Phlosphr, who should decide whether the story of the five million people who don’t have to live in fear any more outweighs the atrocities of war? Should those five million people decide? Or the rest of the world? Or just one country?
I do hope the coalition forces get Saddam Hussain, and end his malevolent regime once and for all. And I hope it’s worth all the atrocities, as well as all the anti-American sentiment which these atrocities inspire.
This child’s suffering is tragic. But how about this man’s suffering: In Basra Jail - Torture Scenes ?
Is a war to depose a Saddam Hussein (or a Milosevic or Kim Jong Il, etc) the right response? I don’t know. Is sitting on our asses with our fingers in our ears waiting for the UN to get around to addressing these thugs the right response? I don’t think so.
I cursed President Bush’ name when he started the attack. He antagonized the global community, rather than building a true international coalition. However, the global community needs to address the Husseins of the world, and it isn’t doing so. (Of course, going after Iraq and not North Korea leaves President Bush wide open to accusations of ‘war for oil’).
And Reuben, the doves are just as impervious to rational argument. Neither side holds the high ground.
Because you’re associating the kid with your pov and hoping it changes a few minds to your way of thinking – are you assuming the kid, if asked, would say ’If getting my arms back means having Saddam back, lets do it !’. You’re imposing your agenda on the kid and his misfortune. That’s exploitation.
But, as I said, I don’t think you’re doing that intentionally. Kids, the media, emotive imagery in general …… it’s a minefield, IMHO.
Anyone see George Bush kissing that baby at Belfast airport yesterday ?
And one point that is being really missed here is that he’s already learned the value of healing over killing:
He will end up getting the best in medical care in the States when the media is done with it (with our tax dollars for whatever isn’t covered by private donations), and although he may never wield a scalpel, chances are he’ll never wield a weapon either.
This is the reality of war. How could they not know they were surrounded by their own military and therefore in peril because of it? This is war though; people get maimed,. and other people die.
Yeah, shame on Reuban for putting a human face on this war. Damn him, he might offend some people who would rather wave a flag than be reminded that war is a dirty, ugly business. Damn him for pointing out that this is not what liberation is supposed to look like. Damn him for suggesting thay people “of good taste and decency” might not be all that tasteful and decent, after all.
Very true, D_Odds. Perhaps if it didn’t take a war to get people to care, we would be better able to resolve such problems diplomatically instead of militarily.
Here is an example of hopefully what the war will stop which otherwise would be continuing indefintely.
It is sad that non-combatants have to suffer for what others do. The ultimate responsibility lies with those that continue to support a dictator.
Amen. It’s important that both hawks and doves look at both types of pictures. It’s a reminder that we’re fighting ugly with ugly. And damn us all for getting to this point in the first place.
Wow, Reuben. What would you say about the 500,000 children that died in Iraq during the sanctions of malnutrition while Saddam built presidential palaces and stock piled food?
http://www.globalpolicy.org/securit...aq1/irakids.htm
Feeling any better now?
I in no way intended to diminish the plight of this child. It’s a horrible situation.
The culpability for the thousands who died during the sanctions lies with the countries who imposed those sanctions.
Actually, skankweirdall, a lot of people blame the U.S. as well as Saddam for those deaths. Saddam, being a tyrant, was unaffected and the victims were mostly innocent children.
I hope that this war will at least mean no more sanctions - that would certainly be one positive outcome.
The point is that we had no reason or right to invade this country in the first place. That kid had his family killed and got his arms blown off for GWB’s approval ratings and nothing else
DtC:
Which countries are those? Sanctions were imposed by the UN, no? So that makes culpability lie with… The UN?
The kid’s tragedy is horrible, no doubt about it. It might make you feel better to think that there are tens of thousands more children who will not be starved, tortured, or executed by Saddam’s regime.
Cite?
tdn, Reuben and pennylane, right now I’m recording images off my TV that I know will be reprinted over and over, and one of which will probably be the picture of the year: people gleefully swinging a sledgehammer at a statue of Saddam Hussein, which has a noose around its neck.
Don’t try to tug at my heartstrings now. No one is going to get me to say that this war is wrong because one child was maimed, no matter how badly; not when I can balance that with the knowledge of the tens of thousands of other children who not only were not injured, but will now benefit from education and health care and freedom. I’m very sorry for Ali Ismaeel Abbas, but he has his life. And with or without arms, it will still be a better life than he would have had under Saddam’s regime.
You know, not everyone in the world weeps over a dead bird the way Americans do. I’m thinking of an article I once read, ten years after Lockerbie. There was this kid (at the time) whose house was hit by falling debris and his family killed (he was at a friend’s house when it happened). Newsweek sent a reporter to interview him, who was surprised that the now-adult didn’t express any bitterness. But that’s just the way his culture had conditioned him: accept loss and move on. Not forget, mind you; but not wallow in grief. Perhaps we Americans should also stop climbing up on the cross so often.
Oh come now, blind partisan hatred doesn’t need a cite.
Yes.
Improper use of a cite request. You don’t ask for cites for pit opinions. But since you raised the issue, why don’t you cite me a single legitimate reason for the invasion?
I actually do think it’s a fortunate side-effect of this invasion that a brutal regime has been ended, but I don’t believe it was the real motivation for the invasion and it’s not a legal justification in any case. Should we now invade Cuba? Iran? North Korea? Would conservatives have supported a Clinton led mission to Rwanda? When did we suddenly start caring about oppressed people? Liberia, a country I lived in for two years, is currently under a military dictatorship led by a man every bit as ruthless and megalomaniacal as Hussein. It would not be very difficult for the US to liberate Liberia. Why aren’t we doing it? Could it be because Liberia doesn’t have any oil?
fixed quotation tags - ub
Oh please. Do you people have any idea of the amount of horror visited on civilians in World War II alone? The United States is going to unprecedented lengths to aviod civilian deaths. For the cynical among you who think that the United States is governed by evil and greedy people, consider this. Those precision bombs cost a lot of money. If we were going to just steal the oil, we could do it a lot cheaper with dumb bombs and bullets. But like it or not, lefties, we are doing the right thing. I don’t have the time or patience to lead you by the hand through all the reasons that Saddam had to go. You know they exist, your ideology just won’t let you use logic and common sense to acknowledge them.
I was being gracious. If you had prefaced it with * In my delusional partisan opinion I believe…* I wouldn’t have asked for the cite.
fixed quotation tags - ub