Subject:
|
Re: Help me with the math
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:20:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
809 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Now that George W. Bush has killed his 1,000th
US citizen in Iraq, does that make him approximately 33% as bad as Osama bin
Laden, who killed about 3,000 people in the WTC? Oh, wait--Bush has killed
thousands more than that, when you factor in all of the
Iraqis he’s killed for the sake
of their liberty.
|
So what about the 1-2 hundred thousand Saddam was not able to kill as
political prisoners? (the longer we go the higher that number gets) It is
estimated he killed 1.5 million between the two Gulf wars.
|
A couple of points:
To date, no huge mass graves have been found, so we’re left with the
uncomfortable problem of explaining where the 1.5 million bodies went. And I’m
not looking for Pol Pot’s “show me the bodies, or else there was no murder,”
either. Granted, a number of smaller mass graves (containing a few hundred
bodies) have been unearthed, so obviously some form of largescale killing was in
practice, but at least one of these mass graves has been shown to pre-date the
first Gulf War. Tragic, yes, but these deaths must be addressed separately from
any that occurred post Gulf War I. That’s not to dismiss any of the more recent
deaths--they’re still monstrous and need to be addressed, but it’s absolutely
vital not to undermine the argument by inadvertantly exaggerating the numbers.
No one is saying that Saddam was a great guy. The problem, as has been stated
several times before, is that Dubya justified his invasion based on information
that has turned out to be false and in some cases distorted. If Saddam’s
brutality were sufficient reason to depose him, then that’s how an honest case
for war should have been made. The fact that deposing Saddam may have been the
right thing to do does not justify the deceitful methods that Dubya used to get
the US to invade Iraq.
| |
Of course I also believe a dictatorship is not a soveriegn nation.
|
That’s interesting. I hadn’t thought of it like that before. Do you suppose
it’s possible for a dictatorship to be a sovereign nation, even hypothetically?
I don’t know for certain, but I’m reluctant to declare outright that
dictatorships are automatically non-sovereign, because that would justify all
kinds of incursions into such a nation.
| |
| |
And does this have anything to do with why Bush all but refuses even to
mention bin Laden’s name in the past half-dozen or so months?
|
Well as far as I am concerned the whole situation in the Middle East is a
result of stupid cold-war era descisions and is therefore our responsibilty
to correct. However it seems to me neither party has any interest in doing
that.
|
I think it pre-dates the Cold War, but I agree that the Middle East quagmire has
resulted from many decades of bad Western policies.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Help me with the math
|
| (...) There haven't? This was in all the papers, news, etc. shortly after major combat was allegedly 'ended'. (...) But at the same time even Bill Clinton when president stated that sooner or later the U.S. would have to deal with Sadam and his (...) (20 years ago, 10-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Help me with the math
|
| (...) So what about the 1-2 hundred thousand Saddam was not able to kill as political prisoners? (the longer we go the highet that number gets) It is estimated he killed 1.5 million between the two Gulf wars. Now don't get me wrong there are a lot (...) (20 years ago, 10-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
57 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
