Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dylflon
Oh, I see The Strangler. You have to kill Iraqis so Saddam can't kill them.
Hooray for justice.
Yes. I realize now how hard it would have been to send in units to do nothing other than look for Saddam. Occupying their towns and killing civilians and capturing oil fields is a much better way to find Saddam. How could I have been so stupid?
Your argument is that what your doing is right because Saddam was worse. That's a bunch of crap. That doesn't justify anything.
BTW, Saddam has been captured. People shouldn't still be dying.
|
What a myopic view of war. If you look at any other war in modern history, the civilian casualties that have taken place in Iraq PALE in comparison. In WWII, the war that you yourself claim to support, the civilian casualties were astounding. Carpet bombing was commonplace and tens of thousands of innocent non-combatants on both sides were killed.
So by your theory we shouldn't have gone full tilt after Hitler because of the potential for innocent lives to be lost? Or does the fact that the complete genocide of the Jews in western Europe and the many more lives that would have been lost through a prolonged war were avoided justify that unfortunate occurance? You yourself said that it was a just war.
You have to look at the big picture, and not just keep on with this silly and ignorant view that "war is bad". A few thousand have died so that hundreds of thousands can live. In the real world we have to take trades such as that, just as we did during WWII.
The FACT is that every effort to avoid civilian causalties and even to protect sacred muslim sites have been made. Instead of carpet bombing during the war which would have been far more effective in destroying the infrastructure and demoralizing the troops, we hand picked targets and made every effort to spare the city and civilian lives.
Now that the war is over, troops are basically targets because they cannot go into sacred mosques that terrorists and fundamentalists from Syria and Iran are using as fortresses and bases of operations.
Also you mention capturing oil fields as if it were a BAD thing. Do you know anything about what happened in the first Gulf War? Saddam lit fire the HUNDREDS of oil fields in Kuwait before backing out and it was one of the biggest ecological disasters in history. The smoke spread all the way to East Asia. The FACT is that the oil fields in Iraq were captured because they had been rigged with explosives to be destroyed if an invasion took place. Amazingly our troops were able to disable most of the explosives and prevent all but a few fires. Also, there is NO EVIDENCE THAT THE US HAS STOLEN OR PLANS TO STEAL ONE OUNCE OF OIL FROM IRAQ. That sure doesn't keep people from ignorantly screaming that they are, does it?
Like I said before, do some research and look up some facts about war before spouting off about things you really know nothing about. The truth is that the Iraq been one of the most gentle wars to the civilian populace in HISTORY, and that out of planning and not happenstance.
In the end, your argument still remains "war is bad" with no logical reasoning behind it.