Let's have fun debunking this...

[holiday]

This is a message I got back. Notice the top is her quoting something I said. Her message is wrong on so many accounts. Also what do you usually say to this very over used response to the war by people saying.. But SH was so horrible.


"...but it has never sat right with me spiritually that we would kills hundreds of thousands of people because *maybe* they could've eventually hurt us?..."

a) this did not happen. We did not kill hundreds of thousands of people. Please at least use facts when you express your concerns.

b) would you rather we left SH in charge by whom it DID happen and to his own people? What do you have against the Iraqi people that you'd wish them to stay under that brutality?!

[TlalocW]

1. Too easy

Especially b.

Ask her why Saddam killing his own people was okay under Reagan and Bush, what with their giving him not only weapons but satellite information but not now. Also, there are easily 10 other areas in the world that has someone in charge at least as brutal as Saddam Hussein (including our friends, Saudi Arabia). Is she in favor of invading them as well? If not, what does she have against the people in those countries?

TlalocW

[MADem]

5. Also, we had SH boxed in with a no fly zone

The guy couldn't leave his palace without a satellite taking pictures of him...we probably knew when he took a crap. Well, gee, we know all that NOW, but our children are coming home in boxes a hundred at a pop, closing in on two thousand, for that same result. We now get LESS OIL from Iraq than we did before the war--their production capability has been seriously impaired, and terrorism against pipelines continues.

And the argument about SELECTIVE brutal leaders should of course, include PERVEZ MUSHARREF. He's a real beaut!

[Cocoa]

2. it's tricky

though bogus, the "Saddam is bad" argument is effective.

You might want to mention how the people who are saying Saddam is bad now, supported him through his worst atrocities in the 80's.

Also mention how the humanitarian argument wasn't the original reason for the war.

[TlalocW]

4. Right. Forgot that

The original reasons for going in were Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al-Qaida - neither of which were true. It was later changed to acquiring materials to create weapons of mass destruction, and then basically to wanting to have weapons of mass destruction. Along the way, Bush even said that Saddam could remain in power if he were more forthcoming about the weapons he didn't have so it was never about freeing the Iraqi people, and thousands of deaths have been caused by Bush's lies.

TlalocW

[bryant69]

3. This is their best argument

It's largely emotional but it works very well. "So you would rather have Saddam Hussein back in power?"

The tricky problem is that the counter arguments (Well lots of other nations have brutal dictators do you want to take them down? Are you sure you want us to be the worlds policeman?) are more intellectual and less emotional.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Lerkfish]

8. some answers to the tough question...

1. It wasn't up to the US to remove Saddam from power.
2. Sanctions and inspections were working, as has been conclusively proven by lack of WMDs
3. the largest number of deaths under Saddam's rule occurred when the US pulled OUT after the first Gulf War, after stirring up groups to overthrow Saddam but not sticking around to support those groups.
4. We are fast approaching the number of Iraqis tortured, held without trial or slaughtered that Saddam boasted...and in a much shorter amount of time. He had decades. We've only been at it a short time.
5. Saddam protected the economic infrastructure of the country: there was drinkable water, food, electricity and ways for people to support themselves. Our preemptive invasion has destroyed much of that, and is only rebuilding it by lining the pockets of war profiteers that are bush family friends.
6. During the Iran/Iraq war, the US funded and supplied weapons of mass destruction to Saddam to fight against Iran. Oddly, the US did the same with Iran. In this way, not only was the US directly complicit in the excesses of the rule of Saddam, but we provided the bullets, gas and bodybags.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. Under Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi people had

electricity and running water, there were no suicide bombings killing random civilians, and women weren't afraid to go around unveiled.

Now they have no infrastructure, between the insurgent factions and the common criminals and trigger-happy American troops, people are dying in the streets everyday, and Islamic militants are forcing women to cover up.

You might point that out.

[jdots]

7. walk away from them ,they have no mind to change.

don't waste your time,they understand violence,fear and money
if someone is so shut down that they voted for chimp,they are like talking to a roll of shag carpet.

[jdots]

11. I am sorry that was very lame of me to type that.

it's just frustrating for me to talk to republicans now more than ever and some of them used to be friends.

[BlueEyedSon]

9. 3 points.

1. We HAVE killed 100k.

100,000 Civilian Deaths Estimated in Iraq

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 29, 2004; Page A16

One of the first attempts to independently estimate the loss of civilian life from the Iraqi war has concluded that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians may have died because of the U.S. invasion.

The analysis, an extrapolation based on a relatively small number of documented deaths, indicated that many of the excess deaths have occurred due to aerial attacks by coalition forces, with women and children being frequent victims, wrote the international team of public health researchers making the calculations.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html



2a. Saddam was at his most brutal (using chem weapons etc) when he was our ally. At the very least we knew about his atrocities AT THE TIME THEY WERE occurring. At best, we were silent. At worst, we approved. Americans have a very short memory for international affairs.

2b. There are places in the world where genocide is happening NOW. Iraq was not a great place to be a dissident, but there was no genocide occurring at the time we "invaded". If saving lives was the point we should have picked a different target. Hey, that money would have paid for a whole lot of non-military intervention in famines and epidemics (AIDS)... we could have saved MILLIONS of lives, cheaper and with better foreign relations outcomes.

2c. We are not freeing the Iraqi people, we are building 14 permanent bases and a 1.5 billion dollar embassy. We are making Iraq safe for our army of occupation.


3. The UN, US congress and US public were shown falsified evidence of an imminent danger of WMD/NBC strikes with a 45 minute readiness. That is why we invaded Iraq, not "freedom". Undertaking a war is very costly, in dollars and American lives. We were lied into an unnecessary war, and they Government-Corporate-Media complex are continuing to lie in various ways to hide the original lie(s) and keep public opinion from going negative. Our leaders lied about the most serious decision a country can make.... are we going to let them get away with it by placating us with BS-retroactive-humanitarian-justifications?

[texastoast]

10. "Stay under that brutality"

Why don't we ask the families of the at least (and this is a very low--and I'm sure wrong--guv figure) 16,000 dead Iraqis if they believe they are better off now? What does she have against the Iraqi people to put them under our brutality which has resulted in orphans and many maimed people who will be a burden to the rest of their families and society? No pain, no gain--get over it?

And we cannot begin to talk about the deaths resulting from the destruction of the infrastructure.

Shrub has created national karma that we won't live to clean up and a legacy our children will suffer for a long time. Worst president ever!

[ClassWarrior]

12. "his own people"...

Ask her to provide some documentation on this claim. She'll probably come back with gassing the Kurds during Bush I. At the time, IIRC, SH was fighting a civil war with the Kurds, who consider themselves more Turkish that Iraqi. So when he gassed "his own people," he was fighting a hostile force. It's like saying Abe Lincoln killed "his own people" when he sent troops to fight against the Confederacy.

NGU.