Saddam would have killed way more people if still in power. - Page 2




 
--
 
November 2nd, 2004  
Xion
 
Is Iraq any better now than it was under Saddam's regime ?.You might say in the future it will be, I doubt it cos these terrorists are just gonna keep coming and unless there are more 'WELL TRAINED' security forces there its never gonna stop.Once the USA leaves Iraq its gonna start all over again.And one can clearly see how effective the US trained Iraqi troops are (NOT!).

Plus don't you ppl think now after attacking Iraq the USA has incited more anger amongst muslims against USA as hundreds of Iraqi's (muslims) are getting killed everyday.And therefore theres a greater threat of attack against USA in the future than it was before invading Iraq.
November 2nd, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xion
Plus don't you ppl think now after attacking Iraq the USA has incited more anger amongst muslims against USA as hundreds of Iraqi's (muslims) are getting killed everyday.And therefore theres a greater threat of attack against USA in the future than it was before invading Iraq.
Yes. But one of the main reasons why is that the ordinary Arab in the street does not have access to balanced reporting as we in the West do. In many cases they get a very one-sided story.

Also, many Arabs saw Saddam as a hero because he stood up for 'them' against the 'Great Satan' America. It's easy to understand their perspective when they only have so much information given to them to form an opinion.
November 3rd, 2004  
Italian Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xion
Plus don't you ppl think now after attacking Iraq the USA has incited more anger amongst muslims against USA as hundreds of Iraqi's (muslims) are getting killed everyday.And therefore theres a greater threat of attack against USA in the future than it was before invading Iraq.
Yes. But one of the main reasons why is that the ordinary Arab in the street does not have access to balanced reporting as we in the West do. In many cases they get a very one-sided story.

Also, many Arabs saw Saddam as a hero because he stood up for 'them' against the 'Great Satan' America. It's easy to understand their perspective when they only have so much information given to them to form an opinion.
Right. Information.
--
November 5th, 2004  
August1
 
Im sorry to say this but the idea that America went in to "save" the Iragis is complete BS. The idea that the "sacrifice of the 13 American soldiers" proves this is also BS. Has the author even CONSIDERED other motives for the invasion of Iraq??!! This essay is far to simplistic in its message. Civilian suffering due to domestic reasons is never comparable to civilian suffering due to the actions of a foreign power. As a side note do you not realise that America has killed far more foreign nationals since the end of WW2 than any other country!
November 5th, 2004  
consumerbydesign
 
Sixty thousand dead per year here in the homeland. 45,000 in cars and 15,000 to murder.
I personally have never met someone who died in war,but know twelve dead from from car accidents. I have met one murderer and two manslaughters.
I live in the civilized country? Surly there is more such death in countries without the safety standards of the U.S.A.
November 5th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 
Quote:
Im sorry to say this but the idea that America went in to "save" the Iragis is complete BS. The idea that the "sacrifice of the 13 American soldiers" proves this is also BS. Has the author even CONSIDERED other motives for the invasion of Iraq??!! This essay is far to simplistic in its message. Civilian suffering due to domestic reasons is never comparable to civilian suffering due to the actions of a foreign power. As a side note do you not realise that America has killed far more foreign nationals since the end of WW2 than any other country!
Id like to see that statistic...I would think that the USSR, Israel, and a few others are good contenders.
November 5th, 2004  
Big_Z
 
 
Until the day that American soldiers can just walk into a country and scare the enemy too death there are going to be civilian losses. If 2 honorable countries went to war the civilian losses would be next to nothing....
November 11th, 2004  
egoz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Z
If 2 honorable countries went to war the civilian losses would be next to nothing....
that's not true. let's just use france and england as an example (this is back in the day). do you seriously think there were no civilian loses? terrorism is a tactic of war, a damn effective one. it involves civilian losses.

There's one thing that you can't deny about Saddam being in power. The only terrorists in Iraq then were those of his own military. And at least then there wasn't an religious conflicts. Saddam wasn't even religious, he was atheist. In some sense it was peaceful because there wasn't even the slightest hint of a civil war. But if we were to step into every conflict that involved genocide of some sort, we'd be in Africa, Asia, and Eastern block Europe also.[/i]
November 11th, 2004  
Asskicker
 
from the past records and the discovery of those mass graves...
i think it is really a good choice to remove Saddam,

even though today there are lots of carbombs and other bad things going on in Iraq, i believe it is temprory and Iraq ppl will not face anohter reign of terror
November 11th, 2004  
Big_Z
 
 
I never said there wouldn't be civilian losses.