Destroy a Country

That’s exactly what your saying,
Civilian Human shielding on war vehicle, Conventional chem /bio ground weapons, Misuse of million and millions of Food for fuel aid moneys never Getting to the people suffering because of him. This is over a decade old media folly of the atrocities that where committed in Iraq
Any one of these discoveries has been in the media many times, Your attempt of discount is at best weak. but well written

-Waves

Honestly Waves, it was not meant to discount you or your experience in any way. Honestly.

I truly have never seen what you are speaking of in the media. I will admit that I never searched such out for myself, but then I had no idea it was going on. At the time, I was more interested in getting drunk... I have since changed my ways.

I really was interested if someone had documented all that went on, not just the left or right wind media outlets had to offer.

Edit----
I'm sorry, I had seen the gross waste of money that the regime had. I had seen that many had to suffer for his 'gold toilets'. But I was refering to the human shields / bio-weapons.

You don't remember the UN workers being held 'hostage'? The rest isn't a far stretch after that. I'll do some researching as I'm sure it's out there. I will vouch that similarties were found when we crossed the border in '03 as well.

No, I don't. Man, I feel like I have had my head stuck in the sand... I will say that after the last presidential election, I have not watched any news on a regular basis. I found my blood pressure going up way to much.

I also stopped perusing the 'Bush sucks', 'Bush is awesome', and 'Everyone is out to get me' websites.

My bad I guess, but, I have not had a heart attack yet.

I guess sore wounds of soul and body heal differently, Seeing After I gave a hungry kid a extra BBQ sandwich and his father pulling it from him and making a seen that he was throwing it on the ground not taking anything from us. only to find out later why the father did it, as he was still in disbelief that no harm would befall his family from taking aid (food for his kid)from us.
Feelings on this National scale bring folks out and that’s how change happens. I know I have changed from this event in my life. I don’t sit around and talk about this with friends over coffee nor do I want to relive the past or make a rally call I’m just deeply sadden each day I hear of how good troops are dying from a belief I do not fully understand

-Waves
CPO,ret-

Ulrika,

I wasn't sure where you were going with the whole "key a Christian" thing, but I have to say, I agree wholeheartedly with your thread. What the Bush Administration continues to do to Iraq is criminal, and I hope they are ultimately forced to answer for it, though I doubt that will happen unfortunately.

An interesting question though, is this:

Is it more or less criminal than what Hussein did to Iraq?

I understand the ostritch syndrome perfectly. After I came home from the war, I could not bear to watch the news nor read a newspaper for a span of almost six months. It still pains me deeply. Anywho, here a few links with documentations of the alleged events. Just a few I found, I'm sure there are more out there. Of course reading about it doesn't come close to actually seeing it. meh
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/gulf-war.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq_human_shields/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ogc/apparatus/crafting.html
http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000412.php
http://www.kuwait-info.com/sidepages/gulfwar_over.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_situation_in_Saddam's_Iraq

Calm down, Waves. If you look again you'll see I was not expressing personal doubt. I was pointing out that if people believe one thing (vicious dictator- widespread fear and coercion) then they cannot refuse to believe a consequence (troops forced, unwilling, and therefore at least in part innocent).

It was "if this then that". Not "I doubt this is true".

What you describe is horrific, in the attitude it reveals, but it would not have been happening, in its details, if we had not been there. Not much of an argument I agree

But try this - things as bad are now widespread elsewhere, like Zimbabwe. Why are US forces not there ? What is the difference ?

Israelis have been filmed with palestinian teenagers tied to the front of their armored vehicles. They have been proved to force palestinian civilians to precede their troops into fire zones, some being killed. They have provably bulldozed houses with aged occupants inside, despite remonstrations. They shoot children (an 8 yr old girl with her schoolbooks, after a subordinate soldier said "don't she's just a kid" from watchtowers. Do you feel as strongly about this ? Or do you find yourself able to not-believe it ?

If your concern is fairly distributed across suffering peoples I applaud it, and I share it. If, like your government's, it is selective and biassed, then I hang back and cannot stand quite right beside you.

Ah so moral relativism, eh? There is no denying what Hussein did was also horrific. However, it in no way justifies the US's actions either. Hussein is definitely the greater evil, but it does not minimize Bush's actions. What is occuring in Iraq now has nothing to do with Hussein.

And once again Ulrika's potholder keeps her hand from burning. How much do flip-flops cost down there in South Florida dude?

In many cases, we are forced to make choices where neither choice is nice and fluffy. In these cases, we must decide the lesser of two evils.

It's impossible to simply not choose. In such cases, inaction usually results in a de facto choice.

So, in the case with Iraq, the choice is not simply "Invade Iraq, or Don't." The "don't" choice here has other implications, namely, leaving Hussein in power.

On the same hand, this does not necessarilly HAVE to be the case. Obviously, there are more choices that could be had. But, in order to weigh them against the invasion of Iraq, those other choices must actually be defined. You can't simply say something like, "We could have done other things to get rid of him." You need to actually define the specifics of those other options, and show that they would work.

Without such specific alternatives, we are left with the comparison of Iraq under Hussein's rule, and Iraq under coalition occupation. When presented like that, which one do you believe is better for the average Iraqi?

In many cases individuals oversimplify the situation making it look like there are only two choices, such that they can make the case that they chose the lesser of two evils.

~Ulrika~

Who are you accusing of flip flopping? When have you ever seen me not say that Bush is a fucktard who should be in jail, along with the rest of his cronies?

I wasn't referring to your views on the Bush administration.

Moved to Off-kilter.

Remember that America is against an international court. People like president Bush know that many countries in the world would like to try him for his war crimes. I wonder if you would have the same feeling you do, if there were Iraqi tanks rolling down your street, no electricity for over a year, bombed out buildings, and destroyed farms. All in the name of saving you from a supposedly corrupt government trying to push us into a Christian theocracy. I know it is far fetched, because a government without weapons of mass destruction has no chance against a country like us that has weapons of mass destruction. If you think about how you would feel if we were Iraq though, you might get a glimpse of why the relatives of those executed and killed by Saddam fought passionately against American troops.

On Ulrika? In the previous thread, I pointed out what the difference between the two threads were, and why someone would take offense. I did not say I was personally offended by it, which I wasn't. Some of what Ulrika says pisses me off, much I agree with - the same with many people. Where is there flip flopping, which is a lame term to begin with. When I disagree with Ulrika, even strongly, I have no problem saying so - and in return, when I agree with someone, I am the same way. My views do evolve and change over time, and upon consideration and input from others - though in this case my view has remained the same all along. I would have agreed with the sentiment even if Prokofy had posted it, though somehow in that case Iraq would have been my fault.

I believe I specifically addressed this, didn't I?

What on earth is this about ? Why is Iraq inflicting this moral imperative upon us whereas Rwanda did not, and Zimbabwe does not today, to name just two of dozens as bad as Iraq or worse. Unless you face this question head on, all else is smoke and mirrors.

Nothing you say is unique to Iraq. Which I am afraid renders it irrelevant as any sort of justification. Face it. The sufferings of the Iraqi people were NOT the reason. Can you really dispute that, Roland ?

potholder

spatula!

That is without a doubt a true statement. March on.

Well, yes, I believe I can.

Iraq has far more strategic importance to the US than Rwanda or Zimbabwe.

You see, I would not be so naive as to suggest that things like Oil played no role in the decision to go into Iraq. On the same token, I believe that Oil was not the ONLY reason for going into Iraq. I think both views are pretty narrowminded.

However, when saying that going into Iraq is bad, based on things such as suffering of Iraqis, then it becomes necessary to make comparisons of relative wellbeing before and after occupation (or rather, during occupation).

Such an analysis is not intended to justify the war in Iraq, as much as its intended to dispute the idea that people dying during occupation is reason to not go into Iraq.

The only way that you can make a case against the war in Iraq, based on the welfare of the Iraqi people, is if the occupation has actually made their lives worse. To say that the US has destroyed Iraq, would require you to make a case that it has in fact gotten worse in Iraq compared to when Hussein ruled.

There are other cases that can be made against the war, but the argument that the US has somehow destroyed the country is not a particularly meritous one.

Oh, coolness!

Wow, Rollie-poo, that argument ROCKS!

Tell you what, then. You prepare the assault against North Korea, 'kay? And I'll go in there and sprinkle a bunch of oil around, so's our Righteous Liberating Of The Indigenous People will have a handy little crutch to support itself with --- kinda like the Extra Credit question on a test, see?

And while we're at it, let's also scrutinize the globe and see if, where it would make strategic or economic sense to kill thousands of civilians somewhere, if there isn't something Shady and Repressive and/or at least slightly more reprehensible than what the US does, currently, to its own citizens or the citizens of other --- only covertly attacked --- countries. 'Kay?

Oh, wait! Silly me: We already do that, don't we?

Oh goodness! *blush* Wow, is my face red, or what?