Where's the compassion for Saddam's victims?

[Riprorin]

Over a million were killed in Saddam's wars and another million were killed at home.

If the liberals had their way, the tyrant would still be in power and the murders would be continuing.

Where's the compassion?

 

[Colt45]

kill yourself

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Colt45
kill yourself

Thanks for sharing!

All the best in the new year!

-Charlie

 

[Colt45]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Colt45
kill yourself

Thanks for sharing!

All the best in the new year!

-Charlie

The same to you :beer:

 

[Aimster]

We should invade Turkey too. They've killed a handful of innocents.

Funny how we always pick on the underdogs. Russia brutalized the Afghans and destroyed their country. What they did was much worse than what Saddam ever did.

 

[fornax]

It appears that the number of killed and maimed under the US occupation is approaching the number of killed under Saddam. The high-tech army is showing its adavantage: whereas Saddam needed many years to kill his victims, our army is getting the same job done in just a year or two! Where's your Christian compassion for the tens of thousands killed by the US army and their mercenaries, oh Riprorin?

 

[Aimster]

I just thought you should know Saddam was able to kill millions because the U.S supplied him with the weapons
..

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Over a million were killed in Saddam's wars and another million were killed at home.

If the liberals had their way, the tyrant would still be in power and the murders would be continuing.

Where's the compassion?

Who says liberals WANT Saddam in power and/or killing people?

You simplify situations too much. You assume that just because people oppose Bush approach that they support the only other alternative YOU can see, which is Saddam killing people. It's also a trade-off, having compassion isn't enough, you need a reasonable and efficient PLAN. Removing Saddam has cost HOW much money, time and people resources? How much effect would all that effort go to helping people in other situations around the world? Would that be a better use of our power?

 

[Ozoned]

Tthe compassion you are looking for was talked about Here

Its the thought that counts, you know...

 

[nageov3t]

:beer: for flamebait.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: loki8481
:beer: for flamebait.

Didn't seeing you decrying flamebait here.

Link

 

[SuperTool]

Maybe you should ask Rumsfeld where his compassion for saddam's victims was in the 80's.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Maybe you should ask Rumsfeld where his compassion for saddam's victims was in the 80's.

We could probably get france and russia involved here as well.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: loki8481
:beer: for flamebait.

Didn't seeing you decrying flamebait here.

Link

news flash: I don't read every single thread posted in P&N

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Maybe you should ask Rumsfeld where his compassion for saddam's victims was in the 80's.

We could probably get france and russia involved here as well.

Russia doesn't go around crying crocodile tears for Saddam's victims.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: loki8481
:beer: for flamebait.

Didn't seeing you decrying flamebait here.

Link

news flash: I don't read every single thread posted in P&N

Glad to see you read the important ones.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Maybe you should ask Rumsfeld where his compassion for saddam's victims was in the 80's.

We could probably get france and russia involved here as well.

Russia doesn't go around crying crocodile tears for Saddam's victims.

Well between france and russia, the us was only a minor player in iraq.

 

[yllus]

*shrugs* I think part of the general idea is because Iraq was supposedly taken over for nefarious imperialistic reasons. Seizing oil, kicking some Muslim ass, paying off Cheney's old company, kowtowing to our Israeli overlords...something lame and countlessly disproven like that.

The classic and most effective means of hegemony the United States has implemented in the world to date has been through purely financial and social influence. I would imagine that if Iraq was never invaded but instead the Bush administration diverted those trillions of dollars into the tsunami-affected region, many would be suspicious of the U.S. for taking advantage of a catastrophe to remake a part of the world in its image and spread its tentacles into the area. Religious relief agencies. New Western-style schools. Economic assistance to irrevocably bind the region into the world economy. The idea is that nobody ever donates that kind of money without some amount of self-interest involved, right?

There's also the thought that Iraq should have been left to deal with itself no matter what - if the citizens of the country want it so bad, let them shed their own blood for it! Seems like a pretty shortsighted view to me - one Saddam loyalist with a machine gun is the equal of many, many poorly armed/trained civilians, and the ensuing chaos would leave the country ripe for takeover by its neighbours. Someone would have to step in, and we all know who the natural candidate is for that.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Maybe you should ask Rumsfeld where his compassion for saddam's victims was in the 80's.

We could probably get france and russia involved here as well.

Russia doesn't go around crying crocodile tears for Saddam's victims.

Furthermore, neither Russia nor France attacked Iraq.
I would like to know where Rip's sympathy is for the innocent people the U.S has slaughtered in the quest for weapons of mass distraction.

Originally posted by: yllus
*shrugs* I think part of the general idea is because Iraq was supposedly taken over for nefarious imperialistic reasons. Seizing oil, kicking some Muslim ass, paying off Cheney's old company, kowtowing to our Israeli overlords...something lame and countlessly disproven like that.

The classic and most effective means of hegemony the United States has implemented in the world to date has been through purely financial and social influence. I would imagine that if Iraq was never invaded but instead the Bush administration diverted those trillions of dollars into the tsunami-affected region, many would be suspicious of the U.S. for taking advantage of a catastrophe to remake a part of the world in its image and spread its tentacles into the area. Religious relief agencies. New Western-style schools. Economic assistance to irrevocably bind the region into the world economy. The idea is that nobody ever donates that kind of money without some amount of self-interest involved, right?

There's also the thought that Iraq should have been left to deal with itself no matter what - if the citizens of the country want it so bad, let them shed their own blood for it! Seems like a pretty shortsighted view to me - one Saddam loyalist with a machine gun is the equal of many, many poorly armed/trained civilians, and the ensuing chaos would leave the country ripe for takeover by its neighbours. Someone would have to step in, and we all know who the natural candidate is for that.

Can you link me to some threads where you support attacking other countries where genocide is taking place, where a brutal leader oppresses his people? What about some countries in Africa? What about North Korea?
Come on, show me your argument here isn't a pile of horsehockey.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Maybe you should ask Rumsfeld where his compassion for saddam's victims was in the 80's.

We could probably get france and russia involved here as well.

Russia doesn't go around crying crocodile tears for Saddam's victims.

Furthermore, neither Russia nor France attacked Iraq.
I would like to know where Rip's sympathy is for the innocent people the U.S has slaughtered in the quest for weapons of mass distraction.

But there were content to sell iraq arms while the slaughter continued.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Maybe you should ask Rumsfeld where his compassion for saddam's victims was in the 80's.

We could probably get france and russia involved here as well.

Russia doesn't go around crying crocodile tears for Saddam's victims.

Well between france and russia, the us was only player in iraq.

Yes, and US said nothing when Saddam was doing the actual killing in the 80's and before, but now they suddenly remembered "the victims," when if is politically convenient.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Maybe you should ask Rumsfeld where his compassion for saddam's victims was in the 80's.

We could probably get france and russia involved here as well.

Russia doesn't go around crying crocodile tears for Saddam's victims.

Furthermore, neither Russia nor France attacked Iraq.
I would like to know where Rip's sympathy is for the innocent people the U.S has slaughtered in the quest for weapons of mass distraction.

But there were content to sell iraq arms while the slaughter continued.

You're arguing that the U.S. isn't guilty of same? Come on. Get real.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Maybe you should ask Rumsfeld where his compassion for saddam's victims was in the 80's.

We could probably get france and russia involved here as well.

Russia doesn't go around crying crocodile tears for Saddam's victims.

Furthermore, neither Russia nor France attacked Iraq.
I would like to know where Rip's sympathy is for the innocent people the U.S has slaughtered in the quest for weapons of mass distraction.

But there were content to sell iraq arms while the slaughter continued.

You're arguing that the U.S. isn't guilty of same? Come on. Get real.

US were only very minor players in arms sales to iraq. You only have to look at their army to deremine where they got most of their arms from.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: loki8481
:beer: for flamebait.

Didn't seeing you decrying flamebait here.

Link

That wasn't flame-bait. That was a perfectly legitimate inquiry into the priorities of today's so-called xians. I am saying: you people do not behave like xians, and perhaps you should not be referred to as xians at all.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Maybe you should ask Rumsfeld where his compassion for saddam's victims was in the 80's.

We could probably get france and russia involved here as well.

Russia doesn't go around crying crocodile tears for Saddam's victims.

Furthermore, neither Russia nor France attacked Iraq.
I would like to know where Rip's sympathy is for the innocent people the U.S has slaughtered in the quest for weapons of mass distraction.

But there were content to sell iraq arms while the slaughter continued.

You're arguing that the U.S. isn't guilty of same? Come on. Get real.

US were only very minor players in arms sales to iraq. You only have to look at their army to deremine where they got most of their arms from.

The arms sales may be minor, but the hypocrisy is huge. US was doing business with Saddam while he was doing the killing, and now wants to use those victims as poltiical pawns as well, after turning a blind eye or worse to their deaths.