Kerry vs Bush

Originally posted by Kubrat How do you get 1.7 million from 7000 + 200 000 + 1 000 000 + 300 000?  Anyway, that is pretty much irrelevant. But for America to be a liberator 100 000 deaths is not permited!  America went to liberate the Iraqi people, not kill 100 000 of them.

, I miscounted
Anyway, even more important is the fact that the largest part of these killings took place when Saddam was supported by the US.

Originally posted by Genghis Originally posted by mike81188 I think we can all agree that neither candidate was qualified to be a president, despite Bush's winning. We need a person who knows how to run a country not a monkey. I agree, so therefore I shall take on the role of President with emergency powers to deal with the problem with terrorists or social security, or something.  The important thing is the emergency powers.

 

I think we have found a solution to our differences here!

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Did Hussein ever kill 100,000 civilians over the course of a year and a half? A year and half?! just some minutes! The chemical bombs that Saddam dropped on the Iraqi city of Halabcheh killed the whole people of this city!

In Halabja between 4000 and 7000 people were killed. The total death count of Saddam's crackdown in the Kurds is 200.000. Furthermore 1 million people died in the Iran-Iraq war and 300.000 political opponents or other undesirables were killed.
So Saddam Hussein is responsible for an estimated 1.7 million people.

The chemical bombs that Saddam dropped on the Iraqi city of Halabcheh killed the whole people of this city!

It was that big?

I think we can all agree that neither candidate was qualified to be a president, despite Bush's winning. We need a person who knows how to run a country not a monkey.

Did Hussein ever kill 100,000 civilians over the course of a year and a half?

A year and half?! just some minutes!

The chemical bombs that Saddam dropped on the Iraqi city of Halabcheh killed the whole people of this city!

Let me see:

case 1: US troops drop a bomb on what you "suspect" it is a house that houses "terrorists". Civilians that live near by get killed (you know, women, children, elderly and other "collateral damage"). Good, bad or inevidable?

case 2: Nazis force civilians to march infrond of their troops as they advanse towards enemy positions. Using the same logic as you used to reply to the case 1 question try to answer this one. Fyi case 2 was considered a crime of war.

 

Originally posted by Genghis And Janus, I wouldn't say that I embrace double standards, but I do believe that the end justifies the means, for the end endures and the means are fleeting.

 

and that's exactly the justification terrorists apply for their own actions.

Originally posted by Genghis Originally posted by Tobodai Consider the ironoies of this when you look at the terrorists we are fighting, and how similair we are to them. That's totally out of line to compare elected American politicians to mass-murdering terrorists.

 

why? usually we rate deadliness based ont eh number dead, in numbers the US beats the terrorits, 74% of civilian casualties in Iraq are caused by coalition forces.  Where I living there I would certainly side with the force that killed less of my close family.

Although me takin gon this argument if misleading, I dont really care about Iraq and what form of government the people ther have, Im only converned with battling religious extremists in both Muslim and Christian worlds, and not doing unnecessary thing that drive up al Queada recruitment. 

The conservative mindset is so hilariously childish, actually I bet psychology studies would show conservatives reason like children, black and white, no gray areas, good and evil, you can always just kill all your enemies and you win.  Granbted theres alot I like about conservative ideology, and I used to like their foreign policy, but when you are fighting a people whos recruitment goes up every time you do something rash you cant afford to hedge your bets like that, it amy seem decisive, but tis not strategically sound. 

All this for the sake of "security" - well screw security! other things (must) have priority over it!

Yes other things do take precidence over security, namely morality. Bush won because he is a religious man, and John Kerry is a hypocritical douchebag. Not saying I support Bush though, my vote was for Dean.

but why is killing innocent people in a war justified while killing innocent people in a terrorist attack is not justified?

I believe Genghis believes that terrorism is justified if his side uses it, it's only not acceptable when used against him. Double standards rule the world.

Oh and take no offense Genghis, I'm just going by your opinions on military strategy in other posts, psychological warfare, chemical weapons........