Originally posted by twhiteheadYou forget that many of these people were tried. It just happened not to be to 'Western' standards. How can 'we' say that was not just? Also how do you know they were 'innocent'?
Is lack of information justification enough (they might have WMDs).
The fact that a large number of Americans (more than 50% ?) supported the war in Iraq but no longer do suggests that they did not realize the consequences.
Why do important figures appear to have a greater 'right to life'? Sadam Huseins death cause more uproar internationally than a ...[text shortened]... ns who died even though Sadam was tried and executed where as the civilians are just executed.
Originally posted by snowinscotlandI know they were innocent because I said so. I was referring directly to those that were innocent. Unless you are saying that every single person who died in Iraq due to the war has been guilty of a crime deserving death.
You forget that many of these people were tried. It just happened not to be to 'Western' standards. How can 'we' say that was not just? Also how do you know they were 'innocent'?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadyou realise that 'because I said so' is not really concrete evidence?
I know they were innocent because I said so. I was referring directly to those that were innocent. Unless you are saying that every single person who died in Iraq due to the war has been guilty of a crime deserving death.
The point I was trying to make is that no-one on this thread has stated that killing is not acceptable under any circumstances. That means that the only differential is the reasons that someone would accept killing. Some might say abortion is wrong, but self defence is OK. Others would say that to protect the country is acceptable, others to protect the king/queen, others that attack is a form of defence and acceptable; Apostates should be killed say others..... the list goes on. Who is going to judge them and say who is right?
Originally posted by snowinscotlandOkay, I'll say it. Killing is not acceptable under any circumstances.
you realise that 'because I said so' is not really concrete evidence?
The point I was trying to make is that no-one on this thread has stated that killing is not acceptable under any circumstances. That means that the only differential is the reasons that someone would accept killing. Some might say abortion is wrong, but self defence is OK. Others ...[text shortened]... d be killed say others..... the list goes on. Who is going to judge them and say who is right?
Originally posted by snowinscotlandI didn't say it was evidence. What I said was that some people must necessarily have been innocent and I was referring to them in particular. I don't think that anyone with even basic intelligence can claim that a 5 year old Iraqi child deserved to die even if the death was still considered 'necessary' for the greater good. Therefore the child was innocent. All I was saying is that there is more international outcry over the death of important figures such as Saddam Husein than over the death of 5 year old Iraqi children.
you realise that 'because I said so' is not really concrete evidence?
I personally believe that if the USA had truly just wanted to get rid of Saddam Husein then a well trained snipper could have done the job without the need for a war. But that is considered less 'politically acceptable' than killing thousands of civilians.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am sure Hussein had precautions against snipers. Otherwise he'd have been popped by some Kurd long ago I imagine.
I didn't say it was evidence. What I said was that some people must necessarily have been innocent and I was referring to them in particular. I don't think that anyone with even basic intelligence can claim that a 5 year old Iraqi child deserved to die even if the death was still considered 'necessary' for the greater good. Therefore the child was innocen ...[text shortened]... But that is considered less 'politically acceptable' than killing thousands of civilians.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThere is a difference between a Kurd snipper and the American arsenal. I do not believe that at no point before the war did the US ever know exactly where Saddam Husein was. A well placed missile would have done the job.
I am sure Hussein had precautions against snipers. Otherwise he'd have been popped by some Kurd long ago I imagine.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadA well placed missile is not a sniper. Nor is it a snipper.
There is a difference between a Kurd snipper and the American arsenal. I do not believe that at no point before the war did the US ever know exactly where Saddam Husein was. A well placed missile would have done the job.
Wait - what's a "snipper"?
Originally posted by twhiteheadBelieve what you want, but killing a head of state with a conventional (i.e. non-nuclear) missile fired from hundreds or thousands of miles away is a difficult task.
There is a difference between a Kurd snipper and the American arsenal. I do not believe that at no point before the war did the US ever know exactly where Saddam Husein was. A well placed missile would have done the job.
Originally posted by no1marauderI realize that a single sniper may not be the best method, but don't believe that the American military could not have killed Saddam Husein. There are many ways to go about it including a well placed missile/bomb from an aircraft, a AUV, or even sending in a commando unit.
Believe what you want, but killing a head of state with a conventional (i.e. non-nuclear) missile fired from hundreds or thousands of miles away is a difficult task.
Whatever the case it would have been possible to kill Saddam Hussein (and possibly some of his key generals) at far lest financial cost and loss of life than the current war.
However as politics, controlling the oil fields and making some money were the real reasons behind the war it wasn't done that way.