Xion, its not called brainwashing. Most people, especially younger people, always listen and agree upon the greater authority. They are told in what to believe and they actually believe in it.
7.62 said:No, redneck, that is NOT the reason we are in Iraq, we are in Iraq to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. The media wants you to think we are there for Oil and our "Empire". The Iraqi People have wanted these days for 20+ years.
Mod Edit: If you cannot add something constructive to the discussions, do not bother posting. Last warning.
Xion said:More ppl are getting killed in Iraq now during and after the war than saddam hussein might ever have killed.
Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power.
Oh, so we've killed over 550,000 people, And stabilization will come to Iraq, just as it did to Germany. After the Soviets took Berlin on 2 May, 1945, occasional shooting was heard until July of that year. Although the Soviets didn't experience many casualties then, imagine Berlin times, say, 1000. The Soviets are saoid to have lost about 100 troops during that time. now thats about 100,000 US casulaties. Now take into account our tanks, armoured vahicles, Body armor, and, super-accurate pilots, bombs, missles, and the like. The soviets just charged a buliding out in the open while we carefully capture it with few, if any casualties.More ppl are getting killed in Iraq now during and after the war than saddam hussein might ever have killed
That being said, as has been discussed several times on these boards, all too often it is necessary to back the lesser of two evils in these situations, and at the time it was considered that, between Saddam and Tehran, Saddam was the lesser, and that supporting him was more in the interests of the United States (it is after all the primary responsibility of a nation's government to look after the welfare of that nation's citizens). The fact that Rumsfeld "shook hands" with Saddam says absolutely jack about our past or current positions. You (you personally, as demonstrated on this forum) whine about the United States not using diplomatic measures instead of military force, but when diplomacy IS attempted, it means that we are supporting tyrants.
. You (you personally, as demonstrated on this forum) whine about the United States not using diplomatic measures instead of military force, but when diplomacy IS attempted, it means that we are supporting tyrants. Make up your mind.
Xion, you should adjust fire on the "BS" accusations, they will not be tolerated. Disagree if you want, but by now you should know the proper and the improper way to do so.