Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Thousands of civilian bodies are overwhelming the morgue in Baghdad every week and thousands more civilians are fleeing their homes to Kuwait and Jordan to save their families from militia death squads on both sides of the Shia-Sunni battle for power. The Iraq Minister of Health recently estimated that there have been over 130,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, most as a result of sectarian violence and 2 million others who have fled the country as the sectarian violence (and lack of basic services) has spread over the last year since the election of the "unity" government.
|
I have heard the 130,000 number, I have not heard any "most" as a result of sectarian violence. Is there a source for that? I'm asking honestly, I'd like to know. If I've been misinformated (God knows, we've all been misinformed about this one way or the other).
[QUOTE=dc_dux]I agree it is morally unacceptable to invade a sovereign country that did not present an imminent threat to our national security. But we did and to abandon it to civil war, anarchy, and an infrastructure destroyed by out actions is equally immoral. We have an obligation to use whatever NON-MILITARY means we can along with a commitment to a NON-PERMANENT presence.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Unless we want the violence and insurgency to spread beyond Iraq, the involvement of the relatively less radical Middle East governments is critical to buffer the influence of Iran in both Iraq and the region as a whole. I point you to the comments by Jordon's King Hussein today. |
I agree that Iraq shoudln't be looking to it's neighbors for help:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel, in my last post
I'm not interested in asking what could still be called relatively radical Middle Eastern governments to step in to help what might not have to be a radical Middle Eastern government. I'd rather simply allow them to make their own way.
|
As stated, though: this should be the Iraqi's plans and we should be the assistants, not the leaders. Why are we in charge when we fucked the whole thing up? The way this should work is that the government should be setting goals and making plans, and we should be assisting them in attaining the goals of a stable government, stable econemy, stopping violence, etc. Instead, we are in charge and are building perminant military bases in another soverign nation after invading them and removing their government. If those bases are built, we won't be leaving until the Middle East has no oil left.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seaver
Sorry Wil, the vast majority of targets hit are not against us, but other Iraqis.
|
Are you saying 'sorry, will' because you were wrong in your last post when you corrected me and I pointed it out? Or did you ignore that and move on as if it didn't happen? If you don't want to talk about it, that's fine. Just let me know what's going on.
Do you have a source for the "the vast majority of targets hit are not against us, but other Iraqis" claim?