Iran photoshops missiles into picture to appear powerful

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

Through tyranny and dictatorship? Or...with Democracy and thousands of lives lost.

So the average of 50,000 Iraqi citizens per year that were killed or went "missing" under Saddam Hussein are so much more acceptable?

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

So the average of 50,000 Iraqi citizens per year that were killed or went "missing" under Saddam Hussein are so much more acceptable?

He never said it was more acceptable.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

He never said it was more acceptable.

I never said he did. I asked him if he thought they were.

I'd like him to clarify since his previous response attached deaths to democracy, but not the previous dictatorship, so I don't believe that is an unreasonable request.

[Typhoid]

I assumed it was sort of implied with the whole "tyranny" thing, but maybe it wasn't.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Professor S

So the average of 50,000 Iraqi citizens per year that were killed or went "missing" under Saddam Hussein are so much more acceptable?

Is it acceptable in my mind? No. No, Saddam was a horrible dictator, and it was well documented that he killed many of his own people. He deserved the hanging that he got.

It would be interesting to look at some numbers, and see the annual number of Iraqis the US has killed since the start of the war vs. the annual amount killed per year when Saddam was in power. The comparison isn't completely fair, and the numbers should level off in our favor at some point....but it's still an interesting statistic.

I guess we could break the cold hard numbers down with math...but the value of human life far exceeds any statistic. That said, hopefully in the long run the US invasion of Iraq will be profitable to saving Iraqi lives. Aka, hopefully we can establish some law in the country, and hopefully the rival groups like the Sunnis and the Shiites will be friends. Otherwise, as horible as Saddam's dictatorship was, he at least kept some order...even if it was at the expense of tens of thousands of annual deaths.

Life is life, so I won't mention that Democracy is costing us US causalities as well is Iraqi causalities. I'm sure some Americans do not care that thousands of Iraqis were dying in the hands of Saddam - not our problem - and by that logic, we could have avoided the causalities of our own men had we not interfered with other people's business. That argument is valid, because let's face it....Bush isn't a humanitarianism. He's an OILitarian.

If the United States went to go fight for every group of people suffering massive net losses under the hands of a cruel dictatorship...well, we'd be involved with more than Iraq right now.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

Is it acceptable in my mind? No. No, Saddam was a horrible dictator, and it was well documented that he killed many of his own people. He deserved the hanging that he got.

It would be interesting to look at some numbers, and see the annual number of Iraqis the US has killed since the start of the war vs. the annual amount killed per year when Saddam was in power. The comparison isn't completely fair, and the numbers should level off in our favor at some point....but it's still an interesting statistic.

Well in order for numbers to level off in "your favor", 1.5 million Iraqi's would have to die. And there are cold hard numbers, but those numbers change depending on who you talk to and what criteria they use. Those that want to paint the war as evil, count every death possible, sometimes including natural causes, to make their point. Those that are pro-war do just the opposite. Regardless, realistic numbers don't even come close to Hussein's brutal regime and likely never will since the new strategy is working out so well and deaths have fallen to the point that the Iraqi government is asking us to reduce troop numbers because they think they can handle it themselves.

Otherwise, as horible as Saddam's dictatorship was, he at least kept some order...even if it was at the expense of tens of thousands of annual deaths.

So do you or don't you think that the tens of thousands of deaths under Saddam were more acceptable or not? First you say no at the beginning of the post, then you follow it up with this statement? Say what you mean and stop trying to play both sides of the fence. There is no such answer as "No... but yes."

I really wish I could find the video of Hussein's rise to power. It was televised as he sat on a stage, smoking a cigar, and having every other person seated in their "parliament" escorted out of the room and killed. Ever see someone shit themselves? Watch that and you will. Literally. I couldn;t disagree with you more, and actually talk to a Iraq war vet to see if your view holds any water. They've talked to the people there, and you opinion of "ordered dictatorship" will likely change.

That argument is valid, because let's face it....Bush isn't a humanitarianism. He's an OILitarian.

Explain the logic of this statement. Honestly, every time someone says something to the effect of "blood for oil" all they do is tell me they refuse to think critically about the war...

If the United States went to go fight for every group of people suffering massive net losses under the hands of a cruel dictatorship...well, we'd be involved with more than Iraq right now.

So if we can't do everything we should do nothing? I've never understood this argument. If we follwed the ethic behind it nothing would ever get done in the world in any venue. Don't let the impossible perfect prevent the achievable good.

In any case, we are there NOW. This is a real situation with real consequences if we abandon the situation or just let Iran do whatever they like. Do you know how much Hussein feared Iran? He lied about WMD's because he was afraid if Iran knew they had gotten rid of them they would have plowed them under. This is according to Hussein's interrogator.

Hussein feared Iran more than the US. And we shouldn't be concerned over their nuclear program and missile tests?

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Professor S

So do you or don't you think that the tens of thousands of deaths under Saddam were more acceptable or not? First you say no at the beginning of the post, then you follow it up with this statement? Say what you mean and stop trying to play both sides of the fence. There is no such answer as "No... but yes."

No. I do not think that tens of thousands of death under Saddam's dictatorship was acceptable.

Originally Posted by Professor S

Explain the logic of this statement. Honestly, every time someone says something to the effect of "blood for oil" all they do is tell me they refuse to think critically about the war...

My point is this: There is good evidence that suggests that the motivation to go to war with Iraq was for oil. At the beginning, the Bush campaign downplayed the Iraq war as the United States doing Iraq a wonderful favor by riding it of its horrible dictator. That was a truth stretched in favor of the administration. It wasn't Bush's main motivation for invading Iraq. And, regardless if there is some truth to it, it's still not accurate of why we decided to go to war with Iraq in the first place.

Originally Posted by Professor S

So if we can't do everything we should do nothing? I've never understood this argument. If we followed the ethic behind it nothing would ever get done in the world in any venue. Don't let the impossible perfect prevent the achievable good.

This is subjective. Everyone has their own opinion about what we should do. We should do something. For instance, we should have made better plans before the insurgency. Defeating Saddam was no biggie. The guy was in shambles from the Gulf War. This fact is reflected wonderfully...we took Saddam out of power really quickly. That was the easy part, and apparently that was as far ahead as the Bush administration planned. We can't go back in time and change the fact that the United States was unprepared. And, I don't have to complain about this; the history books that will exist 20 years from now will do a good job explaining how we dropped the ball.

Originally Posted by Professor S

In any case, we are there NOW. This is a real situation with real consequences if we abandon the situation or just let Iran do whatever they like. Do you know how much Hussein feared Iran? He lied about WMD's because he was afraid if Iran knew they had gotten rid of them they would have plowed them under. This is according to Husein's interrogator.

We are there now. And we can't leave. If we leave now, someone will just rise to the position Sadam had. Until we instill order in Iraq, which may take a long time, we can't leave.

Originally Posted by Professor S

Hussein feared Iran more than the US. And we shouldn't be concerned over their nuclear program and missile tests?

While this doesn't directly relate to our discussion of Iraq or the Iraq War...I maintain that we should use diplomacy to try to halt Iran's nuclear program. I don't think we're really in the position to start telling countries if they can or cannot have missiles...Iran has just as much right to defend their border as any other country, regardless of how crazy they are.

[Bube]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Regardless, realistic numbers don't even come close to Hussein's brutal regime and likely never will since the new strategy is working out so well and deaths have fallen to the point that the Iraqi government is asking us to reduce troop numbers because they think they can handle it themselves.

Is it because they think they can handle it themselves? They probably can, if they want this sort of thing, but the main reason is they want the US out of their business.

Originally Posted by Professor S

So do you or don't you think that the tens of thousands of deaths under Saddam were more acceptable or not?

I can't tell if you're being humanitarian here, or just trying to justify the war.

Originally Posted by Professor S

So if we can't do everything we should do nothing? I've never understood this argument. If we follwed the ethic behind it nothing would ever get done in the world in any venue. Don't let the impossible perfect prevent the achievable good.

What does "if we can't do everything we should do nothing" mean? I mean, who are "you" (of course, I mean the US - I've been avoiding saying "you" directly, so excuse me) to do something about this? This "superpower" thing is just getting out of hand. It's like the US owns the world.

Just like what KillerGremlin said.

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

I don't think we're really in the position to start telling countries if they can or cannot have missiles...Iran has just as much right to defend their border as any other country, regardless of how crazy they are.

And just think about it, some country, thinking the same thing about the US's policies, came and attacked you, started a full on war, thousands dying all around. Then the world finds out that there's nothing behind it. It all looks to be a lie. What would you think?

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

I think, if you brought this point up to the thousands of Americans who are without health care or jobs, they might suggest that we could have better invested our money in our own country, rather then helping Iraq. Maybe that view is selfish. But, we are accumulating debt by the trillions, and it's going to come out of the American tax payer's pocket in the end. We have schools, health care, social security...and this war with Iraq.

I don't think this view is selfish. It's what the government is there for. Yes, they also have to protect their country - their country, not another country- but, well, it's not like they've really "protected" anybody (neither their own nor the other)..

I must say, I don't hate the US, and I'm not looking at this biased. If my country did something like this, I'd be saying the same things. I do say the same things. So..take that as you will..