Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grisu
So do us a favor and explain why the dead Iraqi civillians do not count and why the dead Afghan civilians are a "maybe". Both civilian killings by US forces are well documented (although not in the US and nobody wants those figures in this government).
|
I never said they didn't matter, did I? Why do you have such a hard time with what I write? It's not like I said something in passing - it's written down. You can read and re-read it, look up definitions, analyze the context of what has come before. Is all of that really so hard?
I implied that it was questionable that more Iraqis and American soldiers died as a result of Bush's actions than as a result of Clinton's actions (or, more aptly, inaction). In order to arrive at the number of American soldiers who died as a result of Clinton, you would have to factor in the soldiers at the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the soldiers who died in the Balkans (and, while we're at it, we should include all of the civilians killed by American bombs during that war into Clinton's tally), the soldiers who died on the USS Cole, and the soldiers who died in the Pentagon on 9.11. But, even after all of these American soldiers are tallied up, Bush probably has more dead on his hands. But not by much.
The list of Iraqis killed as a result of Clinton's (and the UN's) appeasement of Saddam Hussein must begin with those who died as a result of the unnecessarily prolonged sanctions - conservative estimates are in the hundreds of thousands. The list would include those whom Hussein and his sons were able to kill, rape, and torture from the time it was obvious he wasn't cooperating until the time Clinton left office. How can we even estimate that number? Whatever it is, I think Clinton wins on sanctions alone.
Quote:
|
And whi in the hell do you think you are claiming dead women, children and kids are better than to be a paper tiger?!
|
And where in the hell did you get that? Why in the hell would you think that being perceived as a paper tiger would reduce civilian deaths? If you knew anything of history you would know that appeasement is the quickest way to the morgue. It brought down the Roman Empire, condemned Europe to at least one long and bloody war, gave Japan the balls to attack Pearl Harbor and bin Laden the idea that he could drive a couple plane loads of civilians into some tall buildings. If you were concerned with civilian life you would stop trying to negotiate with terrorists.
Quote:
|
Maybe you should join the armed services and go where you condemn others to! I have seen Bosnia and can only imagine Iraq. My heart goes out the the civilians and my brothers in arms that die for ignorant assholes like you!
|
Oh, thank you. And fuck you, too. When did I become an asshole? When I started proving to you that you're full of shit? Or was I an asshole before that?
Quote:
|
Despotic rule yes, but this despotic ruler was more than once kept in power by the US governments throughout his rule by cash and weapons deals...
|
Blah, blah, blah, blah. The same old anti-US bullshit. Everything's the fault of the US, Grisu. There's nothing we haven't fucked up. So just keep babbeling.
Quote:
|
Maybe you should explain in the same stroke why the despot was not stopped at that time!
|
Why on God's green Earth would I ever want to explain anything to you? I'm an asshole, remember? Why would you ever want to hear from an asshole?
Oh, besides that, it's not the topic of debate. I know it can be hard when you're busy throwing around assumptions and ad hominem attacks, but do try to stay on tack.