Originally posted by knapperjaI've often wondered that aloud. Add in the sanctions which cost 500,000 children's lives and I reckon the u.s. is responsible for more Iraqi deaths than Saddam could ever hope to achieve.
If all the people Sadam killed were added up. Would it really be more than those the US killed in Gulf war 1 and 2?
Gulf-1 had significant carpet bombing to soften up the enemy. The collateral damage had to be devastating. The Bushes may have killed more Iraqi's than Sadam. I don't think there is a way to know how many civilians were killed in the first gulf war, or even the second, but I would be curious as to the totals.
D
2 edits
Originally posted by RagnorakYou need to put things in perspective, and it is quite a different senario. Saddam did not abide by the rules, therefore HE caused his people to suffer...why don't you go and give Saddam a hug and a kiss; I'm sure he would appreciate your attitude....then, with the stench of Saddam and his crimes permeating from your hide, go try and hug a Kurd or a Kuwaiti, and you might get your teeth knocked out.....ðŸ˜
I've often wondered that aloud. Add in the sanctions which cost 500,000 children's lives and I reckon the u.s. is responsible for more Iraqi deaths than Saddam could ever hope to achieve.
D
Originally posted by chancremechanicYes, Saddam is worse than the Bushes. I don't even think Bush senior was all that bad. Saddam is an evil man. He was also kind of an idiot. He could easily have avoided the 2nd Gulf war, he was just too stupid to see it coming. He probably had anybody who had any sense executed for giving him grim advice. If I remember correctly, W offerred him assylum somewhere, where he could continue to be a billionaire. His dim brain thought he could win the war, so he stayed.
You need to put things in perspective, and it is quite a different senario. Saddam did not abide by the rules, therefore HE caused his people to suffer...why don't you go and give Saddam a hug and a kiss; I'm sure he would appreciate your attitude....then, with the stench of Saddam and his crimes permeating from your hide, go try and hug a Kurd or a Kuwaiti, and you might get your teeth knocked out.....ðŸ˜
IMHO, it would have been easier to keep him contained then the thousands of terrorists we have helped enlist with our 2nd invasion of Iraq. I was all for the first and all for Afganistan. I still think we would have been better off leaving the nut-job in power, and having one half-wit enemy, however evil, than thousands more unknown enemies. So, no plans on giving him a hug. I just wish we could have assassinated him instead of going to war. Unless we used a nuke, the collateral damage would have been a lot less.
Originally posted by chancremechanicSaddam was certainly a nasty tyrant. Given the track history of installing and backing dubious characters, any predictions as to how Iraqi PM Iyad Allawi will be regarded in 20 years?
You need to put things in perspective, and it is quite a different senario. Saddam did not abide by the rules, therefore HE caused his people to suffer...why don't you go and give Saddam a hug and a kiss; I'm sure he would appreciate your attitude....then, with the stench of Saddam and his crimes permeating from your hide, go try and hug a Kurd or a Kuwaiti, and you might get your teeth knocked out.....ðŸ˜
Like Saddam he was a Baathist.He was a paid Mukhabarat agent for the Iraqis, and was reputed to have been involved in the killing of dissenters when he was president of the Iraqi Student Union in Europe. After falling out with Saddam, he organised attacks in Iraq including the bombing of a cinema and a school bus that killed school children. More recently, he was the soure of Blair's 45 minute attack warning speech and was also alleged to have personally executed six Iraqi prisoners in June 2004 to send a clear message to the police on how to deal with insurgents.
Originally posted by chancremechanicWhat exactly do I need to put in perspective?
You need to put things in perspective, and it is quite a different senario. Saddam did not abide by the rules, therefore HE caused his people to suffer...why don't you go and give Saddam a hug and a kiss; I'm sure he would appreciate your attitude....then, with the stench of Saddam and his crimes permeating from your hide, go try and hug a Kurd or a Kuwaiti, and you might get your teeth knocked out.....ðŸ˜
'He didn't abide by the rules, therefore HE caused his people to suffer'
So are the american nation massively suffering at the moment? Or, I suppose the truth of the matter is that if the u.s. government goes against international rules, then those rules don't exist anymore.
Why didn't u add Iran to the list of Kurds and Kuwaitis? Would it be because the u.s. sided with Iraq in that unlawful invasion?
1980 - Saddam invades Iran
1982 - Reagan admin remove Iraq from list of nations regarded as supporters of terrorism.
u.s. aid to Iraq reaches several billion during war.
During war, u.s. ships protect Iraqi oil tankers while allowing Iraqi gunships destroy Iranian oil tankers.
Henry Kissinger is quoted as saying in 1984 that ' the ultimate american interest in the war is that both sides should lose' Reflecting the administration's sentiments that it was best if both sides stayed at war for years, so no superpower could raise up and threaten u.s. domination in the middle east.
Why don't you try giving any of your righteous presidents up to about 1970 a hug and a kiss, then with the stench of them and their crimes permeating from your hide, go try and hug a native american.
Why don't you try giving Eisenhower a hug and a kiss, then with the stench of him and his crimes permeating from your hide, go try and hug an Iranian or Guatamalen.
Why don't you try giving Johnson a hug and a kiss, then with the stench of him and his crimes permeating from your hide, go try and hug a Vietnamese.
Why don't you try giving Nixon a hug and a kiss, then with the stench of him and his crimes permeating from your hide, go try and hug a Chileno or Cambodian.
My list could go on and on, but I couldn't be bothered.
Now Chan, I think it may be you who needs to put things in perspective.
D
Originally posted by paba002"these rebels used to be tortured under Saddam's rule..". Are you sure that some of the rebels are not former supporters of Sadam? Maybe the Iraqi people in general would have been more grateful towards their liberators if the US had tried harder to include them in the running and rebuilding of the country rather than give all the contracts to friends of the Bush Administration. Or am I wrong on that?
No war can justify the loss of innocent lives..... but the funny thing about this war is that when saddam was in power the iraqis were calling for help... every country they go to they have demonstrations about how awful saddam is. The U.S. stepped in and removed saddam and all his government even his sons are dead, I thought that when the iraqis experience ...[text shortened]... ocent in the most crul way possible. THE ONLY MISTAKE BUSH HAS DONE IS REMOVE SADDAM FROM POWER
1 edit
Originally posted by shrewSo... should a rational person care what a person who took bribes to support a brutal dictator (anan from saddam) be concerned? In any way whatsoever? Knowing that the organization he heads is corrupt and interested only in perpetuating crimes against humanity? (see the Sudan and it's 2001 agreement with the UN) .Because most of his/it's (the un) supporters are dictators?
Is the world a better place since the invasion of Iraq? Do you feel safer? Are the people of Iraq any better off? Do you have friends or family serving in Iraq; how will you welcome them well they return from this war declared illegal by the UN???
I think that the soldiers might take satisfaction in knowing that the same skills they develop in taking out islamofacists will come in handy in the coming years battle against the UN. What a joy that will be! To see the buggers brought to justice.