What price Saddam?

I would give MY life to remove Saddam

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
E

error_unknown

Guest
#1
No need to post any intellectual or educated nonsense here. Just answer the poll (assume of course that Saddamie is not yet in the cooler in Qatar).

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PriceOfRemovingHussein.htm
How Much Is Hussein's Departure Worth?

by Harry Browne. May 27, 2004

Despite all that's gone wrong with "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (such as the lack of freedom for Iraqis), we still hear over and over that "the world is a better place with Saddam Hussein gone."

Is it really?

Everything in life has a price — even getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Any goal or result must be compared with the price to be paid — in order to determine whether the goal is, or was, worth it. No goal can be said to be worth any price.

In the case of Hussein, the price involves the tens of billions of dollars of our tax money that have been lavished on the task of driving one man from power — and on cleaning up the mess that operation caused.

Name your Price

But, even more important, the price comes in the number of human lives that are snuffed out.

So we must ask ourselves:

How many human lives are a proper price to pay for the removal of Saddam Hussein?

Would you say removing Hussein would be worth it if a million people — Americans and Iraqis — had to die to achieve it?

If the answer is no, let's try a lower price. How about 100,000?

If that's too many, how about 10,000 lives being snuffed out to remove one man from power?

The Relevant Question

Let's make is simpler. Rather than throwing numbers around, let's ask just one question:

Would removing Hussein be worth it if the cost were just one human life — but that life was yours?

Would you be willing to die to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq?

If the answer is no, then anything you have to say about the world being a better place now — about collateral damage — about the glory of soldiers sacrificing their lives for their country — is meaningless. You're not willing to pay the price. You're like so many people who believe various government programs are wonderful — provided someone else pays for them.

Everyone who has died so far in Iraq had a life that meant as much to him as your life means to you. But now that life is gone, done, finished, nevermore.

By supporting the war in Iraq, you have supported the idea that it's okay to kill people — other people.

But until you're willing to volunteer to be one of those killed, your words don't carry any weight.
 
#2
Qtrs - you strange, STRANGE man.

I think you'll find that a great many people on this site actually went to the sandpit to fight a war - and accepted the risk in doing so.

I would give MY life to remove Saddam

I voted YES because we are a professional Army (and Armed Forces) based on the highest principles of sacrifice, service and loyalty.

This article you have posted is all well and good, but would be better aimed at a bevy of armchair Generals - not nasty, extremely well trained kilers that you will find on this site.

By supporting the war in Iraq, you have supported the idea that it's okay to kill people — other people.
That's what happens in wars - people die.

General George Patton said:
I want you to remember that no son of a bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
Apologies for the touch of melodrama.
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#4
Plant-Pilot said:
Generalquarters said:
But until you're willing to volunteer to be one of those killed, your words don't carry any weight.
You said it. Were you there? Some of us were.
I think the point Harry Browne is making, and I am implicitly agreeing with, is that the removal of Saddamie was not worth one Brit, American, Polish, Japanese, Spanish (did I forget any of the coalition members?) life. IF one is of the opinion that Saddamies removal was required, then is that particular one willing to give their life for the cause. This poll seems to imply that you all are still a little burnt having been evicted from Iraq in the '20s.
There is a corallary to this, would Bush (a coward as evidensed by his actons during Nam), along with Cheny, Blair et alii give their lives for this cause? I think not. Out of the entire US Congress there is only ONE member that has an ofspring in the US military. How about your Members of Parliment - any ofspring hanging in Brit military units in Iraq these days? :roll:
 
#5
Just what the hell is your point? All premature deaths are a waste, especially those brought about by gunfire. Whether you disagree with the guy you are fighting with, it matters not.
NOBODY wants to kill or be killed. Many of us accept that it is the ultimate extension of our chosen role in the military, but to offer to die is stupid. Suicide missions are not good for morale. If asked, nobody would give their life for most causes. Stupid question, really. Your 'poll' is almost as pointless as your response. Also, doubt you can connect any of it to historical Iraq. Most of us don't remember the 20's, never mind care a jot about what happened then. There was a big war after that - remember? Kind of focused the effort of the time.

Also - his name is Saddam. Not Sadammie. If you want to be taken 'seriously' then stop screwing about with names eg Britland.
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#6
Mr_C_Hinecap said:
Just what the hell is your point?My point is that there are at lest a couple of folks on your side and my side of the tank that believe there was not good reason to dethrone Saddam. And worse I believe the reasons stated (WMD, striking the Queen in 45 minutes, alQ and Iraqi link, et cet) have all turned out to be lies which factually indicts both Mr. Bush the coward any your Tony Blair. IF YOU BELIEVE THIS IS TRUE (and if you do not oh well) then is it not obvious that no life is worth the removal of Saddam the man?

All premature deaths are a waste, especially those brought about by gunfire. Whether you disagree with the guy you are fighting with, it matters not.
NOBODY wants to kill or be killed. Many of us accept that it is the ultimate extension of our chosen role in the military, but to offer to die is stupid. Suicide missions are not good for morale. If asked, nobody would give their life for most causes. Stupid question, really. Your 'poll' is almost as pointless as your response. Also, doubt you can connect any of it to historical Iraq. Most of us don't remember the 20's, never mind care a jot about what happened then. There was a big war after that - remember? Kind of focused the effort of the time.

Also - his name is Saddam. Not Sadammie. I will call him what I wish, the same for sh*t head Bush If you want to be taken 'seriously' then stop screwing about with names eg Britland.
As for B******d the point is well taken and I have discontinued it.
 
#7
Generalquarters said:
Mr_C_Hinecap said:
Just what the hell is your point?My point is that there are at lest a couple of folks on your side and my side of the tank that believe there was not good reason to dethrone Saddam. And worse I believe the reasons stated (WMD, striking the Queen in 45 minutes, alQ and Iraqi link, et cet) have all turned out to be lies which factually indicts both Mr. Bush the coward any your Tony Blair. IF YOU BELIEVE THIS IS TRUE (and if you do not oh well) then is it not obvious that no life is worth the removal of Saddam the man?

All premature deaths are a waste, especially those brought about by gunfire. Whether you disagree with the guy you are fighting with, it matters not.
NOBODY wants to kill or be killed. Many of us accept that it is the ultimate extension of our chosen role in the military, but to offer to die is stupid. Suicide missions are not good for morale. If asked, nobody would give their life for most causes. Stupid question, really. Your 'poll' is almost as pointless as your response. Also, doubt you can connect any of it to historical Iraq. Most of us don't remember the 20's, never mind care a jot about what happened then. There was a big war after that - remember? Kind of focused the effort of the time.

Also - his name is Saddam. Not Sadammie. I will call him what I wish, the same for sh*t head Bush If you want to be taken 'seriously' then stop screwing about with names eg Britland.
As for B******d the point is well taken and I have discontinued it.
Firstly there are always some who, no matter what is goíng on in the world, refuse to support the use of armed force in any context. Does that make all armed conflict wrong? Are we not a democracy? It doesn't matter if you like the man at the top or not, in our countries he's at the top because enough people said that at the time they wanted that person at the top. Until the next one is voted to replace him we do what they say, like it or not. We are after all a dicipined and professional army. (Stop sniggering at the back!)

As for Saddam, he has in the past brought his once prosperous country to it's knees with a bloody war with Iran, invaded a peaceful country without provocation, blatantly obstructed the work of UN inspectors, defied the peaceful requests by the UN to comply with UN resolutions, robbed killed and tortured his own people and used chemical weapons on his own people within his own borders. That at the very least is grounds for removing him from power in Iraq.

The WMD question? Saddam had all the chances. If he hadn't obstructed the UN inspectors the crisis wouldn't have occured. The fact that he had already had and used the chemical warfare capability meant he had to prove that he hadn't got that capability any longer.

His insistance to constantly play brinkmanship with the UN and the USA no doubt lead to his downfall. He lived in luxury while the rest of the country suffered in abject poverty and fear. You can only push so far when you have nothing to back it up with.

I know that there are plenty of very nasty leaders out there and the world may or may not be a better place if some of them were also removed. It might be that they don't push so much or know when to keep quiet. But I defy anyone to say that removing Saddam wasn't a worthy cause.

It is unfortunate, but inevitable that there will be loss of life on any operation of the size of Telic/Iraqi Freedom, and I know that it's not much consolation to the families of the forces lost but the numbers were mercifully few. A lot more people die over things a lot more trivial and a lot more tragic every day.
 
#8
GQ you call Bush a coward etc, your opinion. However, i'm interested to know what branch of the armed forces you served with....
 
#9
Generalquarters said:
This poll seems to imply that you all are still a little burnt having been evicted from Iraq in the '20s.
What? Are you feckin mad (rhetorical question)

And quite frankly, I couldn't care less what your views are about professional soldiers losing their lives on combat operations. You have no understanding or experience of such things - don't presume to comment on them - you have no credibility.

One more thing - my last on any of your hoplessly ill-informed and puerile polls and posts:

1. Stop quoting entire threads - you fucking cunt.

Out.
 

Latest Threads