What if Iraq was not invaded?

[Ramius75]

That's hardly an argument.
Why don't you take you pacifism to the families of the hundreds of thousands of killeds by the Saddam regime?

Sure the war killed people, but far less then the regime.

Real arguments against the war are lack of planning for post-invasion, as well as using lies as method to gather public support. The number of casualties, both civilian and military, are very small compared to any occupation in history. Sure it'a a disgrace to have civilian casualtie, but it's not like nobody died under Saddam.

Errr. that something i have stated many many time over and over again all over this forum. Maybe u can find and read all my post.

The regime killed ppl, YES. But does that allow the Bush's regime to come in and killed more ppl "maybe" just to profit himself? Do u "really" believe he was after the good of the Iraqi ? The war is unjust and unlawful, period. it can be consider an invasion, and since all the "threats" the Coaliation stand by before the war are ALL found to be bogus. They should be held account for.

I dont support Saddam too. But there are other ways to bring him down. IF ur only reason to invade Iraq because Saddam killed his people ? Why dont u think of a reason why Bush dont attack North Korea ? Sudan ? Somelia ? Iran ? Pakistan ? Russia ? Or even China ? They were "reported" by the West to be murderous regime. Where ur Bush now ?

So many evidence has pointed to Bush's selfish agenda, Bush's lies , Bush's lack of vision. Bush dont give a damn about Iraqis.

War should be avoided until there is no other way.

Ramius

 

[FriendlyFire]

I've said time and time again, I don't care what the president's motives are, I only care that the Iraqis now have their government back, and that we liberated them from a cruel monster. That has happened, regardless of anything to do with oil, or PNAC, or Haliburton, or France.

On the one hand it is important that Sadams history of killing and murder is justification. On the other The actions and comptence of President Bush dosnt matter ?

 

[Kev1916]

On the one hand it is important that Sadams history of killing and murder is justification. On the other The actions and comptence of President Bush dosnt matter ?

==


Correct Typical of some Yanks , two wrongs make a right , Sadam killed hundreds of thousands the yanks killed hundreds of thousands with sanctions and bombs but the end justifys the means, Right; Again America puts short term gains and corporate advancement first,

Pah - time some of you people got of the moral high ground.. and looked at the cost in human lifes.

 

[Chaos_BF1942]

So the sanctions are our fault, aren't those UN sanctions? There was that 'Oil for food' thing, I wonder what happened to the money from that.

 

[Jorge]

That's hardly an argument.
Why don't you take you pacifism to the families of the hundreds of thousands of killeds by the Saddam regime?

Sure the war killed people, but far less then the regime.

Real arguments against the war are lack of planning for post-invasion, as well as using lies as method to gather public support. The number of casualties, both civilian and military, are very small compared to any occupation in history. Sure it'a a disgrace to have civilian casualtie, but it's not like nobody died under Saddam.

From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3850989.stm)

"What are the specific allegations against Saddam?

At the preliminary trial hearing, Saddam Hussein was told he would face charges relating to seven crimes committed over three decades.

The first charge relates to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 which was ended by a US-led coalition in February in the Gulf War the following year.

The second charge involves the suppression of the Kurdish and Shia uprisings that followed the 1991 war.

The Halabja gas attack formed part of a campaign against Iraq's Kurds
The third charge covers the alleged ethnic cleansing of the Kurds during the so-called Anfal campaign in 1987-88.

Charge four specifically refers to the gassing Kurdish villagers in Halabja in 1988.

The fifth and sixth charges are for the killing political activists during the course of his rule and religious figures in 1974 .

Finally, he is accused of killing thousands of members of the Kurdish Barzani clan in 1983"

Now look at those dates. Saddam comminted genocides, yes. But those happened more than 10 years ago!! A war like the one in Iraq with 10.000+ persons killed would only be justified to save people if there were a genocide on going or inminent, which was not the case.

 

[Chingis Khan]

Correct Typical of some Yanks , two wrongs make a right , Sadam killed hundreds of thousands the yanks killed hundreds of thousands with sanctions and bombs but the end justifys the means, Right; Again America puts short term gains and corporate advancement first,

Pah - time some of you people got of the moral high ground.. and looked at the cost in human lifes.

Yeah, the 'typical yanks' are obviously all morons, right?
But it's funny that the sanctions that supposedly killed hundreds of thousands (got a source?) came from the UN, NOT the 'yanks'. Sanctions that were put in place for very good reason and could have been lifted years ago if not for Saddam's refusal to comply.
The whole 'oil for food' deal, besides being abused by Saddam, could have generated plenty of money for the Iraqis as mentioned above.
And I don't suppose you could explain how a war that is costing America millions (billions?) is putting short term gains and corporate advancement first? If you say oil, I will scream

 

[Kev1916]

Yeah, the 'typical yanks' are obviously all morons, right?

---
But it's funny that the sanctions that supposedly killed hundreds of thousands (got a source?) came from the UN, NOT the 'yanks'. Sanctions that were put in place for very good reason and could have been lifted years ago if not for Saddam's refusal to comply.

=======

Ok US led Sanctions,.

"
the US, its presidents and other officials, the UK, its prime ministers and other officials have committed a crime against humanity as defined in the Nuremberg Charter against the population of Iraq and engaged in a continuing and massive attack on the entire civilian population in violation of article 48, 51, 52, 54 and 55 of Protocol I additional to the Geneva Convention 1997. Since August 6, 1990, both administrations in Washington and London, have obstructed justice and corrupted the UN functions, most prominently the systematic threats, manipulations and misinformation to silence protest and prevent votes or other acts to end sanctions against Iraq despite reports by every major UN agency which described the deaths, injuries and suffering directly caused by the genocidal sanctions.
"

"

Mr. Halliday, a 34-year veteran of the United Nations, resigned his posts as UN Assistant Secretary General and Chief UN Relief Coordinator for Iraq in October of 1998, to protest the devastating effects of the UN/US sanctions on the Iraqi people. Based on his thirteen-month experience, he can testify to the degradation of all aspects of Iraqi society for which sanctions are responsible: the deaths and malnutrition of over a million children, the complete collapse of the economy, the breakdown of formerly highly effective medical and educational systems, and the depression and despair that beset an adult population that has lived for over nine years under such desperate circumstances. The extent of the human destruction in Iraq is appalling and morally compelling.

Few Americans know the facts that would enable, much less compel them to take a moral stand against the sanctions. As US policy has effectively isolated Iraq from the rest of the world, Americans have been denied access to truthful information about the situation there. To its discredit, the US administration has repeatedly charged that it is the Iraqi government’s mishandling of the sanctions that has caused the crisis for its people. Mr. Halliday, who is one of the few people in the world with first-hand knowledge, has publicly testified to the untruthfulness of these charges.

His experiences are an invaluable resource to understanding the horror in Iraq caused by US sanctions policies.

At the reception Mr. Halliday, who is currently a Visiting Professor at Swarthmore College and teaching a course on the United Nations, will be talking about his recent trip to Iraq, where he participated in the filming of a documentary on the effects of the sanctions. Also attending the reception will be a number of activists who have traveled to Iraq, including Kathy Bergen and Peter Lems of the American Friends Service Committee, and Johanna Berrigan from Catholic Worker, House of Grace.

---

Will get some figures for you ,some place it in the Millions.. and there's no
supposedly about it people suffered and people died so to answer your first
question well yes in your case you may be right
or more politely maybe ostrich would be closer.

 

[Chingis Khan]

Few Americans know the facts that would enable, much less compel them to take a moral stand against the sanctions. As US policy has effectively isolated Iraq from the rest of the world, Americans have been denied access to truthful information about the situation there. To its discredit, the US administration has repeatedly charged that it is the Iraqi government’s mishandling of the sanctions that has caused the crisis for its people. Mr. Halliday, who is one of the few people in the world with first-hand knowledge, has publicly testified to the untruthfulness of these charges.

His experiences are an invaluable resource to understanding the horror in Iraq caused by US sanctions policies.

At the reception Mr. Halliday, who is currently a Visiting Professor at Swarthmore College and teaching a course on the United Nations, will be talking about his recent trip to Iraq, where he participated in the filming of a documentary on the effects of the sanctions. Also attending the reception will be a number of activists who have traveled to Iraq, including Kathy Bergen and Peter Lems of the American Friends Service Committee, and Johanna Berrigan from Catholic Worker, House of Grace.

---

Will get some figures for you ,some place it in the Millions.. and there's no
supposedly about it people suffered and people died so to answer your first
question well yes in your case you may be right
or more politely maybe ostrich would be closer.

Here is a link to an article:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/KO News/17-12-01-report-rubin-sanctions-against-iraq.html


The biggest problem with your arguement about the millions of dead Iraqis [because of the sanctions] is that it's based on reports that have come from Iraq.
Some key points of the deal:

"In short, most of the evidence for claims of severe suffering under sanctions comes from the
Iraqi government itself, whose record for veracity is not good and which has an obvious
interest in exaggerating the deprivations of sanctions in order to end them and to turn
international public opinion against its enemies. "

" International sanctions on Iraq have become a lightening rod for anti-American criticism,
leading to calls for change even within the U.S. government (or, at least, within the State
Department). Yet an examination of exactly what sanctions the UN imposed, and how they
work contradicts many of the criticisms. "

" Why have sanctions-and any consequent suffering for Iraq's people-lasted so long? The
Iraqi government has deliberately rejected meeting its commitments to eliminate WMD,
believing that international pressure will force an end to sanctions without its having to make
any concessions. "

Believe I am an osterich if you wish, but I have read on both sides of the arguements and found many of the anti-sanction (anti-US) arguments to have no basis in reality.
Basically it boils down to the fact that Iraq brought the sanctions on itself. They could have complied, yet refused to. Death and birth rates do not corraborate the Iraqi claims of upward of a million deaths. And if they did, it was because of Saddam's politics and economics, not the sanctions.
Also, I will repeat again, it was UN sanctions, not US. As for the US and English governments blocking proposals to lift them, good! Apparantly they were the only ones with balls enough follow through and maintain the credibility of the UN instead of all the shady back-dealing and double deals that some other nations were trying to pull.

 

[luiz]

Errr. that something i have stated many many time over and over again all over this forum. Maybe u can find and read all my post.

The regime killed ppl, YES. But does that allow the Bush's regime to come in and killed more ppl "maybe" just to profit himself? Do u "really" believe he was after the good of the Iraqi ? The war is unjust and unlawful, period. it can be consider an invasion, and since all the "threats" the Coaliation stand by before the war are ALL found to be bogus. They should be held account for.

I dont support Saddam too. But there are other ways to bring him down. IF ur only reason to invade Iraq because Saddam killed his people ? Why dont u think of a reason why Bush dont attack North Korea ? Sudan ? Somelia ? Iran ? Pakistan ? Russia ? Or even China ? They were "reported" by the West to be murderous regime. Where ur Bush now ?

So many evidence has pointed to Bush's selfish agenda, Bush's lies , Bush's lack of vision. Bush dont give a damn about Iraqis.

War should be avoided until there is no other way.

Ramius

I don't think you got my point.
The war was NOT about the good of the iraqis.

But LESS people will get killed now then under Saddam. So to make the opposition to the war based on the number of casualties has no sense at all.

 

[luiz]

Now look at those dates. Saddam comminted genocides, yes. But those happened more than 10 years ago!! A war like the one in Iraq with 10.000+ persons killed would only be justified to save people if there were a genocide on going or inminent, which was not the case.

The genocides were no longer going on, that's true. But:

a)Amnesty Internation know of around 100 political opponents executed on average every year since the First Gulf War. Taking into account that this number is most likely only a fraction of the actual number of people executed due to the secret nature of totalitarian regimes, we can safely conclude that Saddam's regime was still killing lots of people.

b)There is not telling if Saddam would ever commit genocide again. To every rebellion against his power he responded with genocide, the last one beign the Shia Insurrection following the FGW. He did it so many times before, he might as well do it in the future.

c)Over 80% of the Iraqis are happy that Saddam is gone. A similarly large number has problems with the occupation, but as I said the real problems of this war are the lies used as motives and the lack of decent planning for the occupation, but certainly not getting Saddam out.

 

[Sanaz]

Now look at those dates. Saddam comminted genocides, yes. But those happened more than 10 years ago!! A war like the one in Iraq with 10.000+ persons killed would only be justified to save people if there were a genocide on going or inminent, which was not the case.

If you kill all of your opposition, including your own family members, everyone else is a little afraid to step up. That argument is like saying that if Hitler and his boys succeeded in their plan of extermination of the Jews in Germany/Austria/wherever, and there were none left for him to kill, then he would become innocent because he was no longer killing them.

Arguing that Hussein was a good thing for Iraq is probably not going to win a lot of support anywhere in the world. There are some very valid arguments against a US occupaton, and against the timing of the invasion, but none of them really include the possibility that "Hussein was a pretty good guy, who had a violent streak when he was younger. But it appears that he has now outgrown it."

 

[Benderino]

The problem is, are there no other way ?
Ramius

What other way? More sanctions? Many of the people here who oppose the war also oppose the sanctions. What do you say to them? They seem to be all out of ideas.

 

[Benderino]

Yeah, the 'typical yanks' are obviously all morons, right?

---
But it's funny that the sanctions that supposedly killed hundreds of thousands (got a source?) came from the UN, NOT the 'yanks'. Sanctions that were put in place for very good reason and could have been lifted years ago if not for Saddam's refusal to comply.

=======

Ok US led Sanctions,.

"
the US, its presidents and other officials, the UK, its prime ministers and other officials have committed a crime against humanity as defined in the Nuremberg Charter against the population of Iraq and engaged in a continuing and massive attack on the entire civilian population in violation of article 48, 51, 52, 54 and 55 of Protocol I additional to the Geneva Convention 1997. Since August 6, 1990, both administrations in Washington and London, have obstructed justice and corrupted the UN functions, most prominently the systematic threats, manipulations and misinformation to silence protest and prevent votes or other acts to end sanctions against Iraq despite reports by every major UN agency which described the deaths, injuries and suffering directly caused by the genocidal sanctions.
"

"

Mr. Halliday, a 34-year veteran of the United Nations, resigned his posts as UN Assistant Secretary General and Chief UN Relief Coordinator for Iraq in October of 1998, to protest the devastating effects of the UN/US sanctions on the Iraqi people. Based on his thirteen-month experience, he can testify to the degradation of all aspects of Iraqi society for which sanctions are responsible: the deaths and malnutrition of over a million children, the complete collapse of the economy, the breakdown of formerly highly effective medical and educational systems, and the depression and despair that beset an adult population that has lived for over nine years under such desperate circumstances. The extent of the human destruction in Iraq is appalling and morally compelling.

Few Americans know the facts that would enable, much less compel them to take a moral stand against the sanctions. As US policy has effectively isolated Iraq from the rest of the world, Americans have been denied access to truthful information about the situation there. To its discredit, the US administration has repeatedly charged that it is the Iraqi government’s mishandling of the sanctions that has caused the crisis for its people. Mr. Halliday, who is one of the few people in the world with first-hand knowledge, has publicly testified to the untruthfulness of these charges.

His experiences are an invaluable resource to understanding the horror in Iraq caused by US sanctions policies.

At the reception Mr. Halliday, who is currently a Visiting Professor at Swarthmore College and teaching a course on the United Nations, will be talking about his recent trip to Iraq, where he participated in the filming of a documentary on the effects of the sanctions. Also attending the reception will be a number of activists who have traveled to Iraq, including Kathy Bergen and Peter Lems of the American Friends Service Committee, and Johanna Berrigan from Catholic Worker, House of Grace.

---

Will get some figures for you ,some place it in the Millions.. and there's no
supposedly about it people suffered and people died so to answer your first
question well yes in your case you may be right
or more politely maybe ostrich would be closer.

You still haven't listed you're source. This could be writte by any schmuck. I wanna see some real evidence. Saddam acquired the necessary funds to feed his people via the oil for food program. He spent it all on palaces and statues. The people starved. How's that for fiscal/(butter) responsibility? You blame us for what he did? We were getting money for food into the country, and you blame us?

 

[FriendlyFire]

Saddam acquired the necessary funds to feed his people via the oil for food program. He spent it all on palaces and statues. The people starved. How's that for fiscal/(butter) responsibility? You blame us for what he did? We were getting money for food into the country, and you blame us?

I could have sworn that was what all the oil smuggleing that was going on in violation of the sanctions was what was paying for all the palaces. Of course theres was the corruption of the UN food-oil program. US companies like haliburton who in the best interest of the US decided to violate the sanctions.

What other way? More sanctions? Many of the people here who oppose the war also oppose the sanctions. What do you say to them? They seem to be all out of ideas

'If we'd gone to Baghdad and got rid of Saddam Hussein -- assuming we could have found him -- we'd have had to put a lot of forces in and run him to ground someplace. He would not have been easy to capture. Then you've got to put a new government in his place, and then you're faced with the question of what kind of government are you going to establish in Iraq? Is it going to be a Kurdish government, or a Shia government or a Sunni government?' Mr. Cheney continued. 'How many forces are you going to have to leave there to keep it propped up, how many casualties are you going to take through the course of this operation?'" [New York Times, 12/16/03]

How about answering some of those question raised by Secutery of Defence - Dick Cheney ? Do you think the decision was the right one ?

 

[Ramius75]

What other way? More sanctions? Many of the people here who oppose the war also oppose the sanctions. What do you say to them? They seem to be all out of ideas.

I got post my idea,its on page 2 i think. Beside that, there are many other ways. And one is to talk to Iraq just like North Korea but then Bush's friends will get no oil for that.

Ramius

 

[Benderino]

"Bush's friends" didn't get any oil for Liberia, Haiti, or Afghanistan, so why would that matter?

 

[Benderino]

How about answering some of those question raised by Secutery of Defence - Dick Cheney ? Do you think the decision was the right one ?

I think we're handing those problems right now, and I think the "handover of soveriegnty only helps my point.
Oh, and yes, I do think the decision was the right one.

 

[Jorge]

The genocides were no longer going on, that's true. But:

a)Amnesty Internation know of around 100 political opponents executed on average every year since the First Gulf War. Taking into account that this number is most likely only a fraction of the actual number of people executed due to the secret nature of totalitarian regimes, we can safely conclude that Saddam's regime was still killing lots of people.

b)There is not telling if Saddam would ever commit genocide again. To every rebellion against his power he responded with genocide, the last one beign the Shia Insurrection following the FGW. He did it so many times before, he might as well do it in the future.

c)Over 80% of the Iraqis are happy that Saddam is gone. A similarly large number has problems with the occupation, but as I said the real problems of this war are the lies used as motives and the lack of decent planning for the occupation, but certainly not getting Saddam out.

a) You are right. How many can we estimate Saddam was killing? Let's multiply those 100 by 10. We have 1000 per year. So, the war has killed in one year 10.000, the same amount of people that Saddam was going to kill in ten years. As you can see the argument that this war has actually saved lifes is not that true.

b) I would fully support an invasion of Iraq in the case that conditions indicate that Saddam was going to commit genocide again. But no expert in the issue (nor Ai, or the UN etc ...) said that could happen.

c) Certainly that Saddam is out is not a problem. I'm not saying that. The real problem for me is that to get rid of Saddam a war was needed, and that war is the problem (because with every war comes dead, destruction, tortures, etc ...).

In summary: you ask what other solution could we had if we didn't invade. I ask you: what was the problem that needed to be solved?

If the problem was the WMD and the menace that Saddam could use them against us, then there were no problem.

If the problem was humanitarian, well, as I have already explained this war have not saved many lifes.

If the problem was that Saddam commited genocide and should pay for it, well, I don't have a solution for that, but for sure a war killing 10000 people only to capture 1 bad guy (no matter how bad he is) is not a good solution.

 

[luiz]

a) You are right. How many can we estimate Saddam was killing? Let's multiply those 100 by 10. We have 1000 per year. So, the war has killed in one year 10.000, the same amount of people that Saddam was going to kill in ten years. As you can see the argument that this war has actually saved lifes is not that true.

b) I would fully support an invasion of Iraq in the case that conditions indicate that Saddam was going to commit genocide again. But no expert in the issue (nor Ai, or the UN etc ...) said that could happen.

c) Certainly that Saddam is out is not a problem. I'm not saying that. The real problem for me is that to get rid of Saddam a war was needed, and that war is the problem (because with every war comes dead, destruction, tortures, etc ...).

In summary: you ask what other solution could we had if we didn't invade. I ask you: what was the problem that needed to be solved?

If the problem was the WMD and the menace that Saddam could use them against us, then there were no problem.

If the problem was humanitarian, well, as I have already explained this war have not saved many lifes.

If the problem was that Saddam commited genocide and should pay for it, well, I don't have a solution for that, but for sure a war killing 10000 people only to capture 1 bad guy (no matter how bad he is) is not a good solution.

a)Saddam killed 10.000 people since the end of the FGW. He would not stop now, and so even if the number of people that the war killed so far is equal to the number that Saddam killed since the FGW, but now 1.000 woun't continue to die every year(hopefully) and so with time the casualtie rate will became favourable to the war.

b)I don't see how it couldn't happen. Maybe it was not likely to happen, but if some segment of Iraq's society tried to rebell against Saddam, he certainly would respond with genocide, like he always did.

c)The war certainly brought serious problems, and I believe that they could have beign far less if there had beign a decent occupation plan.

My conclusion is that the real benefit of this war ig giving some hope for the future, what might or not happen. What is certain is that if Saddam remained in power, those 1,000 people would continue to die every year. It's certain that once Saddam died he would not call for elections, but rather appoint his youngest son Qusay to take his place. And so the cycle would continue untill a bloody revolution would take the Husseins out, and perhaps a new dictator would rise to power, as is usually the case in countries like Iraq.

And I agree with you, this war was certainly not done for the right reasons. If the american goal is to get rid of bloody dictatorships NK was the right target. However if I was an iraqi I would be happier now then under Saddam, all things considered.

 

[Jorge]

a) You are assuming here that nobody will be killed in Iraq in the next 10 years. Dangerous asumption I think.

b) I didn't explain myself very well. I didn't mean that a genocide couldn't happen, only that no one was alerting that it was going to happen, so we should assume that the chances that a genocide could happen in the short term were low.

c) In fact I think that the war was very successfull. It was quite short. Before the war I was thinking that it was going to be worse (more people killed) and that's why I was so against it.

You think that you would be happier if you were in Iraq, but you don't consider some cases: what about the ones that died or were severily injured, or the ones that lost a close relative? There is nothing that can compensate that.