Originally posted by Viss1:
Unless I'm missing something, the author is angry because:
- The US only defends its own interests, not necessarily those of other countries
- The US press didn't publish articles about how much collateral damage occurred during the campaign
The first point is true. The second is false (I remember getting angry at some of the articles that criticised the amount of civilian damage).
The author has no legitemate gripe. He's trying as hard as he can to justify his hatred for the US.[/b]A large number of civilian casualties can be attributed to the despicable and disgusting practice of putting civilians right next to or on top of prime military targets, as Hussein did during Desert Storm. Having said that, war will ALWAYS produce some civilian losses, regardless. There's just no way around it.
As for the report on the depleted uranium issues, I would tend to agree with the author and sources. with as many rounds as we put into bunkers and tanks (most with depleted uranium heads for penetration power), there's bound to be some sort of environmental hazard there. I don't see spent reactor fuel rods being placed in parks and schools, so I'd definitely say the Iraqis have a legitimate gripe there. Shameful, but unfortunately probably very true.
I quite enjoyed the BS about Kuwait being the "economic aggressor" to Iraq. That and the gripe over the land and water dispute. Let's try some common sense here. At the time, Iraq had one of the largest militarys (definintely in the top 10) on the face of the Earth, while Kuwait had, oooooh, probably (and I'm making a rough guess here) about the 249th largest. During the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, massive looting, mass rapings (on an unbelieveable scale) and a number of murders and other crimes were purpotrated on that country's population.
Ah, the benevolent and oppressed Iraqi government. :rolleyes: Christ, this article reads like trying to cannonize Gengis Khan...
