The anti-americans in this forum have a serious problem with the truth.

When debating the recent US military in Iraq, there have been several outrageous claims to the number of civilians killed by US Military.

nico claimed 7000 civilians killed. Another debater claimed in excess of 10.000.

Now, take a look at this source, which looks very accurate:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

In short:

minimum reported: 5570
maximum assumed: 7243

Note that the minimum numbers include fatalities following nbon-military action, such as infections from failed water treatment plants, power losses at hospitals etc. So the numbers must be considered to be even lower, by, if not a thousand, then by several hundred.

Other trustworthy sources (according to friends of mine) claim ~3000 civilian casualties.

*

Make no mistake, I'm not trying to make excuses for the deaths. War is tragedy. But when the anti-war/anti-americans come forward with obviously inflated numbers, my respect for them dwindles.

*

Now, look at the civilian casualties under Saddam Hussein:

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm

"Saddam has had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered. Allegations of prostitution are used to intimidate opponents of the regime and have been used by the regime to justify the barbaric beheading of women. There have been documented chemical attacks by the regime, from 1983 to 1988, resulting in some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.

Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. o 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

Iraq's 13 million Shi'a Muslims, the majority of Iraq's population of approximately 22 million, face severe restrictions on their religious practice, including a ban on communal Friday prayer, and restriction on funeral processions.

According to Human Rights Watch, "senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October [1991] that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south.""

Without including the Iran-Iraq war, we approarch half a million dead thanks to Saddam Hussein.

*

Now, tell me:

Even if all the USA wanted from the Iraq attack, is oil, will you deny that the liberation of the Iraqi people by military means is bad, and the loss of ~3000-7000 lives is worse that the over 1.000.000 (including Saddams' Iran-Iraq war)?

(1) That a wrong is a lesser wrong does not make it right
(2) The Iraqi Bush Adventure ain't over

Let's count up the bodies when we finally wash our hands of it. I'm sure the numbers will still favor the American action, but ....

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Taking Iraq was the lesser of two evils. Id rather have 3,000 to 10,000 dead on my concience than the hundreds of thousands we would be letting Saddam's regiem kill.

"Taking Iraq was the lesser of two evils. Id rather have 3,000 to 10,000 dead on my concience than the hundreds of thousands we would be letting Saddam's regiem kill."

What, you mean rather than all those he killed in the 80's when he was our friend? Didnt we let him get on with it then? So wheres your conscience now?

Hey DJ , lets put some things in clear perspective here :

1 : The anti-americans in this forum have a serious problem with the truth.

To be against your 50 stars of David indeed implies big , big problems with the truth . Truth is how things are , and indeed things are to have serious problems with .

Ofcourse you mean simply that they twist truth or lie , the thing is you do exactly the same :

In short:

minimum reported: 5570
maximum assumed: 7243


This is not what it is said , to differentiate between reported and assumed shows an efford of rhetorical twist in favor of your point , less killed .

The TRUTH (on what that website says) is however :


MINIMUM
Total of civilians reported killed
MAXIMUM
Total of civilians reported killed


What assumed ? Where assumed ? REPORTED .

2 : Note that the minimum numbers include fatalities following nbon-military action, such as infections from failed water treatment plants, power losses at hospitals etc. So the numbers must be considered to be even lower, by, if not a thousand, then by several hundred.

So as long as you do not kill them through explosives/bullits they are no civillian casualties ? It is CAUSED by the MILITARY invasion of Iraq . Thus they are very relevant .

3 : Other trustworthy sources (according to friends of mine) claim ~3000 civilian casualties.

But wait a minute , Nico's was problematic right ? This while Nico's 7G falls in the Max Reported of that site that seemed TRUSTWORTHY to you , correct ? But your friends however , they 2570 (thats almost 50%) off , and thats no problem ? Thats "dealing with truth" ?

So I think your my respect for them dwindles now as well ?

But now your true self is showing , inspite of all your effords to look "objective" and "trustworthy" etc .

You bring in Saddam Hussain , how evil he was compared to you .
But you obviously forgot about your own thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24647) .

So then you use the evils this man has done to my peoples as a filthy excuse to show off that you are in no way worse ? You even DARE to mention Iran ? Thanks to Saddam Hussain ?

Even if all the USA wanted from the Iraq attack, is oil, will you deny that the liberation of the Iraqi people by military means is bad, and the loss of ~3000-7000 lives is worse that the over 1.000.000 (including Saddams' Iran-Iraq war)?

Disgusting , thats my answer .

We could much better and more logical draw out such trail of thought into the invasion of the United states to save the peoples of this planet who have suffered and still suffer under the horrific democratic-republik or republikan-democracy or just plain imperialsim through military , economical and cultural means .

And like Tiassa said , The Iraqi Bush Adventure ain't over

DJ,
Firstly, you should read the sites you quote fully. The count is low on iraqbodycount.net because they only count deaths that are verified from two sources. There are 15 seperate groups now counting casualties in Iraq - and since those killed were often buried under rubble or blown into small pieces (you pick up 16 fingers and tell me how many people died in that spot!), the final total will be some time coming. Bodies have to be dug out of rubble, pieces identified as best as is possible, and so on. That 3,000 figure comes from the Associated Press. (http://www.kpvi.com/index.cfm?page=nbcheadlines.cfm&ID=13783) But they only counted admitted hospital patients who died. Recall, please, the Red Cross statement that during the invasion, most hospitals simply stopped counting and following normal paperwork procedures because of the sheer overwhelming volume of patients. Which means that right there, the AP figure is dramatically low.

Secondly, if you can remember my 10,000+ figure, why can't you remember the argument that went with it, which I've just restated?

Thirdly, these people were INNOCENT CIVILIANS.

You don't get to decide that thousands of civilians are sacrificable. Noone does. We have laws about that kind of thing you know, in fact there isn't a country on the planet where there aren't such laws.
You especially don't get to make the decision to kill them (and making the decision to employ military force is precisely the same as deciding to kill people, because even deploying a large military force is going to cause casualties - deployment isn't tiddlywinks, people get hurt and killed in accidents) if you happen to be the nation that has put them in peril in the first place - or have you forgotten who installed Saddam and paid him to carry out the Iran-Iraq war and who paid for his weapons?

Lastly, I don't need to point out that their actions are in the wrong - haven't you been watching the news recently? The Iraqis are killing the occupying troops. That's a pretty strong protest.

Clockwood,
Nice sentiment. Tell it to her, would you?
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/gulfwar2/aljazeera02.jpg

Or maybe it'd be of comfort to her parents?
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/gulfwar2/22march-ap.jpg

These are the people whose deaths you're advocating. It's not pretty, it's not clean, it's not civil and it's not a choice you can morally claim to be justified. ESPECIALLY not when the real reason for the invasion had NOTHING to do with the plight of these people and EVERYTHING to do with the self-interest of the US.

Jihad_AlifLamLamHah: 50 stars of david? No: our stars have 5 points. They are pentagrams.

Must be due to our satanic infidel activities. Yeah that must be it.

50 stars of david? No: our stars have 5 points. They are pentagrams.

I know very well what they are , its you here who's being fooled by some form and shape of symbols on that silly flag , not me .

Must be due to our satanic infidel activities. Yeah that must be it.

Why are you being so pathetic to bring forward some fundie-understanding of America ? Am I a fundie ? Are you so low on arguments against what I say that you just pretend Im a fundie and whine about infidels ? And all that while Ive even read LaVey (or was Levy , lol) you whine about "satanic" ? What are you some baptist ? Go cleanse yourself you dodo , and get yourself some new arguments while you're at it .

As for the reason ... very simple : you're a bunch of idiots . Intellectually challenged , and others are not . Thats why you have 50 stars of david while not even the one representing NY is a Magen .

For your reasoning "we're not as bad as he is so we ARE allowed to kill Iraqi" , please go to http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24647

Maybe you migh learn everything He did was all because of YOU as well .

Sparks resorts to calls for emotion rather than to reason (with the same pictures of two dead civilians that has been used by anti-americans since the beginning of the conflict) and JihadAli suggests that I'm an Israel-lover and that the USA should be attacked again. Yes, Ali, that is stupid and disgusting.

And no one acknowledges the point that the Iraqis have been rid of Saddam. Yes, Sparks it was also INNOCENT CIVILIANS that Saddam has been slaughtering in the decades he's been in power. But perhaps you think that you have a stronger point because you write in large, bold, red type?

Or should I use your brand of argumentation and find pictures of the torture victims of Saddam - the madman you woul rather have left in power? Or pictures of the little children starving and ill from lack of medication because the UN's best weapon against Iraq has been sanctions?

Emotions are still at play, it seems. Emotions and opinions that dont like to be challenged.

JihadAli suggests that I'm an Israel-lover and that the USA should be attacked again. Yes, Ali, that is stupid and disgusting.

1)Nobody suggests you are an Israel-lover
2)Calling me Ali is not insulting
3)You're the idiot here
4)not attacked , INVADED . Based on your own reasoning .

And no one acknowledges the point that the Iraqis have been rid of Saddam

No indeed , that is because Saddam hasnt been rid off at all . He just changed to his original form of Amerikan .

Yes, Sparks it was also INNOCENT CIVILIANS that Saddam has been slaughtering in the decades he's been in power

Thanks to Amerika

Or should I use your brand of argumentation and find pictures of the torture victims of Saddam

Should we all leave disgusting pictures out of this please ?

Or pictures of the little children starving and ill from lack of medication because the UN's best weapon against Iraq has been sanctions?

Nothing to do with US those DISGUSTING sanction no ......

Emotions are still at play, it seems. Emotions and opinions that dont like to be challenged.

If emotions would be at play I wasnt sitting in front of my PC typing this respons to you but was going out to kill amerikans .

not ONE point do you bring in , not ONE thing .
You're respons is totally lacking ANY worth .
I bet you're an ugly bastard as well

Originally posted by Jihad_AlifLamLamHah


<lots of verbal manue snipped>
...

I bet you're an ugly bastard as well

With that kind of debate style, what makes you think I'll spend any more time arguing with you?

DJ,
Sparks resorts to calls for emotion rather than to reason
Let's get something very, very clear here. I'm not calling for an emotional response. I dislike intensely the idea that policy decision should be taken on emotional grounds because human emotions are simply not a reliable decision-making tool.
I am calling for what most pro-invasion proponents have been ignoring in totality - and that is that ethics and morality be used. Neither requires emotional response and both are well and clearly defined in both philosophical and judicial arenas, and have been argued over, debated and tried for centuries.
Chucking them out the door because a born-again, alcoholic, cocaine-addicted, academically undergifted, inside trading deserter says "yee-haw, let's go" - now that's a decision that requires emotions. Specifically, hatred, fear, vengeance and intolerance. I could understand it from a thirteen-year old. Not an adult.

(with the same pictures of two dead civilians that has been used by anti-americans since the beginning of the conflict)
Those pictures are real. Those kids died because of the actions of those in the current US administration. Who uses those images doesn't negate their cause. Or their meaning.

Yes, Sparks it was also INNOCENT CIVILIANS that Saddam has been slaughtering in the decades he's been in power. But perhaps you think that you have a stronger point because you write in large, bold, red type?
Nope. I think that you're forgetting what just happened. In order to further their self-interests, the US administration chose to attack Iraq. It wasn't because of 9/11 - the decision was taken on 9/13 at a point where noone knew who'd ordered the attacks for sure. It wasn't because of the plight of the Iraqi people - the US had been adding to their hardships by blocking the shipping of medical equipment to Iraq by calling it "dual-use". It wasn't because of the threat of "Weapons of Mass Destruction". It was for the one purpose of furthering the agenda of the PNAC, by securing the control of the Iraqi oil supply, and far more importantly, what currency it is sold for - and by ensuring a long-term US military presence in the region.
And to secure that goal, thousands of Iraqi civilians were sacrificed.
That is why my point is valid and yours is naive.

Or should I use your brand of argumentation and find pictures of the torture victims of Saddam - the madman you woul rather have left in power? Or pictures of the little children starving and ill from lack of medication because the UN's best weapon against Iraq has been sanctions?
You can do so - but you make my point against the US when you do. Review, DJ, if you would, how Saddam got into power in the first place, and who supported him to keep him there.
Review also, the highly akward fact that, Israel aside, the only state in the Middle East or the Arab world where what we regard as western values were upheld. Womens groups have already decryed the incredible decline in their rights in Iraq under the occupation as compared to under Hussein, for example. And now it seems that the US will refuse to allow elections (all elections in Iraq have been halted, by order of the US, and US officals will be appointed to offices in civil administration across Iraq). And should they leave, then Iraq will become another Islamic state, with a large population with a deep and abiding hatred of the western world for what we did to them.
Hope you're ready to live in that world DJ. Because you're going to know what every Irish person living here has known for 30 years - what it's like to know that there are people who will happily set off a bomb in your home if they feel that it'll further the cause. I have a lot of friends in Northern Ireland. And not one of them cannot sit down and tell me of a friend or relative killed by terrorists. That's the legacy that Bush is leaving for every last one of us DJ. And that's not emotion - that's experience.

Emotions are still at play, it seems. Emotions and opinions that dont like to be challenged.
I enjoy challange. I just wish you could challange my opinion with actual facts and not emotional rhetoric.

jihad, i'm just wondering, what country do you live in ?

otheadp : I live in Luxembourg , Europe .

With that kind of debate style, what makes you think I'll spend any more time arguing with you?

Hey DJ , I know you peoples arent that much of talkers but rather invaders and bombers , I am not surprised by your "close your eyes fire away" logics , nor am I surprised by your "I cant hear it-I cant hear it" attituide not am I surprised you have probably even reached a stage that you cannot even read this .

Yes do that , make a thread (or 2) and ignore the responses on them in nomatter how they disprove your argument , in the name of total ignorance .

You just go ahead :

http://www.made2smile.com/funpages/ostrich/ostrich_headburried_md_wht.gif

I am not the only one you cannot provide answers for , so be my guest , ignore me .

I bet you're an ugly bastard as well

jihad just go to his website, again I warn wear thick sunglasses it ain't pretty.

jihad just go to his website, again I warn wear thick sunglasses it ain't pretty.

LOL You know Nico for these peoples its always a bitch when Im right about something .

Seems its an ugly islamophobe (http://haxor.dk/articles/islam.html)

An obvious case of ignorance combined with aggressive western-centric superiority phobia , and ofcourse todays political situation .

Filled with half-truths and lies and just ignorant facts aimed at emotionally steering toward hatred and neo-facism .

Its nice to know the context of character and position this dude is in , to better understand his reasoning .

It's obvious he has little concept of logic and or the world. Anyways he should be in Iraq, having a good time preaching the bible and getting shot at. He wants so badly to help Iraq :rolleyes:. I hate Chicken Hawks.

ok my friend, how about u point out his mistakes and clear it up for us.

There have been documented chemical attacks by the regime, from 1983 to 1988, resulting in some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.


Too bad the Americans blamed it on Iran, and the Americans sanctioned it. And I believe $350 million in aid in 1987 on "agricultural" products, you know dual use. (if any one has a link). He only presents half of the story, not much of a argument.

P.S: remember :cool: needed.

Originally posted by otheadp
ok my friend, how about u point out his mistakes and clear it up for us.

Thought that was what I was doing...

Everyone knows about Saddams crimes back in the eighties(when he was our friend), but I haven't been able to find information about any recent mass killings by him. I see a case described here and a case described there but not numbers. I'll be willing to accept that the invasion of Iraq ultimately saved Iraqi lies when I see the kill per day ratio for the last few years.

Its also worth noting that the people responsible for killing the most Iraqis lately are the US/UN through their sanctions. In a sense you could say the invasion was good because it ended the sanction, but the fact that the Iraqis are resisting the colonization of their country does not bode well for that.

Lastly, the people being killed now in Iraq for standing up to the colonial troops are also innocent civilians who should be included in any count.

Its also worth noting that the people responsible for killing the most Iraqis lately are the US/UN through their sanctions.
It's worth a lot more to note that the US blocked efforts by several nations to end those sanctions - right up until the US had invaded and taken over. Then all of a sudden, sanctions were a crime against humanity and should be lifted so the US, er I mean the free people of Iraq, could trade with whomever they wanted, sell them as much oil as they wanted and with no UN oversight.

Did I mention that the first tanker of Iraqi oil left Iraq for the US yesterday?

:rolleyes:

Your violent to one of our troops you lose your rights as a noncombatant.

What about if you call them a bad name Clockwood?

(For that matter, what about the injured civilians in the marked civilian ambulance shot up by US marines? Or is that how noncombatants are normally treated by the US military?)

Nah, but if you start throwing rocks I would feel no pity if our soldier blew the guys head off.

Oh goodie we got the imperialistic moron's coming out! Hey you know clockwood that's a good way to stifle debate, not hate. Good job, I say go USA. :rolleyes:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030624/241/4hnjp.html

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20030624/capt.sge.bfz57.240603173835.photo03.default-367x275.jpg
A US soldier leads arrested 17-year-old student Khaled Salim with his hands tied behind his back towards a waiting army truck in the southern Baghdad suburb of Dura. Salim was arrested on his way to school, as a warning to others after he insulted US troops. US soldiers carried out house-to-house searches in Dura, detaining two people and confiscating weapons.(AFP/Ramzi Haidar)


Seems the US military doesn't agree with you clockwood.

Sparks,
They arrested him for insulting US soldier? Thats incredible. This is looking more and more like a classic colonial situation.

What gets me is their relative ages. The soldier arresting him can't be more than a few years older than he is.

Fighting a war with kids is bad enough - trying to maintain a peace with them is just downright idiotic.

The real question is who is the oppressed one?

Well, though it is rarely acted upon you can get in trouble for insults here in the US nomatter who you insult. There are a handfull of minor charges that can be levied against you.

Arrest? Sure. Kill? No.

You know clockwood, it's a good thing you think that, seeing as how you live in the land of the "free speech zone"...

Originally posted by Clockwood
Well, though it is rarely acted upon you can get in trouble for insults here in the US nomatter who you insult. There are a handfull of minor charges that can be levied against you.

Arrest? Sure. Kill? No.
Seems odd to be enforcing laws of that nature in a country where far more serious crimes are not yet under control.

In any case, the kid being arrested has more right to say what the law is in Iraq then any invader.

Until the new Iraqi government is set up for all intents and purposes it is our country. We are responsible for this sort of thing.

Even new york city, where a serious crime occurs every few seconds, a policeman still has to address the violations he witnesses.

Until the new Iraqi government is set up for all intents and purposes it is our country.


Thus making the US for all intents and purposes a imperialistic power. Good job of admitting it. ;) Yeah good job on the editing :rolleyes:

1) I don't even consider that an insult.
2) We fix the place up and leave. Justabout everybody besides Saddam and his goons will benifit.

1) I don't even consider that an insult.

It wasn't a insult it was to show how inadequate you are as a debator that's all. :)

2) We fix the place up and leave. Everybody besides Saddam and his goons will benifit.

True, and the US won't either.

Clockwood,
1) that wasn't meant as an insult, it was a statement of fact.
2) yeah, right. And for those that believe that, I've got this little bridge out in brooklyn that I'd like to sell cheaply. Any takers?

Pah. You need to keep an eye on your own government clockwood - their estimates are around the 5-7-10 year range at the moment.

I call em as I see em.

Ill take the Brooklyn Bridge but only Cash-On-Delivery. Please send it to Omaha, Nebraska.

Which would work if you weren't blinkered and naieve...

I call em as I see em.

Either your blind, or your wearing too big of a pair of glasses.

Im no more blind than the rest of the human race. Thats not to say Im not blind though.

The American public not the human race. :)

Nah, but if you start throwing rocks I would feel no pity if our soldier blew the guys head off.

we got the imperialistic moron's coming out!

Fascist as well ........ or other rules in USA Clock ? Throw rock at forces = shot dead ?

Salim was arrested on his way to school, as a warning to others after he insulted US troops.

There should be Ki'tab Shuhada installed in HIS name PEACE .

The real question is who is the oppressed one?

The soldier would be the mentally oppressed one , only he doesnt know it so it wouldnt count .

Arrest? Sure. Kill? No.

Ok I see we CAn equalize USA-rest of world , see my first remark .

2) We fix the place up and leave. Justabout everybody besides Saddam and his goons will benifit.

Everybody gets a piece right ? LOL . Every Iraqi politician that is .

And here we have it , confession :

Im no more blind than the rest of the human race.

Now all we need is deaf & dumb and we got the whole thing .

I still dont see anyone acknowledging that the US military intervention will save lives in the long run. Is that so hard to accept?

Regarding the debate about the student that was imprisoned: You can always pull out absurd stories. There will always be stupid actions of people to find somewhere. But using it to generalize is itself stupid. Though: Iraq is in a state of martial law, and it is necessary to keep tight control of things until a civilian police force can be enacted and a government created.

If the USA were to leave Iraq now, I would not for a minute doubt that the anti-americans in this forum would bitch about that "they left the country in chaos! evil capitalists!!"

etc. Catch-22.

I still dont see anyone acknowledging that the US military intervention will save lives in the long run. Is that so hard to accept?
DJ,
Were we to accept that that action is ethical on an "end justifies the means" rationale, then we would have to acknowlege Stalin as a great humanitarian because even though he slaughtered twenty million people, he prevented the formation of the Third Reich and thereby saved millions of lives.

You're asking us to accept murder as a justified means to acheive an end - and it's in fact worse than that, because the end (the removal of the Ba'ath party regieme) is not only completely incidental to the plans of the US, but is not assured. Observe Afghanistan for an example of what I mean. Only two years ago the US bombed the daylights out of it, killing between three and four thousand innocent civilians in the process - but that was "justified" by the elimination of the horrific regieme of the Taliban.
Except that now the Taliban are not just re-emerging and taking back the country, the US are talking with them regarding the "security" of Afghanistan. So those three to four thousand innocents died for no reason save the US need for vengeance. OBL is still at large, Mullah Omar is still at large, and the Taliban is retaking Afghanistan. All the US did was kill innocent people and make a mess.

Now, point out to me how we know that that won't be a model for Iraq? Recall, they've allready rehired the Iraqi army and police there. That's two segments of the Ba'ath party regieme.

Regarding the debate about the student that was imprisoned: You can always pull out absurd stories. There will always be stupid actions of people to find somewhere.
The point of that story was not "oh look, this is a funny story" - it was to illustrate the problem with US troops. As pointed out by British troops in a professional capacity, US troops are not trained for their current job, they're not professional enough, they're too young and they're too trigger-happy.

Though: Iraq is in a state of martial law, and it is necessary to keep tight control of things until a civilian police force can be enacted and a government created.
Except that:
1) There is a civilian police force, and
2) The US Military has ordered all elections across Iraq to be stopped. So they're preventing a government from being formed. Now when they do that in Burma, we call it a junta. What do we call it here?

If the USA were to leave Iraq now, I would not for a minute doubt that the anti-americans in this forum would bitch about that "they left the country in chaos! evil capitalists!!"
etc. Catch-22.
And yet again this argument is trotted out. DJ, it wasn't valid the first time you said it and it hasn't gotten better with age. The simple fact is that the US chose to invade in the first place. If they leave now, well, fine - but they're liable for the reconstruction costs.
Frankly, if they left now, I'd be happier - it would mean that UN troops could take over policing duties - at least you can get them to leave.
But it's not going to happen that the US leaves, not anytime in the next few years (assuming dubya stays in office). The plan was for a long-term military presence in the Middle East as well as control of Iraqi oil - they won't just walk away from that so long as they're the US administration.

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
DJ,
Were we to accept that that action is ethical on an "end justifies the means" rationale, then we would have to acknowlege Stalin as a great humanitarian because even though he slaughtered twenty million people, he prevented the formation of the Third Reich and thereby saved millions of lives.

It's a very simple question, Sparks: What is worse: 5000-7000 civilian deaths or 50-100 daily deaths and continued suffering for an untold time?

Three years, max, and the Iraqi people would be better off, from a bodycount perspective ONLY. Thats not considering the fact that aid suppplies actually have a chance of getting to those who they were intended. That was not the case under Saddam.

You're asking us to accept murder

No, and you're twisting my words. I the end is not killing the Iraqi people, it is to liberate them, and the world from Saddam Hussein.

Every death is sad, but no wars have been fought without civilian casualties.

as a justified means to acheive an end - and it's in fact worse than that, because the end (the removal of the Ba'ath party regieme) is not only completely incidental to the plans of the US, but is not assured. Observe Afghanistan for an example of what I mean. Only two years ago the US bombed the daylights out of it, killing between three and four thousand innocent civilians in the process - but that was "justified" by the elimination of the horrific regieme of the Taliban.

Do you deny that Afghanistan has become freer for its people since the fundamentalist Tabibans were removed? Do you deny that the removal of a opressive fundamentalist regime is a good thing?

Except that now the Taliban are not just re-emerging and taking back the country, the US are talking with them regarding the "security" of Afghanistan. So those three to four thousand innocents died for no reason save the US need for vengeance. OBL is still at large, Mullah Omar is still at large, and the Taliban is retaking Afghanistan. All the US did was kill innocent people and make a mess.

Nonsense. With the Taliban out, one less terrorist factory exist on this Earth.

And I dont believe your claim that the "Taliban is reemerging" is a power. That would defy the purpose of the attack in teh first place, and the US simply wouldnt allow that.

Now, point out to me how we know that that won't be a model for Iraq? Recall, they've allready rehired the Iraqi army and police there. That's two segments of the Ba'ath party regieme.

The difference is, I believe, that they will be run with a more humane system of morality in mind. That is, like actual police, not terror squads.


The point of that story was not "oh look, this is a funny story" - it was to illustrate the problem with US troops. As pointed out by British troops in a professional capacity, US troops are not trained for their current job, they're not professional enough, they're too young and they're too trigger-happy.


Except that:
1) There is a civilian police force, and
2) The US Military has ordered all elections across Iraq to be stopped. So they're preventing a government from being formed. Now when they do that in Burma, we call it a junta. What do we call it here?


I call it deliberate misleading argumentation on your part. You cant have elections without a central political order. There is no such thing in Iraq at the moment. It is still being worked on.


And yet again this argument is trotted out. DJ, it wasn't valid the first time you said it and it hasn't gotten better with age.

It's not an argument, it's a claim.

The simple fact is that the US chose to invade in the first place. If they leave now, well, fine - but they're liable for the reconstruction costs.

Pah. Most of the decay in Iraq is due to the neglect of the Saddam years.

Frankly, if they left now, I'd be happier - it would mean that UN troops could take over policing duties - at least you can get them to leave.
But it's not going to happen that the US leaves, not anytime in the next few years (assuming dubya stays in office). The plan was for a long-term military presence in the Middle East as well as control of Iraqi oil - they won't just walk away from that so long as they're the US administration.

As long as the Iraqi people are better off than under Saddam, I dont care who controls Iraq.

It's a very simple question, Sparks: What is worse: 5000-7000 civilian deaths or 50-100 daily deaths and continued suffering for an untold time?
That is a very simple question DJ, but it has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq.

Let's get this straight - Iraq was NOT invaded over WMDs. It was NOT invaded over the plight of the Iraqi people. It WAS invaded to ensure a US military presence in the middle east and US control of the means by which Iraqi oil was sold.

Now I can give (and have already given) substantiation to each of those four assertions.

I have yet to see one shred of evidence to back up the assertion that the US invaded Iraq for humanitarian grounds - and in fact the idea in and of itself is laughable. You do not orchestrate a full-scale invasion of a foreign country over the protestations of the UN, half your own population and the vast majority of the world's leaders, for humanitarian reasons.

No, and you're twisting my words.
I am not twisting your words DJ, you are asking us to accept a decision to invade. That decision carries with it the prior knowlege that innocent civilians would be killed - as shown by several studies at the time and acknowleged even by the US military.
In other words, you want us to accept a decision that you know will kill people - and which was not the only choice to achieve the publicly stated goals of the US at the time.

the end is not killing the Iraqi people, it is to liberate them, and the world from Saddam Hussein.
The end was not to kill Iraqi people - that was what the US callously refer to as "collateral damage". The end was also not to eliminate Hussein. That's easily seen by anyone with any sense. You do NOT need to invade a country to kill one man - and they haven't even gotten him yet. As I said in my post, they may well wind up making a deal with the rest of the Ba'ath party to retake Iraq, as they have done with the Taliban. (The deal there was that the US gets Mullah Omar and the Taliban get's Afghanistan).

Every death is sad, but no wars have been fought without civilian casualties.
The point, DJ, is that this invasion was not necessary or justified by anything but US self-interest.

Do you deny that Afghanistan has become freer for its people since the fundamentalist Tabibans were removed?
Not only do I do so, but the Afghans are doing so as well. You need to read more news sources DJ - Afghanistan is not only a mess, it's being handed back to the Taliban by the US.

Do you deny that the removal of a opressive fundamentalist regime is a good thing?
Nope, don't need to. I just happen to believe that Bush's administration counts as an oppressive fundamentalist regieme.
There are valid logical reasons for this - examples of this include "free speech zones", Guantanamo Bay, the arrest and "disappearing" of muslims and arabs throughout the US in the wake of 9/11, Bush's near-criminal record in relation to insider trading and corporate law, and Ashcroft's patriot act and patriot act 2.

Nonsense. With the Taliban out, one less terrorist factory exist on this Earth.
The point is that they are NOT out.

And I dont believe your claim that the "Taliban is reemerging" is a power.
Then read the reports for yourself.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/EF14Ag01.html
http://www.utne.com/web_special/web_specials_2003-06/articles/10637-1.html
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=15197

That would defy the purpose of the attack in teh first place, and the US simply wouldnt allow that.
Unless the Taliban was not the only reason for the attack on Afghanistan, yes? Try reading this (http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/11.17A.Oil.Taliban.htm).

The difference is, I believe, that they will be run with a more humane system of morality in mind. That is, like actual police, not terror squads.
Is that why womens rights are dissappearing like snow in July and women and girls are being regularly kidnapped, raped and killed? Is it why cinemas are being closed for having "shown immoral films"?
Take a deeper look at what's happening in Iraq DJ - it's not what Fox and Sky News are reporting.

I call it deliberate misleading argumentation on your part. You cant have elections without a central political order. There is no such thing in Iraq at the moment. It is still being worked on.
Still being worked on?
These weren't national elections!
These were elections for local representatives, mayors, and other such posts. And it wasn't that the posts themselves weren't filled - it's that the US military said "no, you can't elect who you want to run the city, we're telling you that this guy is going to take that job." "This guy" often turning out to be a member of the Iraqi military. Read the report for yourself:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42905-2003Jun27.html

It's not an argument, it's a claim.
And it's incorrect.

Pah. Most of the decay in Iraq is due to the neglect of the Saddam years.
No it isn't, it's due to two things - the Bush Sr.'s bombing and Bush Jr.'s bombing. Iraq was the most progressive of all the middle eastern states, with the exception of Israel. Granted, that's not exactly saying a lot given the competition, but it's true nonetheless.
Iraqis, prior to the first gulf war, were relatively affluent.

As long as the Iraqi people are better off than under Saddam, I dont care who controls Iraq.
I'm sure you not only don't care much for who controls it, but that you don't care about those there as well. The problem is that that apathy is a luxury that the world can no longer afford. The US' actions in Iraq are creating a sizeable pool of pissed-off people with little to lose - that's the recipe for a series of 9/11 style attacks on the rest of us. Look at it from that point of view - pragmatically, opposing the US's occupation of Iraq is one of the best forms of self-defence going.
Besides, first it was Iraq, now the US is threatening Iran, Germany (economically - recall that as long as the euro is a threat to the dollar, the EU is a target), Syria has been attacked in the last week, and frankly if the whole lot doesn't just let go in the next few years, I'll be surprised.

Besides, the Iraqi's are not better off, as I've been trying to point out.

Ah well, looks like EI sparks got there first.

For Afghanistan, the local warlords who helped the USA, seem to be building up far too much power, and keeping tax money for themselves. There is only a small window of opportunity for us to get in and help teh Afghanis before they finally turn against us. At teh moment, there are difficulties with water, food farming and everything else, especially outside KAbul. One of my principle objections to all this was that the USA wouldnt do a very good job, and so far I havnt been very wrong. Oh yes, and the current largest amount of peacekeepers in Afghanistan is germans, several of whom were killed a week or two ago by a bomb. But theres not enough of htem to keep order outside Kabul very well, and the formation of a police force and army takes time.

The point is htat the USA would to a large extent be forgiven much of what it has done if people saw a definite improval in their lives, but really, they arent seeing much of an improvement, and this allows extremists of all sorts to slip through teh gaps.
I remembe being told by who was likely a real bona fide neocon in my last forum that it would be stupid and tragic to mess up with Afghanistan and iraq, but then he was just a civilian, who still thought the invading was alright. If he was actually someone in charge i hazard a guess that things might have gone better. (hey, thats rather a backhanded compliment to someone swho's politics i disliked.)

>That is a very simple question DJ, but it has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq.

--- now that the invasion has happened, and has removed Saddam, it has become very, very relevant.

> Let's get this straight - Iraq was NOT invaded over WMDs. It was NOT invaded over the plight of the Iraqi people. It WAS invaded to ensure a US military presence in the middle east and US control of the means by which Iraqi oil was sold.

--- But since the result is obviously a lessening of the suffering of the Iraqi people, there has undenaible been a humanitarian bonus.

BTW, I dont fint it hard to imagine that Saddam actually was helping anti-american elements. That alone is justification for the USA to remove Saddam.

> Now I can give (and have already given) substantiation to each of those four assertions.

You cannot prove that there were no humanitarian interests in the overthrowing of Saddam.

> I have yet to see one shred of evidence to back up the assertion that the US invaded Iraq for humanitarian grounds - and in fact the idea in and of itself is laughable.

--- If you hate the USA, yes it is.

> You do not orchestrate a full-scale invasion of a foreign country over the protestations of the UN, half your own population and the vast majority of the world's leaders, for humanitarian reasons.

Of course not. But I dont deny that there is an economic bonus from the Iraqi oil, either.


>I am not twisting your words DJ, you are asking us to accept a decision to invade. That decision carries with it the prior knowlege that innocent civilians would be killed - as shown by several studies at the time and acknowleged even by the US military.

--- That civilians will be killed in war? That is obvious. What i am saying, and what you seem to have so hard a time confronting - is that the number of civilians dead and suffering because of the conflict is miniscule compared to the suffering of leaving Saddam in place.

>In other words, you want us to accept a decision that you know will kill people - and which was not the only choice to achieve the publicly stated goals of the US at the time.

And in other words, you want us to accept a decision that you will leave a murdering psychopath in place and free to kill, torture and main as he pleases.

The USA may not have invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons, but what you're proposing is possible the most cruel and inhuman thing to do, when we have the power to make a difference!

> The end was not to kill Iraqi people - that was what the US callously refer to as "collateral damage". The end was also not to eliminate Hussein.

--- Bullshit. Hussein has been a thorin in the side of the US since '91. Plance for his removal has been underway for a decade.

> That's easily seen by anyone with any sense. You do NOT need to invade a country to kill one man - and they haven't even gotten him yet.

--- As i remember, the USA has signed international treaties forbidding assasination of foreign leadership.




> Nope, don't need to. I just happen to believe that Bush's administration counts as an oppressive fundamentalist regieme.

--- if that is the case, you need to read up on your political theory, because you way off.


>Unless the Taliban was not the only reason for the attack on Afghanistan, yes? Try reading this (http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/11.17A.Oil.Taliban.htm).

--- I think Osama BL being housed in Afghanistan before, during and after 11/9, is ample reason for the USA to invade Afghanistan.

> Is that why womens rights are dissappearing like snow in July and women and girls are being regularly kidnapped, raped and killed? Is it why cinemas are being closed for having "shown immoral films"?
Take a deeper look at what's happening in Iraq DJ - it's not what Fox and Sky News are reporting.

--- Same shit rhetoric. I dont watch either news channel.



> I'm sure you not only don't care much for who controls it, but that you don't care about those there as well.

--- I apparently care more than you do.

> The problem is that that apathy is a luxury that the world can no longer afford. The US' actions in Iraq are creating a sizeable pool of pissed-off people with little to lose - that's the recipe for a series of 9/11 style attacks on the rest of us. Look at it from that point of view - pragmatically, opposing the US's occupation of Iraq is one of the best forms of self-defence going.
Besides, first it was Iraq, now the US is threatening Iran,

--- Fine. I cant wait to get rid of that bastard Theocracy.

> Germany (economically - recall that as long as the euro is a threat to the dollar, the EU is a target),

--- More conspiracy theories.

> Syria has been attacked in the last week, and frankly if the whole lot doesn't just let go in the next few years, I'll be surprised.

--- Lets liberate Syria too, they also house the Baathists.

> Besides, the Iraqi's are not better off, as I've been trying to point out. [/B][/QUOTE]

With the war only one month removed, that is hardly a surprise. Iraq is in a state of transition.


Besides, you are twisting facts and deliberately ignoring the obvious - that international relief now is trickling to those who need it, and the conditions will get better. If not under Bush, then later.

now that the invasion has happened, and has removed Saddam, it has become very, very relevant.
I think the word you mean is "academic", but the fact is that the question you posed was not relevant as it did not represent the choice made when Iraq was invaded.

But since the result is obviously a lessening of the suffering of the Iraqi people, there has undenaible been a humanitarian bonus.
*sigh*
The result is NOT a lessening of their suffering - at the moment, that has increased and their rights and liberties have decreased.

BTW, I dont fint it hard to imagine that Saddam actually was helping anti-american elements. That alone is justification for the USA to remove Saddam.
No, it's enough reason for them to prosecute him - not to invade Iraq. In fact, that's the reason the ICC was set up in the first place - but the US's position on the idea that they should cooperate with the international community instead of dominating it is clear from their treatment of the ICC.

You cannot prove that there were no humanitarian interests in the overthrowing of Saddam.
What would you agree upon as an acceptable standard of proof?

If you hate the USA, yes it is.
I don't hate the US. Lets try to keep this argument rational, shall we?
Of course not. But I dont deny that there is an economic bonus from the Iraqi oil, either.
The economic bonus is not from the Iraqi oil - it's from controlling the currency for which it's sold.

That civilians will be killed in war? That is obvious. What i am saying, and what you seem to have so hard a time confronting - is that the number of civilians dead and suffering because of the conflict is miniscule compared to the suffering of leaving Saddam in place.
What you are saying, DJ, is that the ends justify the means. Except that in this case, the ends you refer to are not only not yet proven to have been reached - but they would be side effects at best if they were reached.

And in other words, you want us to accept a decision that you will leave a murdering psychopath in place and free to kill, torture and main as he pleases.
No, I'm saying that if you want to get rid of him, you don't need to invade the country. Further to that, I'm saying that we have as yet seen no evidence that the standard of living for the average Iraqi has gone up or will go up.

The USA may not have invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons, but what you're proposing is possible the most cruel and inhuman thing to do, when we have the power to make a difference!
In fact, what I am suggesting is the more humanitarian approach.

Bullshit. Hussein has been a thorin in the side of the US since '91. Plance for his removal has been underway for a decade.
What you seem to forget is that prior to '91, the US merrily supported his atrocities - which were far, far more extensive than they were from '91 onwards. Given the US's past history in such matters, had they removed him in '91, we'd now be seeing a saddam-like figure in his place. And frankly, I can see that happening anyway - "to prevent the spread of islamic fundamentalism"...

As i remember, the USA has signed international treaties forbidding assasination of foreign leadership.
You remember incorrectly.
They not only have not signed such a treaty, they have carried out assassinations in recent times - such as the assassination of several suspected al quaeda members in Yemen using a missile fired from a predator UAV.

if that is the case, you need to read up on your political theory, because you way off.
Have you examined the examples I cited?

I think Osama BL being housed in Afghanistan before, during and after 11/9, is ample reason for the USA to invade Afghanistan.
No it isn't. The fact that a country does not wish to sign an extradition treaty with your country does not give you the right to invade.

Same shit rhetoric. I dont watch either news channel.
That's not rhetoric. Those are specific examples of current events in Iraq.
You might want to go do some research.

I apparently care more than you do.
Yet your statements indicate that the opposite is true...

Fine. I cant wait to get rid of that bastard Theocracy.
How humanitarian of you. And how many innocent civilians is it worth to you to replace a government that you don't agree with?

More conspiracy theories.
Indeed? And the moving of US bases out of Germany to "damage their economy" (that's a Rumsfeld quote) is a conspiracy theory, is it? The euro is the primary competition for the dollar.

Lets liberate Syria too, they also house the Baathists.
Anyone else you want to invade? How many civilians do you want to kill? Hell, why not nuke the middle east to a big glass puddle and then drill through it for the oil, why don't we?

With the war only one month removed, that is hardly a surprise. Iraq is in a state of transition.
Two months removed. And the word you're looking for isn't transition, it's anarchy.

Besides, you are twisting facts and deliberately ignoring the obvious - that international relief now is trickling to those who need it, and the conditions will get better. If not under Bush, then later.
I am taking great pains to not twist facts. I'm citing references and quotes from relevant sources. You have not cited any references other than your recent post on CO2 levels - and there the site you quoted showed that you were twisting the facts.

And you have not yet shown that things will get better in Iraq. They haven't in afghanistan, years after the invasion - why would they in Iraq?

BTW, I dont fint it hard to imagine that Saddam actually was helping anti-american elements. That alone is justification for the USA to remove Saddam.

Why dont you remove the Iraqi peoples as well ? THEY are ANTI-Amerikan more than Saddam EVER was .

Goddamn peoples like you make me sick I wish we could wage war on you today better than tomorrow

Save Iraqis from a dictator!:rolleyes:

Laughable, and truly sad to believe that ANYONE would believe such B.S. Iraq if she had no oil, would be nothing more than a polluted agriculutral region, with a lot of desert. If Iraq had no oil then she wouldn't have presented a threat to Israel. But what does present a threat a imminant threat to US national security. HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES! That;s right not WMD, human rights. PLEASE, that is such a load of crap it deserves to be pissed on. The US doesn't care about human rights violations, frankly just look at Guantanamo. PNAC is the name of the game here. 51% of all Americans believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11. My American friends even thought so until I proved them otherwise. How do you prove that, ask for concrete evidence. ZIP! Of course it was horrible the way the Iraqi's were treated under Saddam, but a word of warning how do you expect them to be treated under a Shi'a government? You want you coveted democracy in Iraq. Which btw is a western ideology not a eastern one. Then fine the vote tally is simple: 60% Shi'a government, 20% Sunni, and 20% Kurd = civil war. The death and suffering because of this will be the true end result of this adventure in the PNAC map.

I'm going to bed soon, but I'll briefly comment on your post, Sparks:

First of all, I'd like to see what misrepresentations in the CO2 article you feel I have done.

Second, you seem to continually focus on a fact of war, Sparks - that civilians are killed. You also continually disregard from the fact that the iraqi peoples conditions have been enhanced, primarity as they have freedom af speech, and the relief supplies can get through, in contrast with before.

As to prosecution vs invasion: Dictators dont give shit about formal proceedings when they can sit on their thrones and are in power in their countries. Just look at the time it took to get Slobodan Milosevic to Haag. Do you really think he would let himself be deposed? Sheesh, wake up...

Regarding the oil/ US currency debate, I find your claims absurd.

Yes, the end justifies the means. And if human lives can be saved, people ought to be prepared to go a long way. Assume 7000 civilians killed in the war, and 50 dead per day under Saddam (I'm using figures here that are least supportive of my stance) - that means, in terms of bodycount, that the iraqi people would be better off already after 150 days without Saddam.

I'd like to see how you propose to rid Iraq of Saddam, without military might - please.

What atrocities have the US committed prior to '91?

As to my comments about your need to learn political theory, they should be obvious. I dont find the USA to be a fundamentalist regime. Claims to the contrary are absurd.

As to Afghanistan/Osama, again you babble about "rights". It is obvious that, in harboring a man that masterminded an attack on your country and civilians, causing 3000 dead, and this country refuses to extradite him, you are supporting his actions. I find that the US invasion is quite justified.

And now for my personal Catch-22. if I get my news from Fox/Sky News, I buy into US propaganda. Now that I assert that i dont, I'm uninformed. Sigh.

As to my claim that i care more about Iraq's people that you Sparks, that should be obvious, as you have not yet to my knowledge come up with any suggestion af to how SH should be removed from Iraq, without military means.

I've yet to see any reference for the number of people saddam killed a day since 91.
DJ,
Can you give a reference for your 50-100/day number?

Yes, the end justifies the means. And if human lives can be saved, people ought to be prepared to go a long way. Assume 7000 civilians killed in the war, and 50 dead per day under Saddam (I'm using figures here that are least supportive of my stance) - that means, in terms of bodycount, that the iraqi people would be better off already after 150 days without Saddam.


This argument has been shot to shit, 3 million dead in Congo buddy, thousands per day. Yet I don't hear you bitching why? You obviously haven't been to the Uganda link, or what how about the chemical attacks in Sudan? The millions who died there in the 20 year old civil war, and you know that Sudan helped Saddam out big time. This argument is a)tired, and b) not winning any arguments.

I've yet to see any reference for the number of people saddam killed a day since 91

I ditto that motion.

DJ,
First of all, I'd like to see what misrepresentations in the CO2 article you feel I have done.
Well, you stated that the US wasn't so bad from the point of view of CO2 emissions - but the figures from the site you quoted showed that the US was the worst emitter of CO2 in the world, the 6th worse on a per capita basis and the same was true of it's energy usage - worst overall, 6th on a per capita basis.

Second, you seem to continually focus on a fact of war, Sparks - that civilians are killed. You also continually disregard from the fact that the iraqi peoples conditions have been enhanced, primarity as they have freedom af speech, and the relief supplies can get through, in contrast with before.
I focus on the deaths of civilians because this invasion was not necessary.
And the Iraqi people do NOT have freedom of speech at present - as a post I put up here today showed, they can be arrested with no legal recourse for as little as an insult from a child to a GI.
The more unlucky have been shot.

Just look at the time it took to get Slobodan Milosevic to Haag. Do you really think he would let himself be deposed? Sheesh, wake up...
I think you'll find that the military operations were not what sent Milosevic to court in the end - it was his own people. So it's not a good example.

Yes, the end justifies the means.
That's something we won't be agreeing on. And I think you'll find that most philosophy hasn't agreed with it either, with the exception of the Macheivellis and Strausses of this world.

I'd like to see how you propose to rid Iraq of Saddam, without military might - please.
Well, the first thing I would do, I guess, is go to Tommy Franks and say "Tommy, think of a way to kill Saddam Hussein with a minimum of collateral damage".

What atrocities have the US committed prior to '91?
Well, you can start at Nagasaki (Hiroshima is arguable, but Nagasaki isn't.) You can roll on through vietnam (and laos and cambodia) and make sure you include such covert operations as the installation of Pinochet and Norieaga, and then there's Hussein - whom they installed, supported and funded through the 80s. Remember the infamous photo of rumsfeld shaking husseins hand less than a fortnight after halajba's gassing and giving him $300 million?

I dont find the USA to be a fundamentalist regime. Claims to the contrary are absurd.
Very well, I shall not claim that you find the US to be a fundamentalist regieme.
That doesn't change the examples I put forward. Which you haven't refuted.

Regarding the oil/ US currency debate, I find your claims absurd.
But can you refute them past giving that opinion? Have you any facts to the contrary?

I find that the US invasion is quite justified.
Again, that's your opinion - but international law is rather clear on this one, and the simple fact is that the invasion of afghanistan was a war of aggression and thereby illegal under the UN charter.

come up with any suggestion af to how SH should be removed from Iraq, without military means.
If you believe that "military means" is a phrase that means invasion and ONLY invasion, then you need to rethink that.

"Second, you seem to continually focus on a fact of war, Sparks - that civilians are killed. You also continually disregard from the fact that the iraqi peoples conditions have been enhanced, primarity as they have freedom af speech, and the relief supplies can get through, in contrast with before. "


Yes, and he has made clear that this fact of war disgusts him. therefore he is opposed to it.
Freedom of speech? Nearly. But wait until the newspapers are up again, the tv, and groups of iraqi protesters arent shot. Not that in some cases it might have not have been justified, but.....

Relief supplies did get through before hand. The UN thinks the oil for food program was very successful, almost no cases of corruption had been found, all the food got to the people it was meant to, when it was meant to.

The iraqi peoples conditions have been enhanced

This is not true , the land is still in anarchy & there are all sort of sortages caused directly by the invasion of Iraq . For many Iraqi peoples life has not bettered , it got worse .

primarity as they have freedom af speech

This is not what Iraqi consider as something valuable enough for your conclusion .

Just look at the time it took to get Slobodan Milosevic to Haag. Do you really think he would let himself be deposed? Sheesh, wake up...

Lets not forget that regime-change however didnt accur in Slobo's case .

The Shah in Iran let himself be disposed obviously .....
The CIA/Mossad could have couped .
Militias could have been sent .

Many things to do that can bring Saddam out of power without military colonizing the nation .

Assume 7000 civilians killed in the war, and 50 dead per day under Saddam (I'm using figures here that are least supportive of my stance) - that means, in terms of bodycount, that the iraqi people would be better off already after 150 days without Saddam.

The difference in logics is based on your assumption of forever Saddam and not forever USA colonization . This is an unfare compare . What about the regime that USA will install after Saddam ?

What atrocities have the US committed prior to '91?

Thats a funny one .

I dont find the USA to be a fundamentalist regime. Claims to the contrary are absurd.

They are fundamentally Imperialistic are they not ? They will do anything to ensure their own power and that of Israel , they are fanatic in their democratic ideology as they enforce it on others violently . And that is if it would be serious values what are imposed , and not just a fruitfull relation on economical and political level .

I find that the US invasion is quite justified.

Nobody proved UBL to be behind 9-11 . And again , other methods are available to bring peoples in without showing off your military superiority .


As to my claim that i care more about Iraq's people

Yet no Iraqi would agree with you . I guess you know best right ?

Allahs/Jihad – and now Ghassan

How many userids are you going to create?