tim840: "there was a very serious concern about Iraqi possession of nukes." There was never any such evidence, nor cause for serious concern- just deceptive fear-mongering from the Bush cabinet, and "curve-ball". Initiating an unnecessary war with sloppy disinformation and concealed objectives is a self-defeating strategy for any nation with any shred of public accountability.
Minimum 100,000 Iraqi civilians are dead in this war. 1.8 million from pre-war sanctions since the Gulf War. That is reason enough to view this war as the greatest human tragedy in this decade.
The civilian dead in the Iraq war should be about 300,000. The Lancet number was 285,000 in 2005. The Lancet said at least 100,000 dead based on numbers indicating 285,000 dead. The Lancet report was probably the most objective and scientific attempt at counting the Iraqi civilian deaths. Pre war sanctions dead was probably more like 500,000 than 1.8 million. Which years were the sanction deaths? were some of them prior to 1998 and therefore not this decade? Congo is the worst tragedy with more 5 million civilian deaths in the last decade.
The US is not even partially as complicit in the Congo tragedy, as we are in what has happened to Iraq.
Bush and others may have believed that that Iraq had WMD; but did they have any evidence Iraq had WMD and was Iraq possession of WMD the true motive for invading Iraq? The evidence that they presented was bogus and I believe they knew they were presenting bogus evidence. I think Powell suspected the evidence he was presenting was bogus but he was still hoping it was real evidence when he presented it. From "the Project for a New American Century" and other Neocon writing prior to the year 2000 (when Neocons had to stop being as candid do Bush being president) I think I detect the true motive for invading Iraq. If I am correct Iraq was invaded to start creating a situation where not alliance of nations would dare challenge the USA's leadership of the world for the next 50 to 100 years. The prime target of the Iraq war in this scenario is not Saddam Hussein but rather is China. In PNAC China allied with yet to be determined allies was the threat to "Pax Americana". Back in the good old 1950's and early 1960's the USA made "regime change" look easy. I think the Neocons believed that lack of American will was why America no longer set up so many "friendly" governments around the world and no longer toppled so many "unfriendly" governments. I think that as the world's people became more like Americans and became more nationalistic people around the world became more instinctively hostile to foreign intervention in their nations and more hostile to any leader who achieved power through foreign intervention. I think the Neocons are wrong to try to assert the USA as in charge of the world. The USA should try to lead through persuasion and good example. Any attempt to dominate will be met with an angry backlash. You could use Stalinist tactics to crush a backlash but Stalinism is expensive. The NeoCons had no plan for who was going to pay for "Pax Americana".
Yea, the "U.S. Army's policy" of strapping explosives around "U.S. soldier's" chests, and then sending them into crowded markets, wedding parties, funerals, etc... and then blowing up those "U.S. soldiers", sure has taken it's toll on Iraqi citizens. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Diamond, you need to learn a little more of the world and current history. Have you heard of a place called Darfur? Estimates are nearly 400k people killed and 2.5 million displaced individuals. You seem blind to atrocities committed by Muslims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_crisis I also suggest you prove the assertions you made. Where is the proof? I am not seeing these numbers. Do they exist? If they do exist, are they from a credible source...an independent source not pushing a political agenda? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war Third, any deaths resulting from trade sanctions should be on the head of Saddam. The international bodies (United Nations) put in place an oil for food and medicine program which allowed trade for Iraqi humanitarian needs. It is not the fault of any country that Saddam diverted the money and products and kept them from his people.
Why do you need to do this when you can drop thousands of bombs over civilian populations? If these people had planes, you think they would be using these methods?
