The Iraq thread 4

[chops 111]

The most obvious statistic is that more people would be alive today, had there been no invasion and occupation.

So much for TBA and "the culture of life" they love to espouse.

<--------

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]The most obvious statistic is that more people would be alive today, had there been no invasion and occupation.

Do you remember the mass graves? They just found two more last week if I recall.

I think in the long term more people would have died by Saddams hand had he been allowed to stay in power for 20 more years.

So yeah a lot of people are dying now, but it's less than would be in the long term had Saddam stayed in power.

[sim 0]

Quote[/b] ]The most obvious statistic is that more people would be alive today, had there been no invasion and occupation.

Do you really want another Vietnam?

The troops came home after being through hell and came back to find people had not supported what they were doing!

Many of them were shocked and extremely upset by this especially after what a lot of them saw scarred them for the rest of their lives.

People who are still protesting about the war need to stop now, ok you've made your point, you didn't want there to be a war but it happened. FULL STOP, you can't go back and change this. Just support the rest of the guys out there, they need us right now!

sim

[miles teg 1]

Quote[/b] ]

Do you remember the mass graves? They just found two more last week if I recall.

I think in the long term more people would have died by Saddams hand had he been allowed to stay in power for 20 more years.

So yeah a lot of people are dying now, but it's less than would be in the long term had Saddam stayed in power.

Unless the new government becomes a draconian oppressive regime by necissity in order to crush Islamist movements within Iraq just as Saddam did.  

There is currently enormous pressure to create a similar secret police/intelligence apparattus similar to that used by Saddam's Baathist party.

It may turn out that continued violence over the span of 20 years may cause vastly more deaths then Saddam's regime.

Nobody knows.  But if that is the reason we invaded Iraq, then we need to go invade a lot more other countries with similar or worse human rights records.  

What is North Korea's death toll from their communist party?   How about Khaddaffi's in Libya (our newest bestest oil buddy)?

Anyways, my point is that its pointless speculating about what might have happened to Saddam.  Hey may have been overthrown in a coup for all we know.  That is how we should have gotten rid of him in my own opinion.  But we failed to support several internal efforts to revolt against him.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[miles teg 1]

Quote[/b] ]The most obvious statistic is that more people would be alive today, had there been no invasion and occupation.

Do you really want another Vietnam?

The troops came home after being through hell and came back to find people had not supported what they were doing!

Many of them were shocked and extremely upset by this especially after what a lot of them saw scarred them for the rest of their lives.

People who are still protesting about the war need to stop now, ok you've made your point, you didn't want there to be a war but it happened. FULL STOP, you can't go back and change this. Just support the rest of the guys out there, they need us right now!

sim

Say what? You can still support the troops and not support the war. Supporting the troops in the anti-war movement means working to bring them home while at the same time looking for alternative solutions to the problem. Even during the Vietnam War, protesters were not all going looking for soldiers to spit on. It was also a VASTLY different generation and culture at that time with a ton of civil rights activism going on and a massive change in society...very different from today's youth culture and our society.

The last protest I participated in was called the Arlington Memorial West exhibit. It was 1,000 crosses (and Islamic and Jewish grave markers) placed on one of the main lawns of my campus along with flowers, cards, and rubber bands to place flowers or messages on the markers of those who had fallen.

Along with this was a sign showing the current number of American dead as well estimates of Iraqi dead.

Finally there was TONS of information for veterans at my University with advice for readjusting to life back in the States, where they can find support groups (if needed) and VA info and Veterans organizations for helping them with financial situations and medical claims. In addition we had info for where they could get free confidential psychological counceling if they needed it outside the VA so that it wouldn't go on their military records.

This is the type of protest that many against the war are doing. Sadly however, rightwing politicans have tried to portray anti-war protesters as traitors and soldier haters.

I can tell you that most definitely in my city, the anti-war organizations have been very active in reaching out to veterans and supporting them as a soldier does not have a choice in politics and it is his/her duty to serve regardless of how screwed up a war is.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ] Do you remember the mass graves? They just found two more last week if I recall.

I think in the long term more people would have died by Saddams hand had he been allowed to stay in power for 20 more years.

So yeah a lot of people are dying now, but it's less than would be in the long term had Saddam stayed in power.

Really? How many Iraqis did Saddam kill? The propaganda number used by the Bush administration put the top at 300k.

Paul Bremer said in 2004:

"Saddam killed more Muslims than any man in modern history" and may have killed as many as 300000 Iraqis during his 35 years in power." (s)

The Human Rights Watch puts the number of executed and "disappeared" people between 50k and 150k from 1968 to 2003. Absolutely horrific numbers, but this was over a span of about 35 years and the absolute majority of those were during the 70's and the 80's.

The most scientifically solid survey puts the number of Iraqi civilians killed during the war to 100k+. It's in the same league as what Saddam did over 35 years. This does not include the people who are killed daily by insurgent and coalition bombs.

The biggest killer though up to date, seems to be the sanctions. The Red Cross estimates around 300k Iraqis died from malnutrition, disease etc - most of them children. Unfortunately that hasn't changed - on the contrary.

When Saddam Hussein was overthrown, about 4% of Iraqi children under five were going hungry; now that figure has almost doubled to 8%, according to a recent UN report.(s)

So no, it's far from certain that Saddam would have caused more deaths had he remained in power than what the coalition has done during the last two years.

[Akira 0]

Do you really want another Vietnam?

The troops came home after being through hell and came back to find people had not supported what they were doing!

Many of them were shocked and extremely upset by this especially after what a lot of them saw scarred them for the rest of their lives.

People who are still protesting about the war need to stop now, ok you've made your point, you didn't want there to be a war but it happened. FULL STOP, you can't go back and change this. Just support the rest of the guys out there, they need us right now!

sim

Insurgency Living With Populace=Check

Lack Of Solution To Political Problem=Check

Soldiers Unsure What They Fight For=Check

Government Ignoring Populace Against War=Check

War Started Under False Pretenses=Check

High Casualty Rate With No Slackening Of Insurgency=Check

Are you saying we don't have a Vietnam?

People who continually support this war despite ample evidence it was all based on lies need to wake the hell up FULL STOP. People who think you can't support the troops and be against the war need to get their head outta their...FULL STOP

And a basic knowledge of history will show you that the reaction of the populace today does not compare with 1960s-1970s. This time TBA is being called the baby killers, not the pawns on the ground.

EDIT: Whats more supportive of the troops then wanting them to get home as soon as possible...not sit in the desert on tours the Army keeps extending?

[sim 0]

Quote[/b] ]EDIT: Whats more supportive of the troops then wanting them to get home as soon as possible...not sit in the desert on tours the Army keeps extending?

Quote[/b] ]People who think you can't support the troops and be against the war need to get their head outta their...FULL STOP

There isn't any need for that.

Yes I do want them home, cos I do have mates over there. If we had not gone to war then saddam would still be killing people like he used to all the time. Ok yes you may say we have Saddam now but as soon as we pull out don't you reckon militia will just move back in?

[Bordoy 0]

Ok everyone, think about this scenario.

The US, UK and all other Coalition countries pull their armed forces out of Iraq. What will happen to Iraq? It will NEVER be alrite if we do that, the country would collapse on it self and we might aswell sell the land to the highest bidder on e-bay.

I was against the war, but now we have entered I am 100% behind our guys and girls to do their job.

[sim 0]

That's what I mean, thanks Bordoy

As soon as we pull out the militia will be swarming all over those towns and cities like flies to a sticky old lolly.

[chaztheducky 0]

exactly...if we leave now when the young kid (iraq) is still learning to ride a bike (iraq's govt) then when the training wheels come off (US Full withdrawl whithin weeks) the kids going to fall.

at what was said earlier about hippi....i mean protesters... if you insult the war then you ARE insulting the troops. think about if some one told you what you did was wrong even if it is indirectly. how would that feel?

[quicksand 0]

We don't know if there will be a positive outcome if the US forces stay in Iraq,developments will be as unpredictable if they leave now,a civil war will be a direct consequence of you invading the country screwing it up and asessing Shia Iraqi National Guardsman in Sunni hotspots.

If you actually took the time  to read,most of the anti-war people writing in this thread have a common view and there is basicly no one proposing an immidiate withdrawl.The most common position is the following:

"Iraq was invaded under false pretenses only to proove the UN disarmament process was a complete succes in spite of the advices gave by many countries intelligence services before the whole mess started.

The WMD search has completly been abandoned with the conclusion that Saddam never posessed an active WMD program as it was brandashed by The Bush Administration.

Saddam also never had ties with Al-Queda as the allegation all prooved to be complete bogus to prepare the case for war.

There was no imminent danger of a humanitarian disaster as the one unfolding presently after US forces occupied the country.

US failed both in assuring security for Iraqis and reconstructing their shattered country not even at least to pre war levels when Iraq was under heavy sanctions.

US failed in protecting civillians and forming a picture from which to be percived as peace keepers instead of occupiers.They fired in countless situations indiscriminatly being responsable for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civillians.

100,000 Iraqi civillian and 2,000 Coallition deaths were both unnecesary losses and depressing as the whole war is.We support US forces drowning Iraqis,beating them to death,shooting them when they are wounded and unarmed,flatening their homes and blowing them to pieces,sexually abuse them and the continuos occupation of Iraq about as much as we support the acts against humanity comited by Zarqawi's group.

However it is as valid that if you broke it,you fix it.US forces should stay in Iraq,now more then ever when the country is one the brink of civil war and repair as much of the harm they inflicted and after the following ellections in which the Sunnis will hopefully participate,let the government negotiate with the rebel groups without interfering and it they are really serious about stemming the violence and help Iraq work,admit their own fuck ups and apologise to the Iraqi people,promising a complete withdrawl as fast as a national referendum decides to.

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Iraq was invaded under false pretenses only to proove the Un disarment process was a complete succes in spite of the advices gave by many countries intelligence services before the whole mess started.

Why does everyone seem to blame the US about no WMD's if many countries said there was. Why doesn't anyone blame the UK or any european country?

[sim 0]

Because Bush wanted to start the War, we were only backing them up 'cos they're our allies, then again the same could be said about why does everyone only talk about the US in the war and not the UK or any other European country

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]Iraq was invaded under false pretenses only to proove the Un disarment process was a complete succes in spite of the advices gave by many countries intelligence services before the whole mess started.

Why does everyone seem to blame the US about no WMD's if many countries said there was. Why doesn't anyone blame the UK or any european country?

Umm lets see maybe it was because it was the US who produced the false evidence about the WMD's and it was them who initiated the whole iraq war , they were the ones beating the war drums loudly not everyone else.

The UK can be blamed as well , but we dont blame the dog if his owner says fetch and he fetches now do we.

Just read a TIMES report about the ER rooms in Baghdads hospitals and all i can say is if this is good and improvement then i dont wanna see bad. According to the report those guys dont have proper equipment , no govt funding the hospital says politicians in the health minsitry are corrupt , they dont have MRI/CT scan or any such machinery , they dont even have proper cleanliness there , patients come in bleeding and if its a car bomb o something and many are injured , like 10-20 many just die there bleeding because no doctor could come up to them as they were busy with others.

The report also says that many surgeons/docs left Iraq during/before war and havent returned while the Iraqi armys doctor have taken up those vacant positions in the govt hospitals , more good news eh? Hospitals work force either ran away or some as the article said has gone in to private clinics which cost so much that a average iraqi cant afford it.

Now the question arises , WHERE THE hell is the american army/american support/present Iraqi govt/monetary help by coalition countrys? where is it being drained? If basic things such as these arent being fulfilled then whats happening? What is the govt doing . we see in the news billions being allocated to this so called reconstruction why isnt it being applied and results being shown.

[Akira 0]

Due to the rather nationalistic bias of my media organizations*, can anyone produce the number of Uk and other foreign troops killed compared to the US number since "Major operations have ended."

Also, can anyone furnish a comparison of violence in UK areas compared to US areas?

Regarding getting troops home

No one is talking about yanking all the troops out right now. At the same time there seems to be absolutely no exit strategy for US withdrawl, nor a vaiable plan for stabilization. This from an administration that was having an orgasm over going to war.

*And because I'm tired at the end of a very long day I don't feel like looking it up

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Iraq was invaded under false pretenses only to proove the Un disarment process was a complete succes in spite of the advices gave by many countries intelligence services before the whole mess started.

Why does everyone seem to blame the US about no WMD's if many countries said there was. Why doesn't anyone blame the UK or any european country?

It's true that the UK had a more significant role (especially politically) than they're getting blamed for.

The difference is however that there was never a majority support for going into Iraq without UN approval. Furthermore it's impractical to have a fight going on in Europe, so the need to forgive and forget was quite high. And finally, while Blair chickened out in the last minute, he was the one to push Bush to at least try to take international law into consideration (i.e wanted a second UN resolution, authorizing force).

What most intelligence agencies were saying was that there was not enough reliable information to say either way. That's where the inspections came in. Right before the war, there were strong indications given by the inspections that the Iraqis got rid of their WMD in the early 90's.

[denoir 0]

Due to the rather nationalistic bias of my media organizations*, can anyone produce the number of Uk and other foreign troops killed compared to the US number since "Major operations have ended."

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Quote[/b] ]

<span style='font-family:"Courier New"'>Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days

5-2005  30 1 2 33 2.54 13

4-2005  52 0 0 52 1.73 30

3-2005  36 1 3 40 1.29 31

2-2005  58 0 2 60 2.14 28

1-2005  107 10 10 127 4.1 31

12-2004  72 2 3 77 2.48 31

11-2004  137 4 0 141 4.7 30

10-2004  63 2 2 67 2.16 31

9-2004  80 3 4 87 2.9 30

8-2004  66 4 5 75 2.42 31

7-2004  54 1 3 58 1.87 31

6-2004  42 1 7 50 1.67 30

5-2004  80 0 4 84 2.71 31

4-2004  135 0 5 140 4.67 30

3-2004  52 0 0 52 1.68 31

2-2004  20 1 2 23 0.79 29

1-2004  47 5 0 52 1.68 31

12-2003  40 0 8 48 1.55 31

11-2003  82 1 27 110 3.67 30

10-2003  44 1 2 47 1.52 31

9-2003  31 1 1 33 1.1 30

8-2003  35 6 2 43 1.39 31

7-2003  48 1 0 49 1.58 31

6-2003  30 6 0 36 1.2 30

5-2003  37 4 0 41 1.32 31

4-2003  74 6 0 80 2.67 30</span>

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Iraq was invaded under false pretenses only to proove the Un disarment process was a complete succes in spite of the advices gave by many countries intelligence services before the whole mess started.

Why does everyone seem to blame the US about no WMD's if many countries said there was. Why doesn't anyone blame the UK or any european country?

It's true that the UK had a more significant role (especially politically) than they're getting blamed for.

The difference is however that there was never a majority support for going into Iraq without UN approval. Furthermore it's impractical to have a fight going on in Europe, so the need to forgive and forget was quite high. And finally, while Blair chickened out in the last minute, he was the one to push Bush to at least try to take international law into consideration (i.e wanted a second UN resolution, authorizing force).

What most intelligence agencies were saying was that there was not enough reliable information to say either way. That's where the inspections came in. Right before the war, there were strong indications given by the inspections that the Iraqis got rid of their WMD in the early 90's.

Yer agree with what you said. But what i wanna know is why the Iraqi's were trying to get the inspectors out. Were they trying to hide and already started WMD program, or actually get starting to do one? You think they could of in the slightest shipped the WMD's to a place such as Syria maybe?

[denoir 0]

Yer agree with what you said. But what i wanna know is why the Iraqi's were trying to get the inspectors out. Were they trying to hide and already started WMD program, or actually get starting to do one? You think they could of in the slightest shipped the WMD's to a place such as Syria maybe?

They weren't trying to get the inspectors out, not the last round. Iraq was fully cooperating when it was attacked. It was between '91 and '98 that he obstructed the inspections to that degree that the inspectors got fed up and left in '98.

What is clear now however is that he already in '92 made the decision to dismantle all of Iraq's WMD programs.

So why didn't he come clean? To understand that you have to look at the state of Iraq after the first Gulf War. The Iraqi military had been severely hurt. The Kurds up in north managed to separate and a big portion of northern Iraq was not under the control of Baghdad. The Shiites were rebelling. Saddam also knew that he couldn't trust his neighbours and suspected that they might take the opportunity to grab some territory from Iraq. The most likely answer is that he wanted to keep the illusion of having WMD until he was strong enough again to protect Iraq's territorial integrity. If Iran and Syria thought that he had WMD, it would be unlikely that they would make a move. Once he had rebuilt his military, he would have probably invited the inspectors and fully cooperated so that the sanctions would be lifted.

As for any weapons being moved out of Iraq, the US led WMD survey group ruled that out as not possible in practice.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days

5-2005 30 1 2 33 2.54 13

4-2005 52 0 0 52 1.73 30

3-2005 36 1 3 40 1.29 31

2-2005 58 0 2 60 2.14 28

1-2005 107 10 10 127 4.1 31

12-2004 72 2 3 77 2.48 31

11-2004 137 4 0 141 4.7 30

10-2004 63 2 2 67 2.16 31

9-2004 80 3 4 87 2.9 30

8-2004 66 4 5 75 2.42 31

7-2004 54 1 3 58 1.87 31

6-2004 42 1 7 50 1.67 30

5-2004 80 0 4 84 2.71 31

4-2004 135 0 5 140 4.67 30

3-2004 52 0 0 52 1.68 31

2-2004 20 1 2 23 0.79 29

1-2004 47 5 0 52 1.68 31

12-2003 40 0 8 48 1.55 31

11-2003 82 1 27 110 3.67 30

10-2003 44 1 2 47 1.52 31

9-2003 31 1 1 33 1.1 30

8-2003 35 6 2 43 1.39 31

7-2003 48 1 0 49 1.58 31

6-2003 30 6 0 36 1.2 30

5-2003 37 4 0 41 1.32 31

4-2003 74 6 0 80 2.67 30

So given these numbers, can one make any reasonable assumptions?

The vast majority of attacks target the US. However, is that because the US holds proportionally more area than the UK? Or is it because the war is centered on the US, not the UK and other affliates? Is it because the UK have control over their area so much better? Is the populace better off under UK control than US control?

One would assume that should the insurgents want to, they could easily target the UK more directly, so why don't they?

I guess what I am getting at is (and I suppose I really need violent incidences in UK areas compared to US areas to be sure), is that the US started the war on terror, therefore they are the primary actor...the main player if you will, and it is only natural that they get the media attention (and insurgent attention) compared to the UK or Palau (or Poland...can't forget them). I could do some simple number crunching and compare casaulties to troops stationed, but I still think the US will come out on the crappy end of that stick.

Maybe the insurgents really are targeting the US. If we had reliable data on infrastructure rebuilding compartively based on who controls the area one could see if there is a corilation between UK rebuilding to attacks, and US rebuilding to attacks. Maybe it is the gross mismanagement of post-war Iraq that targets the US. Who knows.

I'm tired...

[Bordoy 0]

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13348686,00.html

Quote[/b] ]SADDAM WRITES MEMOIRS

Saddam Hussein has reportedly begun writing his memoirs from his prison cell.

Part of the manuscript allegedly focuses on British and French "betrayal" of him during Iraq's war with Iran in the 1980s.

Saddam has been held in an Iraqi jail since his capture in December, 2003.

According to the Financial Times, the former dictator is also said to be writing about his childhood in Iraq and his early exile to Egypt.

It quotes Giovanni di Stefano, a member of Saddam's legal team.

"There will be quite considerable detail. The Americans (holding him) are relaxed about it and we've seen some of the translation," he said.

The newspaper says any confessions about the latter years of Saddam's regime are unlikely.

But he will try to embarrass his enemies, who once treated Iraq as a useful buffer against Iran's expansionist ambitions after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

He accuses France and Britain of double-crossing him by also helping Iran during the eight-year war which followed.

[Acecombat 0]

Awww the poor baby is crying now and is all lonely .....

Though i wonder how much of it will be edited/published after all hes in american hands. Surely it'll be filled with a load bull but some of it may be true , he was after all used by many sides and he used them too a very nasty game of politiks.

[quicksand 0]

Well the freedom he has in writing his memoirs is actually quite straight revealing from the article itself.Notice how it says "it focuses on British and France betrayal" with no mention of the US who was the number one supplier and double crosser in the entire Iraq-Iran conflict.

[billybob2002 0]

Well the freedom he has in writing his memoirs is actually quite straight revealing from the article itself.Notice how it says "it focuses on British and France betrayal" with no mention of the US who was the number one supplier and double crosser in the entire Iraq-Iran conflict.

Number one supplier? I think not. Look around the Iraq threads for a very old post in which I had a link to .pdf about the military hardware sold to Iraq during that time period. France, Soviet Union, and China were the biggest suppliers of military hardware to Iraq not the United States in the 1980s. The United States ranked low on that list. Also, China sold arms to Iran. Also, I think the US govt. helped Iran and then Iraq and not the other way around.