655,000 Iraqis killed since start of war

Originally posted by reaper2
How on earth did you guys elect such a neandathal ??

Collataral damage is the america way or is that bush way

Um, then here's a fair question.

How on earth did you guys in the UK elect such a neanderthal (Blair - sorry I actually like Blair) ??

Seems that you need to put your own house in order before criticizing the U.S. people for who they elect.

[edit on 10/12/2006 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe


There you go. No mention of WMDs, liberation, spreading democracy. It's all about controlling the oil.

Thanks for bringing that quote.

I remember in a no so long distant past when bringing that fact after the invasion of Iraq was seem as the most un American thing to say after we liberated that poor country from their evil regimethat was killing his own people.

Now it seems that it was for oil after all, and occurs you do not need people, so they all can die for what big interest care, all they want is the land and what it is hidden under.

So half a million Iraqi die, well they can not have it all, you know, liberation, new regime, democracy western style and plenty of money to drill if they just stop killing each other and allow Cheney and Rumsfeld energy task force influence their leaders with powerful lobbyist into giving away the right to their resources.

After all investments are no free they have to give it all or face decimation.flame:

Meanwhile Iraqi people, women and children are dying everyday and still here in these boards’ people question their deaths.

What a joke and hypocrisy.

Originally posted by yanchek
So, to prevent another 9/11 you kill 600.000 people in a country that had nothing to do with it in a first place. Interesting logic.

Seems to be working.

born-to-be-wired
would you like a bucket of chicken and a six pack with your genocide ?

Was it genocidal when we destroyed Dresden?

Agit8dChop
You'd be prepared to have 600,000 foreign citizens die.... because your government couldnt figure out those 12 KNOWN arabs training in flightschools were up to no good?

Its well worth it, for the americans.

magicmushroom
the reason America used Atomic weapons was not to bring the war to a close it was to see if the technology worked and to send a warning to Stalin.

Thats debatable. If we accept it for the sake of arguement, what does it change though? If it was worth nuking 2 japanese cities to intimidate the soviets, then its certainly worth the havoc in Iraq to take the fight to the home turf of the terrorists (not specifically, but the mid. east in general).

on the one hand you say they were used to end the war thus end the killing and applaud the fact 650k Iraqis have been killed and your proud of it

Where did I say I was proud of it? Its not a thing to be proud of. But I'd sure as heck rather see chaos and death throughout Iraq than within America, just like the iraqis would rather see it in american than their home.

Even if you are being honest about your statement on the Iraqi figures such an attitude provides the enemy with justifiable reason to hit back so in all not a very intelligent response was it.

If anything, it provides them with an excuse to accept peace with us. "Attack, and untold thousands of you will die, leave us alone, even if we are arrogant occidentals, and nobody gets hurt".

but if your as smart as you think you are

I'm not saying I am smart. If anything its a 'simple' policy, "attack us, and you will be worse off than before".

all these events inside the USA have been commited by Americans and you know it.

911 was one attack within a series of attacks the al-qaida has made upon America, from the embassy bombings to the Cole bombing and beyond. Americans did not commit 911, and the government failed to realize that there was that much of a threat.

Many countries have nukes but America has not attacked one of them so that story is crap

With regards to Iran, they signed a treaty with the international community that permantently promised not to build any nuclear weapons, in exchange for nuclear technology from the west. With regards to North Korea, they signed an agreement specifically with the US to not research nuclear weapons, and in exchange we'd give them enough food and supplies so that their people didn't starve themselves into extinction. They broke the treaties, because they want to aggressively use their nuclear weapons. Beacuse of this, they will be annihilated.

It will be interesting to see how Bush and Co are going to deal with NK because many have said Kim is a madman and we all know what madmen are capable of.

We have insivible remote controlled robotic flying machines of death, they have weak nuke devices. IF the US decides to go to war with them, they can set it up so that its over in a matter of seconds.

Honest enough to say what your real intentions are rather than using lies, deceit and murder to gain your objectives.

Who is lying? Bush has said that Iran and N.K will not be permited to have nuke weapons. That means 'we will kill them if they won't cooperate'.

And nobody should be proud of the death of so many violence begets violence as you will soon find out.

Its the islamists that apparently need to learn that 'violence begets violence'. They were upset over 'westernization' within the middle east, and to respond, they ordered the death of thousands. Now they're seeing the consequences of that. And, yes, I understand, they're trying to have another 911 in the US, we've been able to stop many attacks, we're not going to be able to stop more attacks by leaving them to their own devices in iraq or afghanistan.

When the individuals in charge of THE US make profits of war, there is no way plausable to label that war as just.

Irrelevant. Who cares if the war is just. They attacked us, so we will destroy them.

The only way left for the world to start forgiving america, is if americans try and execute the man responsible for these war crimes.

Who the hell cares if 'the world' forgives America?

mythatsabigprobe
US foreign policy seems to be to kill as many foreigners as it takes to keep us safe from any threats, real or imagined.

Those 600k deaths are by iraqis killing other iraqis, not people rounded up and killed by the Americans. America is responsible in large part because we've removed the 'iron fisted rule' that was keeping the sunnis, shia, islamists, etc, at bay. This is precisely like what happened with Yugoslavia, pull the communists out, and the people in the society start destroying one another. Pull hussein and his rape squads out, and the iraqis figure, 'its worth the risk if I get to kill me some shia/sunni/kurds/etc'. US foreign policy in this instance was to remove hussein, a brutal dictator, the sort of dictator who's rule was at the root of motivation for islamist terrorism. The error was in not being able to establish any kind of authority that could keep the natural tendency of humans, (to fall upon one another in an orgy of death and anarchic violence) from screaming to the surface.
But to say its the policy to 'kill ferners' is a meaningless slander.

The Iraqi civilians killed during the invasion and occupation were never any threat to us

Irrelevant. Hussein was a threat, and Hussein's rule represented those very fundamental problems in the middle east that had created, or at least empowered, the reactionary politics of groups like al-qaida.

So the 5.7 billion 'foreigners' on the wrong side of our foreign policy, may be justifiably concerned by our actions and have reason to do a little foreign policy work of their own.

As if. We run this planet, we dictate what gets to happen. We can't necessarily stop events like 911, anymore than a person can prevent any other relatively random act of violence. But as far as concerted action against the US, for any realistic length of time?

shanti23
The worst sentiment I have read on this board, well done.

Well, perhaps the above has now replaced it.

reaper2
Collataral damage is the america way or is that bush way

Please explain why 600k dead iraqis is 'wrong' (killed in the chaos of iraq by their own people), but millions of dead germans is ok?

Nygdan when are you going to wise up, Just what proofs do you or anyone inside of the USA have for who was behind 9/11, the alleged official investigation was a sham and Bush has thwarted any attempt to find out who was behind the attack. There are no proofs what so ever that Al Qeada, if such a group exists, had anything to do with it.

Again despite my repeated attempts to get some truths or proofs from you, you hide behind the Bush speak, We are told that the alleged terrorists were Saudis, Bush proclaimed from the rooftops that America would attack anyone who harboured or supported terror attacks on America. Well why have you not attacked Saudia Arabia, I'll tell you why because they are into America in trillions of dollars, also they supply plenty of oil so you dont bite the hand that feeds you do you.

And once again I ask you where is the connection between 9/11 and Iraq, there is none, even that bufoon Bush has said so. And saddam was a threat to the Western world was he, well detail for me now what weapon systems he had to accomplish this task. Bearing in mind that his forces were drained after the Iran/Iraq war and he got his ass kicked big time in Iraq 1 and had sanctions and bombning raids all the years between Iraq 1/2. Even his feable attempt to bring Israel into the war in Iraq1 was pathetic. So what was he going to do, sail over to the US and throw a few grenades at Manhatten. Such a mighty advesary that made big strong America so frightened.

And again your full of it, you have weapons that can take out kim, its a pity you did not use them on Saddam, but that was not the idea was it the idea was to keep him in power as a bulwark against the Iranians, their the real threat arent they. But he started rattling his cage and wouldnt play ball so thats why we have had Iraq1/2. You did the same with the Taliban, you tried to do a deal with them to get the new pipeline through but when they changed their minds you invaded Afganistan. What did that murderer Rumsfeld say to them, we can cover you in gold or we can cover you in bombs, well we all know the end to that story dont we.

Lets face it America wants to rule the world, thats what PNAC is about is it not, anybody who you cannot befriend or buy off are seen as the enemy, you know like the French, those good people who fought for you, gave you the statue of Liberty etc. na just a bunch of back stabbers arent they.

The worrying thing for Americans is what happens when somebody brings the war to you, and I dont mean an odd Anfo bomb. Do you really believe that your countries actions wont at some point be challenged. As I have said before great nations have come and gone and America is not immune from this process. So a word of advice stop killing people abroad, stop trying to force your way of life on people who dont want it, stop carpet bagging and maybe they might not want to kill you.

You have voted magicmushroom for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

must say this, well put out

Nygdan after reading some of your posts on US Politics I noticed that you said, Bush should attack anyone who he see's as a threat, well if were having a level playing field does that also mean that anyone can attack the USA if Bush is seen as a threat because if you are saying that, then America becomes a legitimate target for anyone who see's America as a threat.

Too bad hundreds of thousands arent around anymore to

enjoy "democracy"

Originally posted by dgtempe
Too bad hundreds of thousands arent around anymore to

enjoy "democracy"

Why you worried about it now, dgtempe?
Apparently, you had no issues with Saddam when he was butchering and killing untold numbers of his own people bringing them his own version of freedom and liberty?

Originally posted by Seekerof
Apparently, you had no issues with Saddam when he was butchering and killing untold numbers of his own people bringing them his own version of freedom and liberty?

For some reason this type of statement makes no sense anymore after what is happening in Iraq everyday.

Perhaps back right after the invasion it was a big thing to say . . . but now . . . is just very questionable.

So Saddam killed his enemies or at least what he thought were his enemies and the people that were against his regime just like a dictator will do to control his population.

But now at who's hands are they dying and for what reason?

Yes different times . . . different reasons . . . and still Iraqis can not live in peace and neither can leave their homes without been targeted one way or the other and they are still dying.

Pity.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by marg6043]

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Nygdan when are you going to wise up, Just what proofs do you or anyone inside of the USA have for who was behind 9/11,

you mean besides documents, money transfers, movements of individuals, video evidence, personal admissions, etc etc? None I guess. Honestly though, lets reserve the 'who did 911' for the 911 forum.

Again despite my repeated attempts to get some truths or proofs from you, you hide behind the Bush speak, We are told that the alleged terrorists were Saudis, Bush proclaimed from the rooftops that America would attack anyone who harboured or supported terror attacks on America. Well why have you not attacked Saudia Arabia

Please demonstrate that the Saudi government did this. They did not, the afghan government was the one aiding al-qaida.

I'll tell you why because they are into America in trillions of dollars,

Yes, and that is why they are open to manipulation and diplomacy, we don't need to destroy their government and occupy their land in order to get them to stop doing something we don't like. There are also many factions within the ruling family that were are able to use for our purposes, there was nothing like that in Iraq. The designation of Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea as an 'axis of evil', in terms of state supporters of terrorism and as blocks to meaningful reform in the world, is accurate. Syria has serious problems, saudia arabia does, egypt does, etc etc, but those three are the biggest problems and the ones that are most problematic in terms of working with.

And once again I ask you where is the connection between 9/11 and Iraq

What does that have to do with anything?

And saddam was a threat to the Western world was he, well detail for me now what weapon systems he had to accomplish this task.

He had a secret chemical weapons infrastructure that no one even knew about until after the war. Clearly, hussein's iraq was severely weakened by the sanctions.
The sanctions, not the ability of the inspectors, was what was keeping him from having WMD. Before the US was calling for war, the international community was starting to seriously consider removing the sanctions. Hussein was not an immediate threat. He wasn't like a guy with a gun pointed at you. His threat level was that of a seriously dangerous lunatic who was looking for a weapon. His threat level was not the primary reason for attacking iraq, the militant promotion of democracy in the middle east was. Iraq was the logical first target. With iraq out of the way, then iran and syria could be attacked and places like egypt and jordan and saudi would be far more easily forced into reform.

And again your full of it, you have weapons that can take out kim, its a pity you did not use them on Saddam,

I am not talkig about the individuals. Dropping multi-kilo tone nukes all north korean cities and military installations and neutron bombs all along the DMZ is a tactic to utterly annihilate the north korean state, not a plan to specifically kill some guy named kim. The rationale for going to thermonuclear war with N. Korea is to prevent them from nuking a US or Allied city or even simply setting off a nuke or two along the DMZ as a scorched earth policy to take out the US Army in the penninsula. There was no such need for that in Iraq, and, because the goal was to free the public from a brutal genocidal dictator, it wasn't necessary to annihilate most of them. THat is also why the invading and occupying army was kept small, to reduce US pressence. Given whats happened, perhaps it would've been better to so savagely attack Iraq that its people afterwards were wandering around in a daze, unable to even consider a counter-attack or insurgency. Alas, the oppurtunity to completely destroy every iraqis sense of stability and reality has passed.

What did that murderer Rumsfeld say to them, we can cover you in gold or we can cover you in bombs, well we all know the end to that story dont we.

Yep. ANd the lesson is, when given the choice between becomming rich or getting shot, pick getting rich.

Lets face it America wants to rule the world

America already rules the world, its merely an indirect and hegemonic rule.

you know like the French, those good people who fought for you,

King Louis aided the revolutionaries because he was locked in a power struggle with King George, not because he 'liked' us or because the French people are ardent defenders of liberty.

Do you really believe that your countries actions wont at some point be challenged.

Challenged? Yes. Effectively? Ha, no.

As I have said before great nations have come and gone and America is not immune from this process.

And?

So a word of advice stop killing people abroad, stop trying to force your way of life on people who dont want it, stop carpet bagging and maybe they might not want to kill you.

How about we just kill them before they can kill us? That way, they can decide whether or not its worth their lives and the existence of their nation to attack the US.

Bush should attack anyone who he see's as a threat

If I did say that I mispoke, or was speaking in hyperbole. We should only attack people/places that are a serious threat. I am sure that there is a small town outside of bogata that really hates the US, but doesn't have the means or ability to do anything about it, so no sense in attacking them.

well if were having a level playing field does that also mean that anyone can attack the USA if Bush is seen as a threat

Of course. But, that'd be a pretty silly thing to do. Unless, of course, the US followed your recommendations, and refused to counter-attack because innocent people might get hurt.

America becomes a legitimate target for anyone who see's America as a threat.

A legitimate target is a target that you can attack and get away with it. America is not, in that sense, a legitimate target.
But essentially sure, everyone is free to do what they want. If bin ladin thinks that america is so gosh darned evil that he's just got to ram a jetliner into some buildings, well, sure, he's 'free' to do that, but he's certainly going to have us gunning for him afterwards.

marg
But now at who's hands are they dying and for what reason?

There is still something of a difference though. Before, after hussein had died happily and in bed as an old old man (and dear god how 'safe' would iraq be with a senile hussein in charge???), then his sons would take over. Heck, since there are two of them, perhaps they'd split the country in two and engage in a really brutal civil war (far more brutal than this one even), and then the whole country would be ruled by one of those sociopaths. And then his sons, and his sons sons, etc etc. Now, its anarchy, civil war, eventually, one side will win out, and the US will be able to make sure that the succeeding government or governments are democratic. Unless, of course, the US leaves, and then just another dictator comes into power.

and still Iraqis can not live in peace

They have no peace because they'd prefer to kill one another. Those 600k dead were killed in anarchic internicene warfare. They saw that there was no one that was going to exterminate their clan if they vented some rage against their neighbhors, and decided it'd be a good idea.

Seekerof's posts aren't only questionable they are bizzare half the time. In light of everything we know today, and how the line up with some of the most horrible predicitions when this whole mess started, how can anyone say that anything being done over there is justified? Why there isn't more of a massive call for the troops to come home I'll never know. Or is it just not playing there? Are the average American aware of the hell it is over there, and that the reasons for being there in the first place are lies???

Seekerof and myself don't see eye-to-eye on everything, but he as undeniably correct as Nygdan.

War isn't pretty, W2A. It's ugly and brutal. And people get hurt. I probably like it a whole hell of a lot less than you, and I wish we'd never gone into Iraq (I woulda made it a sheet of glass, guess it's a good thing I'm not in charge), but what is, is. This is something that you don't seem to understand.

When it becomes an issue of us or them, I choose us, and cold as it sounds, # them.

That's life.

Nygdan- I'd WATS you if I could. Your posts in this matter are a hellacious articulation of reality.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by Astygia]

Iraq is not ww2 and no even a Vietnam because Iraq never declared a war to nobody and when US invaded that country the only invading done was US only.

Two different things, now they are dying for something than truly the people didn't ask for it, an invasion.

Pity and more pity, and not US will not bring troops home because is not the people that they are protecting they are protecting the future of private investment in that country . . . they are protecting the big interest that are happily waiting for the Iraqi to kill enough of each other so they can have no problem ripping the country away with oil drilling.

If somebody think that is was all for the good of the Iraqi people think again.

Profits will be the majority for the American oil barons that will take over when Iraqi government decides that it needs them if they want their oil out of their sands.

Meanwhile the future terrorist are been born and raise in this enviroment so they can find more reasons to hate the American nation and its people.

The hypocrisy is repugnant.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by marg6043]

All this blind defence of a failed policy is below debating. 650000 dead. Wow. What a total #-up.

Astygia

I understand one thing very well. That is that humans are capable of rational thought and are able to compermise. Sometimes - SOMETIMES - things break down and war has to happen. However, nothing in the last 6 years has ment this has had to happen. That is what you don't understand I beleive. When the initial case that lead to this outcome still has so many questions around it as to how it all took place, and every peice of information that has come out seems to justify those questions, you are not turning those kids into warriors - your turning them into murderers. Killing is part of war - but war is not what is going on there and that is what you seem to forget. Those people are dead not because of a conflict between nations, or some idealiogy - they are dead because of at the least incompetent behaviour and at the worst bold faced lies.

There is no honour in this. How to end it I don't know, but with ever casualty adds another devestated family for a lie - and that to me is a horrible thing to accept.

Originally posted by marg6043
So Saddam killed his enemies or at least what he thought were his enemies and the people that were against his regime just like a dictator will do to control his population.

"Enemies"? Wha?
Would you define "enemies"?
Would that be Kurds, killed because of their ethnicity, and Shi'ites, killed because of their religion?
Hmm, that leaves only the Sunnis mostly untouched....

"So," marg, how many total Iraqis did Saddam butcher, murder, and kill since his coming to power?
Are you condoning his actions because "a dictator will do to control his population"?
But wait, IF the US and Coalition do likewise to "control" the Iraqi population, you have issue, huh?

But now at who's hands are they dying and for what reason?

See above response.
Furthermore, let me guess.....gimmie a sec....I will get his name out in a quick short......oh, Bush's fault!?


Let me ask you something here, marg, if you will:
If Saddam had remained in power, how many more Iraqis would have been butchered, murdered, and killed? What would the total number of Iraqis butchered, murdered, and killed have there been if one started at the time of Saddam's taking control of Iraq to now?
A million or so?
Would that have been above the alleged and claimed---and inflated and debunked--Lancet 665,000? Hmmm....

Here is a thought:
Would Lancet have published those findings and numbers?

And since we all know that the numbers Lancet are now giving, as when they did prior to the release of their initial Lancet report prior to 2004 presidential elections, are inaccurate, inflated, and already debunked as such, how truthful would they be, in their little Lancet findings way, in giving an accurate total number of Saddam-butchered-murdered-and-killed-Iraqis?

The hypocrisy is repugnant.

Isn't it?
How ironic, huh?
You as with others here DID NOT give a crap about those hundred of thousands of Iraqis butchered, murdered, and killed--because it did not affect you then--by Saddam PRIOR to the US taking out Saddam, but all of sudden, you give a crap now? Oh, the irony and hypocrisy indeed.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
You as with others here DID NOT give a crap about those hundred of thousands of Iraqis butchered, murdered, and killed--because it did not affect you then--by Saddam PRIOR to the US taking out Saddam, but all of sudden, you give a crap now?

Just a few questions for ya...

What would be your solution for giving a crap about those "hundreds of thousands" that died before the US/UK war on Iraq?

What is your solution to the Sudan genocide...or conflicts in the Congo, Uganda...or other countries?

Why do you try to tell us that it is good to say "I care" about those conflicts while at the same time supporting regimes (US/UK) that directly and indirectly cause more hundreds of thousands of deaths?

Can you define hypocrisy for me?

You have voted Jamuhn for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Exactly- thanks for expressing those questions to Seekerof.

Waiting for a reply.

Originally posted by Seekerof


You as with others here DID NOT give a crap about those hundred of thousands of Iraqis butchered, murdered, and killed--because it did not affect you then--by Saddam PRIOR to the US taking out Saddam, but all of sudden, you give a crap.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by Seekerof]

This is one of the most arrogant and presumptious things I have ever heard.
How could you know how anyone feels.

I for one give a crap when any of Gods' innocents are killed at anytime or anywhere by anyone.

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
Astygia

I understand one thing very well. That is that humans are capable of rational thought and are able to compermise. Sometimes - SOMETIMES - things break down and war has to happen. However, nothing in the last 6 years has ment this has had to happen. That is what you don't understand I beleive. When the initial case that lead to this outcome still has so many questions around it as to how it all took place, and every peice of information that has come out seems to justify those questions, you are not turning those kids into warriors - your turning them into murderers. Killing is part of war - but war is not what is going on there and that is what you seem to forget. Those people are dead not because of a conflict between nations, or some idealiogy - they are dead because of at the least incompetent behaviour and at the worst bold faced lies.

There is no honour in this. How to end it I don't know, but with ever casualty adds another devestated family for a lie - and that to me is a horrible thing to accept.

I usually try to be fairly sensitive to this sort of thing, but maybe brutal honesty is what's needed here, though it's hard to articulate.

There will always be questions. As long as we've had presidents, we've had people second-guessing the presidents. This will never change.

Politicians will always be dirty. Some of them will always find a way to profit from what they do. This will never change.

Was the intel going into Iraq flawed? Hell yes. I believe some of it was manufactured, too. This doesn't change the monstrous dictator that Saddam was, and it doesn't make his own personal body count any lower. It also doesn't make this 665,000 number any more accurate.

Maybe you're not understanding how they obtained this count; they went house-to-house and asked how many family members they've lost. Read the article; they polled, what, 1800 households? You're telling me 1800 households lost 665,000 people?

What seekerof is getting at, is that in reality, Hussein has killed more of his own people that the Coalition. He didn't even do it in war; he just did it. Where's the honor in that?

People come crawling out to denounce America over crap like this as soon as it hits the fan. My opinion of Bush is LOW, but there is a line that I don't cross, because I don't believe the first anti-US thing I hear.

You say that people aren't dying because of conflicting ideology or war; oh really? So the bombs in schools or homes of different sects aren't an issue of conflicting ideology? It's all the US's fault that these people can't pull their head from their ass and stop killing each other? Of course it is, it's all a CIA conspiracy. I guess I'm a murderer, right?

You're right about the casualties, though. I despise the notion of dead coalition soldiers, PMC units, reporters, civilian contractors, plain civilians, etc. We shoulda just made a swimming pool outta the place. Wouldn't have lost a single American, Brit, or otherwise.