Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by AUSSIEABORIGINAL, Aug 31, 2013.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
How come when he gasses 400 children in Syria he is Hitler, but when we kill 1100 children in Iraq with our bombs we are heroes?
How many children would we have to kill in Syria before we become heroes there too?
Assad's purpose is to reinforce his own power, our purpose was to free Iraq from a horrible genocidal monster.
Assad's purpose is to keep the country from being destroyed, US purpose was to "find WMD's" that didn't exist in Iraq meanwhile getting the Iraq's oil with Halliburton. Or have you forgotten that?
Assad's purpose is to keep his government in power. (Same as most other countries.) His purpose is not the problem - the problem is his methods.
No, our purpose was to find the WMD's that we claimed he had. Turns out we were wrong, and got mired in a horrific war. (Sounding familiar yet?)
Of course, when that horrible genocidal monster was actually USING WMD's years before that, we supported him.
The country will be there without Assad, he wants to keep the power for himself. The US had many good reasons for invading Iraq, or haven't you read the Iraq Resolution?
We were wrong about WMDs being in Iraq, but not wrong about invading. Most wars are horrific, but I still support it. You are right we supported Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iran and that was wrong.
Given that we did not accomplish our goals, and given that we killed upwards of 100,000 innocent men, women and children, I disagree.
Many of those were not innocent or and many were not killed by us. Saddam had killed at least that many over the years, probably many more. I disagree that we didn't accomplish our goals.
Given that our stated goal was to take over Saddam's WMDs we did indeed fail.
We may, of course, have accomplished secret goals - but that's easy to say after the fact. By that metric anyone can claim success in any war.
Let me quote the abbreviated version:
The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
I did not support the war in Iraq , having said this, one was intentional the other was not. The soldier that intentionally killed innocent civilians is now spending his life at Ft. Leavenworth. If I had my way war would not exist in the human vocabulary but that is unrealistic and wishful thinking, war does exist and as a result there is collateral damage not only to the civilian population but to the soldiers that are asked to perpetrate the violence. These are cold hard facts of war and it does not matter how just the cause may or may not be.
If you could call Assad up and have him destroy his chemical stockpile then I would be happy to change my position.
Agreed. However that is scant comfort to a family who has had its children blown to bits.
When we enter into a war like this we know that we will kill innocents. If there is an overriding reason we have to do it (i.e. we are being attacked and they are killing our people) then in most cases such actions are justified. If our only goal is a desired political outcome it is not. It's not a question of "well, maybe no one innocent will be killed" - we KNOW it will happen. Thus we make that decision to kill innocent people up front.
Agreed. Fortunately we can decide not to go to war.
You can't - but there are likely other ways to have him stop his use of it or even destroy it. And if those ways result in fewer innocent deaths, then it would be criminal to not pursue them.
There's a desire in cases like this to "DO SOMETHING! ANYTHING! EVEN IF IT'S WRONG!" That approach got us the Iraq war. It is worth spending more time to figure out how to stop the killing before _we_ resort to killing, IMO.
You dodged my question, so I'll address you here instead. What is the difference between Assad dropping a bomb on a neighborhood to kill a rebel, and us dropping a bomb on a neighborhood to kill a terrorist?
The difference is Assad used sarin gas number one, and killed over 1400 innocents of which over 400 were children, secondly,we do not purposely target civilians, Assad does! Can you give me similar numbers for when an American drone attack on a terrorist has produced this many civilian casualties?
No, if it is from a specious source, it is from a specious source. If all the pieces cited were truthful, why is the author or authors have been unwilling to put their names on it? Credible sources are willing to stand by their pieces because they are in it for the long game. Their credibility is at state.
So a few rockets will be delivered into Syria then what? You'd need to send in thousands of cruise missiles to make any real impact. After they are delivered and no other follow up is done then what is going to happen? This seems like a waste of time and money. I still ask where's NATO and the UN troops?
Well for starters, we won’t be firing dumb rockets. It will be cruise missiles. And they will have an impact…several as a matter of fact. First, the attacks will render Assad incapable of using his WMD. Considering that he has been using WMD in this civil war; that is a significant impact. Two, the attacks will be carried out over an extended period of time ranging from between 60 and 90 days. It won’t’ be over in a night or a day or a week or a month.
Additionally, it will send a clear message to regimes like Iran and North Korea that the use of WMD’s will not be tolerated. And finally, it puts pressure on the Assad regime to come to a political settlement of the Syrian civil war because in the end, what is needed is a political settlement that provides for a stable prosperous and peaceful Syrian state.
Assad dropped the bombs to kill rebels, not civilians. He could use the same rationale that we do.
The only legitimate gripe you have here is that he used gas, which I agree with, but don't think that it makes him the next Stalin.
If he had the the military apparatus and the intelligence apparatus that Stalin did he would, because everyone is a psychopath's enemy.
Separate names with a comma.