What We've Accomplished

FOX NEWS

As many of you may know by now, we thought the ABC News program, "Nightline" (search), made a mistake by listing all the brave men and women who died in Iraq but without providing the context of what they died for. So we said that we would put together our own tribute, our own list of what these brave men and women have built in Iraq.

i know...i know...Fox News...mouthpiece for the Whitehouse...blah blah blah...but just take a look at the raw data they provide to back up the story....heres the data if ya want to see for yourself...

Raw Data

[Edited on 11-5-2004 by Creepy]

Bravo Creepy!!!

It's about time someone around here acknowledged the good things we have done in Iraq. I personally am so sick of all the NWO and war for oil B.S. Why is it so hard for some people to believe that President Bush honestly thought that Iraq had or was trying to attain WMD's, and wouldn't hesitate to use them against us? Whether one believes in the war itself or not, it's a stretch to think that the majority of those who decided to go to war had anything but the U.S.'s best interests in mind.

3 CHEERS!!

-Cypher

I agree with Cypher, Creepy! nicely done. As someone who already believed much good was being done, some of what they said was a pleasant surprise.

"it's a stretch to think that the majority of those who decided to go to war had anything but the U.S.'s best interests in mind. "

Its not a stretch at all. In fact most of us who are against the war believe that we invaded Iraq because Bush had Americas best interests in mind.

What Bush seems to consistantly forget however is that America isn't the world. It doesn't speak for the world, and it doesn't have the right to blow up other countrys as it pleases because it thinks it would be in its best interest.

Now if he had had Iraqs best interests at heart that would be a different matter.

[Edited on 12-5-2004 by Simon]

Simon,

With all do respect, your post confused me. You claimed to believe that Pres. Bush didn't have America's best interests in mind by saying. "It's not a stretch at all" and then proceeded to state that you were opposed to the war because Pres. Bush was just thinking about the U.S.' interests, and not those of the Iraqi people. Which is it?

Please clarify your position. It's no fun debating someone who takes both sides of the issue. Leave that to John Kerry.

Clarification:

"it's a stretch to think that the majority of those who decided to go to war had anything but the U.S.'s best interests in mind. "

I said it wasn't a streatch at all, meaning its not difficult to believe that Bush went to war with his and americas best interests in mind.

I do believe Bush went to war with US interests in mind and I am opposed to the war.

Because you have your countrys best interests in mind doesn't mean you have the country you are invading or the world as a wholes best interests in mind.

Hitler invaded poland. Did he have Germanys best interests in mind when he did it ? yes. was he right ? no.






[Edited on 12-5-2004 by Simon]

Bravo Simon!
Good analogy, a bit too close to home. How could anyone argue that Dubya wasn't acting in his perceived interest of the Nation? The simple description of U.S. action is Hegemony. The policy of the administration is the policy of the Project for the New American Century. This "New Right" believes that it is the responsibility of the U.S. to take control of our interests, to push our moral code, and to refine our position at the top of the political heap.

By themselves, these ideals would not be anything but noble. However, we are not acting in a vaccume.

[Edited on 12-5-2004 by scottsquared]

Come on guys, you can come up with a better argument than that. The United States acting to defend itself from a possible attack by a vicious dictator with what the intelligence agencies of the world at the time believed to be an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is in no way, shape or form similar to Hitler invading Poland. Iraq could have opened up all of their sites to immediate inspections by the U.N. and avoided a conflict. Instead, Saddam thought he could continue to blackmail the Middle-East with the threat of WMDs, by clouding the issue with deception and shell games.

By your analogy, I guess in your mind, us arresting those who fire on U.S. troops must be like the S.S. rounding up the Jews and sending them to the death camps huh?

Reality check... Read the PDF that Creepy posted. We have done more for the Iraqi people in one year, than Saddam had done since 1991. Hitler did nothing for the Polish except kill and persecute them.

Plus, the Iraqi people are and always have been in charge of their own destiny. The U.S. never would have needed to invade Iraq if the same people attacking the "occupying Americans" had stood up for their own freedom and removed Saddam from power.

The fact is that before the war. Iraq was thought to pose a very credible threat to the security of the U.S. Not a threat to our interests, but a direct threat to the lives of American citizens. In a post 9/11 world, the President was no longer willing to live with such a threat, and the people and congress agreed. That threat was removed, and I would argue that the world is a better place for it.

If you don't think the PNAC had planned this all along see thier own site:www.newamericancentury.org...
www.newamericancentury.org...
Both of these pages pre-date 9/11.

Cypher: "Reality check... Read the PDF that Creepy posted. We have done more for the Iraqi people in one year, than Saddam had done since 1991. Hitler did nothing for the Polish except kill and persecute them. "

Um, reality check yourself, bud. You've killed more Iraqi people in the last year than Saddam did since 1991. Not to mention the Abu Ghraib tortures, the mass detentions, the bombing of mosques, the slaughtering of wedding parties, etc. You are in fact killing and persecuting Iraqis, Hitler-style.

"The U.S. never would have needed to invade Iraq if the same people attacking the "occupying Americans" had stood up for their own freedom and removed Saddam from power."

Oh I see it was up to you to "save" the Iraqi people from Saddam, even though you fully supported him until he invaded Kuwait in 1991. Read much history? Do much logical thinking?

Explain to me please how "free" Iraqis are now. Do they have the right to demonstrate? Freedom of the Press? Can they avoid arbitrary incarceration?

Aren't they in fact FAR more likely to be killed now? That is the direct fault of the US invasion, pay attention.

"The fact is that before the war. Iraq was thought to pose a very credible threat to the security of the U.S. Not a threat to our interests, but a direct threat to the lives of American citizens."

PURE COMEDY. A very credible threat to the lives of U.S. citizens, ahahahahaha. Please oh pretty please explain this fantasy situation of yours to me, I would LOVE to hear it. With what weapons? What methods of delivery? Since you seem to be pretty sure about it, please please share. Haha.

"a post 9/11 world, the President was no longer willing to live with such a threat, and the people and congress agreed. That threat was removed, and I would argue that the world is a better place for it. "

Argue then. The world is a far worse place because of your murderous idiot of a President. For you, for me, for everyone. Pre-emptive strikes policy works pretty well when it's the US invading a 3rd World country, but it ain't so good when you run screaming and wetting yourself when North Korea lumbers in.

So explain to me please how the world is a "better place to live in" since 9-11.

THE WORLD, not just your tiny little neighborhood please.

jako

jakamo...

You've killed more Iraqi people in the last year than Saddam did since 1991.

U.S. have killed 300,000 Iraqis in the past year? 300,000?

Not to mention the Abu Ghraib tortures

of people who were trying to kill Americans...who would have beheaded/burned/beat/impaled/hung any Americans they captured...

the mass detentions

of people who were trying to kill Americans...who would have beheaded/burned/beat/impaled/hung any Americans they captured...

the bombing of mosques

that were firing upon American soldiers and storing weapons and ammo...

the slaughtering of wedding parties

that were firing guns into the air while a war was going on and American planes were flying by...

etc.

etc.

even though you fully supported him until he invaded Kuwait in 1991.

supported him while he was at war with Iran...who had hijacked planes,held hostages,killed innocents,invaded Iraq...etc.

Read much history?

yes...

Do much logical thinking?

yes...

Do they have the right to demonstrate?

yes...

Freedom of the Press?

more so than when Saddam was in power...

Can they avoid arbitrary incarceration?

yes...

Aren't they in fact FAR more likely to be killed now?

yes...if they fire upon American troops

With what weapons? What methods of delivery?

the ones the U.N. said they had

Argue then. The world is a far worse place because of your murderous idiot of a President.

how so? explain yourself...

Creepy: "U.S. have killed 300,000 Iraqis in the past year? 300,000?

Yes, easily.

"In May 1996 Madeleine Albright, who was then the U.S. ambassador to the UN, 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"

That's only counting children, and it's 500,000.

"Not to mention the Abu Ghraib tortures

of people who were trying to kill Americans...who would have beheaded/burned/beat/impaled/hung any Americans they captured... "

Oh I hadn't realized that these people who were being tortured were actually guilty of any of these crimes. Where did you hear that those tortured were all "beheaders and burners and beaters and impalers" or do you figure all Iraqis are mindless killbots? Please back up this "ass"ertion.

"the mass detentions

of people who were trying to kill Americans...who would have beheaded/burned/beat/impaled/hung any Americans they captured...

Proof, instead of racist assumptions please. Notice these are detentions and not imprisonments. Because they actually haven't been charged with anything. Go Freedom! Go Democracy!

"the bombing of mosques

that were firing upon American soldiers and storing weapons and ammo... "

Hearts and minds, hearts and minds. You don't bomb a mosque unless you want the anger of the religious to rain down upon you.

"the slaughtering of wedding parties

that were firing guns into the air while a war was going on and American planes were flying by... "

Which they've done FOR YEARS! So if you're firing a weapon into the air while your daughter is getting married, an Iraqi custom (Kentucky,too!), then you deserve to be wiped out? Please explain.

"even though you fully supported him until he invaded Kuwait in 1991.

supported him while he was at war with Iran...who had hijacked planes,held hostages,killed innocents,invaded Iraq...etc. "

And while he was apparently gassing his own people and killing thousands under his repressive regime. Iraq killed innocents by the thousands before 1991, but it was no reason for the US to stop doing business with them, now was it?

"Do they have the right to demonstrate?

yes...

Except they might get killed by CPA troops, but they still have the right, correct?

Freedom of the Press?

more so than when Saddam was in power...

Ah, so you're better than Saddam! There's a good motto.

THE U.S. MILITARY OCCUPATION: HEY, WE'RE BETTER THAN SADDAM WAS, HUH?

How about aiming a little higher?

And, uh, didn't Bremer just recently pull the plug on a newspaper they said was inflammatory? Is that Freedom of the Press?

Can they avoid arbitrary incarceration?

yes...

How exactly? By hiding in their basement for the next few years?

"Aren't they in fact FAR more likely to be killed now?

yes...if they fire upon American troops"

Or if they're anywhere in the vicinity when American troops are fired upon.

Or if they live in Fallujah.

"With what weapons? What methods of delivery?

the ones the U.N. said they had "

THE U.N. SAID THEY WERE PRETTY SURE HE HAD NONE THAT'S WHY BUSH DIDN'T GET SUPPORT FOR HIS WAR.

Where have you been?

"Argue then. The world is a far worse place because of your murderous idiot of a President.

how so? explain yourself..."

Um, where do you want me to start? In the US with the Patriot Act, the revival of Cointelpro, the legalization of arbritrary searches? Or the Middle East, which is more dangerous than ever? How about Spain? Germany?

Pick a region of the world and I'll tell you how it's been made worse by your stupid arsehole of a President.

A good region though, please, I don't wanna end up researching Antartica or the Seychelles or something.


jako

It must be so convienent to get all of your news from on source. Ted Koppel, who has said he is in favor the invaison/occupation of Iraq, said of reporters "it is NOT our job to be pro-war, or anti war. We take NO position on the war." It must be so easy for Fox not to have any journalistic ethics. I wonder how many tv stations will not show Fox now?

First off, this is going to be a LONG response, so please bear with me.

Jakomo,

Thank you for your spirited response to my post. I enjoyed reading it. However, I still think your mistaken, and here�s why.

Originally posted by Jakomo
Um, reality check yourself, bud. You've killed more Iraqi people in the last year than Saddam did since 1991.

And then in your next post, you used the following to support your argument:

In May 1996 Madeleine Albright, who was then the U.S. ambassador to the UN, 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

That's only counting children, and it's 500,000.

For someone who questioned my historical knowledge, and logical thinking, that�s kind of an ironic response. One cannot lay the blame for the alleged �500,000� children who died under the U.N. sanction years at the feet of the U.S. The U.N. sanctions allowed for Iraq to sell limited amounts of oil for the money needed to purchase food and medicines for the Iraqi people. Unfortunately Saddam subverted this process for his own greed. He continued through out the 90�s to build lavish palaces, filling them with expensive artwork, gold fixtures etc. all while his country�s children died. Furthermore, during those 12 years, Saddam spent virtually no money on Iraq�s infrastructure. Most of the water and electricity plants weren�t repaired to pre 1991 conditions until after the U.S and the CPA took control of the country.

I might add that the U.N. sanctions were just that. They were sanctions enacted by the United Nations, not just the U.S. Also, the amounts of oil that Iraq could sell were determined by U.N. oversight, of which Koffi Annan�s son was the head. These are the same people who the Iraqi press recently showed were taking bribes in the form of oil vouchers from Saddam. So it was Saddam�s greed, and the greed of those who complacently allowed him to continue to subvert the Oil for Food program who are guilty of those children�s deaths, not the U.S.

BTW: �The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power.� This is from an article on the Global Business Network posted here The numbers are accurate through. You can always google them. I did. Even if we were to throw out the 500,000 deaths caused by the Iran � Iraq war, that is still over 300,000 deaths since 1991. I don�t care if you use Al-Jazeera�s numbers, the Coalition forces haven�t killed anywhere near that number of civilians.

Oh I see it was up to you to "save" the Iraqi people from Saddam, even though you fully supported him until he invaded Kuwait in 1991. Read much history? Do much logical thinking?

I believe it�s you who hasn�t done the logical thinking Jakomo. My premise was that the Iraqi�s who are now attacking the Allied forces could have risen up against Saddam, themselves. By allowing Saddam to threaten the world in their name, they are at least somewhat culpable for the situation they currently find themselves in. Nowhere in my post did I state or imply that it was up to us to �save� the Iraqi people. Our goal was strictly to remove a perceived threat. But in doing so, we have given the Iraqi people a great opportunity that even now the majority of Iraqi�s are taking advantage of. If the U.S. is just a hegemonic, imperialistic, occupier, as you seem to imply, then why are so many brave Iraqis willing to risk their lives to police the streets on their own?

Explain to me please how "free" Iraqis are now. Do they have the right to demonstrate? Freedom of the Press? Can they avoid arbitrary incarceration?

Iraqi�s are extremely free compared to their previous existence. Before the invasion, an Iraqi who spoke badly of the Baathist party or Saddam�s policies risked not only their life, but the lives of their whole family. Now, Iraqi citizens and the Iraqi press are completely free to complain about, disagree with, and protest against the Allied forces and the Coalition Provisional Authority. It is only when they openly call for bloodshed that they are silenced. Even then, at most they are detained. Under Saddam�s rule they most likely would have been raped, have had acid poured over them, have been electrocuted or have had any number of other horrible tortures done to them before the finally begged to die.

BTW: It was the Iraqi press that broke the Oil for Fraud, I mean Food, Scandal

Aren't they in fact FAR more likely to be killed now? That is the direct fault of the US invasion, pay attention.

Well actually� If the Iraqi population is 24,683,313 and Saddam killed an average of 27,272 (600,000/ 22years) people a year directly, plus 41,666 children a year (your figure of 500,000/12 years).
And, even if we accept the very liberal estimates from Iraqi Body Count .net that the U.S. has killed between 9,000 to 11,000 citizens in one year of war, then the average Iraqi citizen seems a whole lot safer to me.

PURE COMEDY. A very credible threat to the lives of U.S. citizens, ahahahahaha. Please oh pretty please explain this fantasy situation of yours to me, I would LOVE to hear it. With what weapons? What methods of delivery? Since you seem to be pretty sure about it, please please share. Haha.

Once again you change the premise of my argument to fit your own response. I clearly stated that �Iraq was thought to pose a very credible threat to the security of the U.S.� I made no claim to the veracity of the pre-war intelligence. I only noted that the United States and most of the world�s intelligence agencies believed that Iraq had WMD�s and was trying to hide that fact from the U.N. inspectors. If you recall the debate before the war, the subject was not whether or not Iraq had WMD�s but that the U.N. inspections should have been given more time to work. In fact, whether or not those weapons actually existed or not is irrelevant to my argument.

As you well know Jakomo, here on ATS, there is still a very credible debate on whether or not he moved them before the war.

The world is a far worse place because of your murderous idiot of a President. For you, for me, for everyone. Pre-emptive strikes policy works pretty well when it's the US invading a 3rd World country, but it ain't so good when you run screaming and wetting yourself when North Korea lumbers in.

So explain to me please how the world is a "better place to live in" since 9-11.

Well, let�s see� No more Taliban. That�s a good start. How about three less governments supporting terrorism? That�s good too isn�t it. Oh yeah, don�t forget one less dictator terrorizing the people of the Middle East. Even you have to admit that that�s good. I guess you can also count the number of dead terrorists and radical Islamists as good too right? Then there are the terrorist training camps that no longer exist. I know that�s good. And last on this list, but definitely not the least, Libya giving up all of their WMD programs, and re-joining the world community. Now that is good for all of us.

-Cypher

"By your analogy, I guess in your mind, us arresting those who fire on U.S. troops must be like the S.S. rounding up the Jews and sending them to the death camps huh? "

My point was not to draw comparisons between Bush and Hitler. That would be stupid. Hitler was a well educated highly eloquent man with a mastery of public speaking and a fine untarnished record of service in the military.

My point was to demonstrate that just because a country's leader acts in what he believes is his country's best interests, it doesn't follow that what he is doing is right.

It would for example be in my country's best interest and the majority of the peoples best interest to round up all the people in hospitals, all the people over 75, all the homeless people all the unemployed and anyone with a disability that effects their ability to work and execute them.

This would have a huge beneficial effect on our economy.

It would not however go down particularly well with the rest of the world.

Simon,

I know exactly what your point was, and your right that my response of "By your analogy, I guess in your mind, us arresting those who fire on U.S. troops must be like the S.S. rounding up the Jews and sending them to the death camps huh? " didn�t answer your premise. You are also correct that ��just because a country's leader acts in what he believes is his country's best interests, it doesn't follow that what he is doing is right.�

That said, if you�ll read my response to Jakomo, I think you�ll find that I have given a number of valid reasons why the invasion of Iraq is not at odds with the interests of the world in general.

You may disagree, which is of course your prerogative. If so, please give some clear, concise arguments as to why I am wrong, and I will take the time to consider them with an open mind.

-Cypher




[Edited on 13-5-2004 by Cypher]

Cypher: Good post. But, as I always do, I have to disagree on a few points.

"One cannot lay the blame for the alleged �500,000� children who died under the U.N. sanction years at the feet of the U.S. The U.N. sanctions allowed for Iraq to sell limited amounts of oil for the money needed to purchase food and medicines for the Iraqi people. Unfortunately Saddam subverted this process for his own greed. He continued through out the 90�s to build lavish palaces, filling them with expensive artwork, gold fixtures etc. all while his country�s children died. Furthermore, during those 12 years, Saddam spent virtually no money on Iraq�s infrastructure. "

All this subversion of the process was KNOWN at the time, and was one of the reasons the UN wanted to lift the sanctions. They were only hurting the people of Iraq, and not the leader. There are a number of great articles at this link:

www.globalpolicy.org...

And no, the US was not solely responsible, but was the biggest player involved and had the most sway to keep sanctions tightly in place even when they weren't needed.

"The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. "

And yet, there's Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand in 1983. There's the US doing mounds of business with Iraq, while thousands of people are rotting in Iraqi jails. He was the better of two evils when compared to Iran? As long as he was a good boy to the US he was free to murder and terrorize his own population as much as he wanted?

We're comparing the deaths that occured under Saddam since he came into power and the deaths of Iraqis in the last year. How many civilians have died every day in Iraq? Let's compare a bit.

You claim: "Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power.�

But you really can't lump the 500,000 killed in the Iran-Iraq war, because Saddam didn't kill them, the Iranians did.

As for the US, with 10,000 civilian deaths in 365 days, that's 27 a day, though they're unreported for the most part. A high price for freedom, I would say. And also not exactly keeping with the "we care about civilian casualties". Look at how many died in Fallujah alone.

My point is that this occupation is a total disaster. Take those 27 dead civilians a day, multiply it by 5 (for the Iraqi people who know the dead person and are angry at the death) and you have the amount of Iraqis who are now more than willing to kill US troops daily.

The US Occupation Authority doesn't give a rat's azz about civilian deaths, and what do you think that says to your average Joe. Or average Muhammed.

"My premise was that the Iraqi�s who are now attacking the Allied forces could have risen up against Saddam, themselves."

Nope. He only started allowing his population to be armed once he knew the US was going to invade. Remember all the articles about Saddam handing out rifles to every Iraqi who wanted it? He would not have done this while he was in full power.

"By allowing Saddam to threaten the world in their name, they are at least somewhat culpable for the situation they currently find themselves in."

So now any people who are the citizens of a country under a military dictatorship are themselves culpable for the crimes their leader commits? Should all Germans in 1946 have had to be tried at the Hague? All Russians under Stalin were responsible for his slaughtering of miliions of their countrymen?

Have you ever lived under a repressive military dictatorship? Do you think it's just an easy thing to just overthrow a government, dictatorship or not?

I've never really heard anyone blame the Iraqis themselves for Saddam's crimes.

"If the U.S. is just a hegemonic, imperialistic, occupier, as you seem to imply, then why are so many brave Iraqis willing to risk their lives to police the streets on their own?"

? This is like listening to Rumsfeld mention the police every frickin week, when in fact it's woefully understaffed, untrained, and undisciplined. Didn't the entire police force in Fallujah up and leave during the siege?

www.cppax.org...

"In late March the Pentagon released a chart summarizing the numbers of Iraqi security force troops. It tells a different story from the one peddled by Rumsfeld. The summary notes that 75,844 Iraqis were on the payroll as police officers, but only 2,865 were fully qualified and on duty. Another 13,286 were deemed "partially qualified" and supposedly on duty, while 3,245 were in training. Three-fourths of those on the police payroll had received no training. Six months earlier Rumsfeld had declared that 55,000 police had been trained. Not even close...

The Pentagon summary also shows that Rumsfeld had been stretching the truth about other security forces. It notes that the new Iraqi Border Police needed 8,835 officers, but this force had not one fully trained officer on duty. It did have 8,601 partially qualified police and 179 in training. The Department of Border Enforcement required 16,892 troops; it had 9,873 partially qualified troops, no fully qualified people and none in training. Of the 40,000 troops needed for the Iraqi Armed Forces, only 3,249 had been fully trained and deployed. A mere 2,400 were in training. The Pentagon summary does note that the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps had 34,683 members who were receiving on-the-job training. (A Civil Defense Corps group in Falluja vanished during recent fighting there.) And it reports that the security service designed to protect government facilities and Iraqi infrastructure had a force of 73,992."

Not exactly a huge amount of Iraqis signing up to risk their lives. Police have been targetted by insurgents.

"Iraqi�s are extremely free compared to their previous existence. "

Yeah yeah, I know. The motto of the Occupation is : "Hey we're not as bad as Saddam was, so relax". Comparing the US to a military dictator is not exactly a fair comparison. One is a regime of deception and lies, and the other a murderous dictator.

"Well, let�s see� No more Taliban. That�s a good start. How about three less governments supporting terrorism?"

Okay first off, the Taliban is back in Afghanistan, and Karzai only barely rules in Kabul, but nowhere else.

What 3 governments now don't support terrorism because of the US? Iraq, sure. Afghanistan, sure. Pakistan? Nope. Saudi Arabia? Nope. Syria? Nope. Turkey? Nope. Greece? Nope. Chechnya? Nope. Which is third?

"Oh yeah, don�t forget one less dictator terrorizing the people of the Middle East. Even you have to admit that that�s good. I guess you can also count the number of dead terrorists and radical Islamists as good too right? Then there are the terrorist training camps that no longer exist. I know that�s good. And last on this list, but definitely not the least, Libya giving up all of their WMD programs, and re-joining the world community. Now that is good for all of us."

Yep, some good has definitely come about DESPITE the illegal invasion of Iraq. But far more bad outweighs the good.

And after ALL this WMD fiasco, what do you think your average Mohammed thinks when he thinks of Israel's huge nuclear and biological stockpiles? I'm sure they're all good with it, right? They just take it in stride.

And so according to the ICRC (the RED CROSS)
90% of the iraqis currently in jail are innocent.
The vast majority of the 'extremists' were rounded up
in late night raids, when the OCCUPYING FORCES would bust down doors and arrest all male inhabitants in a household.
They identified the 'target' households thru tips.
The 'tips' usually came from iraqis with 'personal issues'
with other iraqis, you know..'Joe owes me fifty dinars, lets see how he likes spending the night in jail' or 'Bob pissed me off last week, im gonna turn him in as a terrorist'
Let that sink in for a second....90% are INNOCENT
Now, are we there to jail innocent people?
ISnt that one of the things we went there to STOP?
Seems to me we went there for 2 (official) reasons...
1. Weapons of mass destruction, which NEVER HAVE BEEN FOUND even tho i was under the impression that they were on every street corner and under every rock.

2. To end the brutal oppression of the iraqi people.
Which i believe continues to this day.

I would be willing to guess that in the height of saddams reign of terror we was only able to get an
'innocents in jail' ratio of about 70%.

Again, let me warn all of you that this will be a VERY LONG post, so again please bear with me.

Jakomo,

Although I am thoroughly enjoying this debate, I fear we are starting to get away from the original subject of the thread. This if you recall, was about the positive outcomes and aspects of the war, as opposed to the negatives, namely the human cost. Not only that, but this discourse between us could go on indefinitely, and neither of us would change our mind. So, this will be my last post to this thread. I'm sure you will want to respond to the points I put forth here, and honestly I would be disappointed in you if you didn't. And now with that out of the way, let's begin...

Now then, as to the 500,000 children's deaths you attributed to the U.N. Oil for Food program. While the articles you link to at www.globalsecurity.org were interesting, after reading them, I've found nothing in them that contradicts my assertion that Saddam and his actions were directly responsible for those deaths. To alone blame the United States, one of many nations that voted to punish Saddam by enacting and continuing the sanctions laid out in U.N. resolutions 660 and 661, is a prima facie case of absurdity. To suggest that the U.S. should have conceded to lifting the sanctions is akin to suggesting that a state should not force a guilty parent to pay restitution in a criminal case, because the lack of funds would hurt their children.

Not only that, but even if your argument had merit, it is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The argument, as I stated earlier, was only to the veracity of the positive things the U.S. has done for the Iraqi people in regards to the war. It was not a discussion of prior American policy regarding Iraq. Statements such as that, and the following,

Originally posted by Jakomo
And yet, there's Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand in 1983. There's the US doing mounds of business with Iraq, while thousands of people are rotting in Iraqi jails. He was the better of two evils when compared to Iran? As long as he was a good boy to the US he was free to murder and terrorize his own population as much as he wanted?

when taken out of their historical context, are purely prejudicial, add nothing to the discussion, and are disingenuous at best. If you would care to debate a previous Administration's policies regarding Iraq, I will be more than glad to. Start a thread, and we will get into it there.

We're comparing the deaths that occured under Saddam since he came into power and the deaths of Iraqis in the last year.

Again this is a rather ironic statement coming from someone who cited a half million deaths from the 12 years prior to the invasion to support their position. You are correct though, in that we are comparing just that. At least in so far as to how those deaths then relate to the positive aspects and outcomes of the Invasion. To that end, you then argue:

How many civilians have died every day in Iraq? Let's compare a bit.
You claim: "Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power...

But you really can't lump the 500,000 killed in the Iran-Iraq war, because Saddam didn't kill them, the Iranians did.

I agree that you can't "lump in" the 500,000 Iraqis killed in the Iran - Iraq war. That is why if you'll re-read my post, you will see that that was only included in a quote from an outside source. I notice that you make no note of the fact that I didn't include those deaths in my figures, and still managed to prove that Iraqi citizens are at least marginally safer now than before the invasion.

As for the US, with 10,000 civilian deaths in 365 days, that's 27 a day, though they're unreported for the most part. A high price for freedom, I would say. And also not exactly keeping with the "we care about civilian casualties". Look at how many died in Fallujah alone...The US Occupation Authority doesn't give a rat's azz about civilian deaths, and what do you think that says to your average Joe. Or average Muhammed.

Jakomo, while I understand your thinking, again your logic is flawed. Do you realize that in WWII almost 3 million German and Japanese civilians were killed alone. That doesn't include the number of French, Dutch, Russian and other nationalities that perished from Allied weaponry. Does that go to say that the Allies didn't care about the civilians in those countries? No of course not. Just looking at the reconstruction efforts after WWII proves that to us. The point is, it's a war zone! Unfortunately civilian casualties are unavoidable. You say "a high price for freedom", but then what is your freedom worth. I know I would rather fight and possibly die for a chance to live in freedom, than to live under tyranny. Wouldn't you? Didn't the Shiite and Kurd fighters who died in rebellions against Saddam, believe that as well? In fact, isn't it true, that every time an Iraqi citizen signs up with the CPA security forces or police that they are making that same choice? Why even those who take up arms against the Coalition forces are saying that death is not too "high a price" for freedom. Their ideals and idea of freedom are different from ours but they desire it for themselves with no less conviction.

My point is that this occupation is a total disaster. Take those 27 dead civilians a day, multiply it by 5 (for the Iraqi people who know the dead person and are angry at the death) and you have the amount of Iraqis who are now more than willing to kill US troops daily.

That argument goes both ways. I could just as easily say that for every Iraqi person who has been helped by an American that there are 3-5 people who know them and are therefore thankful we came. There are plenty of people whose lives are better now, even with the current occupation. In fact, a poll taken by ABC from February 9 through the 28 shows that among Iraqis "Fifty-six percent say their lives are better now than before the war, compared with 19 percent who say things are worse." So without some form of proof, your assertion is just an assumption, and you know it. As the motto says, Deny Ignorance, and use some facts.

So where do we stand now? Oh yeah, your claim that the Iraqis couldn't have risen up against Saddam, because "He only started allowing his population to be armed once he knew the US was going to invade." Please! What about the Shiite and Kurdish insurrections? Onwar.com has a page here where you can read all about them. They evidently took place before Saddam supposedly handed out rifles to anyone who wanted them.

So now any people who are the citizens of a country under a military dictatorship are themselves culpable for the crimes their leader commits? Should all Germans in 1946 have had to be tried at the Hague? All Russians under Stalin were responsible for his slaughtering of miliions of their countrymen? I've never really heard anyone blame the Iraqis themselves for Saddam's crimes.

Jakomo, this is at least the third or forth time you have altered my original premise to fit your view. I clearly wrote, that the Iraqi citizens were "at least somewhat culpable" for the fact that we had to invade. I neither stated nor implied that the people were responsible for Saddam's crimes. To use your example though, while no-one would suggest that all Germans were responsible for the Nazi's war crimes, Europe still holds an immense amount of hostility towards the German people for their part in WWII. It is obviously abating now that the generation responsible for allowing Hitler and the Nazi party to come to power is dying, but it is still evident.

As for the issue of the police forces in Iraq being reconstituted, I will concede that things aren't going as well as some would have us believe. However, they are not going as badly as you would have us believe either. You assert that the occupation is a "total disaster", but your own link www.cppax.org..., states "But counting only those fully trained and on duty, the total (of Iraqis in the various security forces) was 114,789" Is that enough, no. But it is not a "total disaster" either. Considering that we and the world continue to train Iraqis as police and soldiers on a daily basis, they will someday soon be fully capable of protecting themselves. To again use your own example, the Iraqi police are now back in Fallujah, patrolling the street in place of American forces. To have expected them to stay on the streets in the face of major insurgent opposition is ludicrous. They rightfully left that up to the superior force projection of the Americans.

So, after all that, we finally get to the end. Please bear with me for a few more seconds as we're almost done.

First off I'd like to respond to this:

Yeah yeah, I know. The motto of the Occupation is : "Hey we're not as bad as Saddam was, so relax".

Jakomo, that's the second time you used that, and it's just as untrue as the first time. A more accurate motto would probably be something like, "We know things aren't perfect yet, but they are a whole lot better than before we got here, and getting better everyday!" Remember, this is an Occupation, not a farcical U.N. peace keeping mission. By the nature of a military occupation, people can not have full freedom. However, things ARE better than before we invaded. And if the Iraqis work to help themselves, things will get even better more quickly.

Second of all, the Taliban is not back as the national government. They may be back to some small degree as a fighting force, and to an even smaller degree as a political party, but that is the exception to the rule. You are correct that Hamid Karzai only rules in Kabul. However, if you understand the current and historic, political situation there, it is unreasonable to expect them to unite under one government immediately. It is going to take time for a true leader and a national government to emerge from the infighting among the warlords and clans. Personally I feel that one of their best chances for a true popular leader died at the hands of Al-Queda in the September 8th 2001, assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud.

So, that's one State government that no longer supports terrorism. Number two would be Iraq as you yourself admitted. And number three would be good old Libya, who if reports are correct, decided to give up his WMDs and normalize relations with the west as a direct result of the invasion of Iraq.

You said it yourself,

Yep, some good has definitely come about DESPITE the illegal invasion of Iraq.

You know, even though you will probably never believe completely that the war was justified, I think if you honestly weigh all the facts, you will have to admit that things may just not be as bad as you claim.

I'm an optimist. I don't believe that we are victims of fate or the actions of others. I believe that all of us make our own destiny, and that the Iraqis have been suddenly given a huge opportunity. Let's hope they make the most of it.

-Cypher

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by Cypher]

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by Cypher]