skadistic
Caomhanach
Well I even underlined and bolded the parts for for you. I quess you can lead mule to water but if hes to blinded to even see the pond.............
Something Interesting About Iraq
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
Well I even underlined and bolded the parts for for you. I quess you can lead mule to water but if hes to blinded to even see the pond.............
I don't see invasion or occupation... perhaps you can highlight them for me....
...and then explain how France, Russia, and china failed to use their veto power, although they objected to the invasion.
(you know, because they are so crooked in the way they dealt with oil for food, they would never have actually approved of a war resolution... or is that now irrelevant?)
skadistic
Caomhanach
No its shown itself to be useless by its corruption. It can't/won't willingly uphold its own words because it has its hands deep in the pocects of scandle. If its not going to back its own words then its individual members will have to step up and do what the rest are to corrupt to do as a whole. Maybe if the UN grew some balls and did what it said it would and actualy enforced its own mandates instead of covering up the rapes of children by its blue hats and keeping employies on the UN payroll at $1 a year so they can claim diplomatic imunity from justice maybe I'd feel different. Hopefully with the changing of the gaurd the UN can reclaim some of its potential glory and not sink farther into the hole its dug for it self.
The whole neocon argument is a series of tortured logic.
Bush never said "imminent threat" allthough it was implied in every speech made by him, and said by many of his staffers, adn certainly by his propaganda wing, but he never actually used the word imminent.
But
severist of consequences, and "whatever means necessary" means the UN actually meant "invasion and occupation"
In fact, according to skadistik and his ilk, "use all necessary means" could be used to justify mass rape and torture, as wel as the nuking of every single city and town. Hell, all registered democrats could be thrown in jail for treason, and we would have skadistic on these boards saying, "yup, the UN gave the US a blank check, they get to do whatever they want, it's all legal"
Yup, the UN said it was OK.
IF THE UN MEANT WAR, THE UN WOULD HAVE USED THE WORD WAR. THE UN DID NOT USE THE WORD WAR FOR A REASON, THAT WOULD HAVE DEFINITELY REQUIRED A SEPARATE VOTE
Bush never said "imminent threat" allthough it was implied in every speech made by him, and said by many of his staffers, adn certainly by his propaganda wing, but he never actually used the word imminent.
But
severist of consequences, and "whatever means necessary" means the UN actually meant "invasion and occupation"
In fact, according to skadistik and his ilk, "use all necessary means" could be used to justify mass rape and torture, as wel as the nuking of every single city and town. Hell, all registered democrats could be thrown in jail for treason, and we would have skadistic on these boards saying, "yup, the UN gave the US a blank check, they get to do whatever they want, it's all legal"
Yup, the UN said it was OK.
IF THE UN MEANT WAR, THE UN WOULD HAVE USED THE WORD WAR. THE UN DID NOT USE THE WORD WAR FOR A REASON, THAT WOULD HAVE DEFINITELY REQUIRED A SEPARATE VOTE
RedWolf
Deity
I would say it's unfair to single out the "stupid barbaric Iraqis". We've seen the cycle of tit for tat atrocities in many different societies during wartime or when government control breaks down.
Look at Yuokoslavia - once the shooting started neighbours that lived in peace one day were murdering each other the next. Or Rwanda. Atrocities were even committed on both sides during the American civil war against civilian populations. New Orleans turned into a war zone in like a week during Katrina.
Iraq was a pressure cooker of religious disagreement and intolerance stretching back centuries, held together by the iron fist of a brutal dictator. What did we expect to happen when all of that fell apart? It could happen anywhere.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Were you talking to me? Because you just agreed with me.
Make up your mind, is it Saddams' fault or not?
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
To start, many of those being murdered are not being killed by American soldiers. The vast majority are being murdered by other Iraqis and foreign terrorists.
Beyond that, you can discuss hypothetical situations about an invasion of the United States, but the two situations would not nearly be the same. If the people of Iraqistan or any other Stan country can't bear to form a free society that doesn't threaten the security of others, then this is what is going to happen to them, over and over again. Now, I did not support the decision to invade Iraq, but I am not about to shed a tear over these people. I have more important things to cry over.
That's not true, John. I see you are from PA, well, I am from the town where N. B. Forrest did all his business, and where MLKJ was killed. And I tell you what - if we do get invaded and find ourselves in Iraq's position... I still remember Gettysburg. I'll be coming up there with some Chevy trucks full of explosives. Just so you know.
/dark sarcastic sense of humor
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
That's not true, John. I see you are from PA, well, I am from the town where N. B. Forrest did all his business, and where MLKJ was killed. And I tell you what - if we do get invaded and find ourselves in Iraq's position... I still remember Gettysburg. I'll be coming up there with some Chevy trucks full of explosives. Just so you know.
/dark sarcastic sense of humor
Am I to understand that you are posthumous supporter of the Confederacy? If so, I sympathize somewhat, but what does that have to do with why Iraq was invaded?
nonconformist
Miserable
Okay, let's assume that up till now, Saddam Hussein had killed 750,000.
Are you saying that with Saddam in power, in one year, he would kill 562,500,000,000 Iraqis?
Because, you know, that's actually 21001.83 times the actual population of Iraq.
So no, I don't think the number of deaths woud have increased exponentially.
And no, I don't think the number of deaths would have increased terribly either.
The country was stable, and ahd decent public services, the population weren't in danger of random bombs, kidnappings, and gunfights, and Saddam was old,and would probably have died within the next ten years anyway.
Fox Mccloud
Deity
665,000 to be precise. That is indeed a big number, is it not?
You got that number from here, I believe.
In April 2004, they said it was 100,000 since the begining of the invasion. That is 13 months. That's some 7,692 per month.
The figure you got was taken some 29 months after that, so that's 565,000 more since then.
That's an average of 19,492 a month from April 2004 to October 2006. That is an increase of 253% during that time.
Note now, that in accordance to Islamic customs the Iraqis bury, not cremate their deаd. If your figure is to be believed, that is some 2.6 out of every 100 Iraqis, so surely with all the media attention on Iraq, all the graves popping up all over the country would be obvious.
The very same figure you cited, whether or not right as it probably is not, said that 31% were attributable to action by US-led forces.
Even that is 206,150 since we have been there for 42 months. They say that an average of 15,833 people have died there per month since the invasion and that the US is responsible for 4,900 of it.
Who then, is killing the remaining 69% or 10,933 a month?
I note that you are readily able to condemn the US for the 30% or so that it is responsible for and you even blame the US for all or the majority of it when it is clearly not America's fault. Yet, you remain silent on who is responsible for the overwhelming majority WHO WERE NOT KILLED BY AMERICANS.
Yet I believe the majority of people who are not being killd by Americans care who it is that is targeting them.
Why is it that they determine one part, and not the other and you are only outraged by the crimes commited by Americans? Furthermore, they did all this, as they did in 2004 just prior to a major election.
This is all truely astonishing.
It's all America's fault. Wouldn't have even happened if America had not invaded in the first place.
Yup. I know, truth hurts.
And I'll pre-empt the typical "under Saddam, even more people would have been killed" with Amnesty International's report that saddam had only killed about 100 people a year for the 3 or 4 years before march 2003.
Yup. I know, truth hurts.
And I'll pre-empt the typical "under Saddam, even more people would have been killed" with Amnesty International's report that saddam had only killed about 100 people a year for the 3 or 4 years before march 2003.
Fox Mccloud
Deity
I wonder how you came to the conclusion that it is somehow Bush's fault that some Sunni and Shi'as want to fight eachother?
I am willing to take that truth from someone so well experienced in the subject of the pains of truth.
kulade
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2003
- Messages
- 4,545
No one said Bush.
It is America's fault. If Saddam was still in power, would the Sunni and Shias be fighting in the streets?
Zardnaar
Deity
I never claimed America has killed all those people. Its Americas fault that they're dead though due to the invasion and collapse of civil order/war as a result of that invasion.
Even dressed up as Saddam was bad/evil/murderpus his wasn't even the worst regime in the world.
Even dressed up as Saddam was bad/evil/murderpus his wasn't even the worst regime in the world.
Fox Mccloud
Deity
While obviously IGNORING who it really is causing all the deaths in Iraq that survey even if right, as it likely is not only proves that great human tragedies are taking place in Iraq now while many are more concerned in blindly fighting a blame game.
Who really is killign the 10,000 or so Iraqis seem to them unworthy of note or even irrelevent. Instead they blame the US for doing anything and equaly blame it for doing nothing.
Yet, most of you seem apathetic with anything except blaming the US while people in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere die everyday, their cries falling on the deaf ears of those who find it much more worthwhile to blame the US.
Yet, the majority of people who were not being killde by Americans would care that their deahts mean little more to some then a number with which to blame the Americans.
However, the Americans are not responsible for but a minority of civilian casulties.
That is the truth.
Who really is killign the 10,000 or so Iraqis seem to them unworthy of note or even irrelevent. Instead they blame the US for doing anything and equaly blame it for doing nothing.
Yet, most of you seem apathetic with anything except blaming the US while people in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere die everyday, their cries falling on the deaf ears of those who find it much more worthwhile to blame the US.
Yet, the majority of people who were not being killde by Americans would care that their deahts mean little more to some then a number with which to blame the Americans.
However, the Americans are not responsible for but a minority of civilian casulties.
That is the truth.
kulade
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2003
- Messages
- 4,545
The point is Iraq and many other minute nations have been victims of American "fix-er-up" invasions and interventions, and every time, we put them in a worse situation. Of course America isn't killing the Iraqis purposely or commit genocide, yet the American foreign policy is indirectly responsible for this.
The fact of the matter is the United States should never overthrow leaders they don't like... ever. Not just because I am opposed to it, but because it doesn't work. America is the only nation that insists on keep such an overextending foreign policy.
I'm not blaming "Evil Pig-Eating American Imperialists" but the states always seem to have the attitude that they can just toss over any little government with no blowback and no reaction, and the new appendages of Al-Qaeda in Iraq show us this as do the Sectarians.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Civilian casualties in Iraq are largely unknown. To begin with, Iraq doesn't have solid record-keeping or extensive Internet access or big banks of computers to store information on its citizens. Second, Iraq's previous government (Saddam) had numerous incentives not to keep accurate records on various.....activities.....within his borders. Third, the ongoing violence over there makes record-keeping more difficult (that is partially a result of the U.S. invasion, but Iraq was never particularly peaceful before the invasion anyway). Fourth, most of the people who are trying to count civilian casualties are resorting to rather haphazard methods.
I've seen numerous cases where assessors said they were doing things such as simply count the number of bodies that turned up in local morgues. The problem with this being that most of those will be car accidents, heart attacks, cancer, hepatitis, and the like. In a nation that has less advanced medical technology than many First World nations and which is therefore less well-equipped to determine the cause of death.
And there are other problems aside from the above. A bullet hole in a cadaver's head may seem pretty straightforward, but said bullet hole doesn't give you too many clues about who was holding the gun that spewed the lethal bullet.
My conclusion remains unchanged: that the death toll in Iraq as a result of violence/invasion/terrorists/insurgents remains largely unknown. That's been my opinion from the day I first found out about CFC.
