Margaret Hassan

[gala]

My understanding is practically ALL of the kidnappings are for money, and virtually all of them come with a monetary demand. The threat is not that the kidnappers will kill the victim; the threat is that the kidnappers will turn the victim over to Al Qaeda.

Of course... Al Qaeda will kill the victim.

I hope someone builds a Margaret Hassan foundation or hospital or monument or school or something in Iraq and dedicates it to the Iraqi people and the eradication of the barbaric idiots who killed her.

 

[strange1]

Actuall, your 100,000 site starts "direct or indirect" and as was discussed in another thread might not have the most scientific methodology.

 

[langeweile]

Show me a U.S. govt source that estimates iraqi civilians casualties.



my alternative to that war is peace.... the US went in there whining about WMD and terrorist links..... now theyre saying it was a humanitarian effort, what bullshit.

the reality is that the US can't be the police fo the world.... there are plenty of regimes that kill their own people. in fact the US supports and trains some of them, just as the US sold Saddam the chemicals he used to murder the Kurds and stood by silently well he did that.

but again youre side-stepping my original argument that MH's death is no more tragic then that of the 10s of thousand's of iraqi civilians killed by US military.

So what is your point?
While I agree with you that the USA can't be the police of the world, what is the alternative?
Sit by and watch like the UN, while hunderds of thousands of people are being killed like in Germany (WW2), Rwanda or the Sudan?
Can we as human beings just stand by and watch? Do we have a moral obligation to help the weak and oppressed? Isn't that help the essence of socialism?
Those are questions that define us.IMHO

 

[lenharper]

Reading this, I'd say the point is that the reasons the US are now giving as justifcation for the attack on Iraq are BS -- and that fact that Saddam can no longer kill his citizens was not why this war was fought.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that the US engaged in this war to "help Iraqi citizens"?

In the long run this invasion may be good for the people of Iraq but let's not completely rewrite history here -- the fate of the "brave and noble Iraqi just trying to make his or her way in the world" had nothing to do with the decision to invade.

And unfortunately we as humans (especially us in the western world) have had a long and ignoble track record of sitting back and watching millions and million of peoples being slaughtered but please be honest and don't try and sell this as a reason for the invasion of Iraq.

 

[Ranger68]

The problem with that argument, langeweile, is that there are LOTS more people being oppressed FAR WORSE in other countries, and the US *IS* sitting by and doing nothing.
It has little to do with "liberating" the Iraqi people. Don't fool yourself. If that was the reason, why the need to go in for WMD?

The alternative to the US not being "policeman of the world" is doing what we HAD been doing, somewhat successfully (not entirely, mind you) for fifty years - using the UN. And if you claim that the UN is broken and the world has stood by and watched while bad things have happened, you'd better start by looking at the US' history of voting on resolutions about these places first. Rwanda leaps to mind. The US is NOT proposing to "help the weak and oppressed". They are proposing to intervene where and when they want, for whatever reasons they want. Anybody interested in helping the less fortunate of the world is going to have to look elsewhere - like, to the UN, where they often have.

The UN was, and could be again if the US would come back to the table and pay its dues, a very useful organization. It did what it was essentially designed to do - prevent another World War. To its credit, it was just *starting* to involve itself slightly more proactively (read, forcefully) on genocidal and related humanitarian issues. It is a work in progress. The US has abandoned that work to establish itself in a very precarious position, one which endangers much of the work that has been done since the end of WWII.

 

[Esco!]

Geez BBKING, I SSOOOOOO agree with you and I'm canadian!!!

America could pulverize the entire Middle East but chooses not to do so and instead they try to establish democracy across the Persian gulf. All the more power to them, I hope Bush continues on his path!!

 

[Ranger68]

Yes, they try to FORCE their own ways on countries THAT WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM, creating hordes of new militants and terrorists along the way.

How noble of them.

 

[Esco!]

Yes, they try to FORCE their own ways on countries THAT WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM, creating hordes of new militants and terrorists along the way.

How noble of them.

EEXXCCUUSSEE ME,

The ones that flew their hijacked airplanes into the WTC were the ones that FORCED their ways onto US, BUDDY!!!!!!!!

 

[Ranger68]

Listen, BUDDY, in what way did Iraq have anything to do with the dudes that flew those planes into the WTC?!
Does this give the US carte blanche to invade every country they may not agree with in the Middle East?!
God, don't be an ASS!
The US has to live in the real world with the rest of us. Yes, terrorists are out there. Yes, the US (after a long period of practically being left alone) is going to be targeted by them. This is not an excuse to do a Ron Artest.
American citizens have done lots of terrible things abroad, too, but I don't see any of those countries firing cruise missiles into Washington.
Or, does might make right?

 

[Esco!]

It gives the USA carte blanche to invade as many muslim countries as they feel obliged to do so, IMO.
How's that????????

It's not Swedish blond female strippers who are suicide bombing the crap out of the western world!!

 

[Ranger68]

I knew it - might makes right. Nice attitude, caveman.
I hope you feel the same way when the US is no longer a super-power and gets invaded by Turkmenistan.
LOL
Wayda solve that problem. Invade every Muslim country. Yeah, that sounds like a plan!
ROTFLMFAO

 

[Esco!]

I hope you feel the same way when the US is no longer a super-power and gets invaded by Turkmenistan.
LOL

I feel this way even if the USA were no superrpower and if only Israel were the last breath I had to take, my friend.

 

[Ranger68]

I don't think you understand anything.
The point is, what if some other power gets it in their head that the US is a threat, and they decide that they're sick and tired of US bullying around the globe, and decides to invade the good ol' US of A.
I guess you'd have to support that decision, too - might makes right. Right?

Or, beyond being a might makes right idiot, are you a jingoist, too?

 

[Ranger68]

Never mind.
You obviously have nothing to contribute.
Enjoy your idiocy.

 

[Esco!]

Ranger...You are really the IDIOCY, but we'll get back to that
later...OK???
I'll respond to your pathetic argument in a bit........OK??

 

[Ranger68]

Don't hurry.

 

[langeweile]

My post was not about the reasons on why or why not we went to Iraq. There is a lot of fingerpointing here, but no solutions, just complains.
The only exception is Ranger. Although I disagree with him about the UN. The UN in it's current form is in need of an overhaul. While the cold war is over the UN has faied to refocus itself. The UN is corrupt and rotten from the inside. It has all the major ills of a top-heavy company. Until there is a bottom up restructuring and re-focusing it will remain ineffective.

 

[Ranger68]

I disagree with the notion that the UN has been ineffective. Other than that accusation, you're just using rhetoric - "corrupt and rotten from the inside", "all the major ills of a top-heavy company". Tell me in what way that doesn't apply to every major government on earth, hmm?

The UN hasn't failed to refocus. They've introduced legislation and ideas about human-rights abuse and genocide.
There's not remotely the need for a "bottom-up" restructuring. Overhaul? No, I don't agree with that either. The SC functions quite well in doing what it's supposed to do.
Which is NOT to be the world's policeman, a job of extraordinarily questionable ethics and legality.
Is it perfect? No. Still, it functions better than the US government,say. Or, at least, more legally and ethically.

 

[langeweile]

You are right about the first part of your post. i respectfully disagree with the second.

 

[Ranger68]

A perfect illustration of why the UN is good.

I respectfully agree with your right to respectfully disagree with my point of view.

Seriously, though, I think that the UN, in many ways, only functions as well as its member nations. To blame the UN for what happened in Rwanda, say, is to ignore the fact that, although many of the details were held up in UN bureaucracy, all of the permanent members of the SC knew exactly what was going on. Why was the SC structure at fault when the member nations who made up the SC could have supported the UN mission there? This has little to do with the UN except as a scapegoat for the failings of the major powers to step up.