25,000 dead Iraqis, Democracy doesn't justify this slaughter

[RobinsontoDuncan]

http://search.csmonitor.com/2005/1026/p07s01-woiq.html


What the US death toll in Iraq reveals

A new poll shows that 53 percent of Americans say the war wasn't worth it.

By Dan Murphy | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

BAGHDAD – Sometime in the coming days, the United States military will probably report the 2,000th American military death of the Iraq war.
While in some ways an arbitrary milestone, the tragic figure only tells part of the story when it comes to the human costs and human successes - both foreign and local - of the war.


E-mail this story


Write a letter to the Editor


Printer-friendly version


Permission to reprint/republish




Perhaps the most striking statistic from this war, compared with any other conflict in US history, shows troops today have a much better chance of surviving if wounded. This is because of vast improvements in body armor and strides in battlefield medicine.

For instance, the ratio of deaths to serious injuries in Iraq is less than half what it was in World War II. As recently as Vietnam, 28 percent of Americans hurt in action died. In Iraq, the ratio is 11 percent. In all, about 15,000 Americans have been wounded in combat here, about half of them seriously enough to go home.

What may be most telling about the number of deaths is whether it creates a major shift in American public opinion, which has largely been tolerant of the loss of life in Iraq.

"By any historical standards the casualties are incredibly low,'' says Anthony Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and a former US Defense Department official. "But America has changed. On the one hand, Americans don't have the stakes where their sons and daughters were subject to the draft. On the other, we have a media and a people that have been educated to believe in a precision, almost bloodless form of war."

This milestone will be visited by both antiwar protesters and war supporters who say that the dead should be honored by finishing the job. Who wins that debate will hinge on how Americans answer the following questions: Has the cost been worth it? Is America willing to pay much more?

Mr. Cordesman says at this time, the next few months will determine whether the military deaths will eventually become a rallying point for those who want America out of Iraq.

"There's nothing magic about any given number of casualties, but what virtually any serious study of this shows is that Americans will tolerate casualties if they believe the conflict is needed, well managed, and there's a real purpose in continuing it,'' he says. "It seems obvious from public opinion polls that fewer and fewer Americans believe that."

Improved rates of survival also mean that there are more amputees coming home. On a US base in Baquba, Iraq, recently, an Iraqi interpreter said he really missed his best friend in the army, a young woman lieutenant he served with. Asked what happened to her, he pulls from his wallet a snapshot of a young woman posing defiantly with the prosthesis for her right arm.

While hard data aren't available on the number of amputees, the issue has led to a boom in research and development of advanced prosthetics in the US, most funded by the US Army. Amputees are now being fitted with artificial legs, that have computer chips that ease movement and develop a sort of artificial "muscle-memory."

Also frequently neglected is looking at the war's cost to Iraqis. Roughly 25,000 Iraqi civilians have died in the course of the war, and this year has been particularly deadly for Iraqi police and soldiers, who patrol the streets of Iraq without the armored vehicles, medical expertise, and heavy weaponry that US forces rely on.
Since the war began, about 3,300 Iraqi soldiers and police have been killed, 2,100 this year alone, according to a report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies released this week. The Iraqi Interior Ministry refuses to say how many police have been wounded.

Three police interviewed in Baghdad Tuesday have lost 12 coworkers since the war began. "Of course I'm afraid - working as a policeman makes me an enormous target,'' says Amar Hasan, young cop guarding an interior ministry building. "But I'm not going to quit. We have to do this."

Cordesman's data show that the US death rate is very low for a war of this size. But US support continues to slide. A Harris Interactive poll published in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal found that 53 percent of Americans now think invading Iraq was the "wrong thing to do." That's the first time that number has risen above 50 percent in the poll. The same poll in September found 49 percent of Americans opposed.

[Marcus Bryant]

Mussolini made the trains run on time.

[xrayzebra]

http://search.csmonitor.com/2005/1026/p07s01-woiq.html


What the US death toll in Iraq reveals

A new poll shows that 53 percent of Americans say the war wasn't worth it.

By Dan Murphy | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

BAGHDAD – Sometime in the coming days, the United States military will probably report the 2,000th American military death of the Iraq war.
While in some ways an arbitrary milestone, the tragic figure only tells part of the story when it comes to the human costs and human successes - both foreign and local - of the war.




E-mail this story


Write a letter to the Editor


Printer-friendly version


Permission to reprint/republish




Perhaps the most striking statistic from this war, compared with any other conflict in US history, shows troops today have a much better chance of surviving if wounded. This is because of vast improvements in body armor and strides in battlefield medicine.

For instance, the ratio of deaths to serious injuries in Iraq is less than half what it was in World War II. As recently as Vietnam, 28 percent of Americans hurt in action died. In Iraq, the ratio is 11 percent. In all, about 15,000 Americans have been wounded in combat here, about half of them seriously enough to go home.

What may be most telling about the number of deaths is whether it creates a major shift in American public opinion, which has largely been tolerant of the loss of life in Iraq.

"By any historical standards the casualties are incredibly low,'' says Anthony Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and a former US Defense Department official. "But America has changed. On the one hand, Americans don't have the stakes where their sons and daughters were subject to the draft. On the other, we have a media and a people that have been educated to believe in a precision, almost bloodless form of war."

This milestone will be visited by both antiwar protesters and war supporters who say that the dead should be honored by finishing the job. Who wins that debate will hinge on how Americans answer the following questions: Has the cost been worth it? Is America willing to pay much more?

Mr. Cordesman says at this time, the next few months will determine whether the military deaths will eventually become a rallying point for those who want America out of Iraq.

"There's nothing magic about any given number of casualties, but what virtually any serious study of this shows is that Americans will tolerate casualties if they believe the conflict is needed, well managed, and there's a real purpose in continuing it,'' he says. "It seems obvious from public opinion polls that fewer and fewer Americans believe that."

Improved rates of survival also mean that there are more amputees coming home. On a US base in Baquba, Iraq, recently, an Iraqi interpreter said he really missed his best friend in the army, a young woman lieutenant he served with. Asked what happened to her, he pulls from his wallet a snapshot of a young woman posing defiantly with the prosthesis for her right arm.

While hard data aren't available on the number of amputees, the issue has led to a boom in research and development of advanced prosthetics in the US, most funded by the US Army. Amputees are now being fitted with artificial legs, that have computer chips that ease movement and develop a sort of artificial "muscle-memory."

Also frequently neglected is looking at the war's cost to Iraqis. Roughly 25,000 Iraqi civilians have died in the course of the war, and this year has been particularly deadly for Iraqi police and soldiers, who patrol the streets of Iraq without the armored vehicles, medical expertise, and heavy weaponry that US forces rely on.
Since the war began, about 3,300 Iraqi soldiers and police have been killed, 2,100 this year alone, according to a report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies released this week. The Iraqi Interior Ministry refuses to say how many police have been wounded.

Three police interviewed in Baghdad Tuesday have lost 12 coworkers since the war began. "Of course I'm afraid - working as a policeman makes me an enormous target,'' says Amar Hasan, young cop guarding an interior ministry building. "But I'm not going to quit. We have to do this."

Cordesman's data show that the US death rate is very low for a war of this size. But US support continues to slide. A Harris Interactive poll published in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal found that 53 percent of Americans now think invading Iraq was the "wrong thing to do." That's the first time that number has risen above 50 percent in the poll. The same poll in September found 49 percent of Americans opposed.

Your Thread based on one paragraph of the article. Most of the article is about reaching our 2000th death. Which we have. But consider this.

During our civil war we lost a total (both sides) of 970,000 dead. Was that war worth it based on your thoughts?

During our revolutionary war, we lost about 4,400 war dead. Out of a
population of 3.5 Million.

Was that war worth it? Both wars were for similar reasons.

[Vashner]

Freedom isn't free...

And yes Democracy is worth the price.

If there was just some magic body count for Freedom or War... like this number for civis or the 2000 for U.S. military...

If it was that easy to defeat good then everyone on earth would be screwed .. I.E. bad guys would learn just to kill masses of people to overthrow governments.. ERR I.E. Spain.


On February 24, 1836, during Santa Anna's siege of the Alamo, Travis wrote a letter addressed "To the People of Texas and All Americans in the World":

Fellow citizens & compatriots—
I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I have sustained a continual Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours & have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, & our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country. Victory or Death
William Barret Travis
Lt. Col. comdt
P.S. The Lord is on our side. When the enemy appeared in sight we had not three bushels of corn. We have since found in deserted houses 80 or 90 bushels & got into the walls 20 or 30 head of Beeves.
Travis
He gave this letter to rider Albert Martin to deliver. The letter, while unable to bring aid to the garrison at the Alamo, did much to motivate the Texan army and helped to rally support in America for the cause of Texan independence. It also cemented Travis's status as a hero of the Texas Revolution.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

how easy for you hypocrits to say, that freedom isn't free, that democracy is worth turning the US into a mass murderer, it isn't your neighbors being bombed and your childen who walk to school with fear in their eyes.

The civil war was fought for entirely different reasons, and could have been avoided through some better choices on behalf of the founding fathers a century before hand.

The revolutainoary war was also fought by voulanteers who wanted to break away from their parent country, Iraq was invaded you dumbass by a foreign power.

[Extra Stout]

how easy for you hypocrits to say, that freedom isn't free, that democracy is worth turning the US into a mass murderer, it isn't your neighbors being bombed and your childen who walk to school with fear in their eyes.The Sunni insurgents who are targeting Shia civilians rather than U.S. soldiers -- why do you think they do this? What are they trying to accomplish? What are the possible outcomes at this point?

What is a reasonable expectation for a government in Iraq? Would it be possible for a government that reflects the wishes of ordinary Iraqis today to have the rights and freedoms that we enjoy, such as freedom of religion and rights for women?

What is the political climate like in surrounding countries as opposed to four years ago?

Which is better from a security standpoint: a moderate government that is critical of America, or a repressive police state that is reflexively pro-American? Was the answer the same twenty years ago?


The civil war was fought for entirely different reasons, and could have been avoided through some better choices on behalf of the founding fathers a century before hand.:rolleyes That, sir, is a cop-out.


The revolutainoary war was also fought by voulanteers who wanted to break away from their parent country, Iraq was invaded you dumbass by a foreign power.What is the current conflict right now? Is it Iraqis against the foreign power at this point? What are the two sides? What are they fighting for? Is either of the outcomes preferrable to the situation four years ago?

Unfortunately, debate on the war pretty much has whittled down to two sets of talking points easy for partisan idiots to parrot:

Right: "The Iraq conflict is a just cause to bring democracy and freedom to all the Iraqi people."

Left: "The Iraq conflict is a hopeless quagmire massacre of Iraqis brought about by lies from the Bush cabal to help their oil buddies."

Both answers are facile.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

What is the current conflict right now? Is it Iraqis against the foreign power at this point? What are the two sides? What are they fighting for? Is either of the outcomes preferrable to the situation four years ago? Are you serious? I think its preety clear that 25,000 Iraqi deaths are entirely the fault of the American invasion! I think we can say for certain that the situation RIGHT now is far worse than it was with Saddam at the helm. Yeah, there was no freedom, but was there as much Iraq bloodshed?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Furthermore, not only was the invasion of Iraq detrimental to the US' interests but in the end, when the US is forced to leave Iraq under the cover of the "succesful" implementation of a bogus constitution, civil war is certain to unleash and a hotbed for future terrorist cells will be formed creating a far worse scenario than could have been imagined. That's what I think.

[desflood]

Are you serious? I think its preety clear that 25,000 Iraqi deaths are entirely the fault of the American invasion! I think we can say for certain that the situation RIGHT now is far worse than it was with Saddam at the helm. Yeah, there was no freedom, but was there as much Iraq bloodshed?
May I direct you to this link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_situation_in_Saddam's_Iraq

[SpursWoman]

Yeah, there was no freedom, but was there as much Iraq bloodshed?


Yeah, Saddam was the BESTEST. :makeout :)

[Murphy]

how many of his own people did Saddam kill?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Look I'm not for Saddam. He was a cold blooded son of a bitch who deserves whatever he gets! But you can't possibly tell me the situation right now, with 25,000 Iraqui people dead is better than 4 years ago!! My point is, the American invasion hasn't improved the Iraqui situation in 4 years, and by the looks of it, it won't improve by the time the US leaves Iraq.

[Marcus Bryant]

In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern and Southern Iraq. This is known as the Anfal campaign. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 100,000 people), many of them women and children. A team of Human Rights Watch investigators determined, after analyzing eighteen tons of captured Iraqi documents, testing soil samples and carrying out interviews with more than 350 witnesses, that the attacks on the Kurdish people were characterized by gross violations of human rights, including mass executions and disappearances of many tens of thousands of noncombatants, widespread use of chemical weapons including Sarin, mustard gas and nerve agents that killed thousands, the arbitrary imprisoning of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people for months in conditions of extreme deprivation, forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers after the demolition of their homes, and the wholesale destruction of nearly two thousand villages along with their schools, mosques, farms, and power stations.



In April 1991, after Saddam lost control of Kuwait in the Gulf War, he cracked down ruthlessly against uprisings in the Kurdish north and the Shia south. His forces committed wholesale massacres and other gross human rights violations against both groups similar to the violations mentioned before. Estimates of deaths during that time range from 40,000 to 100,000 for Kurds, and 60,000 to 130,000 for Shi'ites.

Yep, the Iraqis were better off with ol' Saddam in charge.

[Useruser666]

Is the 25,000 people a number of civilians that were killed by US soldiers or just the number who have died during the conflict?

[Marcus Bryant]

Is the 25,000 people a number of civilians that were killed by US soldiers or just the number who have died during the conflict?

We have a winner. You know, if you think about it, the world would've been a lot better if nobody had bothered to try to take out Hitler and friends back in the day.

[Yonivore]

I'm thinking Saddam Hussein has been responsible for at least 10 times that many people -- just between 1990 and the 1st Annual National Spider Hole Day. God only knows how many political opponents, dissidents, critics, or people who happened to sneeze in his presence just "disappeared" over the term of his despotic reign.

Didn't he have a bunch of his cronies marched outside and shot the evening he took power in Iraq? Kind of set the tone for his whole rule.

[Notorious H.O.P.]

Yeah, there was no freedom, but was there as much Iraq bloodshed?

Ok, this was an ill-advised and incorrect comment but if everyone wants to talk about the atrocities that Saddam committed, there can be another thread for that (and I'm sure there has been).

Plus we all know that there have been governments that have committed much worse than Saddam's (and I cut him no slack here), but where was the US response then? Governments committing mass genocide are prime candidates for invasion and should be overthrown. Where were we? Standing at the corner of our yards and shaking a stick in their direction, if we even bothered to get out of our lawn chairs at all. Why did we choose Iraq to invade? Because they control a resource we need and because "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad".

That all aside, the comment MM made threw the thread off track and the original intention and discussion regarding the article should be restored.

[Yonivore]

Ok, this was an ill-advised and incorrect comment but if everyone wants to talk about the atrocities that Saddam committed, there can be another thread for that (and I'm sure there has been).

Plus we all know that there have been governments that have committed much worse than Saddam's (and I cut him no slack here), but where was the US response then? Governments committing mass genocide are prime candidates for invasion and should be overthrown. Where were we? Standing at the corner of our yards and shaking a stick in their direction, if we even bothered to get out of our lawn chairs at all. Why did we choose Iraq to invade? Because they control a resource we need and because "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad".

That all aside, the comment MM made threw the thread off track and the original intention and discussion regarding the article should be restored.
Can't be everywhere and the government owes an obligation to the American People to only engage in military action when vital U.S. interests are at stake or when the public demands it.

In the former case, we can argue 'til the cows come home over the legitimacy of the Iraq invasion and, in the latter category, Rwanda came damn close.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

We have a winner. You know, if you think about it, the world would've been a lot better if nobody had bothered to try to take out Hitler and friends back in the day.
yeah, 'cause that's the reason the US went into Iraq, to save the Kurds and put a stop to all the inhume slaughterings. Give me a break! 25,000 dead due to American intervention, that's acceptable casualties, but Saddam offs 100,000 thousand and its an inhumane massacre. They are both EQUALLY FUCKED UP!! the only difference is Saddam is going to fry and the US army will continue to do it with impunity.

This war will yield nothing but death, suffering, and debt! LOTS AND LOTS OF debt! but hey the American people is the one paying for this, so in the end its on you. Whoever really believes that the Iraqui people will live peacefully under a bogus constitution that goes against 1000 years of tradition (albeit fucked up tradition, which I am totally against, but tradition none the less) is not being realistic.

For all the military intelligence used in this war, I find it hard to believe noone saw this coming...

Don't get me wrong, I wish everyone in the world could live and accept democracy like the US does. It is IMO the best form of government. however, you sure as hell cannot forcefeed "love, peace, and the persuit of happiness" down someone's throat when it is clear they aren't buying into it.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Ok, this was an ill-advised and incorrect comment but if everyone wants to talk about the atrocities that Saddam committed, there can be another thread for that (and I'm sure there has been).

Plus we all know that there have been governments that have committed much worse than Saddam's (and I cut him no slack here), but where was the US response then? Governments committing mass genocide are prime candidates for invasion and should be overthrown. Where were we? Standing at the corner of our yards and shaking a stick in their direction, if we even bothered to get out of our lawn chairs at all. Why did we choose Iraq to invade? Because they control a resource we need and because "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad".

That all aside, the comment MM made threw the thread off track and the original intention and discussion regarding the article should be restored.
I will give you that. That comment was out of line. I never thought that, and that was not what I meant to say. Sometimes, I'm inclined to blurt shit out, even if I don't really believe them LOL, I'm working on that. However, I do believe most of my point was legitimate.

[Marcus Bryant]

yeah, 'cause that's the reason the US went into Iraq, to save the Kurds and put a stop to all the inhume slaughterings.


I didn't say it was. But if you are going to start criticizing the invasion for its dead and claiming that things were better off before the invasion, then you're going to be called out on it.




Give me a break! 25,000 dead due to American intervention, that's acceptable casualties, but Saddam offs 100,000 thousand and its an inhumane massacre. They are both EQUALLY FUCKED UP!! the only difference is Saddam is going to fry and the US army will continue to do it with impunity.

Solid moral equivalence. It's not hard to see why Buenos Aires was so hospitable to some Germanic visitors back in the day.




This war will yield nothing but death, suffering, and debt! LOTS AND LOTS OF debt! but hey the American people is the one paying for this, so in the end its on you. Whoever really believes that the Iraqui people will live peacefully under a bogus constitution that goes against 1000 years of tradition (albeit fucked up tradition, which I am totally against, but tradition none the less) is not being realistic.


So don't do anything that creates mass casualties, including taking out a dictator who specialized in those.




For all the military intelligence used in this war, I find it hard to believe noone saw this coming...

Don't get me wrong, I wish everyone in the world could live and accept democracy like the US does. It is IMO the best form of government. however, you sure as hell cannot forcefeed "love, peace, and the persuit of happiness" down someone's throat when it is clear they aren't buying into it.

You're right. The US shouldn't give a fuck about the rest of the world. Let them stew in their own filth.

[Yonivore]

yeah, 'cause that's the reason the US went into Iraq, to save the Kurds and put a stop to all the inhume slaughterings. Give me a break! 25,000 dead due to American intervention, that's acceptable casualties, but Saddam offs 100,000 thousand and its an inhumane massacre. They are both EQUALLY FUCKED UP!! the only difference is Saddam is going to fry and the US army will continue to do it with impunity.

This war will yield nothing but death, suffering, and debt! LOTS AND LOTS OF debt! but hey the American people is the one paying for this, so in the end its on you. Whoever really believes that the Iraqui people will live peacefully under a bogus constitution that goes against 1000 years of tradition (albeit fucked up tradition, which I am totally against, but tradition none the less) is not being realistic.

For all the military intelligence used in this war, I find it hard to believe noone saw this coming...

Don't get me wrong, I wish everyone in the world could live and accept democracy like the US does. It is IMO the best form of government. however, you sure as hell cannot forcefeed "love, peace, and the persuit of happiness" down someone's throat when it is clear they aren't buying into it.
Wow! Do you even read the news? Free and fair elections are being held in Iraq.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans died during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars to guarantee this for us. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died during two World Wars to guarantee this for Europe.

Twenty-five thousand is a small price to pay for your own fucking freedom.

[Extra Stout]

Interesting how it takes somebody outside the U.S. to see the conflict outside the prism of our own politics, huh?

I'm pretty skeptical myself about whether this Iraq war will have any benefit to U.S. interests. It looks like whatever government we put in there will collapse in the inevitable Sunni-Shia civil war that will erupt whenever our forces leave, and that the government that emrges out of that conflict will be comparable either to Saddam's regime (if the Sunni win) or the Islamic Republic of Iran (if the Shia win).

Bush's plan was to catalyze change in the region, hoping that whatever "good" was done in Iraq would spread to the rest of the Middle East and defuse the political frustration which manifests itself as terrorism. The neocons were convinced that a stable, moderate regime in Iraq would result in a stable, moderate Middle East, and that it would be relatively easy to set it up there. The "WMD's" were a ruse to get us to go along with it.

Obviously, this was a huge risk, given the possible unintended consequences that could result, and I don't think those possibilities were well thought out at all.

While there have been some democratic reforms in places like Lebanon and Egypt, I question whether they will persist in the face of civil war in Iraq. Right now the Arab street is disgusted with Al-Zarqawi's attacks against Arab Shia and thoroughly disenchanted with Al-Qaeda. That's one good thing, at least. Once the Islamic terrorists started killing other Muslims rather than American infidels, ordinary people saw them for what they really are. But will the attitudes change when Sunni and Shia openly are killing one another in Iraq in a civil war?

Meanwhile, with Iraq weakened, Iran has filled the vacuum of power for now. There is nobody to restrain their nuclear ambition, and they appear quite willing to fire nuclear weapons to annihilate Israel, even if they lose 50 million Muslims in exchange for 6 million Jews. With the U.S. tied down in Iraq, the greatest deterrent to Iran's ambitions is EU trade restrictions, and I'm sure we all know how effective those are (*cough* oil for food *cough*).

Now, Al-Qaeda is pretty much toast. And it does seem that Bush was right that whatever happened in Iraq would spread to its neighbors. However, it looks like what is going to spread is war. And, even with Al-Qaeda weakened, little conflagrations of Islamic extremism and terrorism are flaring up all over the world in response to what's happening in Iraq. That's bad, bad news.

If there were a decent chance for a stable, moderate government in Iraq, I think all this would be worth it. The lives of tens of millions would be changed for the better, and the security situation in the West would be improved immensely. But I don't see how we get there from here.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Wow! Do you even read the news? Free and fair elections are being held in Iraq.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans died during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars to guarantee this for us. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died during two World Wars to guarantee this for Europe.

Twenty-five thousand is a small price to pay for your own fucking freedom.
right, a price they didn't ask to pay

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Solid moral equivalence. It's not hard to see why Buenos Aires was so hospitable to some Germanic visitors back in the day.
Look, I'm not vouching for Saddam. I will admit I had my numbers wrong, and yes, what I said was a stretch, I was just trying to impress upon people what I think of the war. Clearly I was in error. Its funny that you think that by implying us Argentinians are pro-nazi you'll change my point of view about a war that has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with WW2 or the holocaust. Why is it you people turn to insults when you can't make a solid point?? Could it be ignorance? Lets not forget we werent' the only ones to accept NAZI refuegees after WW2, so let's not be hypocrites.


You're right. The US shouldn't give a fuck about the rest of the world. Let them stew in their own filth.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif Half of your problem as an American is thinking the US is heaven, and the rest of the world is filth. Could you be more self righteous??

[Yonivore]

Half of your problem as an American is thinking the US is heaven, and the rest of the world is filth. Could you be more self righteous??
I think that's an unfairly extreme characterization.

But, tell me, what other country receives immigrants from practically every corner of the globe?

Then ask yourself why that is.

[Marcus Bryant]

Look, I'm not vouching for Saddam. I will admit I had my numbers wrong, and yes, what I said was a stretch, I was just trying to impress upon people what I think of the war. Clearly I was in error. Its funny that you think that by implying us Argentinians are pro-nazi you'll change my point of view about a war that has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with WW2 or the holocaust. Why is it you people turn to insults when you can't make a solid point?? Could it be ignorance? Lets not forget we werent' the only ones to accept NAZI refuegees after WW2, so let's not be hypocrites.


You equated American troops to Hussein's henchman. That is insulting.



http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif Half of your problem as an American is thinking the US is heaven, and the rest of the world is filth. Could you be more self righteous??

Hasn't stopped you. Actually, the irony of being lectured by an Argentine about national pride is quite entertaining.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I think that's an unfairly extreme characterization.

But, tell me, what other country receives immigrants from practically every corner of the globe?

Then ask yourself why that is.
The dream of economic stability and wealth I suppose. However, that does not mean american ideals are right and the rest should adhere to its principles. Again, I'm not talking about myself (just clarifying so that some idiots don't start claiming I'm Al-Quaeda or a NAZI or something) but isn't it the underlying premise of a democracy "a government for the people, by the people"?? (emphasis on "by the people") How is a constitution enforced by a foreign power going to work??

[xrayzebra]

The whole point of this thread is to create some kind of anti-America feelings. Many who post here are supportive of the American effort. The other side of the coin is that they are many on this forum who are anti-American. I see nothing else. They have been against the United States doing anything but sitting back and taking a licking, like Timex, and just keep on ticking. We deserve what we got in the WTC, because we have so much and we do nothing for others. I know it is all BS and so do others on this forum. Iraq is much better off now than before we invaded, and in many cases, for some, safer. I don't care whether you agree or disagree. That is my opinion and I will stick with it. Afghanistan and Iraq are only the beginning of cleaning out a den of terrorist. Iran is another enemy that we must and will face on down the line and again the same bunch that oppose the Iraq conflict will do the same then. Bush told everyone at the beginning this was not going to be an easy task, and it wont, now or in the foreseeable future. He ask for patience, he gets it from us who support him. He will not from those who oppose him. Many on this forum didn't like Bush simply because he won TWICE and he did win. He can do nothing that will please them. Look at the Dimm-o-craps in Washington, they have done nothing to get along, but scream bloody murder and how corrupt Bush's administration is. What is sad some people believe that crap. Joe Wilson and his wife are corrupt to the core, but look how many support them. Wilson has been caught in so many lies it stinks to high heaven and not one of the so called "main" stream press will report it. I support Bush, I support the war in Iraq and I support the USA. And I really don't care if anyone likes it or not. I am a conservative and proud of it. Are any of you damn Liberals and left wingers proud of what you believe? If so tell us what you believe and quit telling us how bad we are. State your beliefs!

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Hasn't stopped you. Actually, the irony of being lectured by an Argentine about national pride is quite entertaining.
Please clarify this statement, I wouldn't want to go off on you just because I may have missinterpreted a comment.

[Extra Stout]

How is a constitution enforced by a foreign power going to work??
I'm sure the Shia and Kurds are pretty happy with the constitution that was written.

I'm also sure that the presence of American forces is the only reason the Sunnis are giving the appearance of cooperating with the constitutional process.

Once we're gone, they move into open rebellion.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I'm sure the Shia and Kurds are pretty happy with the constitution that was written.

I'm also sure that the presence of American forces is the only reason the Sunnis are giving the appearance of cooperating with the constitutional process.

Once we're gone, they move into open rebellion.
that's what I believe. Its all good on paper, but reality isn't that simple

[MaNuMaNiAc]

You equated American troops to Hussein's henchman. That is insulting.
No, you're wrong. I equated the people in charge of bombing supposed military targets with disregard as to the civilian casualties. Those are the ones I was refering to. I have no ill-will against American troops.

[Extra Stout]

The whole point of this thread is to create some kind of anti-America feelings.
Notice that MaNuMaNiA criticized the Iraq war in part because he thought it hurt U.S. interests. Somebody who is anti-American would not make that criticism because he would be against U.S. interests anyway.

That's also my criticism in a nutshell. I think Bush miscalculated.

That's not the same as folks like DuncantoCWebb who are just reflexively anti-American.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

^ exactly (you know outside of of the Spurs forum, i find i like you a lot more MM) americans feel that just because we love democracy it is the duty of the world to love democracy. We feel that because we have historically used violence in order to achieve democracy (I'm gonna et to that asinine civil war argument later down the flow) that every nation in the world ought to be willing to pay the same price, sometimes greater prices, in order to have it forced upon them.

This is the same argument used to justify killing 2 million vietnamese in bombing raids in vietnam, and Yonivore would have been the same person making this argument back in the day.

this is the same stupid argument used to justify the slaughter of about 250,000 to 1 million fillipinos in order to justify american imperialism, which we then thouht would make a better life for the fillipinos in the long run (the same shit going on today with different words)

this is the same argument used to justify giving guns to the contra death squads in Nicargaua, so that hundreds of thousands of civilians who had aboultely nothing, and had every reason to want to form a new government, could be slaughtered

and you know what? The effects never change, we always leave a place more fucked up then it ever was before.

Look at it this way gentlemen, Saddam Hussein was senile and didn't control his government in the last years of his life (even the shit you cite says '88 and '91) so the current violence is far greater than anything saddam was going to do to his own people, and is not justified.

second, wikipedia, although sometimes nice to read, is a user created encylopedia that is often found to be written with false information on a wide variety of issues, (such as multiple articles on Kerry and Bush alike) in order to skew a readers beliefs on that subject. Therefore i dont belive the magnitude or the details until varified from another source.


lastly, the american civil war was fought between white people in order to free ensalved black people which the white people were entierly responsible for. Thus, those who were responsible for the genocide of balck people, bore the burden of freeing them.

By the same logic, are you saying the Iraqi people are responsible for the fact that they didnt choose the same governemnt we chose, and therefore just have to deal with the consequences that we give them due to our personal vandetta against their old form of government? BULLSHIT

second, although it pains me to say this, extra stout has provided this discussion with some very good anylasis, that really acentuates my original point, that just because we like democracy, doesnt mean that out actions are justified in iraq (i.e. killing 25,000 people)

[Jelly]

I think that's an unfairly extreme characterization.

But, tell me, what other country receives immigrants from practically every corner of the globe?

Then ask yourself why that is.

Britain, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Ireland, Spain, Canada, Italy, Greece... the list is quite long. National pride is a great thing, but you are showing great ignorance and insularity if you think this is the only nation that immigrants aspire to and the only nation which accepts them.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Unread Today, 03:51 PM
Remove user from ignore list
Extra Stout
This message is hidden because Extra Stout is on your ignore list.

[bigzak25]

25,000 dead Iraqis, Democracy doesn't justify this slaughter


I pose a question to you RtoD.

What do you think of America the Country as it stands today?

Yes, there is much corruption, agreed.

But do we not also enjoy freedom?

What country would you rather live in than America? The land of the Free.

Now consider this.

Does this Freedom that we have today justify the slaughter of the thousands, perhaps millions of American Indians?

No, it does not. But what if our British Ancestors came here across the sea to help the Indians instead of slaughter them? What if our British Ancestors came here to destroy the Aztecs that were slaughtering all in their path. Thus liberating all the other peaceful tribes? What would you think of that scenario?

I know that's a dream that did not happen.

So lets ask this, Why were they slaughtered? American Insecurity.

Perhaps Insecurity plays a part in this war in Iraq today.

BUT, today, innocent Iraqi's are not the target.

Back then, ALL INDIANS WERE THE ENEMY. There were all to be exterminated.

America was WRONG THEN. WRONG IN THE WORST WAY.

BUT, have we learned as a country?

Yes.

No longer are the innocent the targets as well.

Sure, many innocent are dying and have died.

Many many more of the GUILTY are being destroyed.

I do not know if it is right. It is not for me to judge.

But I believe it is for a greater Good.

Just because you cannot see it, does not mean that it is not there.

wake up brother. :tu

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I pose a question to you RtoD.

What do you think of America the Country as it stands today?

Yes, there is much corruption, agreed.

But do we not also enjoy freedom?

What country would you rather live in than America? The land of the Free.

Now consider this.

Does this Freedom that we have today justify the slaughter of the thousands, perhaps millions of American Indians?

No, it does not. But what if our British Ancestors came here across the sea to help the Indians instead of slaughter them? What if our British Ancestors came here to destroy the Aztecs that were slaughtering all in their path. Thus liberating all the other peaceful tribes? What would you think of that scenario?

I know that's a dream that did not happen.

So lets ask this, Why were they slaughtered? American Insecurity.

Perhaps Insecurity plays a part in this war in Iraq today.

BUT, today, innocent Iraqi's are not the target.

Back then, ALL INDIANS WERE THE ENEMY. There were all to be exterminated.

America was WRONG THEN. WRONG IN THE WORST WAY.

BUT, have we learned as a country?

Yes.

No longer are the innocent the targets as well.

Sure, many innocent are dying and have died.

Many many more of the GUILTY are being destroyed.

I do not know if it is right. It is not for me to judge.

But I believe it is for a greater Good.

Just because you cannot see it, does not mean that it is not there.

wake up brother. :tu
I'm having trouble seeing your point..

[Notorious H.O.P.]

Notice that MaNuMaNiA criticized the Iraq war in part because he thought it hurt U.S. interests. Somebody who is anti-American would not make that criticism because he would be against U.S. interests anyway.

That's also my criticism in a nutshell. I think Bush miscalculated.

That's not the same as folks like DuncantoCWebb who are just reflexively anti-American.

I second this comment. I don't see how this thread is supposed to be anti-American. And I don't see why it always has to be "you're either with us or against us" and "if you don't support the war/Bush, you're anti-American". I thought part of being American is having the ability to express our own beliefs even if they run contrary to the company line. Otherwise, if we attempt to suppress such thought and oppress those who have them, then where is this "freedom" idea that we rattle like a saber if the face of people who don't support what we are doing?

I'm an American and glad to be so. I enjoy the freedoms I have but am not obligated to blindly follow the herd. I also think Bush miscalculated and believe whatever intentions he may have had, it hurt US interests and our relations with other governments that could assist us with what we are trying to accomplish.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

What the fuck^?

are you telling me that i should wake up? you wake the fuck up, it is so easy for you to coldly talk about the death of millions from your god damned easy chair, and rationalize away the death of more people than you could know in a lifetime, but you tell me to wake up?


Bitch i no what is going on, I undertand what we're doing, and it's shit. thats all

we're saying that ou governemnt rocks, and that thus we have the right to do whatever the fuck it takes to replicate it anywhere we want to. we're worse than the musliums, they kill people because they believe that they have the right to spread islam, we kill people because we think that we have the right to spread a form of government? at least most of the musliums have the excuse of a sub standard education and years of brainwashing, what is our god damned excuse?

[Marcus Bryant]

Unread Today, 03:51 PM
Remove user from ignore list
Extra Stout
This message is hidden because Extra Stout is on your ignore list.


When in doubt, the go-to move.

[Marcus Bryant]

Please clarify this statement, I wouldn't want to go off on you just because I may have missinterpreted a comment.


I think it is quite clear.

[Marcus Bryant]

No, you're wrong. I equated the people in charge of bombing supposed military targets with disregard as to the civilian casualties. Those are the ones I was refering to. I have no ill-will against American troops.

Again, the US isn't responsible for all of those dead.

[Extra Stout]

That's not the same as folks like DuncantoCWebb who are just reflexively anti-American.
I just said that to piss him off. :drunk

[Marcus Bryant]

R2D2 and Yonivore kind of cancel each other out.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I think it is quite clear.
no it isn't, spell it out for me please, I really would like to know what the irony is.

[bigzak25]

What the fuck^?

are you telling me that i should wake up? you wake the fuck up, it is so easy for you to coldly talk about the death of millions from your god damned easy chair, and rationalize away the death of more people than you could know in a lifetime, but you tell me to wake up?


Bitch i no what is going on, I undertand what we're doing, and it's shit. thats all

we're saying that ou governemnt rocks, and that thus we have the right to do whatever the fuck it takes to replicate it anywhere we want to. we're worse than the musliums, they kill people because they believe that they have the right to spread islam, we kill people because we think that we have the right to spread a form of government? at least most of the musliums have the excuse of a sub standard education and years of brainwashing, what is our god damned excuse?


my friend, i only speak the truth. we are not worse than the muslims. but we are not better either. I agree, at the end of the day, thou shalt not kill.

But what of those that have plans to kill without remorse?

if you had the chance to destroy the men that flew the planes into the world trade center, pentagon, and into the earth of pennsylvania...would you do it?

or would you sit idly by and let it happen?

do you have the courage to destroy evil if you must, to save innocent lives?

I do. Read my posts again and again. Pray about it. You have David Robinson's name in your screenname, do him proud, and do as David would do. He would pray about it. He would not curse me.

Godbless you brother. I am showing you the truth. But I cannot force you to believe it. :tu

[RobinsontoDuncan]

I dont need to pray to know that what we are doing is wrong. I dont need to let a nebulous yard stick like the bible tell me how judge morality of this kind on this stage, when i know that the bible was inteded to tell me how to live as an individual, and never allows me to do anything to another individual because i think that my way of thinking is better ( dont bring up some damn murder example either marcus bryant, you no good and well what im talking about and they arent comparable)

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Again, the US isn't responsible for all of those dead.


Bullshit, you and i both know terrorists weren't killing people when the baath party was in power, so yes it is our fault

[Marcus Bryant]

Anyways, for those paying attention, the war was about removing a regime which, prior to 9-11 had already done more than enough to warrant its removal due to its continued refusal to work with the UN to confirm the status of its weapons programs. Every other intel agency in the world thought that Hussein had WMDs. Even his own generals did.

The impetus for the invasion post-9/11 was obvious. You had a Hussein regime that had a weapons program of uncertain status, a regime that had moved from a secular position to one aligned with Islamic fundamentalism (I guess Saddam used the greater enemy theory). In any event, you had a regime that had made it quite clear that it intended to develop such weaponry and was quite hostile to the US. The sanctions scheme the UN had set up was falling apart due to actions of parties in member states of the UN Security Council.

In hindsight, the Bush administration erred in its desire to point to the actual existence of WMDs. Of course, the US media has to dumb down and sensationalize public policy matters.

Would Americans be comfortable with a president, who facing a potentially dire situation, one in which Hussein, even if he did not happen to have functional nukes would be free to develop those due to the implosion of the sanctions scheme, decides to let the threat continue to manifest itself? I know I would not be.

[Marcus Bryant]

Bullshit, you and i both know terrorists weren't killing people when the baath party was in power, so yes it is our fault


Yeah, it was the Baath party instead. Great fucking logic.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

dude, again tell me when all of these alleged atrocisites took place? '88 and '91 right?

2003 guy, it was 2003

second, the iraqi government wrote a 100 pound document telling the world it didnt have, nor was it intending to develop WMD. Bush dubbed it the "100 pound lie"

^dumbass

[Useruser666]

How do the deaths of 100,000 people to keep a dictator in power compare to the deaths of 25,000 to bring freedom to all of the people? How can you compare that? I know the US is not in Iraq just to bring freedom to it's people, but I believe that is a possible outcome. The people who are doing the killing over there do so because that is the only way for them to control their fellow countrymen. In a free state their voice would be drowned out by the masses, moderates, and polar opposites that balance each other out in a free state. They are forced to use violence, fear, and such vile tactics to keep themselves in power. Sadam did the same thing on are much broader scale. Whatever reasons you believe the US is in Iraq for, the possibility that freedom and choice may be given to Iraq's people is a noble principle.

[Marcus Bryant]

So we should take the word of the Hussein regime? Hussein certainly desired that weaponry and was working the UN Security Council to get what it wanted.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Your Thread based on one paragraph of the article. Most of the article is about reaching our 2000th death. Which we have. But consider this.

During our civil war we lost a total (both sides) of 970,000 dead. Was that war worth it based on your thoughts?

During our revolutionary war, we lost about 4,400 war dead. Out of a
population of 3.5 Million.

Was that war worth it? Both wars were for similar reasons.


Wow, using past examples of mass death to justify lower current death counts. How conservative of you.



Freedom isn't free...


Wow, you used in innacurate aphorism to justify a death toll. How conservative of you. (and if you don't throw in your buck-o-five, who will?)


how many of his own people did Saddam kill?
Wow, asking a question tangentially related to the topic. How conservative of you.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

to you, not to them, there is a reason why there has only ever been one middle eastern democracy, and it is shaky at best (turkey) and that reason is...not eveyone thinks like us

[Useruser666]

Sorry, but when I state freedoms, I mean the people get to choose the type of government that rules them. If Iraq choose constitutional monarchy, then so be it. Atleast they would have a choice.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Sorry, but when I state freedoms, I mean the people get to choose the type of government that rules them. If Iraq choose constitutional monarchy, then so be it. Atleast they would have a choice.


I don't think the majority of our current regime thinks that way though.

Democracy, now!

[Extra Stout]

Would Americans be comfortable with a president, who facing a potentially dire situation, one in which Hussein, even if he did not happen to have functional nukes would be free to develop those due to the implosion of the sanctions scheme, decides to let the threat continue to manifest itself? I know I would not be.
From a completely Machiavellian standpoint, I would have cut a secret deal with Hussein to bypass the sanctions in return for support against Al-Qaeda.

Or at least I would have considered that.

Yes, I would have collaborated with an awful dictator. Absolutely. The American President has a job to protect and serve the American people. That takes precedent.

And as we've seen for three years, wars of liberation to remove nasty dictators have indeterminate results.

[Useruser666]

I don't think the majority of our current regime thinks that way though.

Democracy, now!

I believe in having a constitution, and whatever form of government that the Iraqi's want let them have.

[Marcus Bryant]

What's the difference between a Hussein regime with WMDs and one who wants to build them and will be able to within 2 years? I don't see much.

[Marcus Bryant]

From a completely Machiavellian standpoint, I would have cut a secret deal with Hussein to bypass the sanctions in return for support against Al-Qaeda.

Or at least I would have considered that.

Yes, I would have collaborated with an awful dictator. Absolutely. The American President has a job to protect and serve the American people. That takes precedent.

And as we've seen for three years, wars of liberation to remove nasty dictators have indeterminate results.


That's about the only other way to try to neutralize the situation. Not really politically palatable in the US, even in dumbed down Medialand.

[Spurminator]

When is this kind of passion and anger going to be directed at those responsible for the suicide bombings that are killing so many Iraqis? Ever?

It seems to me that anyone who really cared for reasons besides Partisan cheerleading would show a little more anger towards the ones who are DIRECTLY responsible... instead of the US who is indirectly responsible, and whose retreat would be indirectly responsible for even more deaths.

[Marcus Bryant]

When is this kind of passion and anger going to be directed at those responsible for the suicide bombings that are killing so many Iraqis? Ever?

It seems to me that anyone who really cared for reasons besides Partisan cheerleading would show a little more anger towards the ones who are DIRECTLY responsible... instead of the US who is indirectly responsible, and whose retreat would be indirectly responsible for even more deaths.


Perhaps when Bush declares he's for gay marriage and all that God stuff, well he was just kidding about that.

[Jelly]

From a completely Machiavellian standpoint, I would have cut a secret deal with Hussein to bypass the sanctions in return for support against Al-Qaeda.

Or at least I would have considered that.

Yes, I would have collaborated with an awful dictator. Absolutely. The American President has a job to protect and serve the American people. That takes precedent.

And as we've seen for three years, wars of liberation to remove nasty dictators have indeterminate results.

:tu

Stout For President.

[Murphy]

I just dont get liberals, yes to Saddam, no to Bush, hmmmmmmmmm maybe they would rather have saddam as president of the USA?

[gtownspur]

Wow, using past examples of mass death to justify lower current death counts. How conservative of you.



Wow, you used in innacurate aphorism to justify a death toll. How conservative of you. (and if you don't throw in your buck-o-five, who will?)


Wow, asking a question tangentially related to the topic. How conservative of you.

I think using a certain milestone number like 2000 to unjustify the war is even more contradictary to the word just, and alot more assinine.
My point CBF is, why not 1 or 10, or 250. Why does it have to be the number 2000. According to the lefts righteuous indignation, 1 dead is as bad as 1 million. All innocent deaths are evil if you want to go that route.

[bigzak25]

Bullshit, you and i both know terrorists weren't killing people when the baath party was in power, so yes it is our fault

and the Baath party was just full of cheer and goodwill for all...:lmao

does anyone have the fortitude to answer my indian analogy?

and another question for you RtoD.

I suppose you would have persecuted Abraham Lincoln and any of his initiatives to free the African American people of this country a couple hundred years ago?

Do you sacrafice in your life currently? I'm sure you do.
Why do you do it? do you do it for a greater good?
why can't you see that that translates directly to what we as a Country are doing in Iraq?

[RobinsontoDuncan]

How do the deaths of 100,000 people to keep a dictator in power compare to the deaths of 25,000 to bring freedom to all of the people? How can you compare that? I know the US is not in Iraq just to bring freedom to it's people, but I believe that is a possible outcome. The people who are doing the killing over there do so because that is the only way for them to control their fellow countrymen. In a free state their voice would be drowned out by the masses, moderates, and polar opposites that balance each other out in a free state. They are forced to use violence, fear, and such vile tactics to keep themselves in power. Sadam did the same thing on are much broader scale. Whatever reasons you believe the US is in Iraq for, the possibility that freedom and choice may be given to Iraq's people is a noble principle.


first, as i already said once, I don't buy the 100,000 deaths claim until it can be verified by another source than Wikipedia, and even if it can be, you still cant account for the fact that saddam was senile and out of real contol when we took control of Iraq, and whatever murder he commited was 14 to 17 years ago, where as we have murder 25,000 people in the last two years.


Sit back and really contimplate what all of you are saying, 25,000 people, think about exactly how large that number is, and then tell me that we are jusitifed in forcing our government on them despites the cost to their society.

Do you understand what that sounds like?




So we should take the word of the Hussein regime? Hussein certainly desired that weaponry and was working the UN Security Council to get what it wanted.


Marcus Bryant, did we find weapons of mass destruction in iraq? We never had a problem trusting saddam hussein when pappa bush was the vice president now did we?

And as i have said a few times before, saddam wasn't in control of his country anymore, he had become a figure head


What's the difference between a Hussein regime with WMDs and one who wants to build them and will be able to within 2 years? I don't see much.


probably the fact that the hussein regime was telling the world on a repeated basis, that it did not want to build weapons of mass destruction, and we have since found out that they only ever propogated that story in order to thwart future aggression from Iran


When is this kind of passion and anger going to be directed at those responsible for the suicide bombings that are killing so many Iraqis? Ever?

It seems to me that anyone who really cared for reasons besides Partisan cheerleading would show a little more anger towards the ones who are DIRECTLY responsible... instead of the US who is indirectly responsible, and whose retreat would be indirectly responsible for even more deaths.

oh I can't stand them either, but we are responsible for these attrocities just as much as they are, if we had not done what we hav done, there wouldn't be any attoricities going on right now. Oh and by the way, more than half of those people were killed by american bombs



I just dont get liberals, yes to Saddam, no to Bush, hmmmmmmmmm maybe they would rather have saddam as president of the USA?

if you cant get your head out of you ass and add something useful to the thread, go the fuck away. dumbass, it's called reading, that's what you need to learn to do, read.


and the Baath party was just full of cheer and goodwill for all...

does anyone have the fortitude to answer my indian analogy?

and another question for you RtoD.

I suppose you would have persecuted Abraham Lincoln and any of his initiatives to free the African American people of this country a couple hundred years ago?

Do you sacrafice in your life currently? I'm sure you do.
Why do you do it? do you do it for a greater good?
why can't you see that that translates directly to what we as a Country are doing in Iraq?

same to you asshole, learn to read, i already addressed the asinine comparison to the civil war, i'll repost it for you, but i doubt you will read it this time either, your indian example was a bad one, because 1) the aztecs were not slaughtering everyone in their path, they did capture prisoners of war and use those prisoners as human sacrafice, but they weren't slaughtering whole tribes, just 15 to 29 mean a year, and if the ******Spanish******* had decided to stop this pricatice instead of annialating the aztecs, than yes i would find that just. How does that pertain to this example, as halting human sacrafice wouldnt have required any bloodshed at all on the part of cortes, he was origianally considered a god.



lastly, the american civil war was fought between white people in order to free ensalved black people which the white people were entierly responsible for. Thus, those who were responsible for the genocide of balck people, bore the burden of freeing them.

By the same logic, are you saying the Iraqi people are responsible for the fact that they didnt choose the same governemnt we chose, and therefore just have to deal with the consequences that we give them due to our personal vandetta against their old form of government? BULLSHIT

second, although it pains me to say this, extra stout has provided this discussion with some very good anylasis, that really acentuates my original point, that just because we like democracy, doesnt mean that out actions are justified in iraq (i.e. killing 25,000 people)

that was from the second page

[Useruser666]

first, as i already said once, I don't buy the 100,000 deaths claim until it can be verified by another source than Wikipedia, and even if it can be, you still cant account for the fact that saddam was senile and out of real contol when we took control of Iraq, and whatever murder he commited was 14 to 17 years ago, where as we have murder 25,000 people in the last two years.


Sit back and really contimplate what all of you are saying, 25,000 people, think about exactly how large that number is, and then tell me that we are jusitifed in forcing our government on them despites the cost to their society.

Do you understand what that sounds like?

The numbers don't mean anything. You could switch them around and it still doesn't make a strong argument. Maybe Saddam was senile, but he was still in control. He had his sons and had setup some system for maintaing his power. Regardless of this, there is now the opportunity to set up a system by the Iraqi's for the Iraqi's. When was the last time that ever happened?

There is another point about the prices being paid by those that have lost their lives. Who is responsible for the deaths? You act as though it's the US troops that are killing civilians. People push these figures like US marines are over there killing people in the streets. Who is doing the killing in Iraq? Is it not those who struggle to control the majority with violence? Is it not those who know that without conflict they would have no purpose in society? These are the entities for which the majority of Iraqi's must be given the power to overthrow. If the US abandons them now, these same fringe groups will once again force their will on the people.

[Marcus Bryant]

Marcus Bryant, did we find weapons of mass destruction in iraq? We never had a problem trusting saddam hussein when pappa bush was the vice president now did we?

Times change.



And as i have said a few times before, saddam wasn't in control of his country anymore, he had become a figure head

Then it was his kids who were in control. The regime still represented a threat to the US.





probably the fact that the hussein regime was telling the world on a repeated basis, that it did not want to build weapons of mass destruction, and we have since found out that they only ever propogated that story in order to thwart future aggression from Iran


That's great. We still did not know what the fuck they had and their actions in seeking to thwart the UN sanctions, actions which would have allowed the regime to restart/continue its weapons program were ongoing. Again, there was plenty of cause to take out the regime pre-9/11. Post-9/11, there was an even greater urgency to get it done.