Fact is, there are far worse atrocities in the world that we manage to ignore on a daily basis. Most of Africa is starving and ridden with AIDS. Practically every country South of the equator on that entire continent is in the throes of civil war for the last fourty years or more. Genocide there is a way of life. Yet, for some reason, we leave those dictators and fascists pretty much to their own devices. I wonder why this brave nation doesn't send in the troops to relieve their suffering and show them the good that is American Democracy?

 

[QUOTE=matt_inva,Nov 22 2004, 12:11 AM] I just wish that Dexter Filkens, the NY Times reporter that wrote the article would have taken the time to research and the respect to accurately report that the Marine that he mentioned was in fact Lance Corporal Nick Ziolkowski.

 

I also wonder why? I also wonder why other countries like France or Germany are not doing it either? If fact. If you feel so strongly about it what have you done? I think that it may be an excellent opportunity for you to join the Peace Corp or someother aid NGO to provide support.

 

My service record or what I've done isn't under scrutiny here as far as I know. We were discussing why people in favor of war always end up falling back on the old saw about the "bravery of our troops" as if that was reason enough to go tear up countries in the first place.

Now we're talking about why countries with genocidal dictators but no oil manage to stay under the radar.

 

It's too friggin bad that our elite special forces could not have:
(a) assassinated Saddam Hussein
(b) stayed the H out of that country and let the Iraqi citizens take advantage of an opportunity for self-determination

 

Actually, it's really too bad that the moron dubya's father couldn't get the job done the first time around.

 

It was a catchphrase in the Vietnam debate, attributed to many people over the years.

It just seems odd to me that the same people who justify this war based on Hussein's butchery don't seem to know or care how many Iraqis have died in this war. Once again, the "we had to destroy the village to save it [from Communism, from Saddam, from terrorism, from....]" comes back to haunt us.

This war is, and has always been, about establishing a US client state on the Persian Gulf. Somewhere we can base troops, ships, and airplanes, so we can keep the oil flowing.

 

I would agree with that there are good reasons for dealing with Saddam, but the issues are complex and justifying the war by our past and current actions for humanitarian reasons just doesn't fit by itself. As I learned in school and from my parents we went to WWII after Pearl Harbor not when millions of people were being slaughtered in concentrations camps (I have also met many survivors and do not argue with your point of their gratitude to many). It has already been noted of other examples.
I think the question that needs to be asked is - What does justify a war? Obviously there are different answers. WMD seems to be one answer, but without the WMD do we still have the answer? Dealing with Saddam by itself good enough? Why wasn't that good enough for dad?
Ask yourself now do we have to go to all these other places and fight the fight? How about with our own children fighting?
I believe in freedom and will die fighting if someone wants to take mine or my children's freedom away. But what do we know of the life of the middle eastern family in their terms. Fighting for their freedom before they do is not the same. Do we target China next. Even W wouldn't do that with or without WMD. Pushing our freedom on the world has as many pitfalls as did the romans and the europeans have in pushing there lifestyles and government.

It seems that W does want to get out of Iraq. It sure seems like he needs help. It also seems like he is building a group of yes men/women around him. I hope its like the NY Yankees and we have enough power and money to make it happen and not like the San Diego Clippers where we are gonna have to pay for a long time. ( I would have said Phoenix Cardinals but I believe in Denny Green. See all of us can be blinded by faith and hope)
This is an opinion not an attack.
gtnag

 

France is quite active - one can argue about their (in)effectiveness - in their old sphere of influence in Africa. Just a few weeks ago, some of their peace keepers were killed in the Ivory Coast, where they were trying to support a truce between the government an a rebel militia.

Germany has soldiers in Afghanistan and a couple thousand soldiers in the Balkans as part of KFOR. Given that the army is being reduced to sligtly above 200,000 soldiers and that most of these today are draftees that may not be sent overseas unless they volunteer, there simply does not exist the capability to get involved anywhere else. Hell, even a simple mission like surveilling ship traffic outside the Persian Gulf has shown to be a problem since the German Navy's boats that were developed for the Baltic Sea are not really suited for the task/environment.

So before you make some blanket statements, you might want to do a little research about the facts.

 

I always wondered if a $1 billion reward for Saddam's death wouldnot have been more effective (certainly cheaper!). Let the mob take car of the problem.