Koyaanisqatsi

Setting aside the fact that Hussein had nothing to do with the WTC disaster (as Bin Laden's own hatred and public denouncement of Hussein indirectly proves), since the majority of idiots in this country still think they are linked, have we killed enough Iraqis yet or do we still need to kill more?

What's the acceptable ratio? Five to one? Ten to one? A hundred to one?

Anyone?

Ruy Lopez

Have a mind to agree that there exists indeed in the American subconscious (or inadmissible consciousness) as well as in the Israeli mind relative to Palestinians, an urge to kill a multiple number in exchange for their own dead or injured.

The Israeli Palestinian ratio seems to be ideally 5 to 1 but in practice averages 4 to 1. After a Palestinian attack, Israeli forays do not stop until the ratio is approached.

I have no idea what the US ratio is. That subconscious may not be satisfied yet. I remember a very old WWII movie set in Holland, I think, where 40 Nazi officers/men were killed by a resistance terror bomb. The Nazis collected 400 in a square and eventually machine-gunned them, a ten to one ratio.

Krieger

US bombing killed around 4000-5000 civilians in Afghanistan.

Currently there have been 1152-1388 Iraqi civilians killed so far.

fatherphil

almost but not quite yet. give us time.
disaster!? boy have you disparaged the word.

Zar

Yes, let us not mince words. The WTC incident was an attack. Nothing more, nothing less.

This does not mean that aggresive "war" is not also criminal, but I don't want to even pretend that the WTC was anything but that.

Larry

I say, pound them all into submission....whatever it takes. Maybe they'll wake up and join the rest of the civilized world.

Syria.....You're next!

sir drinks-a-lot

Really? Hussein had nothing to do with the WTC disaster? What is your proof?

The fact that you typed the word "nothing" in boldface?

Bin Laden's public denouncement of Hussein? I am sure his only motive was honesty.

Koyaanisqatsi, where are your critical thinking skills? Is this all you have to bring to the table?

SanDiegoAtheist

Bear in mind that there has probably been 10-20x more than that Iraqi soldiers killed - and Iraq has a conscript army. The average Iraqi soldier was in the army because they'd be shot if they refused, and not for any love or loyalty to Hussein (and indeed, it appears that a large proportion of Iraqi forces did NOT fight for Hussein - it appears that many simply went AWOL or surrendered...but many, of course did not have the chance to do this).

While I'm sure that quite a few of those dead really were fighting for Hussein, most likely, the vast majority killed were killed without ever getting a chance to surrender - something that I'm sure many would have chosen (and indeed, something that those who DID survive the aerial assault had a chance to do and did).

It's difficult to surrender to a bomb, after all.

The point though is that simply wearing a uniform for the other side, while it absolves the US under the codes of war, doesn't make the dead person any less dead, or any less a person.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

lunachick

Has anyone elses irony meter just gone beserk? Mine has even broken the "extreme" reading.


You're kidding, right, Larry?

SanDiegoAtheist

Where is YOUR evidence sir?

bin Laden has issued Fatwah's calling for Hussein's death before. Dunno about YOU, but I find it hard to believe that, simply because Hussein hates the US as much as bin Laden, that they would ally themselves - especially since Hussein KNEW that Bush was itching to go in and finish his Dad's fight.

No offense, but "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" only works IF the two parties involved aren't already bitter enemies themselves.

There is NO evidence tying Hussein to 9/11 - not even the current administration has attempted to prove THAT link - despite the fact that the CIA and the FBI both spent a very large amount of time and money investigating any possible links to Hussein - and only the slimmest of evidence tying him at ALL to al Qaeda (IIRC, one of bin Laden's henchmen was treated at a hospital in Baghdad, and another one met an Iraqi agent ONCE in a neutral country). No Iraqi's were among the suicide hijackers (unlike Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, and Afghanistan). No funds of the many millions traced to al Qaeda have originated with the government, or members of the government of Iraq (unlike Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Pakistan). No al Qaeda bases have been found in areas of Iraq that were under Hussein's control (unlike Yemen, Pakistan, and ex-Afghanistan). No overt recruitment has been detected in Iraq (unlike, again, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan)

If there IS a link, no significant or convincing evidence has ever been produced by anyone to support it.

Now, on the other hand, there are HUGE amounts of ties between bin Laden and Saudi Arabia - not only is that country where the majority of his funds flow from and through, there are significant links between bin Laden and the highest levels of the religious hierarchy - a hierarchy, incidentally, which is APPOINTED by the monarchs of that country. Maybe we should invade Saudi Arabia next? Or perhaps Pakistan - after all, that is where MANY of his fighters are known to have escaped to after Afghanistan fell (although now that we're busy with Iraq, they seem to be seeping back into Afghanistan) - and of course, Pakistan is a great breeding ground for terrorists of all stripes, with their Madrassas.

Hussein's a tyrant - no mistaking that - and certainly an egomaniac who WISHES he could control his region - but tying him to al Qaeda simply doesn't hold any water.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist