Ocean11 0 Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 I would have thought he had some right to be alive now. After all, he is an Iraqi in Iraq, a sovereign state, being attacked by a force of colonial invaders... Link to post Share on other sites
Glen Falting 0 Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 "colonial" invaders, that's a bit harsh, tyranical imperialists maybe, but "colonial? never! But seriously, none of the occupants had to fight back, they did and they died. They paid their money and they took their chances. To pick up an earlier theme on this thread, when does the use of force become justified? Or to put it another way, how many people have to die before those who are able, are morally forced to act and yes, if need be, risk the lives of innocents in removing a greater threat? Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 There's nothing moral about what you're talking about. That's all just rhetorical eyewash. Link to post Share on other sites
NoFakie 45 Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 "threat"? Link to post Share on other sites
Glen Falting 0 Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 "rhetorical eyewash." - I'm sorry, but I don't actually know what this is. Is it a good thing? As hard as they are, here are a couple of facts; Iraq is better off without Saddam, the middle east is better off without Saddam and so are the Iraqi people. It is a pity we had to be fed a whole lot of crap from the US/UK and even Aust before the US felt it could justify an attack on Iraq and despite its cynical self serving motives, Iraq and its people are better for it. It is very unfortunate that civilians died, but that is reality, nothing else was going to remove Saddam. I suppose Ocean you would prefer that the US not have invaded Afghanistan either, afterall, isn't that just another example of US colonialism? Link to post Share on other sites
barok 0 Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 Weegeoff - Me watching my own news? Better than you pulling it out of your magic hat. A quick websearch will reveal . . . ta da . . . On March 24, 1999, NATO launched an attack on Yugoslavia, making good on a long-standing threat to strike if Serbs refused to sign a peace plan for Kosovo. The assault included air- and sea-launched cruise missiles and bombing runs by American, German and French aircraft. And for the record, I never supported the US invasion of Iraq. I think the whole thing sucks. Dead 14 year-old kids included. As this kid was killed in a raid, he was probably just trying to protect himself. Link to post Share on other sites
base40 0 Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 Where's ObinL? He's far more dangerous than Saddam. Link to post Share on other sites
Weegeoff 0 Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 Barok March 24 1999!!! Like I said you came in at the end. Try Bosna and dig deep Link to post Share on other sites
Thunderbird2 0 Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 ? Whats that all mean then? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts