Just to piss Maha off......

[Crasherfromwayback]

So its better to sit by letting people get tortured, gassed etc. and do nothing because we are all too scarred that we might make it worse? Sitting by and doing nothing is how we ended up in this mess - who is the Docile prick now?


But even if the sole and only reason for America stepping in to some of these areas is for commercial interests - it is STILL better than standing by and doing nothing.

IS - they are just the logical by product to America's attempt to be the good guy and handle Iraq with Kid gloves (mainly due to the complaints by people like yourselves) -
As for who hasn't got a clue

In 1999, United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef) estimated that over 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of sanctions.

Yeah...we're saving the innocents REAL well. Fuck we're good!

And America's attempt to be the good guy? If it weren't so tragic it'd be funny. Like I said...

But hey tough guy...why don't you fuck off over there and save everyone?

You.

[Katman]

Sitting by and doing nothing is how we ended up in this mess

Dude, you're embarassing yourself.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Dude, you're embarassing yourself.

It's as funny as fuck really. There's no one more dangerous than a dummy that thinks they're smart.

[oldrider]

You do know that attacking an enemies infrastructure is a very effective military tactic - the same infrastructure supports the average Iraqi also helps support the Industrial Military complex.

same reason in WW2 we bombed train lines, bridges, factories and dams (and the Germans did the same to us)

And that was good? - 2015 and world opinion is still agreed that that was all good shit? - Not on your fucking Nelly! - So why keep on doing it?

Because someone who benefits financially and politically says do it! - Yeah right!

[buggerit]

How then do we deal with a torturing, Genocidal dictator?

Bombs and Bullets - that went down so well in both the popular press and in practice
Sanctions - causes pain and suffering to the population (although the real question is does it cause more or less than having your village carpet bombed by a B52?) but gives the government in power a clear way to stop the suffering.

My challenge to all of you who complain about how evil the west is/was is this:

How would you remove a Genocidal dictator that is both more humane and less costly (in terms of human suffering, not monetary hardship)?

I put forward that the west is between a frying pan, a fire and an incinerator:

Do nothing - we are the bad guys as we stand by while kurds are gassed and tortured
Impose sanctions - we are the bad guys because we enforce policy that causes suffering
Engage in a military campaign - we are the bad guys because War and killing is bad and innocents suffer.

Would not a bullet between the eyes of the offending individual removed the genocidal dictator?, just sayin

[TheDemonLord]

In 1999, United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef) estimated that over 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of sanctions.

Yeah...we're saving the innocents REAL well. Fuck we're good!

And yet in that time period - Saddam still managed to build sprawling palaces in every major city in Iraq - lets put aside for a minute that while the sanctions were in place he wasn't able to enact the same level of genocidal campaigns against the Kurds that he was before the sanctions (I will come back to this)

all the time that the sanctions were in place, Saddam was too proud to let the UN in to lift the sanctions - He was so proud that he would let those 500,000 children die rather than take a seat at the negotiation table - can you pile those 500,000 dead children solely at the wests feet? To do so would relieve Saddam of his responsibility in those deaths.

but back to some numbers - the Kurdish Massacres - took place over a 3 year period: 1986-89 and claimed about 200,000 lives - sanctions were in force for about 14 years.


200,000 dead in 3 years is a greater cost of human life per year than 500,000 over 14.

Had we not intervened and done something, that blood would be in your hands

And America's attempt to be the good guy? If it weren't so tragic it'd be funny. Like I said...

and like I said - tragic, maybe. Misguided, possibily. ulterior motives, definitely. But doing something was better than doing nothing.

But hey tough guy...why don't you fuck off over there and save everyone?

You.

Were I in a position to do so, I would roll into every corrupt shithole on the planet, dragging genocidal psychopathic dictators out by their testicles and executing them like the vermin they are - but alas, I cannot.

However the accusation of being a Keyboard warrior swings both ways:

if you can watch your sons and daughters be raped, tortured and then publicly executed whilst you are forced to clap and cheer at gunpoint - then you may turn round to me to say that it is a better alternative - till that time (and I hope for your sake, it never happens) you are just as much a blow hard as I am, in fact, I would say you are far worse for saying that doing nothing is preferable to doing something.

[TheDemonLord]

Dude, you're embarassing yourself.

The only embarrassment I see here is someone criticizing every action as wrong but when challenged to come up with a better solution is silent.

I have never said that west was 100% or that the actions taken were infallible - only that they were the least worst option. If you think there was a better option - I am all ears (well, eyes - since this is a forum)

However I think we both know that you don't have a better solution - if you did, you would have posted it up long ago.

[TheDemonLord]

And that was good? - 2015 and world opinion is still agreed that that was all good shit? - Not on your fucking Nelly! - So why keep on doing it?

Because someone who benefits financially and politically says do it! - Yeah right!

Please re-read my post.

I said Effective.

not good.

For example - Waterboading is an effective torture technique - but you would not say that waterboarding was a good torture technique.

When crippling an enemies infrastructure stops being an effective military technique, then we shall see it's use decline.

[TheDemonLord]

Would not a bullet between the eyes of the offending individual removed the genocidal dictator?, just sayin

There are 3 main issues with this:

1: Saddam was rather paranoid about this and so took lots of precautions, not to mention such an action would be an almost death sentance for the shooter.

2: We in the west are rather squeamish about state sanctioned assassinations (afterall, a death sentence without the due process of a trial is akin to murder)

3: Perhaps most importantly - History has shown that rarely does this work - typically the government structure collapses until someone with the strength of character emerges to restore order - typically this person will have been 'schooled' by their predecessor (by observing how they operated to maintain law and order) and usually tend to be even worse.

[Katman]

The only embarrassment I see here is someone criticizing every action as wrong but when challenged to come up with a better solution is silent.

I have never said that west was 100% or that the actions taken were infallible - only that they were the least worst option. If you think there was a better option - I am all ears (well, eyes - since this is a forum)

However I think we both know that you don't have a better solution - if you did, you would have posted it up long ago.

But the sanctions didn't actually achieve anything did they?

Saddam's long gone and Iraq is still a shit-hole. Argueably far worse than when Saddam was in power.

[Katman]

See, America knew that by imposing the sanctions they would be hurting the most vulnerable in Iraqi society - not those in power.

And all the while you sit back and applaud their cold, calculated genocide.

[Katman]

Have you ever stopped to wonder why America didn't finish the job off properly during the First Gulf War? Why they stopped just over the border instead of heading straight on to Baghdad? Why they chose to leave Saddam in power for a further 10 years?

[Crasherfromwayback]

Were I in a position to do so, I would roll into every corrupt shithole on the planet, dragging genocidal psychopathic dictators out by their testicles and executing them like the vermin they are - but alas, I cannot.

However the accusation of being a Keyboard warrior swings both ways:

if you can watch your sons and daughters be raped, tortured and then publicly executed whilst you are forced to clap and cheer at gunpoint - then you may turn round to me to say that it is a better alternative - till that time (and I hope for your sake, it never happens) you are just as much a blow hard as I am, in fact, I would say you are far worse for saying that doing nothing is preferable to doing something.

You're absolutely in a position to be able to join in. You're able bodied no? Sign up...go and make a difference. And I don't see how pointing out facts you don't understand makes me a keyboard warrior. And yes, I say, not our mess, not our job to clean it up. So yes, I'm happy to sit on my arse and do nothing. You on the other hand...should go grab some testicles! I'll pay to see that.

[husaberg]

Saddam Hussein was never going to rival Gandhi or Mother Teresa in the annuls of human kindness but the average Iraqi was certainly not poor and starving before the sanctions were imposed.

America and the UK set about wiping out Iraq's societal infrastructure thereby ensuring the sanctions would have greatest effect.

Cold, calculated genocide.

The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq
Certainly no mother Theresa.........
You seem to forget who invaded Kuwait. There were no sanctions prior to this........

[Katman]

You seem to forget who invaded Kuwait. There were no sanctions prior to this........

You seem to forget that America effectively gave Saddam Hussein a 'green light' for his invasion of Kuwait.