Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a terrorist threat to the US
POSTED BY: lynchaj
UPDATED: Sunday, March 8, 2026 22:55
VIEWED: 12725
PAGE 2 of 7
THE SENTINEL SAID:
Quote:How did you manage to cram two SERIOUS misunderstandings into less than one sentence??? First of all, most Iraq deaths are due to the USA, not to the insurgents.
...and most of the injury has been inflicted by insurgents who would otherwise be striking out at American citizens.
Secondly, even the military says that the vast majority of the insurgents are Iraqis, not al-Qaida terrorists. (Military issued several statements that the insurgent dead appear to be about 95+% Iraqis) And the Iraqi insurgents have NO plans on the USA- they just want us out of their country.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TheSentinel:
In closing, this is probably pointless. You speak your voice, I counter. I speak mine, you counter. No one learns anything or comes away with a different perspective...... Also, though it may not appear that way I am enjoying the discussion and am sorry if I've offended you.
Actually, there's a lot we agree on; the problem as I see it is that we look at the same facts in two entirely different ways. And yes, I suspect as you do that the back and forth on this issue is pointless, because no new facts provided are going to change anyone's minds on this issue, contrary to what anyone might claim.
What bothered me about your first post (bothered me enough to respond into a pointless argument), and what bothers me about what you call "uber-patriots," is the whole issue of "lets show how American we are and stomp some ass" - like world events are just some cute Toby Keith song. Cheerleading like it's a fun thing when kids have to die for ideas thought up by people who never fought (and yes, I do mean you, 5-deferrment Dick). They do the same thing at election time; you don't hear Democrats saying "we won, you lost, get over it" (which may be their one redeeming feature), but you hear it like some twisted voodoo chant from talking heads on Fox.
There are too many armchair generals in America that talk about collateral damage like it's unimportant. You did it too; you probably don't lose sleep over the fact that there are tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties, an estimate many have said is more than were killed under SH's entire rule. Who speaks for them? Do you, when you say things like "lets go in and kick some ass?" It makes you no less ignorant than the "glass parking lot" crowd, no matter how smart or educated you are.
I leave you with this quote from John Q Adams, which I think is very vital to our role in regard to Iraq.
But (America) goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
... She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:By SH I’m assuming you mean Saddam Hussein. In that case, there were more innocent Iraqis killed under Hussein’s rule, just during the 12 some odd years between the first gulf war and the second then were killed in both wars combined.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
There are too many armchair generals in America that talk about collateral damage like it's unimportant. You did it too; you probably don't lose sleep over the fact that there are tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties, an estimate many have said is more than were killed under SH's entire rule.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
:biggin:
Mmmmm....big gin....
*drool*
________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, Finn, let's assume that you are correct and I'm wrong - I won't even google or go fact checking to defend myself. But even you can't deny that we've been responsible for thousands of civilian deaths. That wasn't the real point, anyway - The question that matters is still do you even care that we have done that? Or are they just faceless numbers to you?
I'm betting the latter.
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
By the way, what is the meaning behind sevenpercent?
Interesting name...
http://www.myspace.com/mksentinel
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In the Firefly ep Out Of Gas, it's the percentage Jayne is getting for working for the guys who have a run-in with Mal - Mal uses how low of a number it is to make fun of Jayne (for being paid next to nothing compared to Zoe), which causes Jayne to turn on his partners and come on board Serenity.
"Seven percent's the standard," is what Jayne says to Mal.
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s not the question that matters. That’s just the question that will make you feel better about your own opinion. If one can assume that one’s opponent is a ruthless heartless bastard, then one can more easily assume themselves a place of relative righteousness. It’s unfortunate that you feel that way about me, but immaterial. It changes nothing about the history or the politics of this war. The fact is that Hussein was a murderer of his own people, and the US would have to target civilians in large number in order to achieve his results. Whatever you think about me, doesn’t change that. It simply means you've lost perspective; you're no longer arguing the validity of this war, you're attacking those people whom you think are proponents of it. I think you should reformulate your approach; I think you'd have better success if you argued why you feel the war was wrong, not what you think other people feel about it, which is something you can't really know.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Okay, Finn, let's assume that you are correct and I'm wrong - I won't even google or go fact checking to defend myself. But even you can't deny that we've been responsible for thousands of civilian deaths. That wasn't the real point, anyway - The question that matters is still do you even care that we have done that? Or are they just faceless numbers to you?
I'm betting the latter.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That’s not the question that matters. That’s just the question that will make you feel better about your own opinion. ... you're no longer arguing the validity of this war, you're attacking those people whom you think are proponents of it.
No, look at my post; I was attacking the cheerleader mentality that thinks "asskicking" is what a war is all about. The people that have "lost perspective" are ones that have absolutely no concern for human life, who just sit back and talk about 'objectives' and 'collateral damage.' You started chiming in with the statistics about when people were killed in greater numbers, which lead me to the conclusion that you're one of the cheerleaders whose vision has become a tad cloudy.
I don't need to "feel better" about my own opinion; my opinion is that human life and warfare aren't fun and games and snapshots on CNN. I'm pretty comfortable with it.
Quote:
I think you should reformulate your approach; I think you'd have better success if you argued why you feel the war was wrong,
Why? Why go back to facts? Are you really going to change your mind at this point? Rue, Signy, et. al. have thrown fact after fact at you, which you've countered with facts of your own. AJ has said nothing in this thread I haven't heard before, neither have you, and my posts have been nothing you two haven't heard before. Which is why I'm not running to google to start linking - it's pointless (with the exception of the linked article to the Afghan conflict, I only did that because I happened to have just finished reading it so it was fresh in my mind).
Quote:
not what you think other people feel about it, which is something you can't really know.
Which is why I brought it up. I can know if I ask. I feel when deaths become trivial to us, something is very wrong with our nation. All I asked you is if you thought that the Iraqi civilian deaths were trivial to you - are you scared to answer? How do you feel about it?
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TheSentinel:
First off, the death toll pales in comparison to recent major conflicts and most of the injury has been inflicted by insurgents who would otherwise be striking out at American citizens.
This is a common and fatal flaw used to justify pre-emptive action against Iraq. There never was, nor was there ever going to be an "insurgent" or even terrorist Iraqi threat against US citizens. Nobody has ever demonstrated such a claim.
Quote:
Originally posted by TheSentinel:
Second, How come folks never focus on the fact that this bastard gassed and executed thousands of his own people.
How come folks never focus on the fact that previous US administrations ARMED Saddam Hussein with the very weapons used to attack his neighbors? It's so convenient to forget how culpable the US has been in creating the very terrorism it now says it's trying to "defeat."
Quote:
Originally posted by TheSentinel:
How come the CNN viewers always seem to ignore the GOOD that has been done in the liberation of Iraq and that the evil that prevails there is being conducted by al qaeda bastards who would love to see 3000 more American citizens vaporized on US soil.
It has been substantiated time and again that al-Qaeda had no pre-existing relationship with Saddam Hussein. Hussein openly DIDN'T LIKE al-Qaeda and was no friend to bin Laden. He never sheltered nor aided the netork. This far into the "war" I can't believe people still think this has conflict was something to do with al-Qaeda. It doesn't.
Quote:
Originally posted by TheSentinel:
AND WHAT TRAINING CAMPS DID THE RUSSIANS MAKE IN AFGHANISTAN?! We were the ones that built Al Qaeda in a proxy war against the Soviets. The Russians got their ASSES kicked by the "terrorists".
Congratulations, we created the terrorist network we now seek to eliminate. Bravo. So terrorism is good--that is, jihadist islamicist fundamentalism--is good when it's against commies. Bad when it's against us. Please.
Quote:
Originally posted by TheSentinel:
Should we have left that maggot in power? Apparently some say yes... I suppose Hitler had supporters too.
If you're going to argue that Saddam was a bad man (he was, undeniably) and therefore needed to be removed from power, then why hasn't the US government destabilized oppressionist warlord leaders in Africa (Somalia, Sudan) and elsewhere around the world? Oh, it's not convenient? They're not REALLY a threat? Well, I got news for you, neither was Saddam Hussein.
I realize that hawks will always seek war to further peace, and doves will always seek peace instead of war. What gets me is the hypocricy used to justify so many hawk positions. It's easy to justify a war against ANYONE if you want to go to war. All you need is rhetoric and some catchy lies. Hawks never remember that US sanctions against Iraq completely rendered Saddam's regime ineffective and militarily UNVIABLE. Arguing that it'd be a bad idea for Saddam to acquire nukes is like arguing that ANY banana republic dictator should be denied access to nukes. You don't see us overthrowing these guys in Africa.
Saddam had no ties to al-Qaeda and no connection to 9/11. If retribution is your game, we're striking against the wrong enemy. The idea that you can "win" a "war against terror" is utterly absurd. Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy, and in any case you can never defeat all your enemies... that's the oldest precept of war. Only through statecraft can a nation outlast it's rivals. Only through statecraft can a nation build and maintain alliances. Only through statecraft can you truly protect your citizens from harm.
I'm not sympathizing with "the terrorists" ... just looking for a little accountability. The US is creating more terror than it's preventing, and that's a fact substantiated by daily evidence.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME