Most Americans are not told these facts.
In fact, over a million Iraqis died from US actions before the war even started. The sanctions--which continued LONG after Iraq destroyed its WMD--killed over a million Iraqis. And the only countries who refused to lift sanctions were the US and Britain.
I guess killing those children was "softening it up" for the next invasion.
2007-02-24 06:42:46
·
answer #1
·
answered by Longhaired Freaky Person 4
·
2⤊
3⤋
Unfortunatly, when 19 Muslims caused 9/11, Americans lost much of the compassion that they might have had for any Muslim anywhere on earth. Which is exactly what Bin Laden was hoping for because he wants Americans to hate Muslims so much that it only creates more recruits for Al Qaeda.
2007-02-24 14:46:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
During the 1990s 'peace' in Iraq, Saddam was killing over 100,000 innocent Iraqis per year through direct methods or through intentional starvation and deprivation of resources. Meanwhile, he built five new palaces with gold bathroom fixtures using the Oil for Food money that was supposed to feed his population.
Often, war is the only way to end massacres. Tyrants generally cannot be talked into changing their spots, as Saddam, Hitler and others demonstrated.
Humans have a powerful quality to their character in that, given the choice of enduring endless oppression, they choose to fight, perhaps to die, so that their children will not also have to suffer that oppression. They accept harm now in exchange for a better tomorrow. That noble quality is what creates human progress.
2007-02-24 14:41:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by speakeasy 6
·
3⤊
2⤋
What do americans expect? Peace? hundreds of naval bases around the world, and always playing the role of a world police watchdog..Thats the price to pay for trying to take over the world, Mr policy-of-non-intervention...
Lesson learnt: Is there really freedom after all these? Or is it just a cliche used by politicians all along to control the US?
2007-02-24 14:46:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by Christopher 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
You fail to count the cost of tyranny.
Saddam murdered at least 400 000 in "peacetime" (not to mention the 1 milion victims of his war with Iran)
In WW2 my country lost 200 000 men in combat. We also lost over 6 milion people due to systematic murder by "special squads"
In SE Asia some 350 000 people died in combat- and well over 9 milion in the systematic murder (aka "re-education") in North Vietnam, Laos, later Cambodia and the conquered South Vietnam.
The war in Iraq is costly. Even though this cost is far lesser than in previous wars, every such life is precious to us. But not to the local fanatics (aka insurgents/ jihadis) or foreign fanatics (aka peace protesters/ liberals). To them only the defeat of the US matters.
best solution? IMO to win the war and make the land safe for people to walk on.
Alternative? Abandon them. Let them be murdered in silence, while we switch channels to watch tinseltown awards.
We can run- but they cannot.
We CAN run. but we CANNOT hide.
2007-02-24 15:00:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by cp_scipiom 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
"That noble quality is what creates human progress." -speakeasy
Also, check out some writings and ideas of a great writer/political philo Leo Strauss, it will help you better understand when it comes to goverments and there actions.
2007-02-24 15:10:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by Imperialist 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Would you rather they gave their lives for tyranny, dictatorship, oppression and slavery? I was a member of the US Armed Forces back in the Viet Nam era and did so voluntarily. Today's Armed Forces do so also. They are not to be criticize, but HONORED! They make it possible for individuals such as yourself to sit home safely and whine about everything. YBIC
2007-02-24 14:43:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
We do care, we are fighting PC style. Terrorists purposly target civilians... want proof on this?
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/little-girl.htm
2007-02-24 14:41:36
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
thousands dead for some lobbyist not for freedom.
2007-02-24 14:44:55
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Good question. I think you KNOW the answer, hence the question.
2007-02-24 14:44:41
·
answer #10
·
answered by Tokoloshimani 5
·
0⤊
0⤋