25,000 civilians killed in Iraq war

[Franconicus]

The innocents are always the victims in war since there has been war.

Very good point. This is why war is not the right solution.

[Red Harvest]

Very good point. This is why war is not the right solution.

Really? When diplomacy fails for extended periods of time (usually a decade or more) then war is sometimes the only viable solution left. War happens to be a last resort against totalitarian/dictatorial/autocratic states. There has been an interesting thread in the Monastery about wars of Democracy vs. Democracy. Guess what? It is hard to find any examples, except for civil wars--and even those examples are rare.

[Azi Tohak]

Red, I might not always agree with you. But you are right. Wars are a fact of life. Ever since Gronk realized his piece of land was inferior to Grunks' next door, and decided he would rather have that land, with Grunk dead, man has fought.

The reasons are various. Defense (Greece). Racism/Fear (Rome). Desire for loot (Huns, Vikings, Mongols etc). Desire for power (Napoleon). I'll not say desire for oil because I am still not sure that was Bush's motivation. But the fact is wars do solve problems. Do they create them? Sure. But they CAN also fix problems. Like Germany or Japan during WWII. The debate between King and Parliament in Britain hundreds of years ago. Sometimes, some wars should not occur. But it is foolish to think we will ever live in a world without war.

But I must say Red, I don't know if I agree with diplomacy failing for a long time. I'm not into appeasment. I wonder how many people died because of diplomacy with Hussein for so long that did not actually yield anything.

But that is besides the point. War is necessary. It has always been necessary. We can't "all get along". And pretending otherwise is foolish.

Azi

[Idomeneas]

Your claiming moral high ground while using racist words wth Idomeneas



Off topic I would support that bombing just so thousands more of our soldiers wouldnt be pows to the japanese.

I admit its difficult to expess myself in english sometimes though i understand everything. But even in this case i cant find anything racist in my saying. I dont claim tose standards i believe them.

You express biased opinion about A bomb when you see it only from your side. Granted the japannese where not choire boys and they have their good share of atrocities. But dont hurry to condemn those peoples forthcomming generations to sickness because of your grandfathers bad experiences.

If i was thinking like this i should be shipping A bomb after A bomb to Turkey. One for every tortured dead or hunted-exiled member of both sides of my family. But i dont want this. As i said killing your enemy is one thing condemning forthcomming people to terrible sicknesses and health problems is another. Sometimes i wish we could have a blackout of memory and forget those kind of technology. I know its a stupid thought, but sometimes i wish it.

[Goofball]

LOL, liberals on this board make out like Iraq was Disney World before the invasion. Free medical care, a chicken in every pot, and a loving leader who kissed babies, walked on water, and healed lepers.

And the conservatives on this board make out like that's how Iraq is now.

That merits an even bigger "LOL."

[Azi Tohak]

But the liberals won't acknowledge the good the troops are doing there now. Check out:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...534#post853534

For the story I heard this morning on the radio. I'll not waste space re-printing it here now.

If that does not work, here is the short version:

Allied troops are doing what they can to help the people of Iraq. The vast majority of Iraqis. They build schools, homes, redo neglected (by whom I wonder?) water systems. The terrorists don't hit most of the country, because they can't. The locals like what the Allies are doing and support them too.

I must say, most of Iraq is not Disney World (over priced food and all), but hey, at least it isn't Hell.

Azi

[PanzerJaeger]

But the liberals won't acknowledge the good the troops are doing there now.

Yep. The left has a vested interest in America losing in Iraq. They saw how Vietnam helped them in the 70s, and theyre drooling at the prospect of another hippy generation.

[Goofball]

The only vested interest the left had was in you not invading Iraq in the first place, because we tend to be against senseless, useless death. As was the situation in Vietnam, we take no pleasure in being right about this.

[Xiahou]

The only vested interest the left had was in you not invading Iraq in the first place, because we tend to be against senseless, useless death. As was the situation in Vietnam, we take no pleasure in being right about this.

So, were the hundreds of thousands butchered, gassed and otherwise murdered by Saddam senseless and useless deaths as well? If so, how did you propose dealing with it? Or was it enough to just be "against" it?

[Goofball]

So, were the hundreds of thousands butchered, gassed and otherwise murdered by Saddam senseless and useless deaths as well? If so, how did you propose dealing with it? Or was it enough to just be "against" it?

You guys keep pointing to that, but as I've said before, most pro-war types (George Bush first among them) don't give two farts and a tin whistle for the Iraqi people. That's just a justification used to sex it up a bit and add a little curb appeal for the unwashed mass of the electorate.

If preventing senseless death is the true motivation of the pro-Iraqi-war types, you didn't do this very well. There are other regimes that are far worse than Saddam's was. You should have started with the worst offenders and worked your way down, that way you would have achieved maximum "senseless death prevention" with the resources available to you.

But you and I both know that helping out the poor Iraqi people really had nothing to to with your motivation for invading.

Let's not kid ourselves here.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You guys keep pointing to that, but as I've said before, most pro-war types (George Bush first among them) don't give two farts and a tin whistle for the Iraqi people. That's just a justification used to sex it up a bit and add a little curb appeal for the unwashed mass of the electorate.

Is this just your opinion or fact?

If preventing senseless death is the true motivation of the pro-Iraqi-war types, you didn't do this very well. There are other regimes that are far worse than Saddam's was. You should have started with the worst offenders and worked your way down, that way you would have achieved maximum "senseless death prevention" with the resources available to you.

There was no other with the long list of things he did and that we could justify. Attacking Iraq was easily justifiable whether it was a good idea or not.

But you and I both know that helping out the poor Iraqi people really had nothing to to with your motivation for invading.

Let's not kid ourselves here.

Its nice how you can tell the real reasons from the stated ones. I wish had your powers.

[Steppe Merc]

Yep. The left has a vested interest in America losing in Iraq. They saw how Vietnam helped them in the 70s, and theyre drooling at the prospect of another hippy generation.

Please. The Democrats are almost as far from hippies as the Republicans are. Can you imagine any of them going of and living in communes, or even having long hair? And they probably like bad music, too.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Please. The Democrats are almost as far from hippies as the Republicans are. Can you imagine any of them going of and living in communes, or even having long hair? And they probably like bad music, too.

Excuse me. All the leadership id baby boomers. What do you think those guys were like at 18? There is no doubt in my mind that the left would like nothing better than to have this be another Nam and return them to power as that is their only hope to do so.

[Steppe Merc]

Yeah, and now they are no longer like that, are they? They are corrupt bastards with short hair that support big buisnesses. George W. Bush was a heavy partier when he was in college, but he isn't anymore. Same with the Democrats (and likely most other Republicans, too).

[Xiahou]

You guys keep pointing to that, but as I've said before, most pro-war types (George Bush first among them) don't give two farts and a tin whistle for the Iraqi people. That's just a justification used to sex it up a bit and add a little curb appeal for the unwashed mass of the electorate.

If preventing senseless death is the true motivation of the pro-Iraqi-war types, you didn't do this very well. There are other regimes that are far worse than Saddam's was. You should have started with the worst offenders and worked your way down, that way you would have achieved maximum "senseless death prevention" with the resources available to you.

But you and I both know that helping out the poor Iraqi people really had nothing to to with your motivation for invading.

Let's not kid ourselves here.

You didn't address my questions at all. Nice misdirection attempt, but I havent made any claims about why Bush wanted to go to war in this thread. Im asking...

So, were the hundreds of thousands butchered, gassed and otherwise murdered by Saddam senseless and useless deaths as well? If so, how did you propose dealing with it? Or was it enough to just be "against" it?

[Tribesman]

So, were the hundreds of thousands butchered, gassed and otherwise murdered by Saddam senseless and useless deaths as well? If so, how did you propose dealing with it? Or was it enough to just be "against" it?

How about being against the people and governments that supported Saddam while he was doing all his butchering , gassing and otherwise murdering people ?
Oh yes , they are some of the same people who are now telling us that his actions were really bad and shouldn't be allowed to happen , yet they were the bastards helping him .

You didn't address my questions at all.
Perhaps your question should be something entirely different . Like ..
Why listen to a bunch of crap about how bad the crimes were when the people who are telling you that are complicit in the crimes themselves ?

Hey it was great when Saddam slaughtered the Kurds wasn't it , that'll teach them to be Iranian backed terrorists on the wrong side in the Iran-Iraq war .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

How about being against the people and governments that supported Saddam while he was doing all his butchering , gassing and otherwise murdering people ?

No one here supported Saddam butchering , gassing and otherwise murdering people . Sticking the word 'while' in there is your usual disengenous tactic. How many times do we have to go over this. We supported Stain whlie he was doing much worse. Does this make the allies bad in WW2?

Perhaps your question should be something entirely different . Like ..
Why listen to a bunch of crap about how bad the crimes were when the people who are telling you that are complicit in the crimes themselves ?

Care to clarify this position?

Hey it was great when Saddam slaughtered the Kurds wasn't it , that'll teach them to be Iranian backed terrorists on the wrong side in the Iran-Iraq war .

When did anyone here say that?

[Xiahou]

And it's still a total dodge of my question. Why are the deaths resulting from the topple of Saddam somehow more senseless and useless than the murders he committed by the hundreds of thousands while in power? If you think that not invading was a solution to preventing these 'useless' deaths, what did you propose doing to stop Saddam's murderous reign?

And as much as you'd like to blame all of the deaths in Iraq on the US, 100,000+ bodies were dumped into mass graves by Saddam after the 1st Gulf War as well and the murders and rapes were continuing on a daily basis.

[Tribesman]

o one here supported Saddam butchering , gassing and otherwise murdering people .
No , but you probably voted for and elected people who did .
Care to clarify this position?
Clear enough now .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

No , but you probably voted for and elected people who did .

Not me. You got the wrong man if your refering to Bush. Again who here supported Saddam butchering , gassing and otherwise murdering people . Id really like to know. The only ones I see here seems to be you and your ilk. Better to let Saddam do these things than fight a war to stop him.

Clear enough now .

Not in the least.

[Tribesman]

So are you in denial that Saddam was your countries (and others) bitch Gawain Hmmm....interesting

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So are you in denial that Saddam was your countries (and others) bitch Gawain Hmmm....interesting

Damn I thought Britain was.

[Redleg]

So are you in denial that Saddam was your countries (and others) bitch Gawain Hmmm....interesting

No more then any other country out there. Then it seems someone is forgetting that in world politics countries ally for awhile and then diverge from each other when the common cause is no longer priority.

[kiwitt]

I note in the report that more deaths have resulted from criminals. Didn't "Saddam" release all these criminals just before the invasion and that is what is now causing the most loss of life today ? Was he so "astute", as to how best to de-stablise the country ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Was he so "astute", as to how best to de-stablise the country ?

Very much so. If I cant play Im taking my ball and going home.

[Tribesman]

Then it seems someone is forgetting that in world politics countries ally for awhile and then diverge from each other when the common cause is no longer priority.

I am forgetting nothing Redleg , I am just pointing out the pure bull that people are using Saddams actions when he was their friend to make comparisons .
If you support a murderous dictatorship then how can you turn round and say that you had to act because it was a murderous dictatorship .
If you support a killer then you are complicit in the killings he commits .

[Xiahou]

Then it seems someone is forgetting that in world politics countries ally for awhile and then diverge from each other when the common cause is no longer priority.

I am forgetting nothing Redleg , I am just pointing out the pure bull that people are using Saddams actions when he was their friend to make comparisons .
If you support a murderous dictatorship then how can you turn round and say that you had to act because it was a murderous dictatorship .
If you support a killer then you are complicit in the killings he commits .

I never said anything about why we acted- you're still dodging. I asked 'How can you say deaths resultant from Saddam's overthrow are senseless and useless when he was the cuz of hundreds of thousands of deaths himself?' The assertion was that the 'left' is against senseless/useless death. So what was going on under Saddam? Did those deaths serve a purpose and were therefore exempt? Were they not totally senseless? How can you be against senseless deaths and then opposed to the overthrow of the one perpetrating it? And if deaths result from that overthrow, its tragic to be sure, but isnt it disengenous to say they were useless and senseless?

[Redleg]

Then it seems someone is forgetting that in world politics countries ally for awhile and then diverge from each other when the common cause is no longer priority.

I am forgetting nothing Redleg , I am just pointing out the pure bull that people are using Saddams actions when he was their friend to make comparisons .

Again your confusing being an ally with being a friend. Russia was an ally during WW2 - but the USSR was never a friend. Iraq was an ally against Iran - and because Iraq chose to go to war with Iran - the United States supported the enemy of our enemy.

If you support a murderous dictatorship then how can you turn round and say that you had to act because it was a murderous dictatorship .

Because its really rather simple - after the Gulf War of 1991 - Saddam continued his murderous dictatorship ways.

If you support a killer then you are complicit in the killings he commits .

So is all the free world who were allied with Russia against Germnay complicit with the killings done by Stalin's regime? Because that is exactly what you are saying here.

[Tribesman]

Because that is exactly what you are saying here.
Is it ? Not at all redleg.
If someone had supported Stalin while he was fighting against Germany , then went and overthrew Stalin and used the attrocities that Stalin had committed against Germans and Russians(amongnst others)as an example of why it had to be done and claims that even though their present actions do result in uneccacary killing they are nothing compared to the previous killing, yet ignores the fact that they themselves helped him commit those attrocities and supported him while he was doing it .
Then that is hypocracy of the highest order .

Because its really rather simple - after the Gulf War of 1991 - Saddam continued his murderous dictatorship ways.
What the hell did you expect him to do ? He was a murderous dictator , do you think a military defeat would make him start being nice ? It didn't happen after his earlier military defeat .
So the lesson of today is ...write to your political representives of whichever country you live in and politely ask them to stop supporting murderous dictators because murderous dictators are not very nice people .


you're still dodging.
Dodging what ? Saddam thought all those he killed were worth it , they were a real or percieved threat to his rule , those who supported Saddam thought they were a price worth paying because they were a threat to their friendly murderous dictator.
Now you have some of the same people saying that the new deaths are a price worth paying because the murderous dictator isn't their friend anymore and must be removed from power .
So the only losers are the the people who were killed so Saddam could remain in power and the people who were killed so that Saddam could be removed from power .
Since its the same groups of people who made both descisions to support and remove the dictator then they are all as guilty as the man himself , possibly even more guilty as it isn't even their country in the first place to decide who should be in power and who should not .
So there you have it , lots of unneccasary deaths over a long time , all because of bloody politicians .

[Redleg]

Because that is exactly what you are saying here.
Is it ? Not at all redleg.
If someone had supported Stalin while he was fighting against Germany , then went and overthrew Stalin and used the attrocities that Stalin had committed against Germans and Russians(amongnst others)as an example of why it had to be done and claims that even though their present actions do result in uneccacary killing they are nothing compared to the previous killing, yet ignores the fact that they themselves helped him commit those attrocities and supported him while he was doing it .
Then that is hypocracy of the highest order .

Yes it is Tribesman remember the cold war.

Because its really rather simple - after the Gulf War of 1991 - Saddam continued his murderous dictatorship ways.
What the hell did you expect him to do ? He was a murderous dictator , do you think a military defeat would make him start being nice ? It didn't happen after his earlier military defeat .
So the lesson of today is ...write to your political representives of whichever country you live in and politely ask them to stop supporting murderous dictators because murderous dictators are not very nice people .

you would be correct - however one must expect nations to sometimes take a slightly different approach when attempting to meet their own interests first. No nation is completely innocent of this I believe.