Anti-war protesters have no idea: refugee

Excerpt from the first link:

"If you are not with him [Saddam], that means you are against him. A murmur of discontent to your neighbour across the fence can lead to your wife being executed. And then, the Government visits your home and makes you pay money for the bullet that killed her.

"They bring your dead wife, they show you how she was tortured before the bullet put her out of her misery. And if you refuse to pay for the bullet that killed her, they simply take more of your family."


Harsh.

 

I can't speak for other people you've had discussions with on this board, but I'm personally disappointed in how you keep trotting out this straw-man argument that anyone who criticizes the war is an ally of Saddam Hussein.

And before you continue tossing around the word "liberate," you might pause to note that we have a rather poor record when it comes to backing freedom after using that military in that part of the world.

I really am very glad that Saddam Hussein's control over Iraq is being ended, and that our military is trying to do it in a way that minimizes civilian casualties. But aside from our military, I think our government has acted in such an arrogant and dishonest way that we will pay a steep price for this war down the road when we didn't have to, and that it will fumble away much of what could have been gained.

 

Exactly what "could have been gained" by leaving Saddam Hussein in power? I have always failed to see the upside of that course of action. Or inaction, as it is.

 

No, I mean I think our government will fumble away much of what could have been gained by removing Saddam.

And for sinohero, the links to posts elsewhere simply provide fuller explanations of the points I'm making. And those posts generally do provide links to numerous supporting sources.

 

What? This statement makes absolutely no sense.

You are aware that we *are* removing Saddam???

The only way that this statement makes any sense at all is if you are psychic and have already forseen a future in which the administration has bungled the aftermath. Are you psychic? Or just confused? Only one of those two is possible, and they are the only possibilities...

 

I don't understand the misunderstanding here. Clearly Swopa is predicting what will happen after we remove Saddam...people do that all the time. What's hard to understand about his opinion?

 

Is Iraq 2003 really much worse than Iraq 1991-2002? If we really cared about the oppressed people, we would have finished the job 12 years ago, especially since Bush Sr told the people to rise up against Sadaam and then left them to deal with the consequences.

It makes a good story for television but I just don't think that is the reason we are doing this.

 

RM95:

Swopa is basing his argument on a preordained notion that the whole ordeal is already mucked up because the aftermath will be bungled.

Do you believe that Swopa is psychic?

 

People make predictions about things all the time. I'm not saying I agree with Swopa at all, I just don't see the misunderstanding in what he's posting...unless I'm misunderstanding what treeman's misunderstanding, which is quite likely.

 

am personally very disappointed by the anti-war posters on this board. For a bunch purportedly concerned about the welfare of the ordinary Iraqi people, they truly seem to have nothing to say on this true horror in this age and day.

Perhaps the anti-war people keep ignoring you because this has nothing to do with the reason they are anti-war.

But keep on screaming how evil Saddam is and acting like people don't know that if it makes you feel better.

 

outlaw:

We're doing this to steal Iraq's oil. Hasn't anyone told you that yet?



RM95:

He's saying that the situation is already messed up because of our bungling of the aftermath. Clearly, he has nothing to base that on, as it has not happened yet. Therefore his argument is baseless. What is hard to understand about that?

 

No, he's not psychic, no more than you are. He has an opinion about what will happen after the removal of Saddam, what's so hard to understand about that.

Do you not have an opinion about what will happen?

 

Then exactly why are they anti-war? Humanitarian concerns? It is humanitarian to remove a bloody tyrant who is responsible for 1.2 million deaths, is it not? I seriously do not get the humanitarian argument against the war. It doesn't add up.

Look at the way he wrote it. According to him, it has already happened. Clearly it has not. He is stating his opinion as fact. Clearly it is not.

This is not that complicated.

 

If it's okay to Swopa to step and say what Swopa is saying...

1. Good things could result from removing Saddam.

2. I don't have much faith in our government's ability to achieve those things.

See the "rather poor record" link in my post above.

 

Actually the military DID want to go in and finish the job but the administration said no. What makes Iraq of 2003 more dangerous then Iraq of 1991-2002 are the weapons they are trying to acquire, and September 11th. Iraq could very easily be financing terrorists.