Every war involves invading a sovereign country...or at least it usually does. I again ask: How many deaths would there have been had Saddam been left in power?
Please remind me who asked the US to go to war, remind me why the US invaded Iraq.
Quote:
Bush and his administration NEVER claimed Iraq was behind 9/11. That in itself is a lie.
Read the news. They DO claim 9|11 / Iraq Ties.
Quote:
Making a case for GWB to be prosecuted for war crimes is patently absurd. No reasonable person would even consider the possibility.
I Do.The fact that a country is ruled by an ugly dictator doesn't means that you can do whatever you want in it.
You can't Invade, destroy, kill and eventually torture citizens of a sovereign country without some fucking good reasons. A country is made of 99.999% of real People and 0.001% of Dictator. Those 99.999% are fragile human beiing that would prefer to chose the day of their death better than beiing killed or tortured by some stupid ignorant militaries.
It's too easy to say "How many deaths would there have been had Saddam been left in power", or you can invade safely more than half of the planet.
That's why I seriously consider the "Bush to the Hague" question.
Please remind me who asked the US to go to war, remind me why the US invaded Iraq.
Read the news. They DO claim 9|11 / Iraq Ties.
I Do.The fact that a country is ruled by an ugly dictator doesn't means that you can do whatever you want in it.
You can't Invade, destroy, kill and eventually torture citizens of a sovereign country without some fucking good reasons. A country is made of 99.999% of real People and 0.001% of Dictator. Those 99.999% are fragile human beiing that would prefer to chose the day of their death better than beiing killed or tortured by some stupid ignorant militaries.
It's too easy to say "How many deaths would there have been had Saddam been left in power", or you can invade safely more than half of the planet.
That's why I seriously consider the "Bush to the Hague" question.
There are Iraq/AQ ties. Please read the little things we here like to call words. The 9/11 commission has concluded that there was a connection between Iraq and AQ for years prior to 9/11. They found no evidence of "collaborative" involvement (french: aucune évidence de collaboration active) in 9/11.
Sammi, I'm sorry, but you have shown your willingness to make absurd casualty claims on more than one occasion. And really...you're attributing ALL of those deaths to the U.S.? Let me ask you...how many thousands more would have been murdered under Saddam's rule? Hmmmm....
Just for the record, it was sammi jo that once claimed the Gulf War claimed over 100,000 lives, I believe.
SDW, you misquoted me. The figure I quoted was 158,000. The war was far more of a one-sided "success" than you realize, if one paramter of a war's effectiveness is the number of enemy casualties. Don't forget, the Pentagon doesn't do any counting, so this unenviable task is left to other parties.
War's toll: 158,000 Iraqis and a researcher's position
By Thomas Ginsberg
Inquirer Staff Writer
This time, Beth Osborne Daponte will be leaving her calculator off.
A senior researcher at Pittsburgh's Carnegie Mellon University, Daponte was the Census Bureau demographer who postulated in 1991 that 158,000 Iraqi men, women and children died during and shortly after the Persian Gulf war. In return, she was reprimanded by her government, and saw her report rewritten and her career sidetracked.
If you want to get into an argument over casualty figures, quote me an opposing figure that you are more comfortable with, rather than just blind denial, with no evidence.
There are Iraq/AQ ties. Please read the little things we here like to call words. The 9/11 commission has concluded that there was a connection between Iraq and AQ for years prior to 9/11. They found no evidence of "collaborative" involvement (french: aucune évidence de collaboration active) in 9/11.
Naples, there are ties between Al Qaeda and most nations on earth, including many in Europe, the middle east, SE Asia, not forgetting the US and Canada as well. Iraq was one of the nations of the middle east where links with Al Qaeda were the slimmest. (There *are* links now though....AQ is using Iraq, now a broken nation like Afghanistan to regroup).
Before the war, it would be impossible/unlikely, regarding Iraq's central location in the region, that Al Qaeda personnel didn't at some point visit that country (from neighboring Saudi Arabia etc), or attempt to procure some support. Saddam Hussein, a longterm dictator addicted to power wasn't stupid enough to jeopardize his position by associating with people he didn't trust, and whose religious fanaticism he despised. bin Laden himself shared an equal contempt for Saddam's regime, calling him an "infidel who courted the great satan of western culture".
AQ's real ties are with Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Morocco, Sudan, Somalia, etc etc etc. Iraq ties....absolute minimal, and low level if at all.
EDIT...added this link from CNN headline, monday pm:
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) -- The man most likely to take over leadership of al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia reportedly trained with the Saudi military and worked as a prison guard before joining Muslim militants in Afghanistan.........
etc etc
The nation which has those close ties with the Bush administration oiligarchy: Saudi Arabia....which has the closest LINKS WITH AL QAEDA It was Saudi Arabians who escaped the country by private jets, presumably on the authority of the Bush Administration immediately following 9-11, before the FBI could interrogate them. Makes me wonder who the real traitors are.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.
WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.
etc etc
We know that the war against Iraq was architected in the mid 1990s by the neocons. Philip Zelikow is of that persuasion, and it looks as if he let the cat out of the bag in an unguarded moment....
I imagine Bush, Cheney and crew were not amused with that little gaffe.
Was it a war, paid for by we-the-unsuspecting-people, for the benefit of Israel's security???????. Is Bush an Ariel Sharon surrogate? Here we have a high-ranking US official admit just that.
[I'd like to have a discussion based on the treaties people believe we broke, and the arguments for and against said violations.]
It's probably very difficult for you to understand that someone actually wants to foster a discussion so they can assess the pros and cons of a given situation and only then make a more educated decision.
If that was your intent, I apologize. I'd be interested in that discussion as well.
Many times I've asked others to search out this information, but they're afraid to do it because it undermines their conservative bias in favor of the attack and war.
23 Political prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Haven't we killed about that many there in recent months?
Oh, so only 10,000 then? And that's if we trust those numbers. We all know that the world knew exactly how many people Saddam had killed.
Please remind me who asked the US to go to war, remind me why the US invaded Iraq.
Read the news. They DO claim 9|11 / Iraq Ties.
I Do.The fact that a country is ruled by an ugly dictator doesn't means that you can do whatever you want in it.
You can't Invade, destroy, kill and eventually torture citizens of a sovereign country without some fucking good reasons. A country is made of 99.999% of real People and 0.001% of Dictator. Those 99.999% are fragile human beiing that would prefer to chose the day of their death better than beiing killed or tortured by some stupid ignorant militaries.
It's too easy to say "How many deaths would there have been had Saddam been left in power", or you can invade safely more than half of the planet.
That's why I seriously consider the "Bush to the Hague" question.
1. Why does anyone have to ask?
2. Sometimes it does.
3. You're a moron if assume that Iraqis would rather have been ruled by Saddam.
SDW, you misquoted me. The figure I quoted was 158,000. The war was far more of a one-sided "success" than you realize, if one paramter of a war's effectiveness is the number of enemy casualties. Don't forget, the Pentagon doesn't do any counting, so this unenviable task is left to other parties.
If you want to get into an argument over casualty figures, quote me an opposing figure that you are more comfortable with, rather than just blind denial, with no evidence.
Oh, I see how it works. You make an absurd claim supported by one individual...and I then must refute it. Fair enough. "There are little green men living in my toilet". Now, sammi jo: Prove otherwise.
You made the claim...now give us some real support for it.
I can't quite tell what you're trying to say, so please feel free to clarify. I'll just add that I believe the numbers came from www.state.gov.
What I'm saying is that there is no real way to tell exactly how many people would have been killed or were killed. Your numbers add up to roughly 10,000.
What I'm saying is that there is no real way to tell exactly how many people would have been killed or were killed. Your numbers add up to roughly 10,000.
You're ignoring the decline because that ruins your argument. Saddam was effectively neutered, both internally and externally.
You're ignoring the decline because that ruins your argument. Saddam was effectively neutered, both internally and externally.
I see. Honestly I didn't see that was the point you were making. First, I again wonder about the accuracy of those numbers. But secondly, why are we to believe that Saddam was neutered in this regard? What was stopping him?
Oh, I see how it works. You make an absurd claim supported by one individual...and I then must refute it. Fair enough. "There are little green men living in my toilet". Now, sammi jo: Prove otherwise.
You made the claim...now give us some real support for it.
Since the US Defense Dept, or any official US gov't dept., (as I said twice already), does NOT compile death/injury stats on enemy civilians, pray tell me what alternative sources could I quote that would meet with your acceptance?
Since the US Defense Dept, or any official US gov't dept., (as I said twice already), does NOT compile death/injury stats on enemy civilians, pray tell me what alternative sources could I quote that would meet with your acceptance?
UN?
You've got it backwards. You can't find decent sources to defend your rather absurd claims. It's not my responsibility to find them for you. No reasonable person would believe that there 158,000 civilian casualties in the first Gulf War.
No reasonable person would believe that there 158,000 civilian casualties in the first Gulf War.
Or is it just beyond your comprehension? Time to step out of the doll-house?
Quote:
In 1996 then-UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright was asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl, in reference to years of U.S.-led economic sanctions against Iraq, ?We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it??
To which Ambassador Albright responded, ?I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.
Albright, who went on to become Clinton?s secretary of state, later apologized and regretted having made the statement.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
Every war involves invading a sovereign country...or at least it usually does. I again ask: How many deaths would there have been had Saddam been left in power?
Please remind me who asked the US to go to war, remind me why the US invaded Iraq.
Bush and his administration NEVER claimed Iraq was behind 9/11. That in itself is a lie.
Read the news. They DO claim 9|11 / Iraq Ties.
Making a case for GWB to be prosecuted for war crimes is patently absurd. No reasonable person would even consider the possibility.
I Do.The fact that a country is ruled by an ugly dictator doesn't means that you can do whatever you want in it.
You can't Invade, destroy, kill and eventually torture citizens of a sovereign country without some fucking good reasons. A country is made of 99.999% of real People and 0.001% of Dictator. Those 99.999% are fragile human beiing that would prefer to chose the day of their death better than beiing killed or tortured by some stupid ignorant militaries.
It's too easy to say "How many deaths would there have been had Saddam been left in power", or you can invade safely more than half of the planet.
That's why I seriously consider the "Bush to the Hague" question.
Originally posted by pierr_alex
Please remind me who asked the US to go to war, remind me why the US invaded Iraq.
Read the news. They DO claim 9|11 / Iraq Ties.
I Do.The fact that a country is ruled by an ugly dictator doesn't means that you can do whatever you want in it.
You can't Invade, destroy, kill and eventually torture citizens of a sovereign country without some fucking good reasons. A country is made of 99.999% of real People and 0.001% of Dictator. Those 99.999% are fragile human beiing that would prefer to chose the day of their death better than beiing killed or tortured by some stupid ignorant militaries.
It's too easy to say "How many deaths would there have been had Saddam been left in power", or you can invade safely more than half of the planet.
That's why I seriously consider the "Bush to the Hague" question.
There are Iraq/AQ ties. Please read the little things we here like to call words. The 9/11 commission has concluded that there was a connection between Iraq and AQ for years prior to 9/11. They found no evidence of "collaborative" involvement (french: aucune évidence de collaboration active) in 9/11.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Sammi, I'm sorry, but you have shown your willingness to make absurd casualty claims on more than one occasion. And really...you're attributing ALL of those deaths to the U.S.? Let me ask you...how many thousands more would have been murdered under Saddam's rule? Hmmmm....
Just for the record, it was sammi jo that once claimed the Gulf War claimed over 100,000 lives, I believe.
SDW, you misquoted me. The figure I quoted was 158,000. The war was far more of a one-sided "success" than you realize, if one paramter of a war's effectiveness is the number of enemy casualties. Don't forget, the Pentagon doesn't do any counting, so this unenviable task is left to other parties.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/n...4874382.htm?1c
Posted on Sun, Jan. 05, 2003
War's toll: 158,000 Iraqis and a researcher's position
By Thomas Ginsberg
Inquirer Staff Writer
This time, Beth Osborne Daponte will be leaving her calculator off.
A senior researcher at Pittsburgh's Carnegie Mellon University, Daponte was the Census Bureau demographer who postulated in 1991 that 158,000 Iraqi men, women and children died during and shortly after the Persian Gulf war. In return, she was reprimanded by her government, and saw her report rewritten and her career sidetracked.
If you want to get into an argument over casualty figures, quote me an opposing figure that you are more comfortable with, rather than just blind denial, with no evidence.
Originally posted by NaplesX
There are Iraq/AQ ties. Please read the little things we here like to call words. The 9/11 commission has concluded that there was a connection between Iraq and AQ for years prior to 9/11. They found no evidence of "collaborative" involvement (french: aucune évidence de collaboration active) in 9/11.
Naples, there are ties between Al Qaeda and most nations on earth, including many in Europe, the middle east, SE Asia, not forgetting the US and Canada as well. Iraq was one of the nations of the middle east where links with Al Qaeda were the slimmest. (There *are* links now though....AQ is using Iraq, now a broken nation like Afghanistan to regroup).
Before the war, it would be impossible/unlikely, regarding Iraq's central location in the region, that Al Qaeda personnel didn't at some point visit that country (from neighboring Saudi Arabia etc), or attempt to procure some support. Saddam Hussein, a longterm dictator addicted to power wasn't stupid enough to jeopardize his position by associating with people he didn't trust, and whose religious fanaticism he despised. bin Laden himself shared an equal contempt for Saddam's regime, calling him an "infidel who courted the great satan of western culture".
AQ's real ties are with Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Morocco, Sudan, Somalia, etc etc etc. Iraq ties....absolute minimal, and low level if at all.
EDIT...added this link from CNN headline, monday pm:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/....ap/index.html
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) -- The man most likely to take over leadership of al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia reportedly trained with the Saudi military and worked as a prison guard before joining Muslim militants in Afghanistan.........
etc etc
The nation which has those close ties with the Bush administration oiligarchy: Saudi Arabia....which has the closest LINKS WITH AL QAEDA It was Saudi Arabians who escaped the country by private jets, presumably on the authority of the Bush Administration immediately following 9-11, before the FBI could interrogate them. Makes me wonder who the real traitors are.
Originally posted by Scott
Actually the 9/11 commission haven't concluded anything. Just more media spin.
Scott, perhaps you should read this article, since you are the diehard Israel fan in here:
http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083
War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser
Emad Mekay
Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.
WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.
etc etc
We know that the war against Iraq was architected in the mid 1990s by the neocons. Philip Zelikow is of that persuasion, and it looks as if he let the cat out of the bag in an unguarded moment....
I imagine Bush, Cheney and crew were not amused with that little gaffe.
Was it a war, paid for by we-the-unsuspecting-people, for the benefit of Israel's security???????. Is Bush an Ariel Sharon surrogate? Here we have a high-ranking US official admit just that.
Originally posted by bunge
[I'd like to have a discussion based on the treaties people believe we broke, and the arguments for and against said violations.]
It's probably very difficult for you to understand that someone actually wants to foster a discussion so they can assess the pros and cons of a given situation and only then make a more educated decision.
If that was your intent, I apologize. I'd be interested in that discussion as well.
Originally posted by bunge
Many times I've asked others to search out this information, but they're afraid to do it because it undermines their conservative bias in favor of the attack and war.
23 Political prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Haven't we killed about that many there in recent months?
Oh, so only 10,000 then? And that's if we trust those numbers. We all know that the world knew exactly how many people Saddam had killed.
Originally posted by pierr_alex
Please remind me who asked the US to go to war, remind me why the US invaded Iraq.
Read the news. They DO claim 9|11 / Iraq Ties.
I Do.The fact that a country is ruled by an ugly dictator doesn't means that you can do whatever you want in it.
You can't Invade, destroy, kill and eventually torture citizens of a sovereign country without some fucking good reasons. A country is made of 99.999% of real People and 0.001% of Dictator. Those 99.999% are fragile human beiing that would prefer to chose the day of their death better than beiing killed or tortured by some stupid ignorant militaries.
It's too easy to say "How many deaths would there have been had Saddam been left in power", or you can invade safely more than half of the planet.
That's why I seriously consider the "Bush to the Hague" question.
1. Why does anyone have to ask?
2. Sometimes it does.
3. You're a moron if assume that Iraqis would rather have been ruled by Saddam.
4. "Bush to the Hague" is absurd.
Originally posted by sammi jo
SDW, you misquoted me. The figure I quoted was 158,000. The war was far more of a one-sided "success" than you realize, if one paramter of a war's effectiveness is the number of enemy casualties. Don't forget, the Pentagon doesn't do any counting, so this unenviable task is left to other parties.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/n...4874382.htm?1c
If you want to get into an argument over casualty figures, quote me an opposing figure that you are more comfortable with, rather than just blind denial, with no evidence.
Oh, I see how it works. You make an absurd claim supported by one individual...and I then must refute it. Fair enough. "There are little green men living in my toilet". Now, sammi jo: Prove otherwise.
You made the claim...now give us some real support for it.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh, so only 10,000 then? And that's if we trust those numbers. We all know that the world knew exactly how many people Saddam had killed.
I can't quite tell what you're trying to say, so please feel free to clarify. I'll just add that I believe the numbers came from www.state.gov.
EDIT: Fixed link.
Originally posted by bunge
I can't quite tell what you're trying to say, so please feel free to clarify. I'll just add that I believe the numbers came from www.state.gov.
What I'm saying is that there is no real way to tell exactly how many people would have been killed or were killed. Your numbers add up to roughly 10,000.
Originally posted by SDW2001
What I'm saying is that there is no real way to tell exactly how many people would have been killed or were killed. Your numbers add up to roughly 10,000.
You're ignoring the decline because that ruins your argument. Saddam was effectively neutered, both internally and externally.
Originally posted by bunge
You're ignoring the decline because that ruins your argument. Saddam was effectively neutered, both internally and externally.
I see. Honestly I didn't see that was the point you were making. First, I again wonder about the accuracy of those numbers. But secondly, why are we to believe that Saddam was neutered in this regard? What was stopping him?
Originally posted by bunge
I can't quite tell what you're trying to say, so please feel free to clarify. I'll just add that I believe the numbers came from www.state.gov.
dead link
Originally posted by sammi jo
dead link
remove the . at the end
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh, I see how it works. You make an absurd claim supported by one individual...and I then must refute it. Fair enough. "There are little green men living in my toilet". Now, sammi jo: Prove otherwise.
You made the claim...now give us some real support for it.
Since the US Defense Dept, or any official US gov't dept., (as I said twice already), does NOT compile death/injury stats on enemy civilians, pray tell me what alternative sources could I quote that would meet with your acceptance?
UN?
Originally posted by sammi jo
Since the US Defense Dept, or any official US gov't dept., (as I said twice already), does NOT compile death/injury stats on enemy civilians, pray tell me what alternative sources could I quote that would meet with your acceptance?
UN?
You've got it backwards. You can't find decent sources to defend your rather absurd claims. It's not my responsibility to find them for you. No reasonable person would believe that there 158,000 civilian casualties in the first Gulf War.
Originally posted by SDW2001
No reasonable person would believe that there 158,000 civilian casualties in the first Gulf War.
Or is it just beyond your comprehension? Time to step out of the doll-house?
In 1996 then-UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright was asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl, in reference to years of U.S.-led economic sanctions against Iraq, ?We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it??
To which Ambassador Albright responded, ?I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.
Albright, who went on to become Clinton?s secretary of state, later apologized and regretted having made the statement.
Originally posted by New
Or is it just beyond your comprehension? Time to step out of the doll-house?
Albright, whe went on to become Clinton?s secretary of state, later apologized and regretted having made the statement.
Now hold on...that's a different issue entirely. I'm talking about casualties of war here. Don't confuse or delibrately obfuscate the issue.
If you want to have that debate, then be prepared to prove that the sanctions imposed caused those deaths.