| QUOTE (melon @ May 19 2004, 12:41 PM) |
nemt i want you to answer these 2 questions please.
I just want to understand your point of view. |
Looks to me like you've given me three questions, does that mean I only need to answer two, or do you just have poor memory/counting ability?
| QUOTE (melon @ May 19 2004, 12:41 PM) |
Q1. If the civillians are better treated under coallition forces rather than Saddam (something i question as having an irqi as a best firend allows me to find out what is going on in baghdad from an iraqi point of view). How do you feel about the fact America has supported brutal dicatators for years and even put Saddam in power? |
I don't think the US should go out of its way to support "brutal dictators," but the era you're referring to is an era where the world had a much bigger threat than islamists and radicals. In any event, Saddam deposed to legitimate Iraqi monarchy, his coup was not aided by the United States, and if anything, it's Britains fault. You're probably confusing Saddam's rise to power with the Iraq/Iran War, which occurred decades later. The enemy of your enemy is your friend, that's the first rule of foreign policy. In addition to minor funding, independent corporations leased or sold military equipment to Iraq, but not anywhere near the amount or capabilities of the equipment provided by France and the former Soviet Union. Hindsight is also 20/20, as many of Saddam's atrocities only became apparent in the past few years.
| QUOTE (melon @ May 19 2004, 12:41 PM) |
Q2. How can continuesly bombing baghdad with heavy artillery including cluster bombs and 11,000 civillians dead be classed as succesfully protecting civillians? |
It was Saddam's choice to base military units in the cities, not the coalition's. Every attempt was made to use smaller ordinance munitions to minimize civilian casualties, and the civilian death toll for the entire war up until now has been less than any single attack on the Kurds or Shiites.
| QUOTE (melon @ May 19 2004, 12:41 PM) |
Q3. You say over a million civillians murdered is a just reason for war. What do you think about the 4 million vietnamese and cambodia civillians US troop killed?
and what part do you think the us sanctions on iraq played in these deaths? |
I don't think there was any reason to go to war in Viet Nam, and I think the civilian death toll is a testament to what happens when troops lose all morale and respect for their commanding body. This is one of the first, but not the last time Democrats blunder foreign policy over and over. As for the US Sanctions on Iraq, I really don't see how that has anything to do with Indochinese casualties, but I assume you just worded the question incorrectly. The sanctions were imposed by the UN, and through the Oil for Food program, which the Annan family funnelled millions of dollars from, was supposed to keep the people of Iraq from starving. Bear in mind, it all would have ended early, had Saddam cooperated. The Arab League also defended Saddam until the 11th hour and prevented any sort of inter-council negotiation.
| QUOTE (melon @ May 19 2004, 12:41 PM) |
(Saddam has not killed a million civillians btw)
|
There have been over half a million already found in mass graves, what are the odds these are the only civilians killed by Saddam?
| QUOTE (melon @ May 19 2004, 12:41 PM) |
I would like to hear your response. |
And I'd like to hear how you spin my words, clown.
Author
Topic: What The Liberal Media Doesn't Tell You (Read 487 times)