Main > Everything Else
Around 100,000 Iraqi dead
abrannan:
--- Quote from: Magnet_Eye on October 29, 2004, 09:01:39 am ---Hmmm. Well, should the world have continued to let Saddam commit genocide and other atrocities against humankind?
--- End quote ---
Depends. Did he kill more than 100,000 per year? Will those death rates continute to stay that high in Iraq post invasion? Am I in Iraq? I'd have to say that the last question probably would have more of an impact on my opinion than anything else.
rchadd:
--- Quote from: Magnet_Eye on October 29, 2004, 09:01:39 am ---Hmmm. Well, should the world have continued to let Saddam commit genocide and other atrocities against humankind?
--- End quote ---
no maybe not, but i would have waited until i had at least caught bin laden.
i'm sure there could have been a more intelligent way of overthrowing sadam that would not have resulted in so many innocent people being killed. assasination? oh can't do that - its illegal....so we'll have an illegal invasion then instead!
hey america are you feeling safe yet? will you ever?
have you not realized that politicians are benefiting from creating a scared population? oops there goes another right in the name of patriot act.
whats the next country on your invasion list? north korea? iran?
i just hope there are enough people in the US with more than 2 digit IQ and enough sense to Get Bush Out.
spocktwin:
:'( Sometimes good people do the wrong thing for the right reasons. It is not logical but it is often true. War is hell and a blight on the thing we call humanity. We need to weep for the loss of life now and in the future because there is no end in sight as long as men believe it is right to kill in the name of God.
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: Dexter on October 29, 2004, 09:33:15 am ---'The world' had no say or part in Saddams removal or the death of 100,000 innocents, as the unilateral invasion was outside the mechanisms of the UN.
--- End quote ---
patrick seems to be under the impression he has countrymen in Iraq, danny may also know a few of his countrymen over there, and a few of the Brits here may know of a person or two that have that "funny" english accent over there.
It's amazing to me how "unilateral" means something completely different to you. It prolly has something to do with your unfettered access to an "unbiased state-run media". Mebbe someday I can become as enlightened as you. Until then, I'm going to go outside by the styrofoam/old tire fire I have constantly burning, and shoot off a few rounds to blow off steam.
Stereotypes....who knew? :-\
*edit* who'da thunk THIS? "The report was released just days before the U.S. presidential election, and the lead researcher told The Associated Press he wanted it that way."
Thank goodness you gave us a report from your "unbiased state-run media" instead of our partisan med......woops, guess that one just slipped, hey?
Mameotron:
Dexter, it's funny that you condemn ALL US media as biased, but then you quote from it when it suits your views.
I traveled to England, Scotland, & Wales about 8 years ago. At that time I couldn't believe the signs I saw all over the place warning people to report any suspicious packages or any unattended boxes or briefcases left out in the open. It seems that the threat of terror has visited Europe far sooner than it has come home to me at the US.
In another thread someone mentioned that English police do not carry guns. Funny that nobody pointed out that this is not true.
Last year I traveled to London, Paris, Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Norway. I still feel safer from terrorist threats in the US than anywhere in Europe.