Off to War We Go...

[Kent]

NO, you are still saying things in your post that are just plain bogus.

If you agree with me than you must acknowledge that the kurds are innocents.

Take this very specific point into account (which has been present in all of my argument to this very reply) The kurds I speak of are not the gun toting, ambitious, politically driven nationalist... oh no...

This whole time I have specifically been talking about the kurds that were the victims of gas attacks by Saddam.

This whole time, tn, on the other hand, has been speaking in a generalized manner about the kurdish people as a whole. As if he was speaking of the group based on the actions or should I say, alleged actions of a small percentage of these same people. (which goes against everything many of us, including him, have said in the past)

Not once has anyone come forth with specifics of who they were talking about besides the examples I made about the people being gased.

Simply stating that the kurds are not innocent is the same as anyone saying that any group of people are not innocent.

Every ethnic group in the world has done something bad at one point... so What is the point of saying that groups are not innocents...

We werent talking about armies of the kurdish people... we were talking about those people you say you saw.

How in the world could you reffer to them as not being innocent.

You address everything but that very point.

You address the idea of what saddam did as being wrong.

You address the idea of seeing the footage.

You even address the disgust you felt when viewing this footage.

Yet at no point did you address my specific point... Saddam commited genocide on a ethnic group of people.

Worst of all is that these people were not even killed for the reasons of population or threat.

Otherwise the genocide would have started long before the 8 years war.

However, only in a historic sense over long periods of time did this occur. (which I dont even know of as fact)

Only once the 8 years war occurred and the Kurds sided with the Iranians did Saddam begin his genocide.

These people in this specific situation were killed because of their exercising the right to free speech.

To voice their opinions on political issues and side with the views of an oppossing nation.

Saddam would not allow this in a totalitarian state, and because of that, killed the people who were labeled as kurds.

Not the men, or the soldiers, but the kurds themselves.

Women and children. (which you saw for yourself and felt sick over, although I cant believe anyone who saw those women would honestly argue the side you have taken in this... what a disgrace to their memories.)

Those people were innocent.

That is the bottom line.

Cloricus, what you said had everything to do with those people and saddams actions. (contrary to what you state in the above.. in bold writing)

The statments tn made are directly related.

Unless you are both arguing an oppossing side to me with no knowledge of what you are arguing, you must know that you are arguing the specific point that...

Saddam was commiting genocide to subdue a legitmate threat to his government, and therefore was not commiting genocide on INNOCENT people. (which is flawed logic and not true)

You have both tried to argue that the people of the kurdish regions killed by saddam were not INNOCENT and were actually a race of people threatening Saddams regime itself and jeopardizing the stability of Iraq itself.
(you cloricus, being that you have openly taken the view of tn to represent your own, as you do support his view)

These people were doing no such thing, they were women and children who were already struggling to provide for themselves none the less take militaristic action to create an individual and independant state of their own.

Dont tell me your statment had nothing to do with the chemical attacks... it had everything to do with the chemical attacks.

[Guest cloricus]

Can I make it clear that I don't follow TN's view exactly and have a bit of a different point so please don't group us.
-

Gokents I don't think you stand on the moral high ground here because you (AFAIK) supported America?s actions in WW2. These included the massacred of "innocents" in Hiroshima. This example makes the comparison between America and the Saddam government true. They are both the exact same circumstances. If you don?t think they do I suggest you read a history book.

Now can we get back to the topic, TN and I have both said that we have stated our views. It is up to the people reading to choose which view they support.

Eps ? End of topic. Next topic, will America win??

[Kent]

Please, what better way to side step a rediculus argument...

"next argument... will we win?"

That is crap.

You are comparing the situation of ww2 to the genocide at halabja.

You said I left myself open and all you did was show how simple minded you could be.

The idea that there is no difference between those gas attacks and the Atomic bomb incident is rediculus.

Does it occur to you that the Kurds were not a world super power acting as an aggressor in a world war that was responsible for the lives of millions?

You have done nothing to any of my statments besides show just how off base your opinion is.

Comparing the acts at places like halabja to the acts at hiroshima is plan out lacking in all respects.

There is nothing similar between those two besides the fact that at both places, civilians died.

Nothing more and to act as if they are the same only puts forth the idea that you need to read up on history... not me.

[Guest cloricus]

That's your view and I have no problem with that.

As for will America win, well it was just a comment at the end of my nick but it is a fair question. The American army command has misinterpreted some things.
1) Not every one likes America, and that the Iraqis don't really want them, on the most part.
2) 400,000 troop?s verus 200,000 doesn't work.
3) People don't like other people dieing.

The people in Iraq were expected by the American's to "want" to be "liberated". It is evident that this is not the case, whether it is coursed by Saddam propaganda or they just don't like America. This was the first mistake and over judgement.

The troop situation. America again expected Iraqis to desert their posts, (Arrogance as I see it) this is not the case. They see it as them defending their country. Even if it?s at the cost of keeping a dictator in power.
Think of it like if bush became a dictator and Iraq was coming to save you, you would defend your homeland from the "invaders". It is just how you look at it. (Not the best example but use your imagination.)

So now America is stuck, they are not taking key cities and Baghdad is going to be a nightmare. There is no way I want to be Gen. Franks right now. He and bush were hoping that the Iraq army would collapse and they could walk in. This is also not the case so they are now left with two options.
1) Take Baghdad by force, this is a big no no. You would be looking at thousands of deaths of allied troops and most likely have to retreat.
2) Sedge(sp?), this is also bad. Think of it, BBC news night after night showing footage of "one day year old babies having no food, water and dieing". This would be a PR disaster.

So America is in a very bad position politically. If they don't take Iraq in the next few months they could lose. That risk is rising. Though so far they are still ahead, but if Saddam can drag this out a few months the allies are looking at a very bad situation.

A retreat by America would be a massive disaster, think of the spins Terrorists could put on it. (Though Terrorists have nothing to do with Iraq they will still see it as a victory.) So I find myself in the position were I don?t support the war but I support it being won?

One thing I would also like to say. In Australia the ?latest new poles? have been showing a swing to supporting the war in Iraq. This is in fact flawed because they are asking a different question.

Old question ? Do you support a war on Iraq without UN backing. 60 no 40 yes.

New Question ? Do you support the troops fighting the war in Iraq? 50 yes 50 no.

As you can see these are different questions and cannot be compared because they are asking a different question.

Eps - Please correct where I am wrong in this post.

[James]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve:[/i]
[b]I know about the Kurds and their past. Why they are so looked downed upon by the middle eastern community and that Saddam isn't the only one doing horrible things to them. I also know that their numbers pose a threat to Middle Eastern life. They must pose some threat, or Saddam wouldn't have attacked them in the way he did, neither would the other several middle eastern countries who have attacked them. Surely you must agree. Iraq and Iran have almost never got along, yet they could bother agree to take offensive actions on the Kurds... for no reason? There's a reason.... and I think that it is the threat they pose to Iraq, and surrounding countries.[/b][/quote]

[color=#808080]I can't believe what you're saying here. I'm sorry, but to me the arguments against the current action in Iraq are dwindling.

Now we're actually trying to justify the gassing of the Kurds? That's absolutely ridiculous!

Let's make no mistake about this; Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds because they opposed his rule. I have seen pictures of women laying in the street, still clutching their dead children to their breast. These people were innocent civilians who were attacked with poison gas.

In one case, a gas pellet was fired into the home of a family...and when they came out, they were shot at. In another, a family was told that they wouldn't be harmed if they gave themselves up. When they exited their house, they were fired on. And we're talking children as young as two or three years of age here.

I am simply astounded that [i]anyone[/i] would even [i]attempt[/i] to suggest that Saddam had a valid reason for murdering thousands of Kurds. Being against war is one thing -- but this? What next? Are we going to say it's fine for Kim Jong Il to stave millions of his people because they oppose his leadership?

If this wasn't a serious debate, then the concept of trying to justify Saddam's mass murder would be utterly laughable. [/color]

[i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve:[/i]
[quote][b]I don't know what Saddam DID to the Kurds. All I know is that he killed alot... how? It really doesn't seem to matter in the long run... innocent or not. Even if they weren't innocent people, we'd probably still look at Saddam the same way right now.[/b][/quote]

[color=#808080]This seems to be a contradiction in terms, Chris. You are behaving in such a flippant way about the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of people who were doing [i]nothing wrong[/i], except for rejecting their own national leadership. And yet, you are prepared to oppose a war that would not only liberate millions of oppressed people, but would result in absolutely minute casualties when compared to Saddam's own actions.

There isn't a high level of consistency here. On the one hand, you're wholly concerned about the couple of dozen people killed in this war so far -- many of them by their own Government (Iraqis, obviously). Yet on the other, you couldn't be any more dismissive of the [i]hundreds of thousands[/i] killed previously. That doesn't make sense to me. There is no attempt to provide any perspective here; and that disturbs me.[/color]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve:[/i]
[b] still want to refer back to the fact the Kurds neither consider themselves iraqi people and nor does Saddam consider them Iraqi people. Sure, Saddam could have and did kill millions of people, but they weren't his own. It seems to sound much worse when you refer to them as Iraqi people, insinuating they are under the rule of Saddam, which they aren't. Yes he killed millions of people, no not all those people were Iraqi people.
[/b][/quote]

[color=#808080]The Kurds are most definitely Iraqis. It's just that they are not in the majority ethnic group of the country.

Whether they [i]are[/i] Iraqi citizens or whether they [i]consider[/i] themselves to be such is [b]totally irrlevant[/b]. These people were (at the time of their deaths) under the rule of the Iraqi Government. They aren't now, but only because they have been able to liberate themselves; unfortunately the majority of those living in Iraqi territory are not able to do the same.

I still can't believe how flippantly and dismissively you refer to Saddam's criminal behavior. "Oh yes, he killed millions, but they weren't his own people...so who cares?" That's how it sounds to me.

What we're doing here is clutching at straws. The underlying facts remain the same; you simply cannot try to justify Saddam's actions at all. Nor can we somehow pretend that those actions are less important or somehow non-urgent. The vale of time and the fact that you yourself are nowhere near the situation might have something to do with it.

But make no mistake; if you were living in Iraq and facing such oppression...if you'd seen the video of the gassed Kurds (and I'm sure many have), I don't know [i]how[/i] you could speak in such a cold and dismissive manner. It just cuts against the grain with me. It doesn't seem that there's a valuation of humanity here -- it just seems that this is like "I'm not seeing or hearing it, so it's not my problem".

[/color][quote][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve:[/i][b]
I also do think Saddam poses some threat, I just don't think it's a) an immediate threat, b) that big a threat, and c) that war is not the way to deal with this. But that is a little late now, at least opinion C is. With as much as I disagree with it, there's nothing I can do but wait till it's over, and then probbaly years after that, to see what really is the case here.
[/quote][/b]

[color=#808080]I don't think Saddam is an immediate threat at all. And I don't think that case has been made.

However, I'd like to point out a few things to you.

Firstly, you're able to talk like this because you live in a safe, comfy environment. You know those human shields that travelled over to Iraq? Many of them returned. One of them was an Australian, who spoke about her experience. She actually said something akin to "I can't believe I was so naive; I should never have gone to Iraq".

She commented that when she entered a cab, the cabbie asked her "How much is Saddam paying you to do this?". The cabbie could not believe, in his right mind, that [i]anyone[/i] would sacrifice their lives for Saddam's regime.

This woman realized that as an Australian, she has never known the fear that the Iraqis experience on a daily basis. She's never known what it's like to have her freedom quashed by her own Government. She's never known what it's like to have a relative tortured or raped because he/she made some comment against the Government.

Even though I sympathize with these people and even though I very much desire a liberation for them, I could [i]never[/i] hope to understand what they go through on a daily basis. Just look at the people in Basra, the second largest city. They rose up only a few days ago, when it was evident that British forces were nearby.

And what happened? The Iraqi soldiers within the city turned their guns 180 degrees and fired on the civilians who were rising up. When faced with the overwhelming evidence of Saddam's aggression towards his neighbouring nations and his own people [i]how[/i] can we, deep in our hearts, provide anything that could even be vaguely considered a justification for Saddam?

I would also remind you of something else. This war will end; it's finite. It's not a neverending struggle. Why do I say that? For one simple reason: This war will [i]prevent[/i] deaths.

Every year, it's estimated that somewhere in the region of 10,000 to 30,000 people are thrown in prison by Saddam. Most of those people are tortured and eventually killed.

Let's say that this war ends up killing 100 civilians within the month it takes to topple the regime. Let's just say that this is the case. Do you even comprehend how many people would be spared with the regime gone? And do you realize how many Iraqi people would be PREPARED to suffer the burden of short-term bombing in order to secure longterm liberty and peace? Have you even SEEN the testamonies and interviews from Iraqi nationals who were fortunate enough to leave Iraq?

As a human being, my natural instinct is to protect those people. Can you suggest any other way of removing Saddam's regime? Thirteen years of international legal inforcement, sanctions, weapons interceptions...none of it has worked! For me, this isn't about weapons of mass destruction, either. This is about Iraqi people. They [i]don't deserve[/i] to live under constant terror -- they deserve International assistance.

When this whole deal started, I was occasionally skeptical of certain things. But the more information I read about Iraq; the more I hear from those who have REALLY seen absolute hell on Earth...the more I am convinced that we were [i]right[/i] to circumvent the utterly gutless United Nations for the sake of these people. This isn't a war of devistation that will murder thousands of Iraqis; this is a war to PREVENT such murders from Saddam.

Would you forego the possibility of a minimal number of Iraqis dying so that we can continue the diplomatic process for another thirteen years, whilst Saddam continues to imprison thousands and wreak his terrible vengeance on them? Would that satisfy you and Cloricus?

It sure as hell wouldn't satisfy me. In fact, it would be downright inhumane for me to even follow that line of logic. As a human being with thoughts and feelings, my conscience demands that my attention be drawn to these plights in the world. To ignore them is to be complacent about humanity at large -- to be selfish and to only care about the small sphere of my own day-to-day life.

Sure, Saddam is no threat to me. Or my family. But does that mean that I should have the luxury of avoiding the issue? Sure, I have that luxury. And we all often have the luxury of putting our heads in the sand when danger faces us. But what does it say about us, if we are prepared to allow a venomous criminal to remain in control of thirty million innocent victims for even a moment longer?[/color]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Cloricus:[/i]
[b]There are not the angels that the tv is trying to portray them as, they are a burden to the Eastern world. From what I knew if you had them in your country you wouldn't won?t them.
[/b][/quote]

[color=#808080]This, too, is an example of what one can say when one is living in a safe environment; when one is not faced with daily persecution.

Do we now accept (or have some level of comfort with) the fact that these people were murdered because they were simply a "pest"? Oh, they were a pest...they were a burden. Okay. No problem. We can just tick that off the list and forget about it.

Once again, my human conscience could never let me follow that line of thinking. I can never see a human being as a burden, where any type of violent murder has some level of justification. I know that you're not saying that it was okay to kill these people -- but you're not far off. By making these kinds of comments, you can have some level of comfort with this...these facts can settle somewhere within you and you can accept them.

I can't. Just as I could never hope to find a level of comfort with the holocaust -- I also cannot find any way of settling this element of history within my gut. It makes me sick.[/color]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Cloricus:[/i][b]
GREAT IDEA!!!
Why not give them a part of your country?
Give them the millions that it would take to set up out of your own pocket.
Kick the people off there land and give it to the Kurds for free.
[/b][/quote]

[color=#808080]The Kurds have lived in Iraq for god knows how long. It's their home -- they are Iraqi people. I'm not going to get into the whole question of whether or not there should be a Kurdistan or something.

But what I will say is that these people had the opportunity to free themselves from a violent criminal. If you had that opportunity, you'd take it too -- to avoid such an opportunity would be outright suicide. And if the people of Baghdad had such an opportunity, they too would take it.

To speak as though these people are some sort of bi-product or human waste is both degrading and inaccurate. Whether they are pests or not (and I'd dispute that -- just as I would dispute that with the Israelis or Palestineans), they don't ever deserve to be treated with violence; especially from their own Government.[/color]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Cloricus:[/i][b]
Gokents what I said had nothing to do with Saddam and his chemical attacks. I in NO WAY AT ALL HAVE EVER supported the actions Saddam and his Government took.
[/b][/quote]

[color=#808080]But don't you see? The comments that you and Transtic Nerve have made are basically alluding to the idea that "they deserved it". Therefore, in doing so, you are underrating the significance of their suffering. You're degrading their diginity as human beings -- human beings with as much value as you or I.

I don't think people are outraged enough about Saddam; and they should be. It saddens me that we can become complacent due to our own personal safety nets.

---

As far as I can tell, these are totally circular debates. At first, we were talking about the whole blood for oil issue. When I underlined [i]why[/i] this notion is utterly ridiculous, our discussion moved on. And it's moving on and on all the time for various reasons.

But this constant clutching at straws is only a self defeating process.

You can be anti-war...but for god's sake, have your facts straight! I'm so sick and tired of all these anti-war protestors now...I've not yet seen ONE who has any idea what they're talking about. They quote resolutions and "facts"...but none of them have even read the resolutions, nor do they have any clue about Saddam's own history.

When one is knowledgable about the history of Iraq and when one sees the unspeakably violent and disgusting nature of its regime, I don't know how anyone can not support a liberation effort. I just don't know how it can happen.

This isn't about being pro-war or being warmonger. I'm neither of these things. And I do want peace -- I certainly don't want war.

But come on...facts speak so much volume about Saddam Hussein. If you go out there and speak to an Iraqi exile...or if you read/watch interviews with them, I don't think you can help but desire a liberation for these people. The same is true if you see the videos of the gassed Kurds.

I am starting to see the degeneration of this debate. Can't everyone see why it's so cirular? It doesn't matter what the facts are on the ground. It doesn't matter how guilty Saddam is. It doesn't matter what Saddam does; there will [i]always[/i] be people who are anti-war no matter WHAT the truth is. There are people who objected to the first Gulf War, despite Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

I mean...it just frustrates me. I'm a humanitarian person; and there are wars that I object to. But there is NO logic in any of the anti-war arguments on this page. All I'm seeing is the same rhetoric, repackaged as some other subject. But there is a fundamental ignorance of the suffering involved here. And it doesn't matter how many quotes or statistics you can put on a page -- they have NO meaning unless you SEE the dead babies laying by the road with their mothers. Words have utterly no meaning unless you hear about the way that Iraqi soldiers are being forced to fight -- lest their own wives and children be raped and murdered if they refuse. There can be no comprehension of the pure maliscious nature of Saddam's regime unless you can visually see what's going on and unless you can hear the absolute horror in an Iraqi's voice, when he recalls the sight of his wife being brutally raped infront of him whilst he's being forced to watch; or the tale of a wife who's husband was returned to her...sliced into pieces after she pleaded for him to be brought home from prison.

It doesn't matter what I say. It doesn't matter what the United Nations says. None of the text on the page matters; because you still won't understand. And nor will I, for that matter. None of us will understand what it's like. And so we can sit here and have this circular debate while people on the other side of the world are going through utter HELL on a daily basis. Even "hell" is probably too light a word for it. We can sit here and debate, while women, children and even [i]men[/i] are brutally raped or having their limbs burnt off or their head dipped in a bath of boiling hot water.

And maybe we will never know how thankful the Iraqis are when they are liberated from such things. At least let's realize that even though there are short-term costs involved, these people aren't going to be liberated in any other way. Resolutions won't do it, inspections won't do it and they can't do it themselves. Only we can do it. But for god's sake, let's not start trying to make any comfort or justification about what goes on over there. It's an insult to the Iraqi people that we even try to draw any level of comparison or understanding about these things.

Let's just accept that this war has started and hope that it goes well. Let's just keep our thoughts and prayers with the Iraqi people and hope that they are freed from the personification of Satan who lives amongst them.

I'm sorry for such a long post...but I'm just so sick and tired of the crap. I'm so, so sick of it. And I'm so worn out and tired when it comes to these circular discussions. It's so pointless and it can be so devisive. You can respond to me however you like...you can call me whatever you want...I don't care. I'm going to close this very soon. It's not achieving anything. My words speak for themselves...and anyone can read this and hopefully understand my thought process. And hopefully they can understand that my feelings are not based on some petty warmongering desire to kill Saddam; my feelings are based on a desire...a [i]need[/i]...to do the most basic of justice in this world. Whether I'm right or wrong is not something that a few people on a little message board can conclude; it's something that we will know during the course of history.[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

I can agree with that.

[James]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Cloricus:[/i][b]
The people in Iraq were expected by the American's to "want" to be "liberated". It is evident that this is not the case, whether it is coursed by Saddam propaganda or they just don't like America. This was the first mistake and over judgement.
[/b][/quote]

[color=#808080]No, you're not correct. And this is yet another example of the whole "secure bubble" thing.

In at least one southern city, troops were greated with hugs and hand shakes. One civilian started going on and on about how horrible Saddam was; he felt safe doing so at this point.

In Basra, the people have started to rise up but the Baath party is attempting to quash that.

An Iraqi exile, who left only recently mind you, said that the people of Baghdad will [i]not[/i] rise up based on their experience in Gulf War I. Remember; at that time the ENTIRE country rose up against Saddam (forgot about that, did we?). Yet, because America and the allies abandoned them, their uprising was quashed.

And so this time, they're obviously not going to rise up unless and until allied forces are safely within Baghdad.

I'm sorry Cloricus, but this discussion can't work unless you can be accurate. And you're not being accurate. Don't you see why this is a circular discussion? It won't go anywhere because no matter what kind of evidence confronts you, you'll move onto some other thinly veiled defence. It doesn't work. And it grates on my nerves to see such a lack of research in an argument.

I'm sorry if my post seems to be too passionate, but I'm really getting tired of these sorts of posts. They are misinformed and add nothing to the discussion. I'm starting to even wonder why Juu started this thread in the first place, when she knew that we had had another Iraq discussion only recently. What I'd rather do is close this discussion and then have another one when the war is over.

Then, we can review the situation. I'd like that; maybe you will have a more informed perspective at that time. I certainly can't wait until the forces enter cities like Basra and are welcomed (which obviously can't happen now, due to the Iraqi forces). It will be another example of misinformation being flattened by overwhelming fact.

Note: I apologize for the double post, but it was necessary due to OB character limits. And no, it's not against the rules if you reach the character limit -- as I've given permission for people to double post [i]only[/i] under these circumstances in the past.

[/color]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Cloricus:[/i]
[b]I can agree with that.[/b][/quote]

[color=#808080]My post itself or the idea that the thread should be closed?

I hope you mean my post.

I don't want to come off as nasty or snappy or whatever. But I'm trying so hard to bring some reason into this discussion. It's so vitally important.

I would definitely like to have a thread about the war maybe after it's over, as I said earlier. Then we can analyze the situation post-war.

For now, whatever our feelings are...let's just use this thread as a reference for those opinions. Let's not continue the circular debate. The truth is, none of us are really informed enough about what goes on in Iraq. Only Iraqis can understand. And considering that the overwhelming majority of them have demonstrated (both through interviews outside the country and throughout history -- on two seperate occasions during the Gulf War I), that they want to be liberated. You can take that as you will.

And we can quabble over the specifics. We can talk numbers and strategy all day. We can sit here and talk about whether or not America is wrong/right/contradictory or whatever. But in the end none of it matters. The results of this war will speak for themselves; no matter what they are.[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

This is the first time I try in a debate, I have checked my facts before each post, and I spend time writing them up. I have even avoided constant arguing with Gokents.
Please give me a bit more credit?

My facts are this.
The "uprising" in Basra has consisted of about a few hundred people, they have been wiped out. The rest are either to scared or don't want to rise up. There is very little "real" news coming out so it is hard for any one to be accurate. One British troop is quoted to say "I don't believe the uprising will become strong enough to even take a small part, we are stuck until something happens." (Sbs world news. 27/03/03 (Yesterday :P))

One southern city. Could this one place be were one of the small cells of resistance is residing, or so far away from Baghdad that Saddams grip isn't very strong and they haven't been brought up to support him.
You have also left out the cities they are gone in to and been fired at by civilians. (Not Iraq army troops, civilians.)

I'm also sorry if this is not the latest news, I don't have access to cable. All I have to take news from is the "bias" abc and sbs...

-
I agree with your post. Though I think it's a bit bias. It?s all good. :D

Eps

[James]

[color=#808080]You talk about the citizens of Basra not uprising because they are scared -- large numbers haven't for this reason, yes.

But earlier you were implying very directly that they don't [i]want[/i] to be liberated. So what were the mass uprisings in 1990/1991? A block of flats?

This is what I'm talking about. I don't know where you're getting your research, but much of it is problematic. You might want to either consider your sources or review your interpretation of those sources.

There is no attempt to produce historical perspective in your posts. And while you do make some accurate factual points, you're not putting those in perspective. It comes off as some silly tyrade without much substance.

I urge you to slowly and fully read my two posts up there. I hope you will understand what I'm getting across.

EDIT: I'm going to close this now. I'm sure Juu will be happy, lol.

If anyone wants to discuss the war [i]after[/i] the war, please feel free to start a thread. I think we've exhausted ourselves with this one (and the many others before it).[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

James to be honest in 1990/1991 I was more interested in fixing up my computer to play the new version of pacman...

At the time I think I was six and the news was something I wasn't interested in. Though I have been reading a lot about GW1 I haven't got to all of it yet, atm I'm up to the Kurds history.

Eps - Meh.

[Transtic Nerve]

James, I'm not justifying. I said this before in my posts. Reasons are not justifications. I don't like the war, thus I'm going to kill president Bush... that is reason, but it's not justified.. thus my point. If i was saying it was justified I would flat out say it was ok fro him to have killed the Kurds. Which i obviously never said.

You know, I don't care about this any more. You're not seeing my point. Maybe it's the way I type. The Kurds have a history longer than the US has ben around with that area of the world. IT IS NOT A RECENT THING. Whether certain events happen recently is not what I'm pointing out (I don't care about that). I'm saying in the 1700s this fued started between the Kurds and the middle eastern world and thats why there is tension. Thats all I'm saying. Thats not arguable, thats fact.

I think I'm done with this thread. Unless some new information is posted, I don't feel the need to try to explain what I've already explained.

Edit: Opps. didn't even know it was closed....

[James]

[color=#808080]The fact remains, Chris, that you're still basically implying that the gassing of the Kurds is irrelevant. And I'm telling you that it's not. Time isn't the issue here; actions are the issue.

If the murder of thousands of innocent Kurds isn't as much of an issue now, then the current war won't be an issue in five or ten years. That doesn't make sense. It's like asking how long a piece of string is -- it has no real point.

I understand what you're saying. And I know that you don't justify the killing of innocents. But what [i]I'm[/i] saying is that your arguments effectively present reasons for Saddam's actions -- with an implication that on some tiny level, they're a bit more justified than the actions of others. Maybe it's the comparison issue, I don't know. But I don't think I misunderstood what you said. I made it pretty clear in my post that I'm aware that nobody is actually supporting Saddam or anything; I made that quite clear.[/color]