'Overseas Contingency Operation'

[Kevin_Kennedy]

no, we are not
those are still the fault of Saddam

damn
you would blame the police for hostages killed

If it's our sanctions that lead to their death then we are responsible for their deaths.

I'd only blame the police if they shot and killed the hostages so that they wouldn't instead be killed by the kidnappers.

WRONG

the sanctions were the results of Saddams actions, thus he bears full responsibility

and it wasnt just OUR sanctions

So why are we punishing the people of Iraq for Saddam's actions? We've already established that they don't hurt him.

If other nations or the U.N. want to impose sanctions then that's their perogative, I'm talking about the U.S.

 

[DiveCon]

If it's our sanctions that lead to their death then we are responsible for their deaths.

I'd only blame the police if they shot and killed the hostages so that they wouldn't instead be killed by the kidnappers.

WRONG

the sanctions were the results of Saddams actions, thus he bears full responsibility

and it wasnt just OUR sanctions

So why are we punishing the people of Iraq for Saddam's actions? We've already established that they don't hurt him.

If other nations or the U.N. want to impose sanctions then that's their perogative, I'm talking about the U.S.

because the sanctions were the only thing short of military action that can be done

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

WRONG

the sanctions were the results of Saddams actions, thus he bears full responsibility

and it wasnt just OUR sanctions

So why are we punishing the people of Iraq for Saddam's actions? We've already established that they don't hurt him.

If other nations or the U.N. want to impose sanctions then that's their perogative, I'm talking about the U.S.

because the sanctions were the only thing short of military action that can be done

We could have adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy and millions more innocent Iraqi's would have lived.

 

[DiveCon]

So why are we punishing the people of Iraq for Saddam's actions? We've already established that they don't hurt him.

If other nations or the U.N. want to impose sanctions then that's their perogative, I'm talking about the U.S.

because the sanctions were the only thing short of military action that can be done

We could have adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy and millions more innocent Iraqi's would have lived.

and how many more innocent civilians might have died because Saddam was able to develope Nukes or other WMD?

and you dont know that those same Iraqis wouldnt have died under Saddam anyway

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

because the sanctions were the only thing short of military action that can be done

We could have adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy and millions more innocent Iraqi's would have lived.

and how many more innocent civilians might have died because Saddam was able to develope Nukes or other WMD?

and you dont know that those same Iraqis wouldnt have died under Saddam anyway

What Saddam might have done doesn't justify what we did do. That's the same message Madeleine Albright sent when she said "it was worth it," but I doubt the family and friends of those innocent civilians thought it was worth it and I'll bet they might harbor some resentment towards the United States as a result. Maybe enough resentment to commit terrorist acts against the United States. That's why a non-interventionist foreign policy is the best policy.

How in the world does the possibility that Saddam might have killed some of those civilians justify us actually killing them? As I said with your police analogy, I'd only blame the police if they shot the hostages so that the kidnappers couldn't kill them themselves.

 

[DiveCon]

We could have adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy and millions more innocent Iraqi's would have lived.

and how many more innocent civilians might have died because Saddam was able to develope Nukes or other WMD?

and you dont know that those same Iraqis wouldnt have died under Saddam anyway

What Saddam might have done doesn't justify what we did do. That's the same message Madeleine Albright sent when she said "it was worth it," but I doubt the family and friends of those innocent civilians thought it was worth it and I'll bet they might harbor some resentment towards the United States as a result. Maybe enough resentment to commit terrorist acts against the United States. That's why a non-interventionist foreign policy is the best policy.

How in the world does the possibility that Saddam might have killed some of those civilians justify us actually killing them? As I said with your police analogy, I'd only blame the police if they shot the hostages so that the kidnappers couldn't kill them themselves.

no, your non-interventionist(really isolationism) doesnt work

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

and how many more innocent civilians might have died because Saddam was able to develope Nukes or other WMD?

and you dont know that those same Iraqis wouldnt have died under Saddam anyway

What Saddam might have done doesn't justify what we did do. That's the same message Madeleine Albright sent when she said "it was worth it," but I doubt the family and friends of those innocent civilians thought it was worth it and I'll bet they might harbor some resentment towards the United States as a result. Maybe enough resentment to commit terrorist acts against the United States. That's why a non-interventionist foreign policy is the best policy.

How in the world does the possibility that Saddam might have killed some of those civilians justify us actually killing them? As I said with your police analogy, I'd only blame the police if they shot the hostages so that the kidnappers couldn't kill them themselves.

no, your non-interventionist(really isolationism) doesnt work

You didn't explain how it's ok for us to kill those civilians on the off chance that Saddam might have killed some of them on his own, and you haven't made a convincing argument against the U.S. being blamed by Muslims for those deaths. Thus creating more hatred for the United States in the Muslim world, and thus giving them more reason to want to cause harm to us. I'm forced to conclude that non-interventionism remains the best policy.

 

[DiveCon]

What Saddam might have done doesn't justify what we did do. That's the same message Madeleine Albright sent when she said "it was worth it," but I doubt the family and friends of those innocent civilians thought it was worth it and I'll bet they might harbor some resentment towards the United States as a result. Maybe enough resentment to commit terrorist acts against the United States. That's why a non-interventionist foreign policy is the best policy.

How in the world does the possibility that Saddam might have killed some of those civilians justify us actually killing them? As I said with your police analogy, I'd only blame the police if they shot the hostages so that the kidnappers couldn't kill them themselves.

no, your non-interventionist(really isolationism) doesnt work

You didn't explain how it's ok for us to kill those civilians on the off chance that Saddam might have killed some of them on his own, and you haven't made a convincing argument against the U.S. being blamed by Muslims for those deaths. Thus creating more hatred for the United States in the Muslim world, and thus giving them more reason to want to cause harm to us. I'm forced to conclude that non-interventionism remains the best policy.

WE didnt kill those civilians, Saddam did

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

no, your non-interventionist(really isolationism) doesnt work

You didn't explain how it's ok for us to kill those civilians on the off chance that Saddam might have killed some of them on his own, and you haven't made a convincing argument against the U.S. being blamed by Muslims for those deaths. Thus creating more hatred for the United States in the Muslim world, and thus giving them more reason to want to cause harm to us. I'm forced to conclude that non-interventionism remains the best policy.

WE didnt kill those civilians, Saddam did

We imposed the sanctions that killed innocent Iraqi's, we didn't have to.

 

[DiveCon]

You didn't explain how it's ok for us to kill those civilians on the off chance that Saddam might have killed some of them on his own, and you haven't made a convincing argument against the U.S. being blamed by Muslims for those deaths. Thus creating more hatred for the United States in the Muslim world, and thus giving them more reason to want to cause harm to us. I'm forced to conclude that non-interventionism remains the best policy.

WE didnt kill those civilians, Saddam did

We imposed the sanctions that killed innocent Iraqi's, we didn't have to.

wrong

sanctions were imposed because of saddam
any result of those sanctions are directly the fault of Saddam

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

WE didnt kill those civilians, Saddam did

We imposed the sanctions that killed innocent Iraqi's, we didn't have to.

wrong

sanctions were imposed because of saddam
any result of those sanctions are directly the fault of Saddam

I don't think either of us is going to budge, and there's no use arguing in circles. Thanks for the interesting discussion, Dive.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Do you think Saddam was anywhere near as affected by those sanctions as the Iraqi civilians were?

"I doubt it seriously." - Mike Tyson

of course HE wasnt

No, and neither was his government. The only ones hurt by the sanctions were the civilian population, most of which was just regular law abiding citizens trying to live their life.

How do you expect economic sanctions to hurt the government of the country you're imposing them on? Those people are insulated from such a thing. Imagine sanctions against the US. You think Obama's going to be adjusting his personal budget, cutting back on the blackberry anytime minutes? Going homeless and having to feed his kids shit out of dumpsters? How about someone like Bobby Jindal, just to make it bipartisan. You think Jindal would be hurt by sanctions?

The only way the government would be persuaded by sanctions is if they actually CARED about their citizens. And neither the US government, nor the Iraqi government under Saddam, seem or seemed to give much of a shit about their peons.

So if it manages to maybe slow down or actually take down a network or two, tens of thousands of negatively impacted civilians is a fair price to pay?

Once those civilians are dead, they're dead. But those terror networks can always recruit more terrorists. When does the widespread loss of innocent life finally become too high a price to pay?

Look...

The sanctions were placed against the goverment of Iraq; the civilian population OF which is 100% the eraonsibility of the goverment of Iraq.

Where Iraqi civilians were Injured by those sanctions, the full responsibility for those injuiries rest solely with the Iraqi government due purely to their refusal to comply with the demands upon which the sanctions rested.

As was the case with the US invasion of Iraq. Not a single Iraqi death as a result of that invasion rest on US responsibility.
PERIOD!

 

[007]

No, not all muslims are potential enemies, there are those who want nothing to do with the extremists. Think about why they hate us. Because we're free? Maybe some of the more extreme terrorists, but how do they get so many to join their cause?

Because the brain washing into it begins at birth.

Because there are actual bread and butter issues that muslims are mad at the United States about. Military presence in their holy lands (Iraq and Saudi Arabia), murderous sanctions, and bombings and attacks that end up killing innocent civilians.

They've killed plenty of us too. You can't deny that.

So if you'd have us completely get out of their lands, should we then kick all the muslims out of America? Seems fair to me.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, not all muslims are potential enemies, there are those who want nothing to do with the extremists. Think about why they hate us. Because we're free? Maybe some of the more extreme terrorists, but how do they get so many to join their cause?

Because the brain washing into it begins at birth.

Because there are actual bread and butter issues that muslims are mad at the United States about. Military presence in their holy lands (Iraq and Saudi Arabia), murderous sanctions, and bombings and attacks that end up killing innocent civilians.

They've killed plenty of us too. You can't deny that.

So if you'd have us completely get out of their lands, should we then kick all the muslims out of America? Seems fair to me.

I wasn't aware that there was a Muslim army in America.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

If it's our sanctions that lead to their death then we are responsible for their deaths.

I'd only blame the police if they shot and killed the hostages so that they wouldn't instead be killed by the kidnappers.

WRONG

the sanctions were the results of Saddams actions, thus he bears full responsibility

and it wasnt just OUR sanctions

So why are we punishing the people of Iraq for Saddam's actions? We've already established that they don't hurt him.
.

Hussien's refusal to comply with the demands pf those sanctions lead in large measure to the invasion which resulted in his losing his power and his life.

To say that his failure to responsibly provide for his people and comply with the reasonable demands of those sanctions did not harm him is ludicrous!

 

[007]

No, not all muslims are potential enemies, there are those who want nothing to do with the extremists. Think about why they hate us. Because we're free? Maybe some of the more extreme terrorists, but how do they get so many to join their cause?

Because the brain washing into it begins at birth.

Because there are actual bread and butter issues that muslims are mad at the United States about. Military presence in their holy lands (Iraq and Saudi Arabia), murderous sanctions, and bombings and attacks that end up killing innocent civilians.

They've killed plenty of us too. You can't deny that.

So if you'd have us completely get out of their lands, should we then kick all the muslims out of America? Seems fair to me.

I wasn't aware that there was a Muslim army in America.

No? What do you call the ones that lived here in America for years among us before they flew those planes into the twin towers?

So I ask again, if we pulled our armies out of their countries, do you think they'd pull all of their terrorist sleeper cells out of America?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

WRONG

the sanctions were the results of Saddams actions, thus he bears full responsibility

and it wasnt just OUR sanctions

So why are we punishing the people of Iraq for Saddam's actions? We've already established that they don't hurt him.
.

Hussien's refusal to comply with the demands pf those sanctions lead in large measure to the invasion which resulted in his losing his power and his life.

To say that his failure to responsibly provide for his people and comply with the reasonable demands of those sanctions did not harm him is ludicrous!

The sanctions themselves didn't hurt Saddam, yet were responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent Iraqi's. Our invasion of Iraq hurt Saddam, certainly. But, again, how many innocent Iraqi's had to die to bring him to justice in our invasion? Causing even more Muslims to hate the United States.

 

[TheNilvarg]

Surprising they don't just call IslamoNazi terrorists "neighbors with a beef."

Or "neighbors without pork". LOL, two meanings in one.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Because the brain washing into it begins at birth.

They've killed plenty of us too. You can't deny that.

So if you'd have us completely get out of their lands, should we then kick all the muslims out of America? Seems fair to me.

I wasn't aware that there was a Muslim army in America.

No? What do you call the ones that lived here in America for years among us before they flew those planes into the twin towers?

Criminals, terrorists, and extremists for the most part. I call them the same thing I call Timothy McVeigh in other words. They weren't an army, they were simply criminals. You advocated kicking all Muslims out of the United States in response to me saying all United States military troops should be removed from around the world, that's not an equal trade-off. There are no Muslims patrolling American streets, consistently bombing American cities, and they haven't invaded in any attempt to overthrow our government. Some of them are American citizens, and the rest simply want to live in peace.

Terrorists are criminals, nothing more and nothing less. You can't punish an entire people for a crime someone else from their religion or race committed.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Take over the rest of the world?

Did you not follow my context? Read the post again:

If we just make nice, kiss their asses, they won't want to kill us or convert us. Right? They won't come up with another bullshit pretext and attack us anyway, right? When they attack our friends and take over the rest of the world, they'll leave us alone. Right?

The taking over of the rest of the world I was talking about only happens if we do as KK suggests. Rest of the world being, besides us.

Are we really to assume a bunch of rats in the desert with RPG's and maybe in their wildest dreams, ONE SUIT CASE NUKE, are going to "take over" a country with an air force, a navy, and a relevant standing army?

You're a complete babbling idiot if you don't know how close they are to having REAL military and nuclear capabilities. Does India and Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran ring a bell to you?

You're really THAT SCARED of Islamic terrorist organizations? FOR REAL???

Not any more than I am scared of spiders, but I still kill every one I see. Because if you take the time to see if it's one that is poisonous, it might get away before you find out. This is not fear, this is healthy respect for the potential.

No offense, but you're a pussy. Just sayin

No offense taken, we are what we eat.

Smegma head.