What would happen to them if we pulled out?

[just4kickz]

Originally Posted by ganeil

First, your math is wrong. If you take 100,000 civilians (an enormously inflated number) killed by US forces since the invasion in March, 2003 that would put the annual average at 25,000.

Also, the 1,000,000 civilians for Saddam's rule is extremely low. There were an estimated 600,000 political executions under Saddam, 100,000 Iraqi Kurds were killed in a single operation, the Anfal, and we also must take into account the civilians who died because Saddam refused to comply with the UN and have the sanctions lifted.

+1... are you saying that Iraqis killing Iraqis = civilian deaths on the hands of US? if that is your reasoning... you are so wrong. you can't stop civilians from killing each other... well you can try--and the US is trying but not succeeding...who said it was going to be easy.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by dr325i

that coming from someone whose country has not seen real violence in 200 years...

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are using 200 like you use 20, to mean "a lot". The US Civil War was less than 200 years ago. I would also say December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001 certainly qualify as violent.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by just4kickz

I suppose you must define what chaos means to you. I believe chaos is similar to that of Somolia after the US pulled out. .

you meant to say after US asses got kicked out, right?
Luckily, it was quick...

This one will be long, expensive and with a lot of casualties...

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by just4kickz

+1... are you saying that Iraqis killing Iraqis = civilian deaths on the hands of US? if that is your reasoning... you are so wrong. you can't stop civilians from killing each other... well you can try--and the US is trying but not succeeding...who said it was going to be easy.

I agree with that, however, how come they were not killing each other before 2003???

Must be that there was some rule in the country...

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are using 200 like you use 20, to mean "a lot". The US Civil War was less than 200 years ago. I would also say December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001 certainly qualify as violent.

Actually, Hawaii thing was the only WW2 experience on US land while the rest of the world was in ruins...
Correct, the civil war was a little bit less than 200 yrs ago.

As for the 9-11 --> you have no idea. Yep, 5 buildings gone and unfortunately for us a lot of people in there.
Now look at Kabul, Baghdad, Pristina, Belgrade, Whole Europe (WW2), Korea (Korean War), Vietnam, and so on... That is real violence...

That is why you view things that way because you have not seen your or your neghbor's house gone in flames, or your cousin killed... If you were to experience the real thing, you would view it differently...

Again -- being there as the uS soldier is a completely different thing...

[dr335is]

WOW

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505030/site/newsweek/
He's done it again...

[FirstClass]

Originally Posted by dr325i

Actually, Hawaii thing was the only WW2 experience on US land while the rest of the world was in ruins...

Actually I believe the Japanese took 2 small Alaskan islands in the Aleutians as well.

[fire-n-ice]

Originally Posted by dr325i

As for the 9-11 --> you have no idea.

Were you there?

[Max_!]

> 100,000 Iraqi Kurds were killed in a single operation, the Anfal,

Sorry, but there weren't that many Kurds in the entire country. Many people died that day, but 100K is over the top.

> I think it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

There are many other, more vicious and murderous dictators that should be removed from power, but their lands do not hold oil or minerals or gold.

Will you free their peoples?

> and possessed, we believed, weapons of mass destruction

You may have believed that, but nobody in intelligence did.

> Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction.

He also built schools, hospitals, gave women rights, had a balanced budget, and kept religious fundamentalists at bay. For the longest time, he was an ally to the US.

He certainly had an approval rating higher than Bush.

> September 11, 2001 certainly qualify as violent.

Twice as many children are run over by cars every year in the US.
Where's the war on traffic fatalities?

[FirstClass]

Originally Posted by Max_!

There are many other, more vicious and murderous dictators that should be removed from power, but their lands do not hold oil or minerals or gold.

Explain the jump in oil prices if we went in for oil. Seems to me if oil was the objective of the war prices would have gone down.

Originally Posted by Max_!

You may have believed that, but nobody in intelligence did.

The following link is to a CIA pdf of Iraq's WMD programs in Oct. 2002. I'll post a small quote of it here as well.

Originally Posted by CIA

Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of
UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as
well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it
probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.

Here's the link. I wish you would know what you're talking about before posting things like that.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by FirstClass

Explain the jump in oil prices if we went in for oil. Seems to me if oil was the objective of the war prices would have gone down.
.

If you can milk them -- why NOT!!!
The jump in GAS prices is only in the USA (at this rate).
Someone is milking us.
Same on the oil priices...WAKE UP!

Originally Posted by FirstClass

The following link is to a CIA pdf of Iraq's WMD programs in Oct. 2002. I'll post a small quote of it here as well.

Here's the link. I wish you would know what you're talking about before posting things like that.

Read you f'n CIA shit in the link I posted in other topic. So many errors and wrong things...

[nightops]

Rage Against the Machine explained it perfectly to those who believe we're 'helping' the people of Iraq---'You've got a bullet in your f***kn Head!!!' those messages ring more true than the day they were written. Bush Sr didn't even have the balls to invade Iraq after Kuwait...or maybe he was just smarter. The people who are getting rich off this war (Halliburton, the Defense Industry...) are controlling the destiny of this country right now, and Iraq is our Vietnam. I can only hope that things change in 2008-

[Max_!]

> The following link is to a CIA

Oh, please! I was talking about *REAL* intelligence agencies such as MI6, Mossad and the FSB (KGB).

They knew Saddam had nothing left. But Bush ignored the Brits and the Israeli's got off on the idea you'd kill Saddam for them so they kept quiet about it.

I know US media has been censored (or at the very least brought very one-sided news) but you have Internet. This stuff was all over the news in the rest of the world.

It's not the first time the US government thinks they know better than the Brits.

> Explain the jump in oil prices if we went in for oil.

Prices haven't changed much in Europe.

The high US gas prices are the result of speculation and perhaps some gouging... You do know that Bush's buddies are the ones selling the stuff to you, right?

[FirstClass]

Originally Posted by dr325i

Read you f'n CIA shit in the link I posted in other topic. So many errors and wrong things...

Alas you don't pay attention to what I say yet again. I was refuting the point he made saying that intelligence said Iraq didn't have WMDs. I provided a link showing intelligence said they DID have WMDs. I never made comments on accuracy. It's the same old crap with you interpreting a different meaning into what people say.

Actually, if the CIA was wrong you have to stop laying all the blame on Bush, you can't have it both ways. Either he lied and went to war without cause or the CIA fucked up and gave him bad intel. Seeing the pdf above makes me inclined to agree with the latter. (Assuming they were wrong, I haven't' seen that link you posted.)

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by FirstClass

Alas you don't pay attention to what I say yet again. I was refuting the point he made saying that intelligence said Iraq didn't have WMDs. I provided a link showing intelligence said they DID have WMDs. I never made comments on accuracy. It's the same old crap with you interpreting a different meaning into what people say.

Actually, if the CIA was wrong you have to stop laying all the blame on Bush, you can't have it both ways. Either he lied and went to war without cause or the CIA fucked up and gave him bad intel. Seeing the pdf above makes me inclined to agree with the latter. (Assuming they were wrong, I haven't' seen that link you posted.)

Actually -- Bush is the leader of them all -- he can veto, he can decide. He decided and he should be first responsible for ALL (as were Milosevic, Hussein, and all other leaders...). Then, you go lower to the roots -- again like in all other cases...
What goes around --- comes around...

[FirstClass]

Huh?

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by dr325i

Actually, Hawaii thing was the only WW2 experience on US land while the rest of the world was in ruins...
Correct, the civil war was a little bit less than 200 yrs ago.

As for the 9-11 --> you have no idea. Yep, 5 buildings gone and unfortunately for us a lot of people in there.
Now look at Kabul, Baghdad, Pristina, Belgrade, Whole Europe (WW2), Korea (Korean War), Vietnam, and so on... That is real violence...

That is why you view things that way because you have not seen your or your neghbor's house gone in flames, or your cousin killed... If you were to experience the real thing, you would view it differently...

Again -- being there as the uS soldier is a completely different thing...

So it is a bad thing that we have peaceful relations with our neighbors and weren't bombed to ruins in the Second World War? Are you claiming that the violence brought by the Allies against the Axis powers then was not beneficial to the world?

I believe I have more time experiencing combat than you do. You don't have to tell me about the horror it is.

I also find it interesting that you discount 9/11 when around 5 times as many civilians were killed in that attack than in Belgrade during the entire NATO campaign.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by Max_!

Sorry, but there weren't that many Kurds in the entire country. Many people died that day, but 100K is over the top.

I am not sure where you get your information but there are between 5,000,000 and 6,000,000 Kurds in Iraq. The number of civilians killed in the campaign ranges from 50K to 185K. I picked 100K because that is the number estimated by independent human rights groups.

There are many other, more vicious and murderous dictators that should be removed from power, but their lands do not hold oil or minerals or gold.

Name for me an equivalent dictator. One who invaded two of his neighbors, gassed his own people and those of his neighbor, and was in defiance of more than a dozen Chapter 7 UN Security Council Resolutions.

You may have believed that, but nobody in intelligence did.

The intelligence services of the US, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Russia, Israel, and China all believed Iraq maintained stocks of chemical and biological weapons. If you do not believe that take a look at UNSCR 1441 and those nations that voted for it.

He also built schools, hospitals, gave women rights, had a balanced budget, and kept religious fundamentalists at bay. For the longest time, he was an ally to the US.

Iraq was a client state of the Soviet Union. He was never an ally of the US. We did try to use him as a counterweight to Iran after the revolution but to say he was an ally is just wrong.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

I believe I have more time experiencing combat than you do. You don't have to tell me about the horror it is.

I also find it interesting that you discount 9/11 when around 5 times as many civilians were killed in that attack than in Belgrade during the entire NATO campaign.

First one is questionable...although under completely different circumstances...

I did not discount the 9-11 event -- I was talking about the infrastructure damage (cities leveled) not the casualties...

If you want the casualties count -- add all of our casualties from WW1 through the 9-11 and Iraq war, then compare them to the casualties that happened in countries that we "liberated" AFTER we put our foot in...

You will notice that the first number is at least 20x smaller than the other...

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by dr325i

First one is questionable...although under completely different circumstances...

I did not discount the 9-11 event -- I was talking about the infrastructure damage (cities leveled) not the casualties...

If you want the casualties count -- add all of our casualties from WW1 through the 9-11 and Iraq war, then compare them to the casualties that happened in countries that we "liberated" AFTER we put our foot in...

You will notice that the first number is at least 20x smaller than the other...

You are right, we often win the wars we fight. That is normally done by killing the enemy in vastly greater numbers than they can kill us.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

You are right, we often win the wars we fight. That is normally done by killing the enemy in vastly greater numbers than they can kill us.

I doubt Chinese Embassy workers, Television Workers in Belgrade, Mothers and Children killed in Iraq and later marked as Colleteral Damage were your enemies. And in the end -- we/they kill more of innocent that actual enemies...

That is my whole problem...

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by dr325i

I doubt Chinese Embassy workers, Television Workers in Belgrade, Mothers and Children killed in Iraq and later marked as Colleteral Damage were your enemies. And in the end -- we/they kill more of innocent that actual enemies...

That is my whole problem...

The US is the most discriminate combatant in the history of the world. We have led the way in the development of precision guided munitions and employ them in the greatest numbers. Occasionally those munitions fail or are improperly aimed but overall they result in a substantial reduction in the level of collateral damage. Compare the collateral damage done by the Russians in Chechnya to that in Iraq.

War is an ugly, violent but often necessary business. Civilians should never be intentionally targeted but if the enemy chooses to co-locate their forces or assets with civilians, the responsibility for the resultant civilian casualties lies solely with them.