Why are American lives worth more than Iraqi's

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: Why are American live

"Why are American lives worth more than Iraqi's?"

is it because they weigh more?, your average iraqi probably doesnt weigh that much and meat is expensive!!!!


sorry that was awful...just kidding

 

[I think not]

Yeah it was awful Daz, but not surprising coming from you.

 

[JonB2004]

With the Civillian death toll rising in Iraq daily and currently listed at approx. 38725 thru 43140 (not including Afganistan) how is it possible for Americans to continue support for this farce of a war that has done nothing but increase terror and kill innocents, how do they live with themselves and why is it an American life worth more than an Iraqi or Afgan life?
I cannot get my head around it
IBC - http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

The U.S. never should of invaded Iraq. The U.S. invaded Iraq because they believed that Iraq under the authority of Saddam Hussien, possesed weapons of mass destruction. The UN weapons inspector, with the co-operation of the the Iraqi government, found no WMDs. The U.S., who thinks they know better than everyone else, invaded Iraq anyways, and to this day, have found nothing. Now this mission has turned into liberating Iraq. So, the U.S. found nothing at the expense the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqis and 2300 U.S. soldiers. And because of this, George Bush should resign from office while he still has some dignity.

 

[#juan]

Do you know anything of the history of pre-war Iraq? If you did you'd know that Husseins Bathe Party made it a habit of killing Shia Muslims and Kurds on a regular basis. In fact, Hussein had nerve gas tests done on the Kurds in the North of Iraq back in 1988 and then had them attacked again in 1993 with posion gas. Your post is typical of Western society. Utterly lacking in any historical background information, and therefore completely devoid of forethought. It's a Western knee-jerk stigma. Bush is bad. The War is a lie. Iraq was peaceful before the U.S. showed up. No hotshot, Iraq was a mess before the U.S., and it's a mess still today. The only reason you know about it now, is because CNN is up to their rotator cuff in news coverage of everything that happens over there.

That bit of pap is straight out of Pentagon handouts. Where did Saddam get the nerve gas that he used on the Kurds and the Shia.

If we were to go back just a little ways, we would find that the U.S. helped to overthrow the democratically elected leader of Iran and installed the shah. The Shah was at least as big of a bastard as Hussein.

Hussein was a proxy of the U.S. and others and he was a hero as long as he was fighting Iran and doing what he was told. Saddam Hussein was sucked into invading Kuwait, but that is another story.

 

[Mogz]

Re: RE: Why are American live

"Why are American lives worth more than Iraqi's?"

is it because they weigh more?, your average iraqi probably doesnt weigh that much and meat is expensive!!!!


sorry that was awful...just kidding

Awful yes. Funny, also yes. I laughed out loud, I can admit it.

 

[Mogz]

RE: Why are American live

That bit of pap is straight out of Pentagon handouts. Where did Saddam get the nerve gas that he used on the Kurds and the Shia.

Oh I see, all the time here I was thinking that the people who used the gas were at fault, when it's really the people who gave them the gas?

Canada makes the Diemaco C-7A1 Assault Rifle. Which we export to Denmark and several other Nations. If Danish Marines go to Afghanistan and wipe out an entire Afghan village with Canadian made C-7s, are we to blame? F.ucking stupid logic no? The defense rests.

 

[Simpleton]

Re: RE: Why are American live

That bit of pap is straight out of Pentagon handouts. Where did Saddam get the nerve gas that he used on the Kurds and the Shia.

Oh I see, all the time here I was thinking that the people who used the gas were at fault, when it's really the people who gave them the gas?

Canada makes the Diemaco C-7A1 Assault Rifle. Which we export to Denmark and several other Nations. If Danish Marines go to Afghanistan and wipe out an entire Afghan village with Canadian made C-7s, are we to blame? F.ucking stupid logic no? The defense rests.

Umm, but Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi army, were the patsy's of the U.S. government. There was love between Saddam Hussein and Washington. Saddam Hussein carried out America's evil deeds, America supplied the Iraqi's with the means to carry out the mission, and the Iraqi government was driven to the brink of bankruptcy.

Saddam Hussein fully expected that the U.S. would help out his government and people following the Iraq/Iran ordeal, but the U.S. turned their back on him.

The Iraqi government saw the invasion of Kuwait as a quick fix, and were not expecting any resistance from the U.S. or the global community. So they invaded Kuwait and made quick work of it.

The Global community was outraged. President George H. W. Bush lead the charge in demanding that Saddam Hussein withdraw his troops immediately. The Iraqi government was shocked that the U.S. would react in such a way. This is when the Iraqi people began to forge a deep hatred for America.

If you wanna start pointing fingers for the whole Iraq thing, you're going to have to start looking, at least, as far back as good old rockin' Ronnie Reagan... and even earlier.

 

[#juan]

Canada makes the Diemaco C-7A1 Assault Rifle. Which we export to Denmark and several other Nations. If Danish Marines go to Afghanistan and wipe out an entire Afghan village with Canadian made C-7s, are we to blame? F.ucking stupid logic no? The defense rests.

Now that, is f'ing stupid logic, and no defence at all.

Saddam was given nerve gas and he was given satillite intelligence to fight Iran. Both were technologies he didn't have before. BTW, was it thought that Saddam would use the sarin on his roses?

 

[Mogz]

RE: Why are American live

A weapon is a weapon juan. My logic is perfectly fine. You're deeming that the fault lays with someone OTHER than the Bathe party for murdering civilians. Like somehow this is the United States' fault. I merely drew a logical corelation between the U.S. giving Iraq a weapon and us giving Denmark a weapon. The producer is not responsible for how the receipient uses said weapon.

 

[JonB2004]

RE: Why are American live

Mogz is right. You cannot blame the producer of the weapons for the action of the recipient. Unless of course the producer is knowingly giving the recipient weapons to murder people.

 

[Simpleton]

Re: RE: Why are American live

A weapon is a weapon juan. My logic is perfectly fine. You're deeming that the fault lays with someone OTHER than the Bathe party for murdering civilians. Like somehow this is the United States' fault. I merely drew a logical corelation between the U.S. giving Iraq a weapon and us giving Denmark a weapon. The producer is not responsible for how the receipient uses said weapon.

I think you're trying to give the U.S. too much credit for being the good guys, when the U.S. haven't been the good guys since WW II. I'm sure that anyone can probably find a noble cause in any foreign policy of the U.S. over the last half-century, but let's not be too eager to assume that the white hats have remained white all this time. There's a lot of blood there.

The U.S. has done some good things in the area of foreign policy, but let's not forget what drives a lot of foreign policy: greed.

The point I think people are trying to make here, is that the U.S. knew what Saddam's regime was like before they handed over the weapons. The U.S. knew of the tensions in that part of the world, and the U.S. provided the weapons for a specific purpose. The argument that you can't put some of the blame on the supplier, is feeble at best.

I don't really want to get too involved in this discussion, but I wouldn't be so quick to render the U.S. government a verdict of not guilty. At worst, they're guilty of having conspired with Saddam's regime. At best, they share some of the guilt by reason of negligence.

 

[I think not]

I have to hand it to you Simpleton, you certainly live up to your handle.

 

[Simpleton]

I have to hand it to you Simpleton, you certainly live up to your handle.

Please explain.

If anything that I've said is inaccurate, you are free to correct me. That's the whole purpose of discussion, is it not?

The end of the second world war, brought what?

Since the end of the second world war, the U.S. has intervened in what?

Ya know, I'm not even touching questionable domestic policies of the U.S. government. I'm just limiting my perspective to foreign policy as it relates to the middle east and the present war in Iraq. I'm using other historical events as a basis for making hypothesis, but I'm certainly not dancing around the truth.

Is it not true that the U.S. supported Iraq in its war against Iran? If I'm wrong, please correct me.

Is it not true that Saddam Hussein was Iraqi leader of the time?

Is it not true that present tensions in the middle east existed during that time period?

Step in and point out my errors, at any time you like.

Ya know, I'm not sitting in front of a history book as I type this, but I'm not surfing "conspiracy" sites either. I'm just relating history.

Is it not true that Iraq and the U.S. were once on friendly terms, and that they were once allies against a common enemy? Iran?

Is it not true that the Iran/Iraq war caused great hardship to Iraq's economy?

Is it not true that Iraq invaded Kuwait as a means of addressing their economic woes?

Is it not true that Saddam Hussein enjoyed some of his greatest popularity among the Iraqi people, following the Gulf war?

Is it not true that the Gulf war and ensuing economic sanctions on Iraq caused even further harm to Iraq's economy?

Like I said, ITN, jump in and correct me at any time you so desire. Or perhaps the truth hurts?

 

[Just the Facts]

Re: RE: Why are American live

The point I think people are trying to make here, is that the U.S. knew what Saddam's regime was like before they handed over the weapons. The U.S. knew of the tensions in that part of the world, and the U.S. provided the weapons for a specific purpose. The argument that you can't put some of the blame on the supplier, is feeble at best.

U.S. support for Iraq was minimal, in fact negligible. Most of his weapons were supplied by the USSR. His chemies I'm pretty sure I read he got from Germany and France. Way too much is made of the U.S. - Saddam relationship.

 

[Simpleton]

Re: RE: Why are American live

The point I think people are trying to make here, is that the U.S. knew what Saddam's regime was like before they handed over the weapons. The U.S. knew of the tensions in that part of the world, and the U.S. provided the weapons for a specific purpose. The argument that you can't put some of the blame on the supplier, is feeble at best.

U.S. support for Iraq was minimal, in fact negligible. Most of his weapons were supplied by the USSR. His chemies I'm pretty sure I read he got from Germany and France. Way too much is made of the U.S. - Saddam relationship.

And this minimal U.S. support comprised of what?

I was just a wee lad when I watched the inquiry into the Iran Contra scandal on television, but I remember the whole affair like it was yesterday. The U.S. was playing both sides of the fence. They even supplied arms to Iran.

What is Oliver North doing these days anyway? We know what Ronald Reagan is doing.

 

[Just the Facts]

Re: RE: Why are American live

And this minimal U.S. support comprised of what?

I was hoping you would tell me. I'm aware of stories about anthrax. Also a fair bit of satellite and other intelligence to help against Iran.

The U.S. was playing both sides of the fence. They even supplied arms to Iran.

Amazing what the rich will do to get richer.

What is Oliver North doing these days anyway? We know what Ronald Reagan is doing.

He's a syndicated columnist.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Why are American live

The point I think people are trying to make here, is that the U.S. knew what Saddam's regime was like before they handed over the weapons. The U.S. knew of the tensions in that part of the world, and the U.S. provided the weapons for a specific purpose. The argument that you can't put some of the blame on the supplier, is feeble at best.

U.S. support for Iraq was minimal, in fact negligible. Most of his weapons were supplied by the USSR. His chemies I'm pretty sure I read he got from Germany and France. Way too much is made of the U.S. - Saddam relationship.

THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

This is so true.

 

[Simpleton]

Re: RE: Why are American live

And this minimal U.S. support comprised of what?

I was hoping you would tell me. I'm aware of stories about anthrax. Also a fair bit of satellite and other intelligence to help against Iran.

I'll take a look later. Maybe I can find some information that will quantify America's role in that war more precisely.

 

[Just the Facts]

Re: RE: Why are American live

And this minimal U.S. support comprised of what?

I was hoping you would tell me. I'm aware of stories about anthrax. Also a fair bit of satellite and other intelligence to help against Iran.

I'll take a look later. Maybe I can find some information that will quantify America's role in that war more precisely.

I posted a table here about a year ago that gave a breakdown of international military support for Iraq over the years. Just a compilation of dollar figures though. I'll see if I can find it again.

 

[Simpleton]

Re: RE: Why are American live

And this minimal U.S. support comprised of what?

I was hoping you would tell me. I'm aware of stories about anthrax. Also a fair bit of satellite and other intelligence to help against Iran.

I'll take a look later. Maybe I can find some information that will quantify America's role in that war more precisely.

Okay, here's what I found:

The Iran/Iraq war began in 1980 and ended in 1988.

In March 1981, the U.S. approved the sale of five Boeing jet airliners to Iraq, removed Iraq from its list of terrorism-supporting nations, and extended Iraq a $400 million credit guarantee on U.S. exports.

In November 1984, the U.S. restored diplomatic relations with Iraq.

In 1986, the U.S. established a direct Washington-Baghdad link to ensure faster delivery of intelligence from American satellites. At the same time, the U.S. was urging Iraqi officials to carry out more attacks on Iranian economic targets.

"By August 1987, the U.S. had an aircraft carrier, a battleship, six cruisers, three destroyers, seven frigates, and numerous supporting naval vessels in or near the Gulf." This meant that Iraq could strike at Iranian ships in the Gulf, and Iran would be prevented from retaliating because of U.S. protection.

"On chemical weapons, the Security Council passed no resolution. The United States condemned the use of chemical weapons, but declined to support any Council action against Iraq. The Council did issue a much less significant "statement" in 1985 condemning the use of chemical weapons, but without mentioning Iraq by name"

I would also add that the U.S. had reflagged Kuwaiti ships and was protecting those ships. And that the Soviet supply of arms to Iraq was carried out over land through Kuwait.

The U.S. had initially refused to reflag the Kuwaiti ships, but reconsidered after the Soviet Union had agreed to protect Kuwaiti interests.