Invalidates the "new" reason for war, Genocide?

[Superbelt]

http://www.oss.net/extra/news/?module_instance=1&id=879

EXTRACT 2: I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair. ... The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time. These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned.

Now read the SOURCE article for this.

[Dragonlich]

Suppose for a moment (and it might very well be true) that Iranian nerve gas killed the Kurds in that village... Does that matter? Someone killed them, using nerve gas.

It is a well-known fact that Saddam did indeed murder many Kurds, Shiites and other people during his decades in power. Therefore, he is *still* guilty of genocide, no matter if he killed these particular Kurds or not.

If you want further evidence about Saddam's genocidal tendencies, read some stories about his actions against the Shiites after the ('91) Gulf War...

[ctembreull]

Originally posted by Dragonlich
Suppose for a moment (and it might very well be true) that Iranian nerve gas killed the Kurds in that village... Does that matter? Someone killed them, using nerve gas.

Correct. But it absolutely does matter, because one of the reasons we supposedly had to get rid of Saddam was the oft-stated claim that "he gassed his own people." Colin Powell and Condi Rice have both made this claim on the record.

If nothing else, this administration is guilty of Clintonian-level fact-fudging. But Clinton's lies didn't get anyone killed.

[The_Dude]

and where was the nerve gas when US troops were invading?

and dont tell me he didnt use 'em cuz he was afraid of rummy

[Phaenx]

Originally posted by The_Dude
and where was the nerve gas when US troops were invading?

and dont tell me he didnt use 'em cuz he was afraid of rummy

If we knew that we'd go get them. I think they buried them in some remote location in the desert. They did it with a few of their MIG's, it's not improbable they'd hide their weapons as well. In doing this (assuming that the U.S. never finds said weapons) they'll most likely end up doing more damage to their enemies then they would by using them.

[The_Dude]

Originally posted by Phaenx
If we knew that we'd go get them. I think they buried them in some remote location in the desert. They did it with a few of their MIG's, it's not improbable they'd hide their weapons as well. In doing this (assuming that the U.S. never finds said weapons) they'll most likely end up doing more damage to their enemies then they would by using them.

well, now he lost his 2 sons and his own life is at risk.

i'm pretty sure that he knew this would happen.

[ctembreull]

According to something I read today:

After Saddam allowed in Hans Blix's inspectors, they spent 111 days searching for the supposed weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. invaded Iraq more than 111 days ago now, which means that we've spent more time not finding weapons of mass destruction than Hans Blix did. Yet Blix was denounced as "sloppy", "incompetent" and "in bed with Saddam" during his inspections by American pundits.

Wonder when they'll start saying the same about the Bush administration?

[Phaenx]

Originally posted by The_Dude
well, now he lost his 2 sons and his own life is at risk.

i'm pretty sure that he knew this would happen.

No doubt, that's why he ran away. If he wanted to go out with a bang he would have done it, but it wouldn't have been an intelligent descision. If you've got it in your head he wants to hurt the United States (and he does), I'd say getting rid of what he's got or selling it off and making sure we don't find out about it will prove to be more damaging then say nuking/gassing Baghdad and killing a few thousand soldiers and a ton of his own people.

[Phaenx]

Originally posted by ctembreull
According to something I read today:

After Saddam allowed in Hans Blix's inspectors, they spent 111 days searching for the supposed weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. invaded Iraq more than 111 days ago now, which means that we've spent more time not finding weapons of mass destruction than Hans Blix did. Yet Blix was denounced as "sloppy", "incompetent" and "in bed with Saddam" during his inspections by American pundits.

Wonder when they'll start saying the same about the Bush administration?

I wouldn't blame Hans Blix, he might have been able to find something if the Iraqi's stopped hiding/moving them and he had his own legion of inspectors looking.

[The_Dude]

Originally posted by Phaenx
I wouldn't blame Hans Blix, he might have been able to find something if the Iraqi's stopped hiding/moving them and he had his own legion of inspectors looking.

and i guess iraqi's are still moving the trucks around just when an army convoy comes in?

[Phaenx]

Originally posted by The_Dude
and i guess iraqi's are still moving the trucks around just when an army convoy comes in?

Nope, but at least now we'll have a shot.

[The_Dude]

Originally posted by Phaenx
Nope, but at least now we'll have a shot.

we are having "a shot" for the past few months and still nothing havent turned up.

[Phaenx]

Go help then. Searching an entire country above and below ground is infinately more difficult then most people think.

[Dragonlich]

Originally posted by ctembreull
Correct. But it absolutely does matter, because one of the reasons we supposedly had to get rid of Saddam was the oft-stated claim that "he gassed his own people." Colin Powell and Condi Rice have both made this claim on the record.

If nothing else, this administration is guilty of Clintonian-level fact-fudging. But Clinton's lies didn't get anyone killed.

It only matters to anti-war people, apparently...

Clinton's lies may not have killed anyone, but they sure as hell didn't save an entire country, it's inhabitants and it's future. How's about looking at that for a change. Given Saddam's record, it is quite likely that he would have killed *more* Iraqis in the past months than the US has so far.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Its fucking obvious that the WMD's were shipped out of the country to Syria/Jordan. I do believe in both countries the Baath party is in power. As far as the genocide goes, does the fact that we are uncovering mass graves with thousands of bodies mean anything?

[ctembreull]

Dragonlich:

What absolute twaddle.

Originally posted by Dragonlich
It only matters to anti-war people, apparently...

That is patently the most asinine statement I have yet seen on this board. Would you like me to tell you, in detail and at great length, exactly why?

Clinton's lies may not have killed anyone, but they sure as hell didn't save an entire country, it's inhabitants and it's future.

Now that the soda I spewed through my nose upon reading your utterly ridiculous canard has been wiped from my monitor, I would point out that we may have saved a country, but only in a Colonel Klink sort of sense. We had to burn Iraq to save Iraq. And I'm pretty sure that those thousands of civilian, women and children among them, don't feel all that "saved." Nor do the tens of thousands who are still without water and electricity. As for Iraq's future, that future is being sucked out even as we speak through pipelines belonging to companies like Halliburton and Unocal. Saved Iraq? Destroyed it, more like. Destroyed it based on a justification that was an out-and-out lie. Where are the WMDs? Answer me that, then tell me about "saving" Iraq. Bush lied. People died. It's that simple. Sort of a calculus of politically motivated death, if you will.

How's about looking at that for a change. Given Saddam's record, it is quite likely that he would have killed *more* Iraqis in the past months than the US has so far.

I would dearly love for you to provide me some documentation for that. Considering that somewhere between five and ten thousand Iraqi civilians and many many more in their military forces are now dead, I'm failing to see how Saddam would have accomplished that. Sadly enough, we may never know how many Iraqi civilians died. It's not exactly like the U.S. is going to release an accurate count, is it?

[ctembreull]

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Its fucking obvious that the WMD's were shipped out of the country to Syria/Jordan.

Document this claim, please. It should be easy if it's that "fucking obvious." And I think I'll require you to go beyond nebulous references to national intelligence sources. We all saw how well that worked out last time, didn't we? Artistic renderings of mobile laboratories, for Christ's sake.

I do believe in both countries the Baath party is in power. As far as the genocide goes, does the fact that we are uncovering mass graves with thousands of bodies mean anything?

How many of those graves, I wonder, were the ones we created in 1991 when we simply rolled massive bulldozers over Iraqi trench fortifications? You never bothered to ask why the military's claimed kill-count was so much higher than the confirmed body count, did you?

[ctembreull]

Originally posted by Phaenx
Go help then. Searching an entire country above and below ground is infinately more difficult then most people think.

You're dodging the issue. We claimed that we knew where the WMDs were, and that Blix's inspectors had had quite enough time. Let me repeat: We stated publicly, repeatedly, and for the record that we knew where the WMDs were. So where are they? Why have we not turned them up yet? What have we got, besides two hydrogen-production trailers sold to Iraq by the British and a bunch of centrifuge parts buried in some guy's rose garden for a decade? Answer me: where are the weapons of mass destruction? We've been looking long enough, we've had enough time. Isn't that how the riff goes?

And why is it that I doubt I'm ever going to get a real answer on that question?

[Mojo_PeiPei]

You people are insane if you don't think there are WMD's. The last time this happened in 95' Saddam played the same games. "No WMD's, you want to search my country? Go for it?" so UN inspectors get there Saddam plays wag the dog, we find nothing. Next thing that happens some people defect and give us the skinny, what do we find?

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/whitepap.htm

[ctembreull]

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
You people are insane if you don't think there are WMD's.

Great. So where are they? We've had more time than the inspectors did, and we had the advantage of supposedly knowing where they were? Again: Where are they?

Next thing that happens some people defect and give us the skinny, what do we find? http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/whitepap.htm

I was reading through that paper, and I found this: "No concrete information on the scope of Iraq's biological warfare program was available until August 1995, when Iraq disclosed, after Husayn Kamil's defection, the existence of an offensive biological warfare (BW) capability." The problem with this is that the Bush administration hid the fact that Kamel had in fact testified that he had personal knowledge that Iraq had "destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them."

Would you care to explain why you've chosen to rely on a position paper that quotes intelligence information that has since been discredited? In fact, Kamel's testimony is at the very heart of the paper you cite. But the paper makes no mention of the rest of Kamel's testimony., and neither did the Bush administration. The document you have provided bears no more credibility than those which prompted the uranium-from-Niger claims. Now that you know the rest of the story, would you like to perhaps revise your position?

[Mojo_PeiPei]

No I'm sticking by it because when we went back in 98' we found 17,000 liters of Anthrax that he didn't have.

[Phaenx]

Originally posted by ctembreull
You're dodging the issue. We claimed that we knew where the WMDs were, and that Blix's inspectors had had quite enough time. Let me repeat: We stated publicly, repeatedly, and for the record that we knew where the WMDs were. So where are they? Why have we not turned them up yet? What have we got, besides two hydrogen-production trailers sold to Iraq by the British and a bunch of centrifuge parts buried in some guy's rose garden for a decade? Answer me: where are the weapons of mass destruction? We've been looking long enough, we've had enough time. Isn't that how the riff goes?

And why is it that I doubt I'm ever going to get a real answer on that question?

Dodging the issue? You guys always say that, even when I've answered already. If we knew where they were we'd go get them. If it's true we knew where they were before going to war then they were either moved, buried or destroyed. I don't know where they are, why would I? Why would you? I assume you're trying to point out that they never existed, to that I say: "Ha-Ha."

If you've already made up your mind, why bother attacking me at all?

[Pacifier]

Originally posted by Phaenx
If we knew that we'd go get them. I think they buried them in some remote location in the desert.

so the usa was watching the iraq nonstop with satellities and planes and they were able to hide their weapons and noone noticed it?

the usa showed "proofs" of locations were some WMDs were stored? what it with those buildings now? suddently empty?

[Phaenx]

I assume they checked said buildings, someone probably would have spoke up if they were still there. These guys have been moving their weapons around for a good while, we know that much, (the weapons exist, and they've been evading UN inspectors) it doesn't surprise me at all that this is the case when the U.S. military comes knocking on their door. In all likelyhood, they cleared those buildings out the day Colin spoke to the UN if they weren't already emptied to thwart a group of inspectors.

As for when they were moved, if they were there in the first place, and where they went, I couldn't tell you. I'd put my money on them being buried somewhere, destroyed, or sold. Burying them is odd, but they did it to their MIG's, good camoflague to say the least I suppose. I'm sure you're welcome to enlist and help look for them though.

[Dragonlich]

Originally posted by ctembreull
Dragonlich:

What absolute twaddle.

What a well thought out response.

That is patently the most asinine statement I have yet seen on this board. Would you like me to tell you, in detail and at great length, exactly why?

Simple: anti-war people seem eager to find anything to back their stance, while pro-war people don't give a rat's arse. Just a fact, really.

Now that the soda I spewed through my nose upon reading your utterly ridiculous canard has been wiped from my monitor, I would point out that we may have saved a country, but only in a Colonel Klink sort of sense. We had to burn Iraq to save Iraq. And I'm pretty sure that those thousands of civilian, women and children among them, don't feel all that "saved." Nor do the tens of thousands who are still without water and electricity. As for Iraq's future, that future is being sucked out even as we speak through pipelines belonging to companies like Halliburton and Unocal. Saved Iraq? Destroyed it, more like. Destroyed it based on a justification that was an out-and-out lie. Where are the WMDs? Answer me that, then tell me about "saving" Iraq. Bush lied. People died. It's that simple. Sort of a calculus of politically motivated death, if you will.

Iraq was already burned, the US attack didn't destroy that much. The tens of thousands without water and electricity were already without water and electricity *before* the war. It took Saddam & co YEARS to rebuild the utilities after the '91 gulf war, and then it usually only worked in Baghdad, and only at certain times of day. That is a fact, sir.

The future of Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqi people. You THINK it is being "sucked out" by US companies, even though this is a huge overstatement of reality, and in the end just plain bullocks. Those US companies have to hire Iraqi people to man their operations, they'll have to pay taxes to the Iraqi government, and they will have to compete for the goods like every other company on the face of this planet. Besides, the *US government* is paying for that reconstruction, so why wouldn't they hire US companies, especially if those companies have tons of experience in rebuilding infrastructure?

The WMDs have nothing to do with saving Iraq. The Iraqi people have more freedom than they ever had, and this freedom will only increase. Just because the US can't find WMDs doesn't mean that the Iraqi people are somehow not free anymore.

And yes, people died during the attack, but that's to be expected. When my country was liberated by the allies during WW2, thousands of Dutch civilians died; does that somehow change the fact that we were liberated? Should we now blame the allies for killing those poor unfortunate civilians? Or should we blame our oppressors, the Germans, for creating a situation where those civilians might be killed? The same goes for Iraq: Saddam is ultimately responsible for those civilian deaths, because *he* refused to avert the war; *he* refused to step down; *he* practically invited the US army to invade, then made damn sure that civilians were caught in the resulting cross-fire.

I would dearly love for you to provide me some documentation for that. Considering that somewhere between five and ten thousand Iraqi civilians and many many more in their military forces are now dead, I'm failing to see how Saddam would have accomplished that. Sadly enough, we may never know how many Iraqi civilians died. It's not exactly like the U.S. is going to release an accurate count, is it?

Saddam killed hundreds of thousands, even millions, of his people. It is safe to assume he would have kept doing that if he had stayed in power. If we discount the military deaths (common practice, given that we're only looking at *civilian* deaths here), we're looking at 5,000 to 10,000 deaths caused by the war. That includes many that were killed at the hands of the Iraqi army and irregulars, either through direct action (execution, falling AAA ammo, deliberate targeting), and indirect action (human shields, hiding in civilian clothes, in civilian areas). Now, suppose we remove 1,000 civilian deaths for this. That leaves us with 4,000 to 9,000 deaths. Given that, on average, Saddam is said to have killed some 20,000 of his people each year... he would probably have killed more.

Lots of murky numbers there, I admit. But unfortunately we'll never know exactly how many Iraqi civilians died at the hands of Saddam. After all, it's not exactly likely that he'd ever admit that, now is it? If you want to compare the "evil" US invasion to the "evil" Saddam, I'd suggest you take a good look at the news reports about mass-graves popping up all over the place. Those were the result of Saddam's actions, not US actions.

Now, if you were to suggest that civilian casualties are to be avoided at all times, even if that means not going to war in the first place, I'd respect that opinion. Just remember that this would also have meant that *my* country would never have been liberated from German occupation. If you happen to have another option... how would *you* have gotten rid of Saddam? After all, leaving him in power would be bad; UN sanctions didn't help one bit; He wasn't willing to go... That leaves very little room for compromise, doesn't it?

[Superbelt]

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
No I'm sticking by it because when we went back in 98' we found 17,000 liters of Anthrax that he didn't have.

Anything that existed pre '99 is almost a non issue. It is documented fact he had it then. Clinton implemented operation Desert Fox in late '98 because of it. With 200 strategically launched Cruise Missiles that people like former inspector Ritter said destroyed upwards of 95% of anything that Saddam had left, including the production facilities. So, sure he had that anthrax, but it's gone now after being engulfed in a ball fo cruise missile fire.

Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors who then told us what Saddam was hiding and where it was. And the inspectors provided us with proof of their actual existence. Course that didn't stop the republicans from complaining that the strike was all just a diversion from what was going on in Clinton's pants. But then the Republicans were always good at turning a blind eye when it is convenient for them.

[Superbelt]

Clinton's lies may not have killed anyone, but they sure as hell didn't save an entire country, it's inhabitants and it's future.

Do the Iraqi's think they were saved? hmm.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/06/opinion/06DOWD.html

Mr. Wolfowitz has been tacitly campaigning for the jobs. He told Charlie Rose about his vice-regal trip to Iraq, where he said at last grateful Iraqis were thronging. "As we would drive by, little kids would run up to the road and give us a thumbs up sign," he said. (At least he thought it was the thumb.)

Maybe he should read up on a bit of GLOBAL BUSINESS ETIQUETTE

Thumbs up:

With an outstretched fist, the thumb is extended straight up.

"Thumbs up" as a positive gesture quickly gained popularity in the U.S.A., especially as a visual signal in noisy environments. Pilots unable to shout "All's well!" or "Ready!" over the noise of their engines used it frequently. With a slight backwards tilt, this gesture is used for hitchhiking. However, in most of the Middle East and parts of Africa (notably Nigeria), this symbol can be obscene. It Japan, the thumb is considered the fifth digit; a raised thumb will order five of something!

The man is completely clueless. He really is the emperor parading about in his new clothes.

I got this off The DailyKos.

[Dragonlich]

Superbelt, first of all, I won't bother to read that NY Times article, because I have to subscribe to get it. I won't. Perhaps you could copy 'n paste some juicy bits?

Second of all, the thumbs up/thumbs down thing has been talked about many times before, and it's just bullocks. The Iraqis are happy, celebrating, and offering a thumbs up to US forces and foreign journalists. Are you suggesting that they're actually *not* happy, and that all that apparent emotional release is a ploy designed to appear happy, when they're actually insulting the US forces? Sorry, you'll have to do better than that. Stating that it *can be* obscene isn't enough to convince me that it actually *is* obscene. Given that they know we see it as positive, I could just as easily "proof" that they mean it in a positive way.

[Superbelt]

don't bother reading it. It is basically just a slam on wolfowitz and no more is really relevant to this. And you are right. Iraqi's know we use the thumbs up as an affirmative. And we really can't know either way what they really mean. But Wolfie takes it to be a statement of support automatically. I doubt he knows the customs in the arab world at all. I'd bet he tries to shake hands with people over there using his right hand. He's a very ignorant and pompous person.

I think they used this as a veiled attempt to flip us off. They know we will take it one way and they can defy us without any consequences.

[The_Dude]

wolfowitz is an arrogant bastard indeed. anyone seen the interview he gave on meet the press??

the wmd's were touted as the #1 reason for an attack on iraq. now that the attack is over and we cant find the weap's, all the hawks are going "wmd's were not the reason for the war".

[Phaenx]

Not me, so technically that's not true =).

[The_Dude]

if only i had the posts from tfp 3.0

[reconmike]

Originally posted by The_Dude
wolfowitz is an arrogant bastard indeed. anyone seen the interview he gave on meet the press??

the wmd's were touted as the #1 reason for an attack on iraq. now that the attack is over and we cant find the weap's, all the hawks are going "wmd's were not the reason for the war".

Ok I think I am turning blue saying this so many times but here goes anyhow.......

It was proven he had all sorts of wmd's that is not in dispute.

He never proved that they were either,
1. Destroyed
2.Dismantled
3. or Turned over to the great UN

So this "hawk" still thinks there are WMDs and will be found some where.

[ctembreull]

Originally posted by Dragonlich
What a well thought out response.

I thought so; I'm glad you agree.

Simple: anti-war people seem eager to find anything to back their stance, while pro-war people don't give a rat's arse. Just a fact, really.

True, with caveats: pro-war people certainly don't give a rat's arse about the damage we've done to Iraq or the innocent civilians we've killed. Most of the pro-war people, furthermore, don't really give a rat's arse about "liberating" Iraq. I think Sixate said it best: they just like watching their big powerful country beat up on little pissant uneducated countries. Such a wonderful thing, jingoism...

Iraq was already burned, the US attack didn't destroy that much.

Stuff in Iraq destroyed? Gosh, I wonder who could have done *that*. You say this like it excuses the United States, but the fact is that all of that pre-existing destruction (and there was a lot less of it before this year) was our doing, too.

The tens of thousands without water and electricity were already without water and electricity *before* the war. It took Saddam & co YEARS to rebuild the utilities after the '91 gulf war, and then it usually only worked in Baghdad, and only at certain times of day. That is a fact, sir.

That is absolute bushwah (pun intended.) If you're trying to sell me the bill of goods that says that we didn't actually manage to blow apart any power plants or water facilities in our latest national wargasm, then it is my opinion, sir, that you may in fact be completely insane. Additionally, how do you think those "other" power plants and water facilities got destroyed? Was there anyone *besides* America and Britain invading Iraq in the last ten years, that I'm somehow not aware of?

The future of Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqi people.

Um, that would be "the Iraqi people that the U.S. occupational government deems politically suitable. What, you think we're gonna allow anyone who can even spell "Baath Party" anywhere near the new puppet government?

You THINK it is being "sucked out" by US companies, even though this is a huge overstatement of reality, and in the end just plain bullocks.

In a pig's eye. Or did you not hear about the new "bid system" that will allow approved oil companies to bid against each other for lots of Iraqi oil? Gee, can you say "collusion?" I knew you could.

Besides, the *US government* is paying for that reconstruction, so why wouldn't they hire US companies, especially if those companies have tons of experience in rebuilding infrastructure?

By this, you mean Halliburton. Y'see, Halliburton was awarded a bunch of those rebuilding contracts without even having to bid on them.. Not coincidentally, Halliburton is Vice President Dick "Pacemaker Man" Cheney's company. Oh, yes, we're importing those wonderful American values into Iraq: political intolerance, violence, and patronage. Lovely.

The WMDs have nothing to do with saving Iraq.

Ahem. I was told repeatedly this year that they had them, we knew they had them, and that we knew where they were, not to mention that they could deploy them against the United States in as little as an hour. I was also told that they had a nuclear program. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Or were they just a convenient excuse to invade a sovereign nation?

The Iraqi people have more freedom than they ever had and this freedom will only increase. Just because the US can't find WMDs doesn't mean that the Iraqi people are somehow not free anymore.

Is your last name perhaps Fleischer? Just curious, mind. At any rate, spoken like a PR flack. I would love to see you justify calling a people whose sovereignty has just been violated "free".

And yes, people died during the attack, but that's to be expected.

Stop right there. Just fucking stop. That is a patently ridiculous statement. It is a transparent blow-off, a ridiculous attempt at justification, and speaks of an absolute lack of concern for the people whose putativeb freedom you were just moments ago bleeding over.
Between five and ten thousand Iraqis are dead at the hands of the United States and its allies.. Full stop. So much for liberation.

When my country was liberated by the allies during WW2, thousands of Dutch civilians died; does that somehow change the fact that we were liberated?

Difference: in World War II, the Allies were the liberators. Now, they're the invaders. How many more will die to free the Iraqis of the Allies, I wonder?

Should we now blame the allies for killing those poor unfortunate civilians?

For the ones who took up arms against the Allies, no. For all the others, absolutely.

[B]Saddam is ultimately responsible for those civilian deaths, because *he* refused to avert the war;

[B] So I suppose the inspectors were more of a naturally occurring phenomenon? And all those reports that there were no WMDs were just hallucinations experienced on a worldwide scale, I presume?

*he* refused to step down;

Pay attention, because I'm only going to say this once. No nation, not the United States, nor any other, has any right whatsoever to demand that any leader abdicate power for any reason. Sovereign nations are just that: sovereign nations. That Saddam wouldn't step down on our say so in no way justifies, validates, or excuses an armed invasion. That is international law, sir, and we are not above it.

*he* practically invited the US army to invade

It's a testament to the childishness of our President that such a schoolyard tactic could have succeeded. This is the United States of America, not some sixth-grader on the playground. I don't care if said your mother wears combat boots, we had no right to invade.

then made damn sure that civilians were caught in the resulting cross-fire.

By locating his power plants and water treatment facilities conveniently to cities where they could actually do some good? What an absolutely silly thing of him to do. How dare he even attempt to provide those people basic services? How dare he?

(... Well-worn "But he killed his own people!" riff excised) That leaves us with 4,000 to 9,000 deaths. Given that, on average, Saddam is said to have killed some 20,000 of his people each year... he would probably have killed more.

Whereas it took us only about a month to kill as many as half that number. Listen: just because Saddam did it doesn't mean that we should as well. We're supposed to be better than that, instead of sinking to his level. Speaking, by the way, of cruel and oppressive dictators, when did you say we were going to liberate Congo, Zaire, Angola, Cuba, Pakistan, North Korea, and China?

If you want to compare the "evil" US invasion to the "evil" Saddam, I'd suggest you take a good look at the news reports about mass-graves popping up all over the place. Those were the result of Saddam's actions, not US actions.

So you deny that United States forces used bulldozers in combat to collapse Iraqi berm fortifications and bury their defenders alive?

Now, if you were to suggest that civilian casualties are to be avoided at all times, even if that means not going to war in the first place, I'd respect that opinion.

In fact, that's exactly what I'm saying. And don't fret, the Russians took care of the Third Reich several days before the United States reached Berlin. Gee... maybe if we hadn't invaded, all those Nederlanders who died would have been alive, hmm? It's not as if the occupation would have continued long once Hitler ate a bullet.

UN sanctions didn't help one bit; He wasn't willing to go... That leaves very little room for compromise, doesn't it?

Actually it does, if we're as pure as we claim to be. By invading Iraq and laying waste to its infrastructure, killing its people, outlawing political parties, and auctioning off its mineral wealth, we are ourselves no better than Saddam Hussein. This is a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences. We supported him in the 80's. We armed his nation as a bulwark against Iran. We have nobody but ourselves to blame for the results of that tampering. Nobody but ourselves.

[The_Dude]

Halliburton is Vice President Dick "Pacemaker Man" Cheney's company

*laughs*

[ctembreull]

Originally posted by Phaenx
Dodging the issue? You guys always say that, even when I've answered already.

Humor me. If you've answered it before, then just put it here, one more time. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? I want places and quanitites.

If we knew where they were we'd go get them.

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." -- Donald Rumsfeld, ABC Interview, March 30, 2003

[Dragonlich]

Originally posted by ctembreull
True, with caveats: pro-war people certainly don't give a rat's arse about the damage we've done to Iraq or the innocent civilians we've killed. Most of the pro-war people, furthermore, don't really give a rat's arse about "liberating" Iraq. I think Sixate said it best: they just like watching their big powerful country beat up on little pissant uneducated countries. Such a wonderful thing, jingoism...

do you have some independent statistics to back up this ridiculous statement, or are you just jumping to (unfounded) conclusions?

Stuff in Iraq destroyed? Gosh, I wonder who could have done *that*. You say this like it excuses the United States, but the fact is that all of that pre-existing destruction (and there was a lot less of it before this year) was our doing, too.

That is absolute bushwah (pun intended.) If you're trying to sell me the bill of goods that says that we didn't actually manage to blow apart any power plants or water facilities in our latest national wargasm, then it is my opinion, sir, that you may in fact be completely insane. Additionally, how do you think those "other" power plants and water facilities got destroyed? Was there anyone *besides* America and Britain invading Iraq in the last ten years, that I'm somehow not aware of?

Gee, let me see... reasons for Iraq's stuff being destroyed: a long war with Iran? A war with the UN Saddam started? *Decades of neglect*?

Y'see, Saddam preferred to spend all of Iraq's money on pretty palaces, weapons and such things, instead of investing in infrastructural improvements, or even repair.

Um, that would be "the Iraqi people that the U.S. occupational government deems politically suitable. What, you think we're gonna allow anyone who can even spell "Baath Party" anywhere near the new puppet government?

Would you prefer the German post-war system, where many former Nazis were allowed to stay in power? I doubt the Iraqis would be very happy with Ba'ath party members still in control of the country, only now with US backing... hell, the US kicked out various local leaders after local Iraqis complained they were former Ba'ath party members!

In a pig's eye. Or did you not hear about the new "bid system" that will allow approved oil companies to bid against each other for lots of Iraqi oil? Gee, can you say "collusion?" I knew you could.

By this, you mean Halliburton. Y'see, Halliburton was awarded a bunch of those rebuilding contracts without even having to bid on them.. Not coincidentally, Halliburton is Vice President Dick "Pacemaker Man" Cheney's company. Oh, yes, we're importing those wonderful American values into Iraq: political intolerance, violence, and patronage. Lovely.

They did bid, and Halliburton was awarded the contract. After all, they have tons of experience in rebuilding Kuwait's oil infrastructure, so why *wouldn't* they get the contract?

Ahem. I was told repeatedly this year that they had them, we knew they had them, and that we knew where they were, not to mention that they could deploy them against the United States in as little as an hour. I was also told that they had a nuclear program. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Or were they just a convenient excuse to invade a sovereign nation?

Is your last name perhaps Fleischer? Just curious, mind. At any rate, spoken like a PR flack. I would love to see you justify calling a people whose sovereignty has just been violated "free".

Again, WMDs have NOTHING to do with saving the Iraqi people from a murderous dictator. They may have been a reason for invasion, but without them, the Iraqis are STILL liberated. And yes, I do justify invasion of a "sovereign nation" liberation. I take it you do not - so you think the US should re-instate Saddam Hussein and pack their bags? As for freedom: previously, the Shiites weren't allowed to go to their holy city, and they certainly weren't allowed to voice their opinion. Now they can do both - how would that NOT be freedom?

Stop right there. Just fucking stop. That is a patently ridiculous statement. It is a transparent blow-off, a ridiculous attempt at justification, and speaks of an absolute lack of concern for the people whose putativeb freedom you were just moments ago bleeding over.
Between five and ten thousand Iraqis are dead at the hands of the United States and its allies.. Full stop. So much for liberation.

In war, people die. Some of those people will be civilians. The rest of them, not killed in the fighting, are liberated. Wars are nasty, mistakes happen, and innocent people die. Deal with it. The fact that I expect (and accept) that innocent people will die in a war does not mean that I somehow don't care about them.

Difference: in World War II, the Allies were the liberators. Now, they're the invaders. How many more will die to free the Iraqis of the Allies, I wonder?

For the ones who took up arms against the Allies, no. For all the others, absolutely.

Today, it's invaders ridding a country of an evil dictator. You know, the same thing the US did to Germany and Japan during WW2. If anyone is willing and able to kick out the Allies, they're welcome to try, but I'd consider them enemies.

As for the innocent victims of WW2: I suggest you read up on your history - during WW2, it was nigh impossible to *not* hit innocent civilians. It's not a fucking video-game, you know.

So I suppose the inspectors were more of a naturally occurring phenomenon? And all those reports that there were no WMDs were just hallucinations experienced on a worldwide scale, I presume?

Oh, for fuck's sake - HE DID NOT COOPERATE WITH THE INSPECTIONS. He was supposed to give EVIDENCE proving that he had destroyed his WMDs, and HE DID NOT DO THAT.

Pay attention, because I'm only going to say this once. No nation, not the United States, nor any other, has any right whatsoever to demand that any leader abdicate power for any reason. Sovereign nations are just that: sovereign nations. That Saddam wouldn't step down on our say so in no way justifies, validates, or excuses an armed invasion. That is international law, sir, and we are not above it.

It's a testament to the childishness of our President that such a schoolyard tactic could have succeeded. This is the United States of America, not some sixth-grader on the playground. I don't care if said your mother wears combat boots, we had no right to invade.

Pay attention, because I'm going to say this only once: you're wrong.

By locating his power plants and water treatment facilities conveniently to cities where they could actually do some good? What an absolutely silly thing of him to do. How dare he even attempt to provide those people basic services? How dare he?

No, he made sure his civilians were killed by hiding his army and irregulars in CIVILIAN AREAS, by shooting at HIS OWN FUCKING PEOPLE, and by FIGHTING IN CIVILIAN CLOTHES. Or did you conveniently forget about those episodes?

Whereas it took us only about a month to kill as many as half that number. Listen: just because Saddam did it doesn't mean that we should as well. We're supposed to be better than that, instead of sinking to his level. Speaking, by the way, of cruel and oppressive dictators, when did you say we were going to liberate Congo, Zaire, Angola, Cuba, Pakistan, North Korea, and China?

Repeat: war is nasty, people die. Deal with it.

So you deny that United States forces used bulldozers in combat to collapse Iraqi berm fortifications and bury their defenders alive?

I do not. Where did I ever say I denied that? In fact, where did you ever mention that?

FYI, the US did indeed do that, and for a very good reason: it's common sense. If the Iraqis would not give up, they'd be killed using this tactic. You can't blame the US for their opponent's refusal to give up. And you certainly can't blame the US for thinking up a novel tactic, instead of running towards the trenches, WW1-style.

In fact, that's exactly what I'm saying. And don't fret, the Russians took care of the Third Reich several days before the United States reached Berlin. Gee... maybe if we hadn't invaded, all those Nederlanders who died would have been alive, hmm? It's not as if the occupation would have continued long once Hitler ate a bullet.

If that's what you're saying, you're incredibly naive.

And you seem to forget that the invasions of France and Italy forced Hitler to divide his forces, instead of focusing all he had on the Russians. Without the US, the Russians would not have had it so easy. And to be totally frank: I actually like the fact that I was liberated by the Western Allies, thank you very much. I would not have liked living under a communist dictatorship.

Actually it does, if we're as pure as we claim to be. By invading Iraq and laying waste to its infrastructure, killing its people, outlawing political parties, and auctioning off its mineral wealth, we are ourselves no better than Saddam Hussein. This is a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences. We supported him in the 80's. We armed his nation as a bulwark against Iran. We have nobody but ourselves to blame for the results of that tampering. Nobody but ourselves.

Irrelevant (and bullshit and hysterical paranoia).

Did you have another option besides waiting yet another 12 years for UN inspections not to find anything?

[Pacifier]

Originally posted by Dragonlich
As for the innocent victims of WW2: I suggest you read up on your history - during WW2, it was nigh impossible to *not* hit innocent civilians.

small note:
true, but civillians were also knowingly targeted. Bombing and killing civillians was a tactic use by all nations in WW2. The allies called it "dehousing" (sounds a bit like "collateral damage" but means that you firebomb known residental areas)


Oh and one question for the pro-war guys since you ignored it in the last post

Why did Bush choose to liberate iraq and not Congo, Zaire, Angola, Cuba, Pakistan, North Korea, or China?

Oh and 150.000 soldiers to the iraq but only 7 soldiers to liberate Liberia (Tyler has proven connections to the AlKaida)?

[Dragonlich]

Originally posted by Pacifier
small note:
true, but civillians were also knowingly targeted. Bombing and killing civillians was a tactic use by all nations in WW2. The allies called it "dehousing" (sounds a bit like "collateral damage" but means that you firebomb known residental areas)

I know that. It was part of the "total war" concept, where you mobilize your entire nation to fight, and your enemy does the same. Therefore, enemy civilians are also fair game.

As a side-note: advocates of air-power were the main driving force for this total war concept, in that they thought that they could break the morale of the enemy by blowing up civilians. Usually they were proven wrong.

Oh and one question for the pro-war guys since you ignored it in the last post

Why did Bush choose to liberate iraq and not Congo, Zaire, Angola, Cuba, Pakistan, North Korea, or China?

Congo, Zaire, Angola would be really annoying to fight in - it's basically vietnam all over again. How would you keep the peace if there's no peace to be kept? How would you liberate a country where various tribes like to murder each other on a daily basis?

Cuba has been tried, but containment seems a better option.

Pakistan is a strategic ally, and wouldn't even be "liberated" - it'd be like liberating a hornet's nest...

North Korea is well on it's way to being liberated, if they keep up their agressive stance. Containment seems to work for now.

And China is simply too big to attack right now; that'd be suicidal, and could easily lead to a nuclear war, killing all of mankind.

Oh and 150.000 soldiers to the iraq but only 7 soldiers to liberate Liberia (Tyler has proven connections to the AlKaida)?

Yes, 7 soldiers... to support the African peacekeepers, and to prepare the way for another batch of US troops as soon as Taylor steps down. Sheesh, at least *try* and show the whole picture, will you?

As for Taylor's connections to Al Qaida: I wouldn't know. Might be true, I just never heard anything about it. Suppose it's true - how is this suddenly justification for an intervention, when it wasn't in the case of Saddam?

[Pacifier]

Originally posted by Dragonlich
Congo, Zaire, Angola would be really annoying to fight in - it's basically vietnam all over again.

Oh so the USA is only moralic superior nation if it is easy? Liberating some nations is "annoying"...

Originally posted by Dragonlich
Pakistan is a strategic ally

so the goverment is allowed to do whatevery they want to, just like iraq a couple of years ago...that brings up the question again if the USA is able to learn...

Originally posted by Dragonlich
North Korea is well on it's way to being liberated, if they keep up their agressive stance. Containment seems to work for now.

So the people have to starve a bit longer, no problem for them, they are used to it...

Originally posted by Dragonlich
Yes, 7 soldiers... to support the African peacekeepers, and to prepare the way for another batch of US troops as soon as Taylor steps down.

Why wait? Why not force him out just like Saddam? I try to see the whole picture with the eyes of a pro War guy and it makes no sense. so please explain it to since I seem to be too stupid...

And if he is gone, do have plans for the time after that? or will it be try and error like iraq? Do you have plans to prevent the nation to become a nation "where various tribes like to murder each other on a daily basis" or where various groups try to murder american troops on a daily basis?

Do you think the USA will wait until a stable goverment is installed in the iraq or will they try to get out of there as quick as possible leaving the nation in a potentially unstable situation?

Originally posted by Dragonlich
As for Taylor's connections to Al Qaida: I wouldn't know. Might be true, I just never heard anything about it. Suppose it's true - how is this suddenly justification for an intervention, when it wasn't in the case of Saddam?

nice try, but there are no connections between Saddam and AlKaida.