Political Crossfire Forums

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6788 Location: Ohio

johnflesh wrote: Armaan_a wrote: An Iraqi court sentenced Saddam Hussein to hang for the 1982 killings of 148 people in a single Shiite town after an attempt on his life there. So Saddam is going to be hanging because of killing 148 people but it’s not a justice. I have a question of those who says that it is justice and correct decision of verdict, than tell me when President Bush is going to be hanging because bush has killed thousands of innocent peoples in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon and still continuing. So I think that if it is justice than I am waiting for that day when American court will give an order of hanging bush not only one time it should be hundred times.

Punishment for Saddam :tu:
You article bashing Bush :td:

I am not a huge fan of Bush right now, but come on! And to add, is there every really justice?
Here is a hint; No there isn't.

IBTL

What? How? How is it bush bashing? I'd love to know what separates Saddam's killing from Bush's killing?

Erasmus · Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 16

My friend, whether it separates Bush from Saddam is irrelevant, you are still "bashing" your president by saying he has killed thousands of people.

One of the many things that separate "Bush's killings" from Saddam's is, as Eynon said, a couple million people killed.

Do you place the deaths of those in your civil war at the feet of Abraham Lincoln? Do you blame the millions of deaths in WWII on Franklin Roosevelt? Even if the war in Iraq is not as necessary as those other wars were, it is foolish to place these deaths at the feet of your commander. Could they have been avoided? Maybe. Is it Bush's fault? No.

JoeBen81 · Joined: 13 Jun 2006 Posts: 4447

Erasmus wrote: My friend, whether it separates Bush from Saddam is irrelevant, you are still "bashing" your president by saying he has killed thousands of people.

One of the many things that separate "Bush's killings" from Saddam's is, as Eynon said, a couple million people killed.

Do you place the deaths of those in your civil war at the feet of Abraham Lincoln? Do you blame the millions of deaths in WWII on Franklin Roosevelt? Even if the war in Iraq is not as necessary as those other wars were, it is foolish to place these deaths at the feet of your commander. Could they have been avoided? Maybe. Is it Bush's fault? No.
Umm, yes it is actually. Indirectly perhaps, but it certainly is. He chose to invade another nation when many if not most Americans knew it was a bad idea. Comparing the civil war and WWII to the Iraq war is wrong, very few if any comparisons can be made, least of all Presidential involvement and accountability.

TwinkieDP · Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 3688 Location: US

JoeBen81 wrote: Erasmus wrote: My friend, whether it separates Bush from Saddam is irrelevant, you are still "bashing" your president by saying he has killed thousands of people.

One of the many things that separate "Bush's killings" from Saddam's is, as Eynon said, a couple million people killed.

Do you place the deaths of those in your civil war at the feet of Abraham Lincoln? Do you blame the millions of deaths in WWII on Franklin Roosevelt? Even if the war in Iraq is not as necessary as those other wars were, it is foolish to place these deaths at the feet of your commander. Could they have been avoided? Maybe. Is it Bush's fault? No.
Umm, yes it is actually. Indirectly perhaps, but it certainly is. He chose to invade another nation when many if not most Americans knew it was a bad idea. Comparing the civil war and WWII to the Iraq war is wrong, very few if any comparisons can be made, least of all Presidential involvement and accountability.
How can you say the American Civil War was justified? If southerners thought they were better off a separate nation, so be it. What gave Lincoln the right to initiate an unjust fratricidal war simply to "Preserve the Union" ?

JoeZ430 · Joined: 12 Oct 2005 Posts: 51

It is interesting when you count how many Democrats voted for this war.... Oh wait I forgot, lets totally forget about that and blame everything on Bush..

wyldejackyl · Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 7195 Location: Chicago, IL

The democrats didn't authorize the war. The republicans did. I hold EVERYONE that voted for any sort of action on that Middle East **** responsible for the current status of it. Why must everyone always rest on party lines? Men are still men and are still worthless no matter which of the two parties they belong to.

JoeZ430 · Joined: 12 Oct 2005 Posts: 51

Really? Then why did most of them vote for it? How come there is no blame going to Iran for the current violence in Iraq? I would hold Iran more accountable for the things that have been going on there since we have been at war, then to hold the people that voted for the war accountable. It is on Irans agenda to make sure there is chaos in Iraq. Anyways, dont you think it is a good thing to have a bad dictator out of power that killed and tortured his own people? I bet most of the citizens of Iraq are very thankful for us being there, all you see now days is the negative spin the media loves to make on the war.

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

JoeZ430 wrote: Really? Then why did most of them vote for it? How come there is no blame going to Iran for the current violence in Iraq? I would hold Iran more accountable for the things that have been going on there since we have been at war, then to hold the people that voted for the war accountable. It is on Irans agenda to make sure there is chaos in Iraq. Anyways, dont you think it is a good thing to have a bad dictator out of power that killed and tortured his own people? I bet most of the citizens of Iraq are very thankful for us being there, all you see now days is the negative spin the media loves to make on the war.

If Eskimos invaded Canada I would help the Canadians. That is the way of life. War tears up people and shet. If you can fight war anywhere else but on home turf, you do it. But considering we are calling this a defensive action it is in the wrong place. Unless we consider their oil essential to our national defense. But that need for oil, and that taking of oil, and the invasion inspired by both the need and the taking of that oil is driving the violence in Iraq. So, do not be surprised if Iran would rather have the fight be in Iraq.

We have to realize that the direct route to any objective is not always, and seems usually seldom, the best route. If we absolutely need the oil, that should be our concern. But, to be seen as taking something that we were buying before only makes us look like a nation of thieves. We got rid of a thorn in our side. We could have let it go at that, and let them form up, even if against us, so that we could have some one to deal with. But to put people in power who cannot exist without our support, and then to beat at the very people best in a position to make credible deals only prolongs the agony of the country without improving the eventual outcome.

I do not think we have the national will to be an empire. I do not think we are capable of the cruelty it would take to master those people for a moment. We could have bought them all; but we would stand a better chance of driving a herd of cats over the length of this country than making them bend to our force. It is the task of idiots to confound wisdom; and the greatest wisdom would have been in leaving them in peace. We could have empowered them and had them eating out of our hands. How many years will it take only to have the status quo ante all over again?

wyldejackyl · Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 7195 Location: Chicago, IL

JoeZ430 wrote: Really? Then why did most of them vote for it? How come there is no blame going to Iran for the current violence in Iraq? I would hold Iran more accountable for the things that have been going on there since we have been at war, then to hold the people that voted for the war accountable. It is on Irans agenda to make sure there is chaos in Iraq. Anyways, dont you think it is a good thing to have a bad dictator out of power that killed and tortured his own people? I bet most of the citizens of Iraq are very thankful for us being there, all you see now days is the negative spin the media loves to make on the war.

Why did they vote for it? Well, partly because they were misled by faulty intelligence pandered by the Bush Administration. Part of it was ignorance and lack of forsight for thinking of an exit strategy. The rest of it, I believe, was greed. Corporate greed. Keep in mind there's a stream of money that flows from corporations to politicians, and also a stream of influence that goes the other way. Constituents these days in many places are so hard up for jobs that giving them jobs by making war, and thus a need for certain items, has an appeal. Is it no wonder why there is no centralized location where munitions or fighter plane parts are made? They are scattered all over the country in such a way so that localities of people are employed by these big corporations help the local economies. A politician votes against the war, the war doesn't happen, the factory closes down, and their constituents get pissed off because they are now out of work. You don't think that happens?

I think it's good to have a bad dictator out of power too, but I don't think that just because he wasn't a good man that that gives us any right to go in there and do what we please. Castro's not a good dictator, neither are all those clowns in Africa hacking themselves to death with machetes. How about the governments of South/Central America? Do we "like" all of them? are they all "good" people? or should we criminalize them, breach their sovereignty, and capture their leaderships too? Maybe our Administration is "bad" to some nation and their goal is to eliminate it? Enter Al Qaeda. One hand washes the other. War is justified in some cases..in this one it was not, and a lot of rich people just got a whole hell of a lot richer. Coincidence that they have relations with government? I think not.