There shoulds be a law that states for every thousand civilians killed during a war, the belligerant American President who caused it should sacrifice one of his own family members starting with his children then we might see an end to the travesty of a war in Iraq.
If you find a spelling error you can keep it and a half.
Geh
I agree, collateral damage is a bitch…
…there really oughta be a law against collateral damage…I’d vote for it.
lex talionis not lex fatuonis
[quote=“bob_honest”]Geh
[quote=“keiththehessite”][quote=“bob_honest”]Geh
I merely wanted people who blindly follow a man who cannot even say “nuclear” correctly, to think what they are doing. You don’t just kill thousands upon thousands of bystanders and get away with it in the long run. Diplomacy could have been more effective on the long run. George Bush has sown seeds of hatred he will not live to see sprout.
Irrelevant.
I believe there was quite a bit of thought put in to the policy implemented in ousting Saddam Hussein.
Saddam sure found that out, didn’t he?
You’re joking, no?
So, this is all a new problem… is that what you are saying?
Mr. Hessite may be an intellectual pipsqueak, but you, Tigerman, though often disappointingly partisan, are not. Your response is an empty and reflexive recitation of the Bush regime’s talking points–surely you don’t actually believe that? The evidence that Bush and the people responsible for going into Iraq quite clearly did not put a lot of thought into the whole operation is overwhelming. As is the worsening situation there, which sadly looks more and more like the inevitable march to civil war. Hopefully I’m wrong. If the current administration had put even a modicum of thought into winning the peace, which, after all, is what this is all about, chances are Iraq wouldn’t be such a quagmire today.
Alfred E. Neuman could have led the US forces to their initial “victory” in March of 2003 against such an emaciated country as Iraq. But Bush’s “what, me worry?” policy over the last two years has proven disastrous. My Iraqi acquaintances here were guardedly optimistic about the future of their country back in 2003, and even talked about going back to help with the reconstruction.
But now? They don’t want to talk about it.
Me, an ex-Jungsozialist, starts to like the new US course, because it is the first time in history someone wants the West to go after dictatorships on the globe. Before, we took them for granted and were told they cannot be attacked as they are … sovereign countries and we cannot prove our system is better than theirs (at least in Germany they told us such stuff at school).
But I always thought: Why do we need to prove, a western country is better than a dictatorship? Isn’t that clear? Democracy? No mass executions? No torture - usually (Bush shocked me a bit there, recently, I think it was 911-madnes)
US after 911 scared me for some time, but now it is downsized to a more mature approach. And yes, it would be good, if dictators have to be more scared of their ass in the future, sovereign or not.
However, innocent people will always pay a price.
PP,
Please note that I stated my belief that a lot of thought went in to the idea and strategy for ousting Saddam. I did not opine one way or the other re any thought or lack thereof in regard to the occupation, etc…
Per my remarks above, I was commenting only on the idea that Bush and many others did, I believe, think long and hard about how and whether to oust Saddam from Iraq.
See my remarks above.
That’s not what most of the Bush critics said then.
That’s debatable.
Mr. Hessite may be an intellectual pipsqueak, but you, Tigerman, though often disappointingly partisan, are not. Your response is an empty and reflexive recitation of the Bush regime’s talking points–surely you don’t actually believe that? The evidence that Bush and the people responsible for going into Iraq quite clearly did not put a lot of thought into the whole operation is overwhelming. As is the worsening situation there, which sadly looks more and more like the inevitable march to civil war. Hopefully I’m wrong. If the current administration had put even a modicum of thought into winning the peace, which, after all, is what this is all about, chances are Iraq wouldn’t be such a quagmire today.
Alfred E. Neuman could have led the US forces to their initial “victory” in March of 2003 against such an emaciated country as Iraq. But Bush’s “what, me worry?” policy over the last two years has proven disastrous. My Iraqi acquaintances here were guardedly optimistic about the future of their country back in 2003, and even talked about going back to help with the reconstruction.
But now? They don’t want to talk about it.[/quote]
Now I think too little. Only time will reveal what Bush’s legacy will be although it seems quite clear that inciting hatred is not a good idea for a country like the USA. The USA will soon be so encumbered by paying war reparations, trying too prevent another 9/11, etc. that it will no longer be viable. China, on the other hand, altough it has the capability to enter into war, seems to be wiser. Prosperity and peace go hand in hand.
[quote]…a country like America.[/quote]America, AMERICA!(capitals automatically edited.) Is it South or North America you are talking about? 
[quote=“bob_honest”]Me, an ex-Jungsozialist, starts to like the new US course, because it is the first time in history someone wants the West to go after dictatorships on the globe. Before, we took them for granted and were told they cannot be attacked as they are … sovereign countries and we cannot prove our system is better than theirs (at least in Germany they told us such stuff at school).
But I always thought: Why do we need to prove, a western country is better than a dictatorship? Isn’t that clear? Democracy? No mass executions? No torture - usually (Bush shocked me a bit there, recently, I think it was 911-madnes)
US after 911 scared me for some time, but now it is downsized to a more mature approach. And yes, it would be good, if dictators have to be more scared of their ass in the future, sovereign or not.
However, innocent people will always pay a price.[/quote]
Bravo! If Iraq can succeed as a democracy, I think it will have very good benefits for its neighbors in the future… especially those who say that democracy is not compatible with Islam.
Canadian?
Canadian?[/quote]
I’m pretty sure he mean’t Equador.
[quote=“keiththehessite”]There shoulds be a law that states for every thousand civilians killed during a war, the belligerant American President who caused it should sacrifice one of his own family members starting with his children then we might see an end to the travesty of a war in Iraq.
[/quote]
Do you have a point to make here?
The war in Iraq is over bub. And are so so absolutely blinded by Bushhate that you fail to see that most of the civilian deaths in Iraq these days are caused by their fellow “freedom fighters?”
Or are you saying it’s ok for them to kill their own because they are in their own country?
Do you also work for the UN?
Canadian?[/quote] Doesn’t matter but I see you edited your post anyways. :raspberry: Don’t want to cause damages eh. 
Bush said one thing after 911 which is a bit forgotten now and then. Namely that we (all on the globe) cannot tolerate governements anymore, which give their infrastructure to terrorists, namely to build WMDs for them. Logical point I guess.
Iraq war I first opposed for tactical reasons, but now nagging about it is useless and I would like it very much, if democracy can be established there. I did not believe it is possible for all the resulting chaos, but now I just hope for the best.
Canadian?[/quote] Doesn’t matter but I see you edited your post anyways. :raspberry: Don’t want to cause damages eh. [/quote]
I was very tired when I made made that post. I was still under the influence of US propaganda. The US is not America. It is part of America. I have no problem admitting something I have voiced very often in the past. 