from a brutally fascist stooge to a US-sponsored stooge would go down well is beyond me. That the government thought they could control a country the size of France with the 140,000 troops is laughable. The fact that some people expect the Iraqi people to take this lying down is beyond parody really
[quote]jre67t wrote:
Liftivs it is not moral to kill innocent people, we do not do it on purpose my friend.
[/quote]
How is going to war on people that have done nothing to us an accident?
You and every voter who supports military aggression is guilty of murder.[/quote]
There are more just reasons for physical force than an attack on your person. for example intervening in an attack on another innocent person. Saddam was torturing killing and gassing his own people.
[/quote]
In the 80s… with weapons supplied from the US during the Iran-Iraq war… so you’re basically invading and removing a dictator for crimes that you also facilitated. Nice.
Why anyone thinks that invading a country and forcing the civilians at gunpoint to enact (not mentioning some of the dodgy attacks carried out by Coalition forces - Hadija and the beating to death of Baha Mousa spring to mind) to change from a brutally fascist stooge to a US-sponsored stooge would go down well is beyond me. That the government thought they could control a country the size of France with the 140,000 troops is laughable. The fact that some people expect the Iraqi people to take this lying down is beyond parody really[/quote]
I’m assuming none of that was directed at me because none of that responded to anything I wrote.
The second part didn’t the first part did sorry on my part
I was pointing it it’s all very well saying that it’s all very well saying intervening in Iraq was due to Saddam’s ethnic cleansing but the US (and the UK and France) all supplied Iraq with weapons in the Iran-Iraq war that he then used on the Kurdish people. So it’s a bit hypocritical of the Coalition to go in saying it has a legitimate reason to invade when it allowed Saddam to have and to develop these weapons when it was politically expedient for him to do so
EDIT: I know France wasn’t in the Coalition before any smart alec points that out
[quote]Bambi wrote:
The second part didn’t the first part did sorry on my part
I was pointing it it’s all very well saying that it’s all very well saying intervening in Iraq was due to Saddam’s ethnic cleansing but the US (and the UK and France) all supplied Iraq with weapons in the Iran-Iraq war that he then used on the Kurdish people. So it’s a bit hypocritical of the Coalition to go in saying it has a legitimate reason to invade when it allowed Saddam to have and to develop these weapons when it was politically expedient for him to do so
EDIT: I know France wasn’t in the Coalition before any smart alec points that out[/quote]
That just raises the unjustness of giving him guns in the first place. It doesn’t change the morality of stopping him from using them as he was. But yes, the irony isn’t lost on me.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
What is an undeniable fact is Saddam wasn’t coming out any other way. And despite all the whining you never come up with a reasonable suggestion as to how his removal was to be accomplished without the use of force. .[/quote]
lol
I know I’ve posted this before, but Saddam had agreed to exile.
The story. of course, didn’t get any play during the invasion. But it’s true. Suck on it.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
What is an undeniable fact is Saddam wasn’t coming out any other way. And despite all the whining you never come up with a reasonable suggestion as to how his removal was to be accomplished without the use of force. .[/quote]
lol
I know I’ve posted this before, but Saddam had agreed to exile.
The story. of course, didn’t get any play during the invasion. But it’s true. Suck on it.[/quote]
Saddam’s biased son said so it must be true. And reported on biased MSNBC. Wow, what a credible story, thanks for posting it. I think everything is cleared up now.
No dumbass being a citizen does not make you a civilian. When a civilian takes up arms to fight they become a combatant.
[/quote]
The US military are foreign invaders. Did you expect blowjobs from the Iraqis in return for bombing them?
I don’t blame them one bit for fighting back. I know some you think they are supposed to just bend over and take it.
[/quote]
Oh dear. I think you missed the point. The moment somebody takes up arms to fight in a war they are a combatant. Hence they are no longer civilians so including them in the civilian death toll is inane.
It doesn’t matter which side you support. For instance I supported the actions of the French resistance in WW2; but I’m not going to be dense enough to pretend that they were civilians. Once you start shooting at people in a war situation you are not a civilian.
No dumbass being a citizen does not make you a civilian. When a civilian takes up arms to fight they become a combatant.
[/quote]
The US military are foreign invaders. Did you expect blowjobs from the Iraqis in return for bombing them?
I don’t blame them one bit for fighting back. I know some you think they are supposed to just bend over and take it.
[/quote]
Oh dear. I think you missed the point. The moment somebody takes up arms to fight in a war they are a combatant. Hence they are no longer civilians so including them in the civilian death toll is inane.
It doesn’t matter which side you support. For instance I supported the actions of the French resistance in WW2; but I’m not going to be dense enough to pretend that they were civilians. Once you start shooting at people in a war situation you are not a civilian.[/quote]
I understood his point just fine.
Read the rest of Sifu’s post. He makes it sound like the Iraqis have no right to self-defense or to stand up to an occupying force.
[quote]jre67t wrote:
Sifu I stand behind you, this pacifist individuals sound like pansies to me but I could be wrong. If they could only see the rest of the world or have suffered through a painful life outside the US. [/quote]
Yup, you are wrong. No one is arguing pacifism here. I know many terrorist-killing Soldiers that have fought or are fighting in Iraq, and most agree that we should not be there in the first place. Those pussy pacifist bastards…
No dumbass being a citizen does not make you a civilian. When a civilian takes up arms to fight they become a combatant.
[/quote]
The US military are foreign invaders. Did you expect blowjobs from the Iraqis in return for bombing them?
I don’t blame them one bit for fighting back. I know some you think they are supposed to just bend over and take it.
[/quote]
Oh dear. I think you missed the point. The moment somebody takes up arms to fight in a war they are a combatant. Hence they are no longer civilians so including them in the civilian death toll is inane.
It doesn’t matter which side you support. For instance I supported the actions of the French resistance in WW2; but I’m not going to be dense enough to pretend that they were civilians. Once you start shooting at people in a war situation you are not a civilian.[/quote]
Doublespeak. Bullshit.
Reclassifying a civilian who shoots at an invading foreign army a “combatant” is nothing more than a way to try to justify that foreign armies presence.
What if an Iraqi throws a rock at an American troop? Are they suddenly a combatant?
[quote]Sifu wrote:
What is an undeniable fact is Saddam wasn’t coming out any other way. And despite all the whining you never come up with a reasonable suggestion as to how his removal was to be accomplished without the use of force. .[/quote]
lol
I know I’ve posted this before, but Saddam had agreed to exile.
The story. of course, didn’t get any play during the invasion. But it’s true. Suck on it.[/quote]
Do any of you assholes even bother read this shit before cite and you post it? Or do you just make up your own quotes and assume I can’t read the link you posted? If you read this part you could have saved yourself a lot of embarrassment.
“Unknown whether Saddam accepted deal”
“It was not immediately possible to verify the Emirates claims that their offer had been accepted by Saddam, who is being held in U.S. military custody in Iraq and his facing trial on charges of crimes against humanity.”
I find it impossible to believe that Saddam ever would have accepted a deal to go into exile. Do you have any clue of just how ruthless the thugs he surrounded himself with were? Do you realize that for Saddam to agree to go into exile he would have had to throw all of them under the bus and left them to their fate with the mob. He would not have made it to the airport.
Reclassifying a civilian who shoots at an invading foreign army a “combatant” is nothing more than a way to try to justify that foreign armies presence.
[/quote]
It has always been the case that a combatant is someone directly involved in an armed conflict. There is no reclassification in calling these people combatants.
Where by always = at least since the start of the Geneva conventions.
Fighting an army (which is what shooting at soldiers is) makes you a combatant.
See the problem is you are a dumbfuck retard who places all sorts of emotional baggage on the word combatant. As such you can’t let it go and simply accept that “Iraqi freedom fighters” are combatants. Because to you combatant = evil.
Mate, by denying the accepted definition of words it makes it impossible to have a civil conversation with you.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
What if an Iraqi throws a rock at an American troop? Are they suddenly a combatant?
[/quote]
Are they trying to kill an American as part of a “war” effort? Then yes.
Reclassifying a civilian who shoots at an invading foreign army a “combatant” is nothing more than a way to try to justify that foreign armies presence.
[/quote]
It has always been the case that a combatant is someone directly involved in an armed conflict. There is no reclassification in calling these people combatants.
Where by always = at least since the start of the Geneva conventions.
Fighting an army (which is what shooting at soldiers is) makes you a combatant.
See the problem is you are a dumbfuck retard who places all sorts of emotional baggage on the word combatant. As such you can’t let it go and simply accept that “Iraqi freedom fighters” are combatants. Because to you combatant = evil.
Mate, by denying the accepted definition of words it makes it impossible to have a civil conversation with you.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
What if an Iraqi throws a rock at an American troop? Are they suddenly a combatant?
[/quote]
Are they trying to kill an American as part of a “war” effort? Then yes.[/quote]
Tell you what. I’ll come to your house, take whatever I want, fuck any females of my choosing, and if you decide to punch me in the face for this, I’ll shoot you and tell everyone I “shot my attacker”.
Because, hey, you did attack me, right? And its ok for me to defend myself against attackers, right?
I’m not arguing that anyone is wrong in pointing out that the reclassification from “citizen” to “combatant” happens. Just that it’s bullshit.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Tell you what. I’ll come to your house, take whatever I want, fuck any females of my choosing, and if you decide to punch me in the face for this, I’ll shoot you and tell everyone I “shot my attacker”.
Because, hey, you did attack me, right? And its ok for me to defend myself against attackers, right?
[/quote]
Except it is a horrible analogy. Combatant != Attacker. Combatant != Bad. Combatant = completely objective term.
Just like if I start a fight with you and you defend yourself it is perfectly correct and fine for a third party to state that we were in a fight.
We use the term combatant because it doesn’t have any bias to either side. It makes it objective rather than subjective.
Including combatants in the civilian kill count makes everything subjective once more. It is the bane of science. There is a massive difference to US troops killing a bunch of school children in Iraq to them killing a bunch of freedom fighters.
You have lumped the numbers together. So everyone who is pro-war will simply believe the people killed were bloodthirsty terrorists. And those against it will believe they were all school kids. But polarizing the issue does nothing in terms of actual solutions. The pro-war people simply become more pro-war.
And you can actually lose support when the fence sitters realise you have tried to mislead them.
If the numbers are separated you can still make any argument you want. You can say “X 100% innocent civilians were killed not the mention the Y people who died just defending their country”. And that will fly much better because at least 1 figure is hard to question.