Quote:
Originally posted by ctembreull
I think I'm going to frame that and put it on my wall. That's quite simply the most asinine statement I have yet to read on this board. Normally, I have to go to freerepublic to find this sort of sheer, unadulterated idiocy.
You and I will obviously never agree. Your intransigence awes me; your willingness to sacrifice as many as ten thousand people and possibly more upon the altar of political gain is the sort of attitude one expects from Saddam Hussein and his ilk, not the supposedly better-eduated, better-intentioned leaders of the West.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
|
First of all, please keep it civil. Calling me or my statements "idiotic" is insulting. Second of all, you obviously have no idea whatsoever what I mean...
I did not say that I was willing to sacrifice 5000 people for "political gain". I am willing to sacrifice 5000 people to gain freedom and security for 20 million other Iraqis. And I'm certainly willing to sacrifice 5000 people to save the lives of millions more. If you want to see those two positive effects as mere "political gain", that is *your* problem.
Fact: Saddam killed some 20,000 people a year, on average.
Fact: We *accidentally* killed some civilians, as unfortunately happens in wars.
Fact: The Iraqi army and irregulars killed civilians ON PURPOSE.
Fact: 5000 people is NOT a large number in this respect, especially when compared to the intensity of the conflict, the amount of bombs dropped, and the sheer barbarity of the opponent.
One might say that by invading Iraq, we *saved* 20,000 people a year, on average. Therefore, the net effect is positive. Yes, it is sad for the families of those slain, whether they were hit by US troops or Iraqi troops, but at least the rest of them will be able to live in peace, as soon as the situation has calmed down.
If I remember correctly, *you* weren't willing to support this war, and wouldn't even like it if the UN were to go in. Does that mean that you would rather save these 5000 civilians, so that others (20000 a year!) may die at the hands of the Iraqi regime? Because that would be the result of not invading at all - inaction leading to *higher* civilian casualty numbers. Hardly moral, and most certainly asinine.
By the way: why do you keep inflating those numbers every time you mention them? It started with 5000, now it's definitely 10000, and perhaps even more... Do you have some independent statistics that I'm not aware of?