25,000 civilians killed in Iraq war

[Byzantine Prince]

link (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/19/iraq.bodycount/index.html)


Survey: 25,000 civilians killed in Iraq war
42,500 injuries also recorded by Iraq Body Count

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 Posted: 1712 GMT (0112 HKT)

(CNN) -- Nearly 25,000 civilians have been killed since the start of the Iraq war, according to a group that tracks the civilian death toll from the conflict.

The Iraq Body Count -- a London-based group comprising academics and human rights and anti-war activists -- said on Tuesday that 24,865 civilians had died between March 20, 2003 and March 19, 2005.

The group said 42,500 injuries were recorded as well.

The report also said that "U.S.-led forces were sole killers of 37 percent of civilian victims" and that "anti-occupation forces were sole killers of 9 percent of civilian victims." It added that "criminals killed 36 percent of all civilians."

"Our data has been extracted from a comprehensive analysis of over 10,000 press and media reports published since March 2003. Our accounting is not complete: only an in-depth, on-the-ground census could come close to achieving that," the group said.

"But if journalism is the first draft of history, then this dossier may claim to be an early historical analysis of the military intervention's known human costs."

The Iraqi government disputed some of the finding of the report.

"We welcome the attention given by this report to Iraqi victims of violence but we consider that it is mistaken in claiming that the plague of terrorism has killed fewer Iraqis than the multinational forces," said the prime minister's office, citing recent terror strikes, including the Musayyib bombing that killed nearly 100 people on Saturday.

"The international forces try to avoid civilian casualties, whereas the terrorists target civilians and try to kill as many of them as they can."

The U.S. military in Iraq reacted to the report by saying that "coalition forces have not targeted the Iraqi civilian population during Operation Iraqi Freedom."

It added, "We go to extreme lengths to ensure that everything possible is done to ensure that they are not put in harm's way during our operations. The only organization capable of reliable data is the Iraqi Ministry of Health and the Iraqi government."

Iraq Body Count said that its "data has been extracted from a comprehensive analysis of over 10,000 press and media reports published since March 2003. Our accounting is not complete: only an in-depth, on-the-ground census could come close to achieving that.

"But if journalism is the first draft of history, then this dossier may claim to be an early historical analysis of the military intervention's known human costs."

Here are some of the trends the group culled from its data:

# 82 percent of those killed were adult males, 9 percent were adult women, 1 in 10 was under age 18;

# Baghdad was the site of almost half of the deaths and Falluja had the second highest loss of life;

# Figures indicate that the single largest occupational grouping of deaths were police;

# Explosive devices figures in more than half of the civilian deaths, with air strikes causing 64 percent of such deaths;

# 4.3 percent of civilians were killed by suicide vehicle bombs and 3.4 percent by non-suicide vehicle bombs;

# Mortuary officials and medics "were the most frequently reported witnesses" and "police have become increasingly significant as primary sources over time."

Tracking civilian deaths has been a challenge for Iraqi government officials in Iraq, and estimates have varied in different reports attempting to quantify death toll figures.

The prime minister's office Tuesday said that:

"The Iraqi Ministry of Health continually counts the number of civilians killed and wounded and their most recent figures show that 6,629 Iraqi civilians were killed and 23,838 wounded between April 2004 and April 2005.

"Figures from the Ministry of the Interior, which include casualties from Iraq's armed forces, show that 8,175 Iraqis were killed in the 10 months between July 2004 and May 2005.

"The root cause of Iraq's suffering is terrorism, inherited from Saddam's fascist regime and from mistaken fundamentalist ideology. The solution to it lies in developing Iraq's security forces and its political process -- and whoever wants to help Iraq should spend their efforts in supporting this.

"Everybody knows that international forces are necessary in Iraq, on a temporary basis, for this process to take place and they will leave Iraq at a time chosen by Iraqis, not in response to terrorist pressure."

The multinational forces' statement underscored that its operation has been "prosecuted in the most precise fashion of any conflict in the history of modern warfare. We know that the loss of any innocent lives is a tragedy, something Iraqi security forces and the multi-national force painstakingly work to avoid every single day.

"It should not be lost on anyone that the former regime elements, terrorists and insurgents have made a practice of deliberately targeting noncombatants; of using civilians as human shields; and of operating and conducting attacks against coalition forces from within areas inhabited by civilians."

Iraq Body Count says in the report that its number-tracking project "is, in our view, among the highest humanitarian imperatives, an imperative which has particular application to governments who conduct military interventions.

"Assurances that military forces 'make every effort to avoid civilian casualties' are no substitute for real data-gathering and analysis, and can have no basis without it.

"On the eve of the invasion (British Prime Minister) Tony Blair stated '(Saddam Hussein) will be responsible for many, many more deaths even in one year than we will be in any conflict.' Only data such as presented here will allow a realistic evaluation of such predictions."

I understand that America wants to protect itself, but 25,000 people have now needlessly died when Iraq didn't support terrorism and Saudi Arabia actually gives money to terrorists. I don't understand how Bush is getting away with this. ~:confused: He should be in a war crimes tribunal as we speak.

[scooter_the_shooter]

This is such credible source :embarassed:


-- a London-based group comprising academics and human rights and anti-war activists -- said on Tuesday that 24,865 civilians had died between March 20, 2003 and March 19, 2005.

I wonder how much bias they put in


I wonder how many of these killed by the coalition "civilians" were toting ak47s




I don't understand how Bush is getting away with this. He should be in a war crimes tribunal as we speak.


BS saddam should be in the war crimes tribunal.

Do you think the same about President Truman for nuking japan.


edited for grammar

[PanzerJaeger]

LoL good job spotting the source Ceasar, see why I nominated you for most promising. ~;)

Any group that includes anti-war activists.. not just people against the war, but activists, is certainly not objective.

Nice try though, BP. Werent you claiming 100k had died a few months ago.. have you readjusted your numbers? ~D

[Steppe Merc]

Do you think the same about President Truman for nuking japan.
Yes.


Any group that includes anti-war activists.. not just people against the war, but activists, is certainly not objective.
Why not?

[Steppe Merc]

Regardless, it was a war crime.

[PanzerJaeger]

Why not?

Conflict of interests, not to mention Iraq Body Count's past claims.


He has a point Panzer. One could consider Pro-War Activists to be just as Bias.

I would not believe numbers from a group that contains people who identify themselves as pro-war either.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

25,000? That's it?
You make Iraq seem like it's Vietnam.

[Samurai Waki]

Ack. This is annoying. This is war and people die... get used to it and move on... nothing I can do about, nothing you can do about, nothing America can do about it, nothing the world can do about it short of just obliterating everything we have now and start fresh, but even that wouldn't stop innocents from dying now would it? If it were up to me, I would give the politicians in each country their own weapons and let them kill each other, but thats never going to happen because the world is just chalk full of idealists. 25,000 Civilians is nothing... I have to agree with Stalin on this issue "A Single Death is a tragedy; a Million Deaths is a statistic."

[PanzerJaeger]

That would be an impressive feat. Where do you get your information from then? I have yet to come accross a news organization, politician, or activist group that isn't decidedly pro or anti war.

There are plenty of journalists with a vested interest in responsible journalism who dont let their opinions get in the way of their reporting. Iraq Body Count however has a stated agenda, and theyve made wild claims before.

[Red Harvest]

Regardless, it was a war crime.

Baloney. Both cities were legitimate targets. They were in fact preserved for the demonstration of the weapons. They were dropped to save hundreds of thousands of U.S. lives, as well as hundreds of thousands of Japanese. And they succeeded. It was certainly more humane than starving the islands and inflicting far more casualties.

Truman did more to prevent war with these bombings than anything else I can think of in the 20th century. Without this demonstration of determination and power, Russia and China would not have been content with a Cold War.

[Byzantine Prince]

Japan ATTACKED the US!! Iraq did NOT do anything to America!!!

"There was no connection between Saddam and the hijackers of 911" - George W Bush

Even he said it; ON VIDEO!!!

So 25,000 innocent people died for no purpose. It doesn't matter if it's 25,000 100,000 or even 1,000, it's still too much.

"A Single Death is a tragedy; a Million Deaths is a statistic."
Right, and why are not a million deaths a million tragedies. Leave it to Stalin to come up with a saying that makes sense. :dizzy2:

[Ser Clegane]

Nice try though, BP. Werent you claiming 100k had died a few months ago.. have you readjusted your numbers? ~D

The 100k are from The Lancet which compared mortality rates from before the war and from during/after the war. These 100k "excess" deaths have not been directly linked to specific causes, such as armed violence, illness etc.

Very recently the Geneva-based "Graduate Institute of International Studies" published a report that gives a number of 39k Iraqis that have been killed as a direct result of combat or armed violence since the U.S.-led invasion (unfortunately I could not find this report on their website).

Do you have any numbers from sources you would consider unbiased for comparison?

[Red Harvest]

Their numbers seem whacked. There have been far too many insurgent/terrorist bomb attacks that have killed civilians for the count to be right. They are saying only about 2,300 civilian casualties from insurgents? Preposterous.

As for U.S. inflicted civilan casualties, no doubt the number is truly high, but quite a few "civilians" weren't, too. After all "82 percent of those killed were adult males." That stat alone is proof enough that their interpretation of the numbers if flat out WRONG. They obviously did nothing to sort out enemy combatants from civilians in their counts.

[Red Harvest]

Japan ATTACKED the US!! Iraq did NOT do anything to America!!!


BP, that's just stupid.

They invaded an ally and attacked two or three other allies with scud missiles. Iraq had killed a number of U.S. servicemen and women in the same war. They also were attempting to kill more by shooting at U.S. aircraft daily. Since they remained belligerent and were committing acts of war, we had justification for invading.

[Redleg]

Japan ATTACKED the US!! Iraq did NOT do anything to America!!!

"There was no connection between Saddam and the hijackers of 911" - George W Bush

Even he said it; ON VIDEO!!!

So 25,000 innocent people died for no purpose. It doesn't matter if it's 25,000 100,000 or even 1,000, it's still too much.

"A Single Death is a tragedy; a Million Deaths is a statistic."
Right, and why are not a million deaths a million tragedies. Leave it to Stalin to come up with a saying that makes sense. :dizzy2:

Repeat after me there BP - Desert Shield/Desert Storm

Breaking of the initial Cease Fire that ended hostilities between Collation Forces signed by the United States, The United Kingdom, THe Kingdom of Saudi Arabi, The Kingdom of Kuwait, and Iraq.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

25,000 is not all that much, really.
Thats only 4 times the number killed at Srebinka, and that only took a day!
And I shall say this again...
So What?

[Devastatin Dave]

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. ~D

[Kaiser of Arabia]

DAVES BAAAAAAAAAACK!!!!!
w00t

[scooter_the_shooter]

Yes.
You think nuking japan was WRONG I wish we dropped earlier. My grandpa is a local leader of the dav(disabled american veterans) some of the members were pows in japan(guess how they got disabled :furious3: ) hear their stories and i guarantee you will wish we dropped earlier.


On topic


Besides i would rather 500 Iraqi civilians die then 50 american soldiers.

My uncles friend just got back from iraq and said something like this

"when ever you see something that doesn't look right you shot at it... am I proud of that no, did i come back in one piece yes.


thanks for the comment panzer ~:cheers:

[Steppe Merc]

25,000 is not all that much, really.
Thats only 4 times the number killed at Srebinka, and that only took a day!
And I shall say this again...
So What?
Well, they are innocent people. It violates the Geneva Convention, and it would be one thing if the soldiers who killed them were being put on trial. However, I don't think there has been much prosecution, however.
In addition, I don't think it's wrong to acknowledge the death toal caused by our actions. Has the US kept a tally? Do they have a more accurate number of people that they killed?


# Figures indicate that the single largest occupational grouping of deaths were police;
This is an interesting fact. I believe this also includes criminals and terrorists, however.

Ceasar, I do not believe somehow being a soldier and American makes there life more important than a civilian that did nothing wrong. This I believe addresses both of your points.

[Ser Clegane]

Besides i would rather 500 Iraqi civilians die then 50 american soldiers.


That says a lot about you.

Fortunately, there are enough people (including conservatives) who do not share your view.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

make that 5.000.000.000 for every .005 american and I'm in agreement wiht you

[Steppe Merc]

Soldiers are supposed to die. Innocents are not.
edit: Gah! Let me explain. Soldiers volentarily went to risk their life. Innocents should never die, while soldiers know that they might die.

[scooter_the_shooter]

Whats wrong with me caring more about my fellow americans more then an iraqi.

Think of it this way you dont want any one to die but... would you rather some one elses reletive died or your own

[rasoforos]

It seems some things never change...in the name of being 'unbiased' in this forum we still can hear a whole bunch of crap...

...somehow, people who are justifying 25.000 civilian deaths are 'normal'...

...they used to be able to say that its for a greater cause, a better Iraq. Such ideas are now laughable, Iraq is a murdered nation, divided and filled with hatred. Even if the occupation forces withdraw Iraq might never recover...

...1/500th of the people who have died in Iraq have died in London...for no reason...the people in Iraq died for no reason too...arent they humans? Why are the Iraqis allowed to be viewed as numbers and not us? Doesnt Al-Qaeda use the same reason to justify the taking of live as the U.S do? 'for the greater good' or ' because they did the same'...

...I wonder how will the 'war addicts' who post here react if a terrorist hit kills 25.000 people in the US and they are met with a global apathy, the same apathy they are showing now. How about if a bunch of people say it was for the best? How about if someone says the number might be overrated so its ok because not too many died?

...I can understand unbiased and fair but to see people dismiss 25.000 deaths so easily is to say the least barbaric and provocative...

...I will remind some people that they were giving their word that if no WMD's are found then they would accept this war is a war crime, they should save a bit of their dignity....




The way the murder of innocents is advocated here is disgusting...We are lucky we didnt get any Al Qaeda sympathisers to tell us why the London attack was "fair justified and necessary"...If we wouldnt accept that why should we accept it from the other side? Could we have some rational thinking please? Well, I guess not...

[Steppe Merc]

Both my Grandpas fought in WW2. I would be very sad if they had died (since I wouldn't exist), however, they went knowing what they might die. Innocents of all wars had no such choice however.

[scooter_the_shooter]

japanese were not very civilian like.... many of them worked in factories making weapons for free. And many were going to fight when American soldiers came.

There are still some japanese soldiers hiding in the mountains they found some not long ago and there are more out there. We would have lost to many americans if we invaded conventionally.


any way back on topic.

[Redleg]

It seems some things never change...in the name of being 'unbiased' in this forum we still can hear a whole bunch of crap...

...somehow, people who are justifying 25.000 civilian deaths are 'normal'...

Justify or condemn - war is war. People die both the combatants and the civilians caught in the crossfire. Death in warfare is completely normal and is expected. To minimize the loss of civilians by making acidine comparrisions is indeed foolish and shows a lack of empthay for thier lose. However to deny that death is not-normal in warfare is well naive.


...they used to be able to say that its for a greater cause, a better Iraq. Such ideas are now laughable, Iraq is a murdered nation, divided and filled with hatred. Even if the occupation forces withdraw Iraq might never recover...

Your opinion and noted - however having been in Iraq during the first Gulf War, seeing what I saw of the rape of Kuwait by Iraq soldiers - and the destruction of war - I can safely say that the leadership of Iraq brought this war to their front door - along with Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair. However it seems that some rather condemn just one side - verus look at the complete picture.



...1/500th of the people who have died in Iraq have died in London...for no reason...the people in Iraq died for no reason too...arent they humans? Why are the Iraqis allowed to be viewed as numbers and not us? Doesnt Al-Qaeda use the same reason to justify the taking of live as the U.S do? 'for the greater good' or ' because they did the same'...


Death is death - everyone dies. Sometimes its for senseless reasons - say a school shooting, sometimes its because of warfare. Warfare to some is senseless, and to others it sometimes becomes necessary. The difference and one that some do not want to understand is that individuals that conduct attacks like Al-Qaeda do it on purpose to attack civilians to cause fear. Most civilian causalities caused by Military Forces are done so because of accident, or the civilians were in the wrong place at the wrong time, ie caught in the crossfire between two converging armies. There have been notable expections to that philisophy committed by many armies - but general the last 30 years of combat - the United States Military has attempt to avoid - but is not been very successful in complete avoidance of civilian causalites.



...I wonder how will the 'war addicts' who post here react if a terrorist hit kills 25.000 people in the US and they are met with a global apathy, the same apathy they are showing now. How about if a bunch of people say it was for the best? How about if someone says the number might be overrated so its ok because not too many died? It happened not only during the recent bombings in London - but during immediately after 9/11.



...I can understand unbiased and fair but to see people dismiss 25.000 deaths so easily is to say the least barbaric and provocative...


agreed



...I will remind some people that they were giving their word that if no WMD's are found then they would accept this war is a war crime, they should save a bit of their dignity....


Maybe some should realize that violations of the Cease Fire Agreement by Saddams government was more then enough reason for war. SOme should realize that 12 years of failed United Nations policies, sanctions, and resolutions was not going to solve the issue.




The way the murder of innocents is advocated here is disgusting...We are lucky we didnt get any Al Qaeda sympathisers to tell us why the London attack was "fair justified and necessary"...If we wouldnt accept that why should we accept it from the other side? Could we have some rational thinking please? Well, I guess not...

Yep it seems you are accusing others of not being rational - while doing the same thing yourself.

[kiwitt]

I think I can trust their figures a quick look here (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/bodycount_all.php?ts=1121808848) seems to have based their calculations on reputable sources. I am inclined to believe their data. More civilians have died due to US/Coalition forces then terrorists overall.

However, If we to draw a graph of on the causes of civilian deaths, I think you would see the rapid decline of civilian deaths after the initial conflict and then an increase in deaths by terrorists.

[PanzerJaeger]

Some people are still acting as if this number by Iraq Body Count is truthful. Accepting numbers from anti-war activists signals a severe lack of critical thinking and/or a biased willingness to accept such numbers.


The 100k are from The Lancet which compared mortality rates from before the war and from during/after the war. These 100k "excess" deaths have not been directly linked to specific causes, such as armed violence, illness etc.

Very recently the Geneva-based "Graduate Institute of International Studies" published a report that gives a number of 39k Iraqis that have been killed as a direct result of combat or armed violence since the U.S.-led invasion (unfortunately I could not find this report on their website).

Do you have any numbers from sources you would consider unbiased for comparison?

I think all the extremely different numbers being thrown around by people who have agendas indicates none of them should be taken at face value. Trying to count bodies in the middle of a combat zone is a dubious task in itself... almost as dubious as trying to separate real facts from agendas.

[Brenus]

“ I wonder how many of these killed by the coalition "civilians" were toting ak47s”: In Iraq? Every one has/had will have a AK 47 or 74 for the newest… It is part of the fashion.

“39k Iraqis that have been killed as a direct result of combat”: Tell me, it is a joke! Only 39 Iraqis died in American actions, when they were trapped in fights like in Faludja? I don’t trust too much the peace-activists, but this one is a better joke I never heard…

“25,000 Civilians is nothing”: Until the civilians are yours: It is probably what Bin Laden think too…

“They also were attempting to kill more by shooting at U.S”, and were bombed on daily basis. Why US didn’t invoke this reason to attack… Well, perhaps because it wasn’t a valid reason. The Iraqis tracked and illuminate the British, Us and French planes but never launch a missile. And their installations were destroyed…

“Breaking of the initial Cease Fire that ended hostilities between Collation Forces signed by the United States, The United Kingdom, THe Kingdom of Saudi Arabi, The Kingdom of Kuwait, and Iraq.”. Nop, between Iraq and the UN. So, if I follow you, Iraq was still at war with France, Italy, Syria, and all other countries which sent troops during the first Gulf War (Canada, Australia etc)… Interesting…

“Srebinka,”, you probably mean Sebrenica. It took more than one day, and actually, Miloševic is The Hague for that, Mladić and Karadzić still on the run. Or, do you implicate that Bush and all the American Seniors Officer should be sent to The Hague for Faloudja (same situation than Sarajevo: Shelling a town full of civilians, preventing access to humanitarian help, blockade and shooting from above –not from mountains but from planes and helicopters)? No, you probably don’t…
Correct me if I am wrong: the US is supposed to liberate Iraq, no?

“Besides i would rather 500 Iraqi civilians die then 50 American soldiers.”: You should create an Osama Bin Laden fun club, with such great idea of spreading democracy and freedom!

“Maybe some should realize that violations of the Cease Fire Agreement by Saddams government was more then enough reason for war”: Which one?
Again, it wasn’t mentioned in the case to go to war…

[edyzmedieval]

That's why I don't visit the Backroom....

Too much calamities and a very sad atmosphere.....

Back to topic.

The Iraq war hasn't got any sense. Bush wanted to control the petrol in Iraq, that's why he started it.....

[scooter_the_shooter]

But Again.. how many of these civilians were really civilians The numbers are high enough It seems they are counting in some insurgents too.


And will you people come off of the oil even if thats why we went it isnt near as bad as the UN oil for food.

[Albino Gorilla]

I call it, population control.

[scooter_the_shooter]

Gorilla you lost me there what do you mean???

[Redleg]

“ I wonder how many of these killed by the coalition "civilians" were toting ak47s”: In Iraq? Every one has/had will have a AK 47 or 74 for the newest… It is part of the fashion.

And that proves what point.



“39k Iraqis that have been killed as a direct result of combat”: Tell me, it is a joke! Only 39 Iraqis died in American actions, when they were trapped in fights like in Faludja? I don’t trust too much the peace-activists, but this one is a better joke I never heard…


I guess you missed the k after the 39.



“25,000 Civilians is nothing”: Until the civilians are yours: It is probably what Bin Laden think too… As far as modern wars go - the number is actually lower then the predictions



“They also were attempting to kill more by shooting at U.S”, and were bombed on daily basis. Why US didn’t invoke this reason to attack… Well, perhaps because it wasn’t a valid reason. The Iraqis tracked and illuminate the British, Us and French planes but never launch a missile. And their installations were destroyed… Never fired a missle - oh boy someone has forgotten their facts.



“Breaking of the initial Cease Fire that ended hostilities between Collation Forces signed by the United States, The United Kingdom, THe Kingdom of Saudi Arabi, The Kingdom of Kuwait, and Iraq.”. Nop, between Iraq and the UN. So, if I follow you, Iraq was still at war with France, Italy, Syria, and all other countries which sent troops during the first Gulf War (Canada, Australia etc)… Interesting…

Hm remember seeing a french officer also - and I don't remember seeing a single United Nations Flag at the initial cease fire either. And then someone needs to read the Hague Conventions about cease fires.



“Srebinka,”, you probably mean Sebrenica. It took more than one day, and actually, Miloševic is The Hague for that, Mladić and Karadzić still on the run. Or, do you implicate that Bush and all the American Seniors Officer should be sent to The Hague for Faloudja (same situation than Sarajevo: Shelling a town full of civilians, preventing access to humanitarian help, blockade and shooting from above –not from mountains but from planes and helicopters)? No, you probably don’t… And your point - IF you dont recongize the difference between the two operations - well that seems to be your problem[/quote]



Correct me if I am wrong: the US is supposed to liberate Iraq, no?


One of the many reasons - Primary reason has been stated over and over again - all one has to do is refer back to several of the speeches made in 2002/3.



“Besides i would rather 500 Iraqi civilians die then 50 American soldiers.”: You should create an Osama Bin Laden fun club, with such great idea of spreading democracy and freedom! Its already out there - and its been there for years. It seems some would like to forget a few things in their attempts to state that the United States is wrong.



“Maybe some should realize that violations of the Cease Fire Agreement by Saddams government was more then enough reason for war”: Which one?
Again, it wasn’t mentioned in the case to go to war…

Again you would be wrong - it was initially mentioned in one of President Bush's first speeches.


The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

There are other references from other speeches also.


To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear to him and to all, and he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations. He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge, by his deceptions and by his cruelties, Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.


http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/12/bush.transcript/

That the United Nations as a body failed to act - does not mean the United States can not act on its on to force another to honor the committments that they made.

[Xiahou]

The 100k are from The Lancet which compared mortality rates from before the war and from during/after the war. These 100k "excess" deaths have not been directly linked to specific causes, such as armed violence, illness etc.Nor was it directly linked to facts. ~;)

[Azi Tohak]

Bad US! Bad! I say get the heck out and let all the Iraqis different ethnic and religious groups come to a nice tea party and settle all their differences.

At the point of a sword.

25,000? Really? Wow. That is not too bad. Considering how many people have been killed by suicide bombers and 'friendly-fire' during the war itself, that speaks rather highly I think of how the Allies are doing to minimize collaterol (sp?) damage.

Still, it could be worse. Imagine if Hussein was still in power. How many thousands would be dead in the 27 months since the war started. But would those deaths still be Bush's fault?

Also, I wonder how many people die of natural causes in a country of what, 22 million, in 27 months.

Azi

[Idomeneas]

You think nuking japan was WRONG I wish we dropped earlier. My grandpa is a local leader of the dav(disabled american veterans) some of the members were pows in japan(guess how they got disabled :furious3: ) hear their stories and i guarantee you will wish we dropped earlier.


On topic


Besides i would rather 500 Iraqi civilians die then 50 american soldiers.

My uncles friend just got back from iraq and said something like this

"when ever you see something that doesn't look right you shot at it... am I proud of that no, did i come back in one piece yes.


thanks for the comment panzer ~:cheers:

wow nice view of the world. You forgot that Iraq is those civilians home. US is the home of americans. Americans should go home maybe? or world is their home?..... well time is a wheel you know... what goes up comes down try to accept it instead of making 50+ years plans and world will be a better place ~:)

About A bombs. Killing your enemy is may be a necesary evil. Killing your enemy and his children and their children and their children and their children IS evil. Why dont you try put yourself in their place. You know between Greece and Turkey there is an everlasting feud for centuries. They have done to us more evil than Japs could ever imagine to do to US but in no case i would support the idea to nuke them.

[scooter_the_shooter]

Your claiming moral high ground while using racist words ~:eek: wth Idomeneas



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

[Papewaio]

Soldiers are supposed to die. Innocents are not.
edit: Gah! Let me explain. Soldiers volentarily went to risk their life. Innocents should never die, while soldiers know that they might die.

Soldiers are not supposed to die for their country they are supposed to defend their country.


The true role of infantry is not to expend itself upon heroic physical effort, not to wither away under merciless machine-gun fire, not to impale itself on hostile bayonets, but on the contrary, to advance under the maximum possible protection of the maximum possible array of mechanical resources, in the form of guns, machine-guns, tanks, mortars and aeroplanes; to advance with as little impediment as possible; to be relieved as far as possible of the obligation to fight their way forward.

Those Japanese innocents were quite happy getting the benefits from the war of conquest in Asia. They weren't protesting against the war, they were helping it along as much as possible.

Okinawa ended up a blood bath as civilians killed themselves, if you extrapolate the numbers to an invasion of Japan it would have been million upon millions of dead with at least a million allied soldiers too.

So you can choose:
Two nukes and 300,000 dead
or
A land invasion and easily over 5 million dead.

[kiwitt]

But there is always another option.

In Japan's case, we could have set up a blockade after Okinawa's lesson.

[PanzerJaeger]

25,000? Really? Wow.

No! Not really!

Again, Iraq Body Count is a meaningless propaganda tool for the anti-war movement.

[kiwitt]

Unless you are one of the bodies.

[scooter_the_shooter]

kiwitt its war civilians will die there has never been a war where this didnt happen. Is it bad yes should it be minimized yes... can it be stopped no.

[kiwitt]

Agreed. Therefore you should not start one unless there is no other option. In MTW and in probably later times too, armies used to fight around cities and villages. Attacks in towns and cities should be minimised.

Wasn't Paris declared as a "free" city or something like that.

[scooter_the_shooter]

Kiwitt we cant yell to the insurgents "come on out stay in the open so we can cut you down with tanks air strikes and artillery"

There is a reason they hide in those buildings

[bmolsson]

So you can choose:
Two nukes and 300,000 dead
or
A land invasion and easily over 5 million dead.


I am pretty sure that bin Laden did the same estimate: 3,000 dead in a terrorist attack or millions dead in a full out Jihad. The only difference is that his game failed.........

Using nuke or terrorist bombings are always wrong, regardless the intent. With that said, I understand the choice using nukes, will not argue the decision, but will always disagree.

[bmolsson]

Again, Iraq Body Count is a meaningless propaganda tool for the anti-war movement.


Would you say the same thing about terrorist victims in the west as well ??

[bmolsson]

I think that the loss of civilian lives are sad and un-acceptable. I also think that the American Army has done what can be expected in efforts to minimize it and they have most of the time respect and courtesy in handling the facts.
The loss of lives, civilian or not, can not be blamed on the Army. The invasion of Iraq is a political decision and that responsibility is fully with the US government.

[Papewaio]

But there is always another option.

In Japan's case, we could have set up a blockade after Okinawa's lesson.

And the POWs left on Japan?

Essentially we sacrifice them so that we can slowly starve the entire population of Japan to death and prolong the war by years... seems much more humane and reasonable then quickly finishing the war. ~:eek:

[kiwitt]

I know the attacks are different now

During the battle conflict a selection of the injuries

22 Mar 2003 11:30AM+ Basra - bombardment, incl. cluster bombs 50
22 Mar 2003 AM Vicinity of Khormal, Kurdistan - missile strikes 57
26 Mar 2003 midday Al-Shaab neighbourhood, Baghdad nine Iraqi surface-to-surface missiles "placed within a civilian area" 2 cruise missiles 14
26 Mar 2003 - Rutbah children's hospital aerial bombardment 2
28 Mar 2003 PM Al-Nasser marketplace, Baghdad - air raids 34
29 Mar 2003 PM Al-Janabiin, Baghdad area - missile 20
01 Apr 2003 AM Hilla, Babylon province - aerial bombardment incl. cluster bombs 33
02 Apr 2003 9:30AM Red Crescent maternity hospital and vicinity, Baghdad nearby Government buildings aerial bombardment 5
07 Apr 2003 3PM Al-Mansour residential area, Baghdad suspected meeting of Saddam Hussein and sons missile 9
12 Apr 2003 - Dura residential neighbourhood, Baghdad children killed by unexploded cluster bombs cluster bombs 3
10 Apr 2003 - Al-Adamiyah, Northern Baghdad mosque tanks and gunfire 30
21 Apr 2003 - Kirkuk - cluster bombs, landmines, unexploded ordnance 52
11 Apr 2003 - Ar-Ramadi, 100 km from Baghdad home of Dulaym tribal chief aerial bombardment 22
28 Apr 2003 10:30PM + outside school in Fallujah, 50 km west of Baghdad demonstrators, including pre-teen children gunfire 13
05 Apr 2003 PM Rashidiya - air attacks 85

[kiwitt]

And the POWs left on Japan?

Essentially we sacrifice them so that we can slowly starve the entire population of Japan to death and prolong the war by years... seems much more humane and reasonable then quickly finishing the war. ~:eek:

I only suggested it as an option. It was also a risk to nuke them, as it could have hardened their resolve too!

[Red Harvest]

I only suggested it as an option. It was also a risk to nuke them, as it could have hardened their resolve too!

No, that is to misunderstand the Japanese psyche of WWII, and the sense of personal and national honor. Review the history of island hopping. The horrific power of the atom bomb made for honorable surrender. The Japanese knew they could resist invasions even if the cost was dear, as Okinawa had shown. But they could not resist an atom bomb.

What President in his right mind would sacrifice over 100,000 allied prisoners (including civilians) rather than nuking a couple of Japanese cities, to save far fewer Japanese than were already projected to die as the result of starvation and/or invasion? The allied prisoners were slated for execution upon US invasion (I believe this was known from code breaking at the time and was stated by many Japanese after the war.) Plus, starving Japan would almost certainly have resulted in most if not all of the prisoner's deaths. Not to mention that the operations of maintaining a blockade, infrastructure bombing, recon and the like would have continued to cost US lives.

Japan's leadership throughout had ignored the "traditions" of war as practiced in the West. You must fight the enemy in front of you, not the enemy you would like to have.

A President who had allowed tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of US lives to be sacrificed in an ill advised attempt to save Japanese civilians would have been considered a traitor at home (and probably by allies who lost significant numbers as a result.) It seems a loss of American/allied lives with no good purpose.

[PanzerJaeger]

Would you say the same thing about terrorist victims in the west as well ??

I think you misunderstand.

Iraq Body Count - the anti-war group - should not be trusted to give any kind of accurate assessment of the situation and is meaningless if one is really trying to figure out whats going on over there.

The actual iraqi body count from the war is deadly serious, and Im proud America does all it can to diminish this, although sometimes that puts our own interests in jeopardy.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well the big hype is going to hit when US losses exceed 3000. The I garuntee you will hear nothing from the press and many here as how we have now lost more people fighting this war than were lost on 911 and how wastefull and wrong this war is.

[bmolsson]

I think you misunderstand.

Iraq Body Count - the anti-war group - should not be trusted to give any kind of accurate assessment of the situation and is meaningless if one is really trying to figure out whats going on over there.

The actual iraqi body count from the war is deadly serious, and Im proud America does all it can to diminish this, although sometimes that puts our own interests in jeopardy.

Panzer, actually not. I do understand you very well, and in most I actually agree with you. The only thing is that sometimes you seem to forget the respect for human lives.

If there are 25,000 or 125,000 lives lost, that is not really the issue. A war is fought and there is no reason what so ever for the US Army to be blamed for this. But the US Army have the responsibility to respect the victims and investigate any wrong doings. I think that so is the case today. US Army was clumsy and arrogant in the start of the war, but has taken critics seriously and make a good impression nowadays....

[rasoforos]

Its so easy to dismiss civilian casualties as 'accidents'. Where is the line that divides what an accident is and what is not? What is the line that defines how many people are acceptable losses?

When you cluster bomb a village then its not an accident.

When you blow up a whole district because one Iraqi official is supposed to be there at the moment is not an accident.

Accident or not , 25.000 people died and millions of others had their life expectancy reduced by as much as a decade ( isnt that a form of murder? ) for a non-existent reason ( WMD ), to replace an ex-US quesling dictator for a US quesling committee, to allow Haliburton and the rest to make big contracts. Of course some things like the murder of prisoners and torture never changed, how could they when the US has admited to sending people to be tortured?

I believe that when a war is not justified then ALL losses of civilians are war crimes. Its as simple as that...

If we take such a cruel approach to justify deaths because of a higher reason then 9/11 and the London Underground attacks dont differ all that much from what the US does in Iraq.

9/11's largest impact was the economic collapse it caused which in turn sent the US in a major overspending that goes on until now and is slowly making the country bankrupt. By borrowing the logic of the 'war addicts' in this forum, the civilians were an accidental loss, they were just at the wrong place at the wrong time because markets were open at that time....

Again, using the same logic, London Underground is not a good place to kill a lot of people. A stadium would give much "better" results, even explosions over the ground like in Oxford Circus would give much "better" results. 4 terrorists armed with TNT could easily take down 10 times that many people. However the attack on the underground paralysed London and is still causing major disruptions harming the economy and changing people's behaviour.

I for once am not going to accept such twisted logic, the same way I wouldnt accept Al Qaeda logic. And its equally offensive.

So the U.S war crimes can be described as side losses, Al Qaeda could say the same if they had hired a good republican P.R person ~;) ...and the victims are the innocents...

[Franconicus]

make that 5.000.000.000 for every .005 american and I'm in agreement wiht you
Do you understand why I call you dangerous?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

.and the victims are the innocents...


The innocents are always the victims in war since there has been war. Is this supposed to be some sort of revelation. Somtimes I think you smoke too much. ~D

[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 ~:eek: 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. ~D

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/showthread.php?p=853534#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. ~D

[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 . :embarassed:

[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.

[Tribesman]

Yes it is Tribesman remember the cold war.
????? Nope , you have completely lost me there Redleg , when did the allies overthrow Stalin and put him on trial for the crimes he committed when he was their ally ?

[Xiahou]

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 .So the difference, apparently, is that we continued to allow Stalin to murder people after we supported him- therefore we're not responsible. Whereas, we're guilty of all of Saddam's murders plus even more guilty than those that are blowing up civillians today because we took steps to overthrow him. Yup, makes sense to me. :dizzy2:

[Tribesman]

Stop the knuckle dragging for the sake of it Xiahou .
If you support someone when they are killing people , you cannot then go and say that you have to kill more people because the person you were supporting was killing people and try and distance yourself from your support of his killings in the first place .

[Xiahou]

So, by your logic, the 1st Gulf War was also hypocritical?

[Tribesman]

So, by your logic, the 1st Gulf War was also hypocritical?
Yes completely , you backed a murderous dictator against another country whose population had just evicted another of your local pets , while at the same time your military and administration was supplying weaponry to the very people who had not only evicted you friendly little puppet but had attacked the US embassy and kept US hostages for over a year .
Now after the 3rd Gulf war , to round off the hypocracy you are supporting the "terrorists" who Saddam was slaughtering , and supporting the "terrorists" who Saddam supported and who were actively involved in the embassy attack , and you are supporting the "terrorists" who were fighting the "terrorists" that were supporting Iran , and have helped put in high office in Iraq the very Iranian backed radicals who you have claimed to be the root of all the problems in the first place .

By YOU I do not mean you personally .

So is their any end to the hypocracy concerning the middle-east ?

If you want some more we could examine the whole Turkey-Syria-America love hate relationship in this so called war on terror . That would be fun ~;)

[Redleg]

Yes it is Tribesman remember the cold war.
????? Nope , you have completely lost me there Redleg , when did the allies overthrow Stalin and put him on trial for the crimes he committed when he was their ally ?

after WW2 the USSR and the USA went into a cold state of hostilies between each other fighting proxy wars with each other.

[Tribesman]

after WW2 the USSR and the USA went into a cold state of hostilies between each other fighting proxy wars with each other.
Ah ......I understand now Redleg . So because Stalin was a murderous dictator it was decided that instead of overthrowing the former ally at home you would back other murderous dictators in in effort to defeat him in someone elses home .
Now what was the lesson for today ?

[Redleg]

after WW2 the USSR and the USA went into a cold state of hostilies between each other fighting proxy wars with each other.
Ah ......I understand now Redleg . So because Stalin was a murderous dictator it was decided that instead of overthrowing the former ally at home you would back other murderous dictators in in effort to defeat him in someone elses home .
Now what was the lesson for today ?

Not even close Tribesman

Your arguement of 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 .

I am pointing out the error in your arguement - just like you are pointing out the error mentioned above.

No lesson at all - other then that nations use other nations as allies when it suits their needs, and those nations become enemies when conflicting interests overtake the mutual interest.