Baghdad's maternity hospital hit in airstrike killing one civilian - page 3

A Red Crescent maternity hospital in Baghdad's Mansour area - along with the nearby trade center complex and offices housing the Pharmacist and Teachers' Union were hit by at least three missiles on... Read More

  1. by   epg_pei
    I hope I understand your point. I'll answer with a hypothetical.

    The US is being overrun by a vastly superior military force. Will the military be dispersed to protect the citizenship, or concentrated to hold key military/political/industrial assets. Where did GW head on 9/11? To an airborne command center. Whereabouts unknown. Not as big as an island I agree.

    See? I doubt very much SH wants to protect much of his population. I'm pretty sure the hardcore military units would shoot civilians to scare the remainder and embarass the coalition. But it's war, and from a military standpoint, it's not practical to do what you say. In the same circumstances, your own government wouldn't either.
  2. by   Mkue
    Patrick,

    Washington was targeted on 9/11, Pres Bush wanted to return to Washington and was advised not to, he did later return that evening against advice to address the American people. Which he did.

    We saw him "live" every day after that.
  3. by   epg_pei
    So it's "advisable" in the Presidents case, and "cowardliness" in Husseins case? If Washignton were being bombed indescriminantly, would he have been "live" every night? Do you see the double-standard? Or just refuse to accept it?
  4. by   Mkue
    We were attacked by Terrorists Patrick. Our leader would not have ordered hundreds of Americans to be executed.

    Who is the bad guy here?

    Iraq is harboring terrorists, the evidence is mounting.
  5. by   Mkue
    SH had a chance to surrender, US had no warning that we would lose over 3,000 people.

    Maybe you have to be from the US to understand that.
  6. by   epg_pei
    Originally posted by mkue
    We were attacked by Terrorists Patrick. Our leader would not have ordered hundreds of Americans to be executed.

    Who is the bad guy here?

    Iraq is harboring terrorists, the evidence is mounting.
    Marie, you're getting ahead of yourself. Where was the President, when he was under perceived threat? Hiding in a plane, somewhere over the...wait, we don't even know where Air Force One was. GW was Guy Incognito for a while there. So, you can slant it anyway you like, he didn't want to be found anymore than Hussein does right now.

    Under the threat of imminent destruction of the government of the United States, by an overwhelming force, what would your President do? Are you that sure you know what lengths your government would go to?

    Iraq harbors terrorists? Now is that Hussein's government, or the areas of Iraq not controlled by Hussein? What evidence is mounting? Whose evidence? I keep hearing claims, but I haven't heard of any evidence corroborated by independant authorities that terrorists are/were supported/financed by the government of Iraq. Saudi Arabia, now there's another kettle of fishies.
  7. by   epg_pei
    Originally posted by mkue
    SH had a chance to surrender, US had no warning that we would lose over 3,000 people.

    Maybe you have to be from the US to understand that.
    Again you're directly drawing the link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, when such a link has not been proven to exist. I sincerely regret that this loss of life occurred, I do. You know my country stood by yours in that time, and did what we could. But it's like one of my classmates, who is an international student from Africa, said the other day.

    "The US thinks that 9/11 was an act of war. But the US does not really understand what real war on their soil means." (more or less)
  8. by   Mkue
    Patrick, you might want to check out some other threads on this forum, r/t evidence of Terrorists in Iraq.

    Anyway, comparing SH to Pres Bush is like apples to oranges, I would be here all night telling you everything you already know about SH, so what is the point.

    You blow in here every so often really angry. Spill the beans, let us know what you really think? What is your hatred against American Govt? is it just the War?.

    Feel free to PM me.
  9. by   epg_pei
    Originally posted by mkue
    Patrick, you might want to check out some other threads on this forum, r/t evidence of Terrorists in Iraq.

    Anyway, comparing SH to Pres Bush is like apples to oranges, I would be here all night telling you everything you already know about SH, so what is the point.

    You blow in here every so often really angry. Spill the beans, let us know what you really think? What is your hatred against American Govt? is it just the War?.

    Feel free to PM me.
    I didn't think I was that angry really. Blowing in? If I was here everyday posting a particular slant, would that be better?

    Anyway, I don't think I'll check thread on this board for any unbiased information. We've both got our biases, and it looks very unlikely they'll change anytime soon. I understand that SH is a fairly cordial fellow, at least according to the people who have chatted with him. Which is not to say he isn't a psychopathic (sociopathic?) murderer. On the other hand, do you really know what GW is thinking?

    The thing that bothers me the most, is your willingness to toe the official line, to spew the same view spoonfed to you by your media/governmen/military. Is it right or wrong? Hell, I don't know! But I expect you as a nurse to be more descriminating, skeptical, to take things with a grain of salt, instead of just regurgitating the Party line like another apparatchik.

    I like Americans. I spent a couple of years down there doing contract work in another industry. I want(ed) to return to the US after I graduate to see the beauty and the wonders that are America. But this war, and the attitude of many has me worried. Are Americans the sensible, fair-minded people I thought they were? I want to think most are.
  10. by   Mkue
    Nothing is spoon fed Patrick and not toeing the party line either. My opinions about "this war" are based on my background and belief in the "Just War" theory. Which really has little to do with the government until "all means have been exhausted".

    I think that is what this is all about..whether one believes this is a Just War or not. It's not about who the President is or the party, at least for me.
  11. by   natsfanrn
    Originally posted by epg_pei
    Under the threat of imminent destruction of the government of the United States, by an overwhelming force, what would your President do? Are you that sure you know what lengths your government would go to?
    I sure as heck know that the government of the US would not execute its own citizens and use women and children as human shields, no matter what the threat.

    I truly understand the position and arguments coming from those who believe we should have settled this diplomatically (though I may not agree), but I will never understand those who think Saddam is an ok guy. Cordial? Is dipping people in battery acid cordial? Is cutting off people's tongues cordial? How can you possibly argue that this is not a cruel regime?!
  12. by   Mkue
    Originally posted by mkue
    Nothing is spoon fed Patrick and not toeing the party line either. My opinions about "this war" are based on my background and belief in the "Just War" theory. Which really has little to do with the government until "all means have been exhausted".

    I think that is what this is all about..whether one believes this is a Just War or not. It's not about who the President is or the party, at least for me.
    It was not until the middle ages that St Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274) addressed much of Augustine's thinking, revised it and, in his work the Summa Theologicae, distilled the criteria for declaring a just war. The terms were defined as having a just cause, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, and having a reasonable chance of success and an end proportional to the means used.

    (pulled from another thread I posted on) This is where I'm coming from, not the US Govt, although I do support Pres Bush, because I believe in this philosophy, not everyone does and I can understand that.
  13. by   epg_pei
    Originally posted by kardut
    I sure as heck know that the government of the US would not execute its own citizens and use women and children as human shields, no matter what the threat.

    I truly understand the position and arguments coming from those who believe we should have settled this diplomatically (though I may not agree), but I will never understand those who think Saddam is an ok guy. Cordial? Is dipping people in battery acid cordial? Is cutting off people's tongues cordial? How can you possibly argue that this is not a cruel regime?!
    Those who ahve met with Hussein describe him as being so. It has nothing to do with whether his regime is cruel or not. As far as the US government is concerned, you sure as heck CANNOT be sure an administration would not do such things, if the gravity of a situation were severe enough. To say so implies you have a superduper crystal ball unavailable to the rest of us.

close