NationStates Jolt Archive

I saw a documentary on Tony Blair. There was a segment where he was on a TV show, and a woman who'd lost her only son in the WTC asked him how he could justify doing to Iraqis what the hijackers of September the 11th did to her, robbing parents of their children and children of their parents. And, don't think he had an answer.

What is the difference? I think that there is one, but I don't know what it is. I don't support the war, and I do still think that we're better than them, but I really don't know why. Thoughts, please.


By the way:
Minimum estimated civilian deaths in Iraq: 9436
Maxmum estimated civilian deaths in Iraq: 11317

In my opinion everyone who supported this war is a criminal and should be dragged before the International Court to face justice for committing mass murder or genocide, whatever you want to call it. G.W. Bush, Blair, Aznar etc. are all criminals and no twisting of history will ever change that fact.

There is NO difference between killing civilians with airplanes in a skyscraper or killing civilians with airplaneson the ground. September 11th does NOT justify the imperial tendencies the USA are showing as of late. The result will hopefully be that the corrupt and criminal politicians who aided the USA in the annex of Iraq, will be voted out of office and judged for their deeds to the maximum extent of the law.

In my opinion everyone who supported this war is a criminal and should be dragged before the International Court to face justice for committing mass murder or genocide, whatever you want to call it. G.W. Bush, Blair, Aznar etc. are all criminals and no twisting of history will ever change that fact.And would you advocate more, less or the same being done to Bin Laden et al?

The first draft of history is always written by the winners. That pretty much explains how everything is seen. Once the 21st century has played out, people will have a more intelligent, informed perspective on things. One thing is for sure, a lot of us would be surprised if we knew their perspective.

In my opinion everyone who supported this war is a criminal and should be dragged before the International Court to face justice for committing mass murder or genocide, whatever you want to call it. G.W. Bush, Blair, Aznar etc. are all criminals and no twisting of history will ever change that fact.
I supported the war and continue to support it. If you want to drag me before the International Court then bring it on.

Bin Laden had nothing to do with Iraq. The war against Iraq and the resulting civilian VICTIMS of blatant imperial arrogance of the USA + lackeys, was based on the imaginary WMD Saddam Hussein had in his possession. That this was a massive lie with which the international community was supposed to support the war, has since long been revealed. The war was based on lies, it is a crime, there was NO resolution from the UN that granted permission for the war, thus the same standards should apply to those who illegally annex sovereign countries - a trial before a jury of the international court, where each and every president or prime minister who gave his "OK" to attack Iraq (an obvious minority of the world) will have to explain every single civilian death caused by this unneccessary war! Of course the usual punishment for mass murder should apply aswell... a life in prison forever.

I supported the war and continue to support it. If you want to drag me before the International Court then bring it on.

You may have supported the war, but it is the political leaders who in the end decided to aid each other in pulling this stunt of and commiting a crime I have never seen before - so blatantly based on lies and deception.

"Whats the difference between Iraq and 9/11?"

I guess the obvious.. Al Qaeda attacked America on 9/11 and thus America had a right to self defense..

Where as Iraq didn't do any thing.. GW just had a grudge.. or whatever his reasons were, they sure weren't the reasons he gave the world though..

*sigh*

...then bring it on.O! the irony.

The war was based on lies, it is a crime, there was NO resolution from the UN that granted permission for the war, thus the same standards should apply to those who illegally annex sovereign countries - a trial before a jury of the international court, where each and every president or prime minister who gave his "OK" to attack Iraq (an obvious minority of the world) will have to explain every single civilian death caused by this unneccessary war! Of course the usual punishment for mass murder should apply aswell... a life in prison forever.
Okay, let's go get Jean Chretien so we can hold him accountable for the civilian deaths in the unneccessary wars in Somalia, Kosovo, and Afganistan.

The difference between 9/11 and Iraq is shock and awe. Bush missed by a mile but the terrorists - WOW - what a show. Jumpers, jet fuel, collapsing skyscrapers. I have every U.K newspaper from the day after. All I need now is the DVD box set (if ony someone would release it!)

In my opinion everyone who supported this war is a criminal and should be dragged before the International Court to face justice for committing mass murder or genocide, whatever you want to call it. G.W. Bush, Blair, Aznar etc. are all criminals and no twisting of history will ever change that fact.

There is NO difference between killing civilians with airplanes in a skyscraper or killing civilians with airplaneson the ground. September 11th does NOT justify the imperial tendencies the USA are showing as of late. The result will hopefully be that the corrupt and criminal politicians who aided the USA in the annex of Iraq, will be voted out of office and judged for their deeds to the maximum extent of the law.

I am sorry, but i think that radicals like you not only disgrace your view, but also makes all of the information you present doubtful as to its accuracy.

In my opinion everyone who supported this war is a criminal and should be dragged before the International Court to face justice for committing mass murder or genocide, whatever you want to call it. G.W. Bush, Blair, Aznar etc. are all criminals and no twisting of history will ever change that fact.

There is NO difference between killing civilians with airplanes in a skyscraper or killing civilians with airplaneson the ground. September 11th does NOT justify the imperial tendencies the USA are showing as of late. The result will hopefully be that the corrupt and criminal politicians who aided the USA in the annex of Iraq, will be voted out of office and judged for their deeds to the maximum extent of the law.

I am sorry, but i think that radicals like you not only disgrace your view, but also makes all of the information you present doubtful as to its accuracy.hes right tho--Bush lied to start a special interest war for oil and distracted our focus from the mission of fighting terrorism

I bet Iraqi terrorists have killed quite a number more of their countrymen than Americans have.

After all, besides April, a lot of 2004 has seen the terrorists switch their tactics from killing Americans to killing other Iraqis.

I bet Iraqi terrorists have killed quite a number more of their countrymen than Americans have.

After all, besides April, a lot of 2004 has seen the terrorists switch their tactics from killing Americans to killing other Iraqis.which wouldnt have happened if we didnt destablize iraq in the first place tho

"Whats the difference between Iraq and 9/11?"

I guess the obvious.. Al Qaeda attacked America on 9/11 and thus America had a right to self defense..

Where as Iraq didn't do any thing.. GW just had a grudge.. or whatever his reasons were, they sure weren't the reasons he gave the world though..

*sigh*I was expecing someone to say "to bring democracy and freedom to the people of Iraq", which is sortof a difference, but, in a broader sense isn't that imposing our moral values on other people? And isn't that what the Muslim extremists who blew up the WTC are trying to do as well? So that one doesn't seem to hold water.

I bet Iraqi terrorists have killed quite a number more of their countrymen than Americans have.

After all, besides April, a lot of 2004 has seen the terrorists switch their tactics from killing Americans to killing other Iraqis.Well in Iraq we've killed a few Americans. And a few British. And in Afghanistan we killed Canadians as well. And in the wake of 9/11 there were Americans killing American Muslims. So... again, the difference?

"Whats the difference between Iraq and 9/11?"

I guess the obvious.. Al Qaeda attacked America on 9/11 and thus America had a right to self defense..

Where as Iraq didn't do any thing.. GW just had a grudge.. or whatever his reasons were, they sure weren't the reasons he gave the world though..

*sigh*I was expecing someone to say "to bring democracy and freedom to the people of Iraq", which is sortof a difference, but, in a broader sense isn't that imposing our moral values on other people? And isn't that what the Muslim extremists who blew up the WTC are trying to do as well? So that one doesn't seem to hold water.
Bringing freedom and democracy is one of the most moral things we can do. There is a difference between self-rule (with a strong constitution to prevent dictators from seizing power) and trying to kill as many civilians as you can.

The motives were to "defend" the USA from the supposedly existing WMD that Saddam Hussein was about to shoot at them. The war was labelled a "Pre-emptive strike" - a defense, which was in truth an attack which has deprived the Iraqi people of their country and cast the entire country into turmoil and horrors of terrorism that will keep going for the next years, until each and every soldier that does not belong into Iraq is either dead or gone home. I am sorry to say it this blunt, but the soldiers who are now in Iraq, possibly losing their lives in the process, are doing so illegally and help the high ups who have a warped sense of reality, to accomplish their goals of domination of the most important resource today: OIL!

I bet Iraqi terrorists have killed quite a number more of their countrymen than Americans have.

After all, besides April, a lot of 2004 has seen the terrorists switch their tactics from killing Americans to killing other Iraqis.Well in Iraq we've killed a few Americans. And a few British. And in Afghanistan we killed Canadians as well. And in the wake of 9/11 there were Americans killing American Muslims. So... again, the difference?
Whether its deliberate or not.

We don't go around in Afghanistan trying to bomb Canadians. And there's no civil war between our troops. Iraqi terrorists planting bombs in busy marketplaces can only have one intent, to kill more innocent civilians.

"Whats the difference between Iraq and 9/11?"

I guess the obvious.. Al Qaeda attacked America on 9/11 and thus America had a right to self defense..

Where as Iraq didn't do any thing.. GW just had a grudge.. or whatever his reasons were, they sure weren't the reasons he gave the world though..

*sigh*I was expecing someone to say "to bring democracy and freedom to the people of Iraq", which is sortof a difference, but, in a broader sense isn't that imposing our moral values on other people? And isn't that what the Muslim extremists who blew up the WTC are trying to do as well? So that one doesn't seem to hold water.

If any one attempts this argument, it's flawed.. Al Qaeda didn't attack the WTC to impose it's values on us.. they attacked the WTC because they want the west off A) their land and to stop helping B) Israel unjustly against Palestine while trying to make it look as though they are the "peace-makers"

The Islamic terrorists could give a rats ass what we do.. as long we we don't bud our noses in their business..

I bet Iraqi terrorists have killed quite a number more of their countrymen than Americans have.

After all, besides April, a lot of 2004 has seen the terrorists switch their tactics from killing Americans to killing other Iraqis.Well in Iraq we've killed a few Americans. And a few British. And in Afghanistan we killed Canadians as well. And in the wake of 9/11 there were Americans killing American Muslims. So... again, the difference?
Whether its deliberate or not.

We don't go around in Afghanistan trying to bomb Canadians. And there's no civil war between our troops. Iraqi terrorists planting bombs in busy marketplaces can only have one intent, to kill more innocent civilians.Right... deliberate, interesting.

But, don't you think that Bin Laden might say that the casulaties of the WTC were merely "collatoral damage" in the quest to bring Allah to the world?

"Whats the difference between Iraq and 9/11?"

I guess the obvious.. Al Qaeda attacked America on 9/11 and thus America had a right to self defense..

Where as Iraq didn't do any thing.. GW just had a grudge.. or whatever his reasons were, they sure weren't the reasons he gave the world though..

*sigh*I was expecing someone to say "to bring democracy and freedom to the people of Iraq", which is sortof a difference, but, in a broader sense isn't that imposing our moral values on other people? And isn't that what the Muslim extremists who blew up the WTC are trying to do as well? So that one doesn't seem to hold water.
Bringing freedom and democracy is one of the most moral things we can do. There is a difference between self-rule (with a strong constitution to prevent dictators from seizing power) and trying to kill as many civilians as you can.Of course there is, absolutely there is. But is democracy intrinsically "better" than a dictatorship? And if you kill people to bring a democratic government into effect in the country, is that better than killing people to bring a dictatorship into effect in the country?

I bet Iraqi terrorists have killed quite a number more of their countrymen than Americans have.

After all, besides April, a lot of 2004 has seen the terrorists switch their tactics from killing Americans to killing other Iraqis.Well in Iraq we've killed a few Americans. And a few British. And in Afghanistan we killed Canadians as well. And in the wake of 9/11 there were Americans killing American Muslims. So... again, the difference?
Whether its deliberate or not.

We don't go around in Afghanistan trying to bomb Canadians. And there's no civil war between our troops. Iraqi terrorists planting bombs in busy marketplaces can only have one intent, to kill more innocent civilians.Right... deliberate, interesting.

But, don't you think that Bin Laden might say that the casulaties of the WTC were merely "collatoral damage" in the quest to bring Allah to the world?

"Whats the difference between Iraq and 9/11?"

I guess the obvious.. Al Qaeda attacked America on 9/11 and thus America had a right to self defense..

Where as Iraq didn't do any thing.. GW just had a grudge.. or whatever his reasons were, they sure weren't the reasons he gave the world though..

*sigh*I was expecing someone to say "to bring democracy and freedom to the people of Iraq", which is sortof a difference, but, in a broader sense isn't that imposing our moral values on other people? And isn't that what the Muslim extremists who blew up the WTC are trying to do as well? So that one doesn't seem to hold water.

If any one attempts this argument, it's flawed.. Al Qaeda didn't attack the WTC to impose it's values on us.. they attacked the WTC because they want the west off A) their land and to stop helping B) Israel unjustly against Palestine while trying to make it look as though they are the "peace-makers"

The Islamic terrorists could give a rats ass what we do.. as long we we don't bud our noses in their business..Either way though, thats trying to influence a decision on the world stage through the use of force.

But is democracy intrinsically "better" than a dictatorship?

I'm going to go out on a limb here. YES. :roll:

And if you kill people to bring a democratic government into effect in the country, is that better than killing people to bring a dictatorship into effect in the country?

Again, yes. At least that's what the Founding Fathers believed.

But is democracy intrinsically "better" than a dictatorship?

I'm going to go out on a limb here. YES. :roll:
Why?
And if you kill people to bring a democratic government into effect in the country, is that better than killing people to bring a dictatorship into effect in the country?

Again, yes. At least that's what the Founding Fathers believed.Yeah, cos nothing they thought was ever wrong :roll:

I bet Iraqi terrorists have killed quite a number more of their countrymen than Americans have.

After all, besides April, a lot of 2004 has seen the terrorists switch their tactics from killing Americans to killing other Iraqis.which wouldnt have happened if we didnt destablize iraq in the first place tho
What a world we live in. Nobody is responsible for their own actions. Any murderer in Iraq is washed clean because "it wouldn't have happened if we didn't destablize Iraq in the first place". Man, if I was an Iraqi, I'd be raping, stealing, and murdering until people wake up and realize that maybe "Bush Lied!" isn't an excuse for whatever whim I have.

Likewise, are Israelis really responsible for their actions concerning Palestinians? Really, if the Allied powers including America in World War 2 hadn't invaded Germany there never would have been an Israel! So aren't we the ones really responsible? :roll:

I bet Iraqi terrorists have killed quite a number more of their countrymen than Americans have.

After all, besides April, a lot of 2004 has seen the terrorists switch their tactics from killing Americans to killing other Iraqis.Well in Iraq we've killed a few Americans. And a few British. And in Afghanistan we killed Canadians as well. And in the wake of 9/11 there were Americans killing American Muslims. So... again, the difference?
Whether its deliberate or not.

We don't go around in Afghanistan trying to bomb Canadians. And there's no civil war between our troops. Iraqi terrorists planting bombs in busy marketplaces can only have one intent, to kill more innocent civilians.Right... deliberate, interesting.

But, don't you think that Bin Laden might say that the casulaties of the WTC were merely "collatoral damage" in the quest to bring Allah to the world?

When you wage war.. there are what's known as "strategic" targets. Military, infrastructure, economy, communications.. these are the things you go after in any war..

the Pentagon was a military target, the WTC was a hit to American economic structure. In war time, would of both been legit targets. What else did they go after? The capitol building and or the White House, but the plane crashed (still for reasons unknown) before they could hit their targets.. In many ways OBL did adhere to the Geneva Conventions.. He did declare war on the United States in 1998... just because he perhaps wasn't taken serious enough is quite irrelevant. Lets not forget that the WTC housed some of the most important finical institutions in America. Simply because civilians died.. that is what Americans call "collateral damage" the target was one of economics. It also worked, some what. given that the stock market was shut down longer then any other time in it's history because of the attack. Don't think for two seconds that the Americans wouldn't target a countries economic infrastructure if at war.

Hell, the Americans took out radio stations.. you think there were no civilians there? Exactly...

I bet Iraqi terrorists have killed quite a number more of their countrymen than Americans have.

After all, besides April, a lot of 2004 has seen the terrorists switch their tactics from killing Americans to killing other Iraqis.Well in Iraq we've killed a few Americans. And a few British. And in Afghanistan we killed Canadians as well. And in the wake of 9/11 there were Americans killing American Muslims. So... again, the difference?
Whether its deliberate or not.

We don't go around in Afghanistan trying to bomb Canadians. And there's no civil war between our troops. Iraqi terrorists planting bombs in busy marketplaces can only have one intent, to kill more innocent civilians.Right... deliberate, interesting.

But, don't you think that Bin Laden might say that the casulaties of the WTC were merely "collatoral damage" in the quest to bring Allah to the world?

When you wage war.. there are what's known as "strategic" targets. Military, infrastructure, economy, communications.. these are the things you go after in any war..

the Pentagon was a military target, the WTC was a hit to American economic structure. In war time, would of both been legit targets. What else did they go after? The capitol building and or the White House, but the plane crashed (still for reasons unknown) before they could hit their targets.. In many ways OBL did adhere to the Geneva Conventions.. He did declare war on the United States in 1998... just because he perhaps wasn't taken serious enough is quite irrelevant. Lets not forget that the WTC housed some of the most important finical institutions in America. Simply because civilians died.. that is what Americans call "collateral damage" the target was one of economics. It also worked, some what. given that the stock market was shut down longer then any other time in it's history because of the attack. Don't think for two seconds that the Americans wouldn't target a countries economic infrastructure if at war.

Hell, the Americans took out radio stations.. you think there were no civilians there? Exactly...I hear everything you're saying, just one thing. Don't wars have to be declared between "legitimate authorities"? Or was that just on of the conditions of a just war, I forget.

But is democracy intrinsically "better" than a dictatorship?

I'm going to go out on a limb here. YES. :roll:

Is democracy better than a constitution-based federal republic?

I bet Iraqi terrorists have killed quite a number more of their countrymen than Americans have.

After all, besides April, a lot of 2004 has seen the terrorists switch their tactics from killing Americans to killing other Iraqis.Well in Iraq we've killed a few Americans. And a few British. And in Afghanistan we killed Canadians as well. And in the wake of 9/11 there were Americans killing American Muslims. So... again, the difference?
Whether its deliberate or not.

We don't go around in Afghanistan trying to bomb Canadians. And there's no civil war between our troops. Iraqi terrorists planting bombs in busy marketplaces can only have one intent, to kill more innocent civilians.Right... deliberate, interesting.

But, don't you think that Bin Laden might say that the casulaties of the WTC were merely "collatoral damage" in the quest to bring Allah to the world?

When you wage war.. there are what's known as "strategic" targets. Military, infrastructure, economy, communications.. these are the things you go after in any war..

the Pentagon was a military target, the WTC was a hit to American economic structure. In war time, would of both been legit targets. What else did they go after? The capitol building and or the White House, but the plane crashed (still for reasons unknown) before they could hit their targets.. In many ways OBL did adhere to the Geneva Conventions.. He did declare war on the United States in 1998... just because he perhaps wasn't taken serious enough is quite irrelevant. Lets not forget that the WTC housed some of the most important finical institutions in America. Simply because civilians died.. that is what Americans call "collateral damage" the target was one of economics. It also worked, some what. given that the stock market was shut down longer then any other time in it's history because of the attack. Don't think for two seconds that the Americans wouldn't target a countries economic infrastructure if at war.

Hell, the Americans took out radio stations.. you think there were no civilians there? Exactly...I hear everything you're saying, just one thing. Don't wars have to be declared between "legitimate authorities"? Or was that just on of the conditions of a just war, I forget.

I would argue that a legitimate authority doesn't imply a "nation state" after all, the rules of war also apply to a civil war. War crime charges can result from actions in a civil war. Thus does not need to be two separate nation states.

But is democracy intrinsically "better" than a dictatorship?

I'm going to go out on a limb here. YES. :roll:

Is democracy better than a constitution-based federal republic?

...el oh el

Is democracy better than a constitution-based federal republic?
In fact, no. A republic based on individual rights is pretty much perfect. Most things are not rightfully subjected to either minority (including a tyrant) or majority will. But you knew that. The individual is sovereign.

Let me play devil's advocate here.
For those of you who think the US was wrong to go into Iraq because civilians are being killed... of the over 7000 civilians killed how many were killed by US troops versus killed by pro-saddam or Al Qaeda friendly peoples? The barely over 100 killed by US or colaition troops was accidental, though a travesty in its own. The over 7000 killed by Saddam supporters or Al Qaeda friendly were and are still intentional, because they are still killing civilians by the dozens daily.
And if innocent civilians dying bothers you then why did we allow 800,000 die in Rwanda because it would have been wrong to stop it? I also challenge you to go look at the over 270 known mass graves with over 300,000 bodies put in those graves by Saddam Hussein and his sweet innocent regime. By the way the number 300,000 is the number given by the US Govt, Humans Rights organizations put the number closer to 500,000.

On the flip side. I did support the removal of Hussein, I do not support the US leading other countries into Iraq so Bush's little buddy Cheney could give his buddies at Halliburton cheap oil, which is the primary reason the US went into war. The war in Iraq was preplanned and predicted by anyone who actually listened to Bush's campaign speeches, he spoke of invading often.

I do believe the US had the right to go into Iraq regardless of the UN. I believe anyone who claims to care about innocent civilians no tonly have the right but the obligatioan to stop genocide.

OH yeah and P.S. bin laden's so called declaration of war was illegal because it does have to be by a recognized leader of which he is not nor is the taliban recognized as having the right to do so.

Charles C Gnome
Lord Dictator
Armed Republic of Gay Garden Gnomes

Let me play devil's advocate here.
For those of you who think the US was wrong to go into Iraq because civilians are being killed... of the over 7000 civilians killed how many were killed by US troops versus killed by pro-saddam or Al Qaeda friendly peoples? The barely over 100 killed by US or colaition troops was accidental, though a travesty in its own. The over 7000 killed by Saddam supporters or Al Qaeda friendly were and are still intentional, because they are still killing civilians by the dozens daily.Thats bullshit.

www.iraqbodycount.net

Indiviidual listings of all the 9000 people killed and who and what they were killed by.

Let me play devil's advocate here.
For those of you who think the US was wrong to go into Iraq because civilians are being killed... of the over 7000 civilians killed how many were killed by US troops versus killed by pro-saddam or Al Qaeda friendly peoples? The barely over 100 killed by US or colaition troops was accidental, though a travesty in its own. The over 7000 killed by Saddam supporters or Al Qaeda friendly were and are still intentional, because they are still killing civilians by the dozens daily.
And if innocent civilians dying bothers you then why did we allow 800,000 die in Rwanda because it would have been wrong to stop it? I also challenge you to go look at the over 270 known mass graves with over 300,000 bodies put in those graves by Saddam Hussein and his sweet innocent regime. By the way the number 300,000 is the number given by the US Govt, Humans Rights organizations put the number closer to 500,000.

On the flip side. I did support the removal of Hussein, I do not support the US leading other countries into Iraq so Bush's little buddy Cheney could give his buddies at Halliburton cheap oil, which is the primary reason the US went into war. The war in Iraq was preplanned and predicted by anyone who actually listened to Bush's campaign speeches, he spoke of invading often.

I do believe the US had the right to go into Iraq regardless of the UN. I believe anyone who claims to care about innocent civilians no tonly have the right but the obligatioan to stop genocide.

OH yeah and P.S. bin laden's so called declaration of war was illegal because it does have to be by a recognized leader of which he is not nor is the taliban recognized as having the right to do so.

Charles C Gnome
Lord Dictator
Armed Republic of Gay Garden Gnomes

What about Congo? I notice that Mr. Bush jumped up to settle down that war.

And if innocent civilians dying bothers you then why did we allow 800,000 die in Rwanda because it would have been wrong to stop it?
The US and UK were instrumental in blocking any effective action by the UN. You ask a very good question. Why?

OH yeah and P.S. bin laden's so called declaration of war was illegal because it does have to be by a recognized leader of which he is not nor is the taliban recognized as having the right to do so.

Just to be clear, I don't support what Al Qaeda (OBL) did.

However the exact same argument on legality can be made on different grounds, yet, legal grounds none the less about the war in Iraq. There is no doubt under international law, the war in Iraq was illegal. The Americans themselves changed unilaterally the rules of war. So, to argue that OBL's war is also illegal.. is a bit hypocritical..

OH yeah and P.S. bin laden's so called declaration of war was illegal because it does have to be by a recognized leader of which he is not nor is the taliban recognized as having the right to do so.

Just to be clear, I don't support what Al Qaeda (OBL) did.

However the exact same argument on legality can be made on different grounds, yet, legal grounds none the less about the war in Iraq. There is no doubt under international law, the war in Iraq was illegal. The Americans themselves changed unilaterally the rules of war. So, to argue that OBL's war is also illegal.. is a bit hypocritical..Not to mention the nebulous "War on Terror"...

Basically, you can't go "9/11 was an attempt of OBL and Al-Qaeda to force their values on us. They killed civilians. The American attack on Iraq was basically the same thing, we're forcing our values on them and we killed civilians". Its like saying "Hitler was a dog lover. Which means that if your a dog lover, you must be like Hitler".

The "War on Terror" is a war against a unspecified target, which can never be won. Terrorism is not an enemy in itself, it is a form of fighting - like guerilla or "Shock and Awe". The more the USA act unilaterally and abuse their (dangerous) power of an overblown military aparratus, the more terrorism will spread and cause horrible deaths of innocent people - all over the world. The "War on Terrorism" is an easy wayfor the US government to restrict civil rights of its own country, making it easier to control. I am always amazed just how "equal" the US are by now. Hardly does one see any serious resistance and the media used to be happy to report on a hightech war that was "won" the instant it started simply because the US crushed the Iraqi people with their monstrous military. As long as the US government can justify these criminal acts in front of the US senate and the US citizens as "War on Terror", the people of the US will most likely stay silent and accept the hardships they need to endure during this imaginary "War" on something that can never be defeated.

I have been to the bodycount website it still supports my claim that most of the deaths were at the hands of supporters of Saddam, even if they are somewhat anti war biased. If the deaths of 9000 people bother you so much how come you did not express the same "passion" for the over 300,000 Hussein killed?
Be for war or against, but when you make the decision do so from an informed position. Don't sit on your comfy couch in your air conditioned house and send others off to war without understanding the consquences just because someone pissed you off. In the same effort don't sit in that same place and condemn something because you are against a certain leader or party. You are against killing civilians and yet do nothing to stop genocide. Again I ask since no one answered it. If the deaths of innocent civilians bother you so much how can you justify allowing genocide to take place?
Make your decisions but make them for the right reasons. Quit justifying condemning the US by using the innocent civilian death toll numbers then ignore how many Hussein has killed just because. Any way you look at it the civilian death toll is still largely at the hands of supporters of Saddam, Al Qaeda or other terrorist supporters.
Again I supported the war against Iraq but not for the reasons spewed by Bush and his lackeys. I think stopping the genocide was justification alone, but not the oil Cheney was getting for his buddies. If the UN does no step up to enforce their resolutions against genocide and torture then maybe they need to be side stepped, because they are not acting in accordance with their own laws. And I have yet to see anywhere where the US acted illegally. Just because you say it did does not make it so.

It is so easy to sit on your comfy couch in your air conditioned house and make these decisions without ever knowing the countries or people you are deciding on. So I only ask that when you do get on your self righteous moral high horse, think real hard on why you want war or don't want war.

I have been to the bodycount website it still supports my claim that most of the deaths were at the hands of supporters of Saddam, even if they are somewhat anti war biased. If the deaths of 9000 people bother you so much how come you did not express the same "passion" for the over 300,000 Hussein killed?
Be for war or against, but when you make the decision do so from an informed position. Don't sit on your comfy couch in your air conditioned house and send others off to war without understanding the consquences just because someone pissed you off. In the same effort don't sit in that same place and condemn something because you are against a certain leader or party. You are against killing civilians and yet do nothing to stop genocide. Again I ask since no one answered it. If the deaths of innocent civilians bother you so much how can you justify allowing genocide to take place?
Make your decisions but make them for the right reasons. Quit justifying condemning the US by using the innocent civilian death toll numbers then ignore how many Hussein has killed just because. Any way you look at it the civilian death toll is still largely at the hands of supporters of Saddam, Al Qaeda or other terrorist supporters.
Again I supported the war against Iraq but not for the reasons spewed by Bush and his lackeys. I think stopping the genocide was justification alone, but not the oil Cheney was getting for his buddies. If the UN does no step up to enforce their resolutions against genocide and torture then maybe they need to be side stepped, because they are not acting in accordance with their own laws. And I have yet to see anywhere where the US acted illegally. Just because you say it did does not make it so.

It is so easy to sit on your comfy couch in your air conditioned house and make these decisions without ever knowing the countries or people you are deciding on. So I only ask that when you do get on your self righteous moral high horse, think real hard on why you want war or don't want war.why didnt Reagan/Bush Sr and Rumsfeld (who hugged Saddam in the 80s) care about the 300,000 Saddam killed when they were arming him?

why didnt Reagan/Bush Sr and Rumsfeld (who hugged Saddam in the 80s) care about the 300,000 Saddam killed when they were arming him?
He didn't hug him. He shook hands, had a meeting with him. Sort of like this modern-day leader of a Western European nation :

http://images.theglobeandmail.com/archives/RTGAM/images/20030314/ufran0314/0314saddam.jpg

why didnt Reagan/Bush Sr and Rumsfeld (who hugged Saddam in the 80s) care about the 300,000 Saddam killed when they were arming him?
He didn't hug him. He shook hands, had a meeting with him. Sort of like this modern-day leader of a Western European nation :

http://images.theglobeandmail.com/archives/RTGAM/images/20030314/ufran0314/0314saddam.jpgsomeone once sent me a pic online of Rummy hugging Saddam back when Saddam worked for the CIA

Basically, you can't go "9/11 was an attempt of OBL and Al-Qaeda to force their values on us. They killed civilians. The American attack on Iraq was basically the same thing, we're forcing our values on them and we killed civilians". Its like saying "Hitler was a dog lover. Which means that if your a dog lover, you must be like Hitler".Yes, at which point I'd say "But I'm not now nor am I planning to kill millions of Jews". What difference does this have?

Basically, you can't go "9/11 was an attempt of OBL and Al-Qaeda to force their values on us. They killed civilians. The American attack on Iraq was basically the same thing, we're forcing our values on them and we killed civilians". Its like saying "Hitler was a dog lover. Which means that if your a dog lover, you must be like Hitler".Yes, at which point I'd say "But I'm not now nor am I planning to kill millions of Jews". What difference does this have?
It just means that the arguement is silly that, just because some bad people are trying to do one bad thing (impose values on others) dosen't mean that everyone doing it is doing a bad thing.

I have been to the bodycount website it still supports my claim that most of the deaths were at the hands of supporters of Saddam, even if they are somewhat anti war biased.And Al Quaida uses too much oil in their humus. Show me where it supports your claim.

If the deaths of 9000 people bother you so much how come you did not express the same "passion" for the over 300,000 Hussein killed?More bullshit! You don't know me, I could've been campaigning against Saddam for years for all you know, yet you paint me into your neat little "liberal" box. Of course I hate that there was a dictator that was killing his people. I think its made even worse by the fact that we sold him the weapons he used to do this.


Be for war or against, but when you make the decision do so from an informed position. Don't sit on your comfy couch in your air conditioned house and send others off to war without understanding the consquences just because someone pissed you off. In the same effort don't sit in that same place and condemn something because you are against a certain leader or party. You are against killing civilians and yet do nothing to stop genocide. Again I ask since no one answered it. If the deaths of innocent civilians bother you so much how can you justify allowing genocide to take place?
At this point I leave the raving conservative, he's told me that I'm in favour of genocide. :roll:

Of course I hate that there was a dictator that was killing his people. I think its made even worse by the fact that we sold him the weapons he used to do this.
Oh, you are French or Russian?

They weren't using Apache helicopters, M-16s, and Abram tanks you know. Try Hinds, AK-47s, T-55s and T-72s.

Military of Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Iraq)

Of course I hate that there was a dictator that was killing his people. I think its made even worse by the fact that we sold him the weapons he used to do this.
Oh, you are French or Russian?

They weren't using Apache helicopters, M-16s, and Abram tanks you know. Try Hinds, AK-47s, T-55s and T-72s.

Military of Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Iraq)How about nucleur, chemical and biological weapons? How about the fairly famous incident with Reagen selling to both sides in the Iran/Iraq conflict?

I bet Iraqi terrorists have killed quite a number more of their countrymen than Americans have.

After all, besides April, a lot of 2004 has seen the terrorists switch their tactics from killing Americans to killing other Iraqis.
Someone invades America and you are fighting them. Some of your compatriots join the invading forces.....does that not make them your enemies?

"Whats the difference between Iraq and 9/11?"

I guess the obvious.. Al Qaeda attacked America on 9/11 and thus America had a right to self defense..

Where as Iraq didn't do any thing.. GW just had a grudge.. or whatever his reasons were, they sure weren't the reasons he gave the world though..

*sigh*I was expecing someone to say "to bring democracy and freedom to the people of Iraq", which is sortof a difference, but, in a broader sense isn't that imposing our moral values on other people? And isn't that what the Muslim extremists who blew up the WTC are trying to do as well? So that one doesn't seem to hold water.
Bringing freedom and democracy is one of the most moral things we can do. There is a difference between self-rule (with a strong constitution to prevent dictators from seizing power) and trying to kill as many civilians as you can.
By invading them, you are going to force them to give up their religion? Most Iraqis perceived western culture as that of the "infidels" before the war, and perhaps they no longer perceive that. They know?

I forgot to mention before, doctrine of preeemption and all. We had about as much reason for going to Iraq as the terrorists did for attacking the towers: none at all.

To make it a bit clearer to you: Saddam Hussein was PRO-WEST! He was largely funded by the CIA - just like Osama Bin Laden! Osama Bin Laden however changed over time and became a Muslim extremist, fighting to rid the Middle East of everything Western. Osama Bin Laden was thus an enemy of Saddam Hussein - they never were allies and Hussein never supported Al Quaida. If Bush had said that he wants to fight terrorism in Iraq, nobody would have believed him, thus why they made up the lies that Hussein has a ton of WMD that he's gonna use against the US. It is illegal to remove the leader of a sovereign country through military force or any other means. What would you think if some Middle Eastern country decided to assassinate your President because he invaded their neighbor? It wont happen of course since Bush is well protected, but it would be almost the same. The US with its "holier than thou" attitude, trying to spread their way of life over the world, is doing so illegally and then wonders if people dont applaud and cheer? Don't you see that the more you force people to live like you, the more they hate it? The Middle East are not democratic countries and most likely never will be. They are ruled differently and even with Hussein killing those who opposed him, at least they didnt have the military of the US and massive terrorism in their country. That the US attacked Iraq without a UN Mandate was also shocking. Selfish, egocentric and without any second thoughts what ignoring the UN means in the longterm for this organization! At least I will never again think good about the US. In my 24 years since my birth, the US has been the worst in regards to war mongering. The US does have some good things, which unfortunately are overshadowed by the growing aggressiveness and arrogance of the US government.

The biggest difference between 911 and the War on Iraq?

I was at work when one of the paramedics stationed at my work location informed me that a plane had crashed into the WTC, and they were watching it on TV. I went in to see what was happening. Shortly after I started watching, the second plane slammed into the other tower. I felt a sinking feeling in my stomach. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I was in shock and a bit dumbfounded. I couldn't watch anymore. I knew that I had just witnessed the death of 100's of people.

Millions of people all over the world, shared in the grief that had been inflicted upon the good people of the United States.

The night the US attacked Iraq, most of the US knew it was coming. They had time to get home from work, have dinner, clean the dishes and settle down in front of the TV to watch the "Shock and Awe" show. I didn't watch a minute of it. I was too pissed that this was even happening.

Millions of people all over the world marched in peace protests to try and prevent this unwarranted attack.

Therein lies the difference.

Quite frankly....until someone bigger comes along, the US is the most powerful country in the world. I think that whatever our military does is our business, not the international community's.

shove off

(thats my opinion)

Quite frankly....until someone bigger comes along, the US is the most powerful country in the world. I think that whatever our military does is our business, not the international community's.

shove off

(thats my opinion)
The 'might makes right' argument is kinda dumb really.

After all if capacity to inflict casualties made conflict justifiable then OBL was acting in morally just fashion when he launched the 9/11 attacks. After all, what he does with his willing suicide bombers is his his business and not yours after all. It is people like you who will need to watch your back when America no longer has the most powerfull military in the world. Please dont take this as a threat, its just a warning.

O no...i don't take it as a threat, of course not.
Its just that in my opinion...we'll always be the most powerful country.

Well i am glad to hear you sleep well at night Kempster but 1 billion chinese people are coming for you.

Well....about 1/4 of those people are children, 1/4 are old people.
Thats leaves about 500 million...a significant number.
Well. .its time for bed.

I bet Iraqi terrorists have killed quite a number more of their countrymen than Americans have.

After all, besides April, a lot of 2004 has seen the terrorists switch their tactics from killing Americans to killing other Iraqis.
Someone invades America and you are fighting them. Some of your compatriots join the invading forces.....does that not make them your enemies?
That would.

If they were some people that hadn't chosen either side, then well, they wouldn't be my enemies.

Bin Laden had nothing to do with Iraq. The war against Iraq and the resulting civilian VICTIMS of blatant imperial arrogance of the USA + lackeys, was based on the imaginary WMD Saddam Hussein had in his possession. That this was a massive lie with which the international community was supposed to support the war, has since long been revealed. The war was based on lies, it is a crime, there was NO resolution from the UN that granted permission for the war, thus the same standards should apply to those who illegally annex sovereign countries - a trial before a jury of the international court, where each and every president or prime minister who gave his "OK" to attack Iraq (an obvious minority of the world) will have to explain every single civilian death caused by this unneccessary war! Of course the usual punishment for mass murder should apply aswell... a life in prison forever.Hey, you know what's really funny? Someone who illegally annexed a soveriegn nation is going to have his day in court as a result of this war. Strange, huh?

The first draft of history is always written by the winners. That pretty much explains how everything is seen. Once the 21st century has played out, people will have a more intelligent, informed perspective on things. One thing is for sure, a lot of us would be surprised if we knew their perspective.

Agreed. It will be decided on what comes of it in the long haul. If a trend to a more sedate and moderate Middle East, of any stripe, results. It is not inconceivable that Bush will be considered a genius. Should it play out where this exacerbates matters in the long run he will be vilified.

Additionally, casualities are generally not heavily weighted in the consideration but rather comprise a footnote when considering the effect on hundreds of millions.

SHL

I bet Iraqi terrorists have killed quite a number more of their countrymen than Americans have.

After all, besides April, a lot of 2004 has seen the terrorists switch their tactics from killing Americans to killing other Iraqis.Well in Iraq we've killed a few Americans. And a few British. And in Afghanistan we killed Canadians as well. And in the wake of 9/11 there were Americans killing American Muslims. So... again, the difference?
Whether its deliberate or not.

We don't go around in Afghanistan trying to bomb Canadians. And there's no civil war between our troops. Iraqi terrorists planting bombs in busy marketplaces can only have one intent, to kill more innocent civilians.Right... deliberate, interesting.

But, don't you think that Bin Laden might say that the casulaties of the WTC were merely "collatoral damage" in the quest to bring Allah to the world?

When you wage war.. there are what's known as "strategic" targets. Military, infrastructure, economy, communications.. these are the things you go after in any war..

the Pentagon was a military target, the WTC was a hit to American economic structure. In war time, would of both been legit targets. What else did they go after? The capitol building and or the White House, but the plane crashed (still for reasons unknown) before they could hit their targets.. In many ways OBL did adhere to the Geneva Conventions.. He did declare war on the United States in 1998... just because he perhaps wasn't taken serious enough is quite irrelevant. Lets not forget that the WTC housed some of the most important finical institutions in America. Simply because civilians died.. that is what Americans call "collateral damage" the target was one of economics. It also worked, some what. given that the stock market was shut down longer then any other time in it's history because of the attack. Don't think for two seconds that the Americans wouldn't target a countries economic infrastructure if at war.

Hell, the Americans took out radio stations.. you think there were no civilians there? Exactly...OK, I declare war on Canada right now as of this second. Are you justified if you kill American citizens? Would it be legal? Noone likes civilian deaths, but they are an unfortunate side-effect of war. The difference is that they are the only effect and only intent of terrorism. See the difference?