Ethics of the Iraq occupation
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
It seems , with Saddam, he was obliterating his own country and people as well or do you remember what he did when he mass murdered thousands of Kurds as well as thousands of others that didn't go along with his views?
Fine, so you think the occupation of Iraq is right.
Where did I say that?
You don't think its wrong. :shrug:
Perhaps if you voted, there would be no ambiguity.
I don't think there is an "occupation" as you put it going on in Iraq today. I believe that Iraq has ASKED America to stay there until the violence has calmed down. Do you disagree with that? Why?
So the US invaded Iraq on request?
I've read the same story in soviet history books about Latvia. According to those the soviet army was asked into Latvia to help to drive off the nazis and remain there forever after to keep the peace.
Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it.
Text: SOVIET ARMY - THE GUARD OF PEACE
A poster in Latvian from 1980s
Don't take it very personally, but you are very close to hit my ignore files. You have been expressing just general dumbness lately, this post being one of the primary examples. You are not mean or anything, just plain stupid who doesn't really learn. Like Baron Max was. So there is really no point in corresponding with you...
You obviously don't know shit about Saddam. Saddam had not destroyed his own country - in fact, his country was actually improved vastly under him. Yes, he did kill anyone who opposed him, but you could at least go out to the market, let your children outside, go to school, go to work, etc, without the fear of being killed.
Didn't a lot of terrorists from other countries pour into Iraq? Is it Iraqi people setting off bombs in the pet market or people from other countries? When America went in, did they go in all by themselves with no other countries?
So when asked about invaders or occupiers, isn't there more than one group of people who have done this?
So when asked about invaders or occupiers, isn't there more than one group of people who have done this?
After the invasion, militants from many surrounding nations poured in. Prior to the invasion, there were no "terrorists" or anything of the like in Iraq. Saddam would have them killed immediately.
The "group" that initiated it, and the "group" that is the largest by far, is the U.S.
ah, so they were militants, not invaders or terrorists.
Why the hell would they be terrorists? If they're terrorists, aren't the American invaders and occupiers terrorists?
This is as relevant (and loaded) as the question, "Do you think it's right or wrong to slaughter unicorns?"
I'm not disputing that. I'm merely pointing out the irrelevancy of what SAM's version of a loaded right and wrong entails.