re death penalty gulf war in article f rusnews w w mantis co uk mathew mathew mantis co uk writes jbrown batman bmd trw com writes in article e rusnews w w mantis co uk mathew mathew mantis co uk writes yes fortunately we have right thinking folks like your good self in power and it was therefore deemed acceptable to slaughter tens or even hundreds o thousands of iraqis in order to liberate oil h h hkuwait we won the war hurrah hurrah the number of civilian iraqi deaths were way over exaggerated and exploited for anti war emotionalism by the liberal news media the facts are that less iraqis died in the gulf war than did civilians in any other war of comparable size this century let s analyze this claim a little how is the size of a war defined by number of participants geographical area number of countries involved number of casualties size of armies duration numbers of casualties both absolute and as a percentage of those involved geographical area and numbers of countries too are all measures of size in this case i d say the relevant statistic would be the number of combatants total troops compared to total casualties from among the total civilian population in the affected geographical area which other comparable wars are we talking about vietnam and korea might make good comparisons which liberal news media are we talking about western news in general but in particular the american mass media cbs nbc abc etc the general tone of the news during the whole war was one of those poor poor iraqis along with look how precisely this cruise missile blew this building to bits this was due mostly to the short duration coupled with precise surgical bombing techniques which were technically possible only recently i suspect that medical advances may have something to do with it too i agree how about all the innocent people who died in blanket bombing in ww i don t hear you bemoaning them perhaps because the topic hasn t cropped up if you want my opinion i think that the blanket bombing of german cities at the end of world war two was the most appalling act of wholesale slaughter this country has committed in centuries bomber harris was no hero of mine perhaps so and maybe the atomic bomb was a mistake too but that s easy to say from our enlightened viewpoint here in the s right back then it was all out war and germany and japan had to be squashed after all a million or more british had already died hundreds of thousands of french a couple hundread thousand or so americans and millions of russians not to mention a few million jews poles and other people of slavic descent in german concentration camps all things considered the fire bombings and the atomic bomb were essential and therefore justified in bringing the war to a quick end to avoid even greater allied losses i for one don t regret it war is never an exact science but with smart bombs it s becoming more exact with a smaller percentage of civilian casualties sometimes mistakes are made targets are misidentified innocents die that s war the way it really is entrenched political rulers operating in their own selfish interests without regard for the lives of other people that is the way war really is sure and it s the people who suffer because of them all the more reason to depose these entrenched political rulers operating in their own selfish interests or do you mean that this applies to the allies as well why all the fuss about kuwait and not east timor bosnia or even tibet if iraq is so bad why were we still selling them stuff a couple of weeks before we started bombing i make no claim or effort to justify the misguided foreign policy of the west before the war it is evident that the west especially america misjudged hussein drastically but once hussein invaded kuwait and threatened to militarily corner a significant portion of the world s oil supply he had to be stopped sure the war could have been prevented by judicious and concerted effort on the part of the west before hussein invaded kuwait but it is still hussein who is responsible for his decision to invade and once he did so a strong response from the west was required mathew your sarcasm is noted but you are completely off base here you come off sounding like a complete peace nik idiot although i feel sure that was not your intent what s your intent to sound like a loving christian well you aren t doing a very good job of it well it s not very loving to allow a hussein or a hitler to gobble up nearby countries and keep them or to allow them to continue with mass slaughter of certain peoples under their dominion so i d have to say yes stopping hussein was the most loving thing to do for the most people involved once he set his mind on military conquest so the iraqi war was wrong eh i m sure that appeasement would have worked better than war just like it did in ww eh who even mentioned appeasement and what makes you think the situation is even remotely analogous to world war two i mentioned it if we hadn t intervened allowing hussein to keep kuwait then it would have been appeasement it is precisely the lessons the world learned in ww that motivated the western alliance to war letting hitler take austria and czechoslavkia did not stop ww from happening and letting hussein keep kuwait would not have stopped an eventual gulf war to protect saudi arabia i guess we shouldn t have fought ww either just think of all those innocent german civilians killed in dresden and hamburg yes do germans are human too you know sure what was truly unfortunate was that they followed hitler in his grandiose quest for a thousand year reich the consequences stemmed from that tyrants like hussein have to be stopped his kind don t understand diplomacy they only understand the point of a gun my only regret is that bush wimped out and didn t have the military roll into baghdad so now hussein is still in power and the iraqi people s sacrifice not to mention the americans who died was for naught i look forward to hearing your incisive comments about east timor and tibet what should i say about them anything in particular and as for poor poor rodney king did you ever stop and think why the jury in the first trial brought back a verdict of not guilty yes amongst the things i thought were hmm there s an awful lot of white people in that jury so it was the policemen on trial not rodney king and under american law they deserved a jury of their peers if there had been black officers involved i m sure their would have been black jurors too this point of allegedly racial motivations is really shallow those who have been foaming at the mouth for the blood of those policemen certainly have looked no further than the video tape but the jury looked at all the evidence evidence which you and i have not seen when i see a bunch of policemen beating someone who s lying defenceless on the ground it s rather hard to imagine what this other evidence might have been so it s hard to imagine so when has argument from incredulity gained acceptance from the revered author of constructing a logical argument can we expect another revision soon just kidding if there is some wonderful evidence why is it seemingly being kept secret why not tell everyone what it is then everyone could say oh yes you re right king deserved a good beating and we could all live happily ever after i have to admit that i wonder this too but neither the prosecution nor the defense is talking so one cannot conclude either way due to the silence of the principals law in this country is intended to protect the rights of the accused whether they be criminals or cops one is not found guilty if there is a reasonable doubt of one s guilt and only the jury is in a position to assess the evidence and render a verdict fine but i m still finding it hard to imagine what the reasonable doubt was in this case i mean the cops certainly seem to be beating someone who s lying defenceless on the ground what s your explanation mass hallucination orbital mind control lasers faked video footage do tell ok it certainly seemed to me that there was excessive force involved and frankly the original not guilty verdict baffled me too but then i learned that the prosecution in the first case did not try to convict on a charge of excessive force or simple assault which they probably would have won they tried to get a conviction on a charge of aggravated assault with intent to inflict serious bodily harm a charge which news commentators said was akin to attempted murder under california law based on what the prosecution was asking for it s evident that the first jury decided that the officers were not guilty note not not guilty of doing wrong but not guilty of aggravated assault with the intent of inflicting serious bodily harm the seeds of the prosecutions defeat were in their own overconfidence in obtaining a verdict such that they went for the most extreme charge they could if the facts as the news commentators presented them are true then i feel the not guilty verdict was a reasonable one mathew thou shalt not kill unless thou hast a pretty good reason for killing in which case thou shalt kill and also kill anyone who gets in the way as unfortunately it cannot be helped jim brown bible for loving christians thanks mathew i like the quote pretty funny actually i m a monty python fan you know kind of seems in that vein of course oversimplifying any moral argument can make it seem contradictory but then you know that already regards jim b loving christian
