Skip to main content

View Diary: Rep. Gibbons (R-NV): Liberals Should Be Human Shields in Iraq (412 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The U.S. military is the biggest murderer in Iraq (none)
    I doubt that the "terrorists" have killed even 10% of the total number of Iraqi civilians killed in the war. Most have been killed in U.S. air raids. Also, could it be that those who served as human shields in Iraq may have felt some special responsibility that it was their country doing the murdering?

    "Men use thought only to justify their wrongdoing, and employ speech only to conceal their thoughts." Voltaire

    by chimpwatch on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 04:47:15 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  So (none)
      the killing and destruction isn't the issue, it's who's doing it?  Apparently it's perfectly OK to bomb civilians as long as it isn't the US doing it.  Or is it a numbers game?  Below a certain number of deaths, the bombing is OK.  

      And here I thought there there might have been a moral principle involved rather than just another political statement.  

      I guess that they are simpily pundits.  Considering that they always leave before the bombing begins should make this obvious.

      I guess I was kinda' slow on the uptake!

      •  The U.S. started the killing and destruction (none)
        As a U.S. citizen, I feel a special responsibility when it is my government, a government that is supposed to be representing me, that is doing the murdering and torturing. What about you?

        "Men use thought only to justify their wrongdoing, and employ speech only to conceal their thoughts." Voltaire

        by chimpwatch on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 05:15:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  From the very begining (none)
          I saw an opportunity by a war in Iraq.  Not a guaranteed success, but definately an opportunity and an action that just might tip the stale mate in the middle east.

          I believe that an attempt, even if it fails, is better than no attempt.  I've said all along, wait 10 years and then we'll begin to get some idea of the result.  

          The US action may be instigating a change.  If it succeeds, wow!!!  If it doesn't, the world, as a whole, won't be any worse off.

          •  You saw an "opportunity" ? (4.00)
            First-off, let me guess that "opportunity" or not, you're NOT exactly writing from Camp Mosul right now.

            Second, you say it doesn't succeed, the world, as a whole, be any worse off?

            I'm not sure I should even bother to qualify that statement. You can't think of any ways that the world could end up worse off? I could give you 20 right now. "Change" is a tricky commodity.

            Finally, wait 10 years...sure, ok. But you can qualify anything that way. Had we waited 10 years Saddam's regime might have collapsed at the hands of the Iraqi people without a single American life having been lost.

            The Book of Revelations is not a foreign policy manual.

            by Dont Just Stand There on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 05:53:19 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  The U.S. has murdered 100,000 people in Iraq (none)
            I think that it's fair to say that they are "worse off," don't you?

            "Men use thought only to justify their wrongdoing, and employ speech only to conceal their thoughts." Voltaire

            by chimpwatch on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 06:09:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  There is no doubt (none)
              that differing opinions the opportunity to express them are one of the great things in this nation.  Maybe you are right, maybe I am right, but when the historians write their books, the future will probably lie somewhere in the middle, as is usually the case.

              And we will continue to muddle along, as is our heritage, as we have been doing for millenia.

          •  If you think things can't be worse off in 10 years (none)
            You are clueless fool with no regard for history. You might want to read up on Afghanistan, on how we armed them and trained them to fight Soviets. That coupled with our incursions into the Mid-East led to 9/11/2001. I think that was worse than what the American people were used to.

            If you think a radicallized mid-east, with nuclear weapons (When Pakistan collapses in less than ten years) which is united against the U.S. is going to be better for us then what we have been dealing with in the past, then you quite literally, "Don't get it." The radical theocrats who will be in control of the middle east will be in control of the worlds oil resources and we will be at their mercy. Unless you are one of those right wingers, like Bush, who sees the destruction of the U.S. and it's economy as "positive." Then, by all means, you are correct.

            Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it. -Tom Paine

            by Alumbrados on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 06:32:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  So it's 1965 (none)
            and you're about to enter Vietnam because of an opportunity....????

            Send us your used sandals and shoes and we'll help out other people.

            by quartzite on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 04:02:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Interesting Darwinism... (none)
            So what you are saying is that invading a country for false reasons is okay, as long as there is a chance that it can work out?  I'm confused.  You see, the US military is stretched thin and may not be able to respond to a conflict elsewhere in the world.  So is that a bad thing ONLY if another conflict happens?  Are we no worse off if it doesn't?  What about enlistment?  If enlistment goes down for the next decade due to young people not trusting the civilian leadership, does that make us worse off?  Or the high budget deficits that we are running to pay for an invasion that was supposed to pay for itself?

            Sorry.  I see no way we can be no worse off.  As a matter of fact, I see no way for this to be worth the price we've paid so far.

            Furthermore, if one was to point to Egypt and Lebanon as fallout to the Iraqi Invasion, I'd simply point out that there is ZERO evidence that they have anything to do with the Invasion.

            Post hoc, ergo propter hoc MY ASS.

            Plus, you're a troll.  I've read your posts and you've got very little in common with what people feel here.  Why stick around?  Do you enjoy being unpleasent?

            Democrats are defenders of equality, opportunity, and justice. We are responsible to our nation, and believe our nation should responsibly lead the world.

            by zubalove on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 11:19:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (157)
  • Community (73)
  • Elections (44)
  • Environment (43)
  • Bernie Sanders (42)
  • 2016 (41)
  • Hillary Clinton (35)
  • Spam (35)
  • Culture (34)
  • Republicans (33)
  • Media (32)
  • Climate Change (32)
  • Civil Rights (28)
  • Labor (27)
  • Science (24)
  • Congress (24)
  • Law (24)
  • Education (24)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (22)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site