Survey : More than 1 Million Iraqis killed

[Music_Producer]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080130/wl_nm/iraq_deaths_survey_dc

"LONDON (Reuters) - More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain's leading polling groups.

The survey, conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB) with 2,414 adults in face-to-face interviews, found that 20 percent of people had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, rather than natural causes."

:eek:

[SilentPanda]

Some things I think polls are good for... some things I think are not. This would be an example of not. Any amount of deaths is unfortunate but I think this number is fairly high.

Now the rest of this I'm just pulling out of memory and have no links to back me up but...

I was thinking that only within the past few months have Iraqis been moving back to the country either due to feeling safer there now or due to lack of funds to maintain living outside their home country. I'm not sure how many people moved out but if enough moved out then you have to take into consideration you have:

20% of the people currently residing in Iraq that knew somebody in their household + 80% of the people currently residing in Iraq the did not know somebody in their household + people that moved out = total population

If the people that moved out is sizable enough then that would matter significantly. The poll was if they knew somebody in their household.

Also this was pulled from a Digg.com comment so may or may not be valid...

* We have been in Iraq for around 1800 days now. The number of deaths concluded by this survey indicates that, on average, 522 Iraqis have died every single day since the beginning of the conflict. Keep this drastic figure in mind for the rest of these points.

* The highest one-day civilian death toll in Iraq, according to all media outlets ranging from independent Middle-Eastern media, to independent American media, to the main stream media, is no higher than 250. This means that every foreign and domestic media agency has failed to detect even half the deaths of the average daily death toll that ORB alleges.

I dunno. I'm not saying it's not possible nor trying to disregard any real loss of life. I just think their stats might be a bit out of whack. Seems like a poor way to try to use statistics.

[JW8725]

When u give bums that hang around malls weapons and tell them "Go fight Al Qaeda son in Iraq, do it for your country!" innocent blood is going to be spilt.

I hope that war crimes proceedings can be bought against the biggest tyrants of them all. The current American Administration. Make no mistake America has managed to destroy Iraq.

[themadchemist]

It's hard to assess these things in a wartime situation like that in Iraq, but from what I've read, the Lancet papers' methodology was solid. Those showed, from some time ago, very very high casualty counts as well, though not as high as this survey. All I know is--it's a lot.

[Music_Producer]

When u give bums that hang around malls weapons and tell them "Go fight Al Qaeda son in Iraq, do it for your country!" innocent blood is going to be spilt.

I hope that war crimes proceedings can be bought against the biggest tyrants of them all. The current American Administration. Make no mistake America has managed to destroy Iraq.

But do you really think anything will happen to the idiots who did all this? There is so much substantial evidence that the war was based on nothing but lies - still, nothing is done about it. It really infuriates me.. I mean, can you imagine what a petty thief might think? "Hey if Bush and co. can get away with killing so many people.. I should get away with stealing a few bucks"

It's ludicrous that ordinary criminals can get imprisoned.. illegal music downloaders get fined, people get jailed for the stupidest things (don't pay taxes and get years in jail) - but organize such a big disaster.. kill so many people.. steal billions.. and nothing happens. WTF is wrong with this country and its people?

[Ugg]

Some things I think polls are good for... some things I think are not. This would be an example of not. Any amount of deaths is unfortunate but I think this number is fairly high.

Now the rest of this I'm just pulling out of memory and have no links to back me up but...

I was thinking that only within the past few months have Iraqis been moving back to the country either due to feeling safer there now or due to lack of funds to maintain living outside their home country. I'm not sure how many people moved out but if enough moved out then you have to take into consideration you have:

20% of the people currently residing in Iraq that knew somebody in their household + 80% of the people currently residing in Iraq the did not know somebody in their household + people that moved out = total population

If the people that moved out is sizable enough then that would matter significantly. The poll was if they knew somebody in their household.

Also this was pulled from a Digg.com comment so may or may not be valid...

* We have been in Iraq for around 1800 days now. The number of deaths concluded by this survey indicates that, on average, 522 Iraqis have died every single day since the beginning of the conflict. Keep this drastic figure in mind for the rest of these points.

* The highest one-day civilian death toll in Iraq, according to all media outlets ranging from independent Middle-Eastern media, to independent American media, to the main stream media, is no higher than 250. This means that every foreign and domestic media agency has failed to detect even half the deaths of the average daily death toll that ORB alleges.

I dunno. I'm not saying it's not possible nor trying to disregard any real loss of life. I just think their stats might be a bit out of whack. Seems like a poor way to try to use statistics.

You obviously didn't read the article.

It's not just a matter of those killed by gunfire, but also a matter of those who've died because hospitals have no electricity, drugs, equipment, etc; the number who have died from lack of clean water, etc, etc.

War is more than just bullets ya know.

[themadchemist]

You obviously didn't read the article.

It's not just a matter of those killed by gunfire, but also a matter of those who've died because hospitals have no electricity, drugs, equipment, etc; the number who have died from lack of clean water, etc, etc.

War is more than just bullets ya know.

And if you don't believe it, go ask the Congo. As per a recent New York Times article, they have recently faced more healthcare related deaths secondary to the civil war than actual conflict deaths, since the civil war itself has been tamping down of late.

[Iscariot]

It's so much easier to sacrifice others than to make sacrifices ourselves.

[MacNut]

What was the death toll before the war. Sadam numbers. Would the numbers be any different if he was still in power?

[miloblithe]

What was the death toll before the war. Sadam numbers. Would the numbers be any different if he was still in power?

So, that's the bar? US Occupation: hey, in some ways, we're marginally better than Saddam!

[MacNut]

Im saying, would the violence be any different no matter what happens. Does it matter that we are there or not. I wonder if the numbers are inflated.

[Ugg]

Im saying, would the violence be any different no matter what happens. Does it matter that we are there or not. I wonder if the numbers are inflated.

Saddam was a paper tiger on his way out. There's simply no way that anyone could predict what would have happened if the war hadn't taken place.

The point is the US went in without a plan and a million Iraqis are dead as a result. As well as a few thousand Americans.

[JW8725]

Saddam was a paper tiger on his way out. There's simply no way that anyone could predict what would have happened if the war hadn't taken place.

The point is the US went in without a plan and a million Iraqis are dead as a result. As well as a few thousand Americans.

Sorry but those "marines" killed in Iraq died for a completely nonsensical reason. Families have been torn apart because of your current Government. Yet I still see redneck parents saying crap about their children killed in action like "well I'm proud of my son, I support the war in Iraq"...etc. I'm thinking "hello wake up, Bush killed your child what have you to be proud about exactly? Where is Iraq relative to USA on a map?"

This whole war is a farce, look how much it has cost your nation. Wouldn't that money have been better spent on domestic issues like bettering your health care for those not able to afford decent insurance.

Frankly I'm disgusted along with the rest of the world at the news reports that come out from Iraq on a daily basis. Its like one day there are 50 dead, another day a roadside bomb kills another 20 and on and on.

[Don't panic]

saddam's death toll record was horrific.
the estimates i've read indicate that during Saddam's regime, an AVERAGE of 30-50 people died per day as a direct consequence of the regime.
to that you'd have to add the 500,000 people who died in the Iran war.

these are huge numbers and do not include the indirect deaths, but they still are lower by a large margin to the current estimates.

another interesting piece of data, to estimate those 'indirect' deaths is to look at infant mortality (under-1 infant deaths per 1,000 births), especially compared to its direct neighbors (iran and Syria).

Syria: 102 (1965-1970) -> 40 (1985-1990) -> 18 (2000-2005)

IRAQ: 97 (1965-1970) -> 48 (1985-1990) -> 94 (2000-2005)

Iran: 133 (1965-1970) -> 69 (1985-1990) -> 34 (2000-2005)

these are UN data and correspond to pre-saddam colonialist time, saddam-days pre-sanctions (in 1990) and post-sanctions pentades.

[clevin]

The ones who should be directly counting the numbers, namely iraqi gov and US army. are doing nothing to help the situation

So, why should I not trust other numbers? because its too high? and who is to say its actually too "high"? based on what? Based on your believe? or your disbelieve?

[SactoGuy18]

I'd like to know who funded this study in the first place. If it's connected with one George Soros, then I take the results of the study with BIG block of salt. :rolleyes:

[JW8725]

saddam's death toll record was horrific.
the estimates i've read indicate that during Saddam's regime, an AVERAGE of 30-50 people died per day as a direct consequence of the regime.
to that you'd have to add the 500,000 people who died in the Iran war.

these are huge numbers and do not include the indirect deaths, but they still are lower by a large margin to the current estimates.

another interesting piece of data, to estimate those 'indirect' deaths is to look at infant mortality (under-1 infant deaths per 1,000 births), especially compared to its direct neighbors (iran and Syria).

Syria: 102 (1965-1970) -> 40 (1985-1990) -> 18 (2000-2005)

IRAQ: 97 (1965-1970) -> 48 (1985-1990) -> 94 (2000-2005)

Iran: 133 (1965-1970) -> 69 (1985-1990) -> 34 (2000-2005)

these are UN data and correspond to pre-saddam colonialist time, saddam-days pre-sanctions (in 1990) and post-sanctions pentades.

sorry pal but WHOS fault was that? These were US imposed sanctions. The US aggressively pushed for these. Then I'm pretty sure these "estimates" are American and completely bias anyway. The fact remains Geroge W Bush and every single American who voted for that imbecile have the blood of innocent humans on their hands. There is not any other way to look at this. You voted in this Hitler and he exterminated.

[skunk]

sThe fact remains Geroge W Bush and every single American who voted for that imbecile have the blood of innocent humans on their hands. There is not any other way to look at this. You voted in this Hitler and he exterminated.Hey now, like it or not, every single Briton who voted for that imbecile Blair has the blood of innocent Iraqis on their hands too. The invasion would probably not have been politically possible without British support.

[Don't panic]

sorry pal but WHOS fault was that? These were US imposed sanctions. The US aggressively pushed for these. Then I'm pretty sure these "estimates" are American and completely bias anyway. The fact remains Geroge W Bush and every single American who voted for that imbecile have the blood of innocent humans on their hands. There is not any other way to look at this. You voted in this Hitler and he exterminated.

Well, 'pal', not only as skunk points out this is partly a british responsibility as well, but which part of my posting suggest that I am supporting the bush administration or I am minimizing the role the 'western' world had in this tragedy?

i pointed to some numbers.
the numbers suggest that Saddam has a lot of blood on his hands, which is nothing new (and he shed a lot of it with full british and american support). They also suggest that these same numbers are significantly LOWER than the current estimate of the war-dependent deaths (if correct).

the UN infant mortality data -again, if correct- suggest the the UK-US sanctions interrupted a significant improvement in health conditions i Iraq under Saddam, that paralleled those in Syria and Iran. With the sactions and the war, those numbers went right back to the levels of the 50s. This indicate e very large number of 'avoidable deaths' that affects arguably the most innocent of us all: infants (especially given the high natality rate in the Mid-east, Iraq included).

So, 'pal', before launching in random personal insults, which are always inappropriate anyway, i'd strongly reccomend you to actually read other people's posts, and possibly try to understand what they mean.

You're not making your side (which happens to be largely mine as well) any favour by resorting to name calling and, more in general, by acting as an immature imbecile.

sincerely,
Don't Panic

[MacNut]

Sorry but those "marines" killed in Iraq died for a completely nonsensical reason. Families have been torn apart because of your current Government. Yet I still see redneck parents saying crap about their children killed in action like "well I'm proud of my son, I support the war in Iraq"...etc. I'm thinking "hello wake up, Bush killed your child what have you to be proud about exactly? Where is Iraq relative to USA on a map?"

This whole war is a farce, look how much it has cost your nation. Wouldn't that money have been better spent on domestic issues like bettering your health care for those not able to afford decent insurance.

Frankly I'm disgusted along with the rest of the world at the news reports that come out from Iraq on a daily basis. Its like one day there are 50 dead, another day a roadside bomb kills another 20 and on and on.They are supporting their kids more then anything else. I don't think they like that their sons are at war, but what are they going to say. Stupid kids wanting to join the army I will never speak to him again.:rolleyes: Like it or not but we are there now and we can't turn back the clock now can we.

[obeygiant]

sorry pal but WHOS fault was that? These were US imposed sanctions. The US aggressively pushed for these. Then I'm pretty sure these "estimates" are American and completely bias anyway. The fact remains Geroge W Bush and every single American who voted for that imbecile have the blood of innocent humans on their hands. There is not any other way to look at this. You voted in this Hitler and he exterminated.

It does nothing for your credibility when you call George Bush, Hitler.
Then telling the folks who voted for him that they also have blood on their hands. Another poster was recently banned for such hate mongering as this.

Mentally Retarded Women Used in Bombings
By STEVEN R. HURST – 1 hour ago
BAGHDAD (AP) — Two mentally retarded women strapped with remote-control explosives — and possibly used as unwitting suicide bombers — brought carnage Friday to two pet bazaars, killing at 73 people in the deadliest day since Washington flooded the capital with extra troops last spring.
The coordinated blasts — coming 20 minutes apart in different parts of the city — appeared to reinforce U.S. claims al-Qaida in Iraq may be increasingly desperate and running short of able-bodied men willing or available for such missions.
But they also served as a reminder that Iraqi insurgents are constantly shifting their strategies in attempts to unravel recent security gains around the country. Women have been used in ever greater frequency in suicide attacks.
The twin attacks at the pet markets, however, could mark a disturbing use of unknowing agents of death.
Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, Iraq's chief military spokesman in Baghdad, said the women had Down syndrome and may not have known they were on suicide missions. He said the bombs were detonated by remote control.
In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the bombings prove al-Qaida is "the most brutal and bankrupt of movements" and will strengthen Iraqi resolve to reject terrorism.
The first bomb was detonated about 10:20 a.m. in the central al-Ghazl market, the home of a weekly pet bazaar with various small animals but mostly birds. At least 46 people were killed and more than 100 wounded, said police and hospital officials.
Police said the woman wearing the bomb sold cream in the mornings at the market and was known to locals as "the crazy lady."
The pet bazaar has been bombed repeatedly, but with violence declining in the capital, the market had regained popularity as a shopping district and place to stroll on Fridays, the Muslim day of prayer.
But on Friday, it was returned to a scene straight out of the worst days of the conflict. Firefighters scooped up debris scattered among pools of blood, clothing and pigeon carcasses.
A pigeon vendor said the market had been unusually crowded, with people taking advantage of a pleasantly crisp and clear winter day after a particularly harsh January.
"I have been going to the pet market with my friend every Friday, selling and buying pigeons," said Ali Ahmed, who was hit by shrapnel in his legs and chest. "It was nice weather today and the market was so crowded."
He said he was worried about his friend, Zaki, who disappeared after the blast about 40 yards away.
"I just remember the horrible scene of the bodies of dead and wounded people mixed with the blood of animals and birds, then I found myself lying in a hospital bed," Ali said.
About 20 minutes after the first attack, the second female suicide bomber was blown apart in a bird market in a predominantly Shiite area in southeastern Baghdad. As many as 27 people died and 67 were wounded, police and hospital officials said.
Rae Muhsin, the 21-year-old owner of a cell phone store, said he was walking toward the New Baghdad bird market when the explosion shattered the windows of nearby stores.
"I ran toward the bird market and saw charred pieces of flesh, small spots of blood and several damaged cars," Muhsin said. "I thought that we had achieved real security in Baghdad, but it turned that we were wrong."
The bombings were the latest in a series that has frayed Iraqi confidence in the permanence of recent security gains.
The U.S. military in Iraqi issued a statement that shared "the outrage of the Iraqi people, and we condemn the brutal enemy responsible for these attacks, which bear the hallmarks of being carried out by al-Qaida in Iraq."
The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, said the bombings showed that a resilient al-Qaida has "found a different, deadly way" to try to destabilize Iraq.
"There is nothing they won't do if they think it will work in creating carnage and the political fallout that comes from that," he told The Associated Press in an interview at the State Department.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said the attacks were motivated by revenge and an attempt "to stop the march of history and of our people toward reconciliation." He confirmed the death toll was about 70.
Navy Cmdr. Scott Rye, a U.S. military spokesman, gave far lower casualty figures — seven killed and 23 wounded in the first bombing, and 20 killed and 30 wounded in the second.
He confirmed, however, that both attacks were carried out by women wearing explosives vests and said the attacks appeared coordinated and likely the work of al-Qaida in Iraq.
Associated Press records show that since the start of the war at least 151 people have been killed in at least 17 attacks or attempted attacks by female suicide bombers, including Friday's bombings.
Associated Press (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD8UHNN081)



Certainly this story may a cut off point where you would stop blaming the "occupation" for deaths and start blaming the criminals and thugs we so pleasantly call Al Qaida.

[Don't panic]

Certainly this story may a cut off point where you would stop blaming the "occupation" for deaths and start blaming the criminals and thugs we so pleasantly call Al Qaida.

I would agree that he use of unwilling suicide bombers is a new low and that thugs and criminals are material to the deaths, but the "occupation" is not off the hook as it is still directly responsible for the situation.

[Dont Hurt Me]

When u give bums that hang around malls weapons and tell them "Go fight Al Qaeda son in Iraq, do it for your country!" innocent blood is going to be spilt.

I hope that war crimes proceedings can be bought against the biggest tyrants of them all. The current American Administration. Make no mistake America has managed to destroy Iraq.I wouldnt say America, I would say washington or the republican liar party. I still think Bush & Cheney should be facing a trial for this one.

[MacNut]

I think you could easily call all of them liars, not just Bush and co. The Dems have their share of liars as well. Just group all of Washington under that moniker.

[solvs]

I'd like to know who funded this study in the first place. If it's connected with one George Soros, then I take the results of the study with BIG block of salt. :rolleyes:

I can't believe everyone is letting this go. You're kidding right? We know we've killed a large amount of Iraqis, not to mention all the collateral damage as pointed out above. And also as point out above, being slightly better than Saddam was after decades of him being in power (and even that's debatable, one could argue we have been worse) isn't good enough. Who cares who funded the study if it's true? And it appears to be. Tossing out the name of a liberal bogeyman doesn't negate that. Are you saying you trust the official number of the administration, who also have their own agenda? Which, I might also point out that, even though it's been proven to not include certain types of deaths, is still ridiculously high for a people we claim to be trying to save.

[Compile 'em all]

Certainly this story may a cut off point where you would stop blaming the "occupation" for deaths and start blaming the criminals and thugs we so pleasantly call Al Qaida.


The criminals and thugs are those who lie to the entire world under the name of "setting things straight". Baghdad was recently named one of the worst places to live in on earth, thanks to Mr. Bush.

[solvs]

It does nothing for your credibility when you call George Bush, Hitler.
I agree with this, because while Bush's administration is certainly responsible for the mistakes of this war, as well as for the war itself, it isn't doing anyone any good to engage in such rhetoric.

Certainly this story may a cut off point where you would stop blaming the "occupation" for deaths and start blaming the criminals and thugs we so pleasantly call Al Qaida.
"Al Qaeda" is a very small (as in single digit, even if we count those who call themselves AQ and align themselves with them out of mutual hatred of us) force in Iraq. Most of it is sectarian, coming from the Iraqis themselves. Fighting us and each other. While they are certainly to blame, we've certainly killed many of them ourselves, and as noted, been responsible for untold collateral damage. We were supposed to be there to help them (we were told), but turned them against us and each other and tore their country apart. We can be angry at those who fight, but we can't ignore why they're fighting and who put them in this situation in the first place.

Last poll I saw said a majority was happier under Saddam, and we keep hearing reports that so many were better off, I can't help but be angry that we've not only screwed things up so badly after the invasion, but wondering why we really went there in the first place.

[hulugu]

What was the death toll before the war. Sadam numbers. Would the numbers be any different if he was still in power?

Im saying, would the violence be any different no matter what happens. Does it matter that we are there or not. I wonder if the numbers are inflated.

Well, Saddam was responsible for a hideous number of deaths and carnage, especially if you count the thousands killed during the Iran-Iraq War, the numbers of Kurds and others killed after the Persian Gulf War in 1991, not to mention the numerous people "disappeared" by the regime. However, using this to compare the number of people killed from 2003 - present is a rationalization.

It does nothing for your credibility when you call George Bush, Hitler....Certainly this story may a cut off point where you would stop blaming the "occupation" for deaths and start blaming the criminals and thugs we so pleasantly call Al Qaida.

I agree. No one should compare George Bush to Hitler because not only is the comparison intended as an emotional appeal, but because it's simply inaccurate. Bush never intended to make Iraq a war-zone and he didn't order the mass extermination of millions in death camps. If we're going to consider starting a war Hitler-esque, then we have to extend the same courtesy to Abe Lincoln, George Washington, and anyone else who sent a force to war.

We should blame the Bush administration for making it easy for such a situation to develop and for failing to stem the tide from 2003-2007. After that, there are a lot of other people to blame. Calling it any different creates a false dichotomy.

[stevento]

i dont know.
in 2004 it was 100,000
and last year i was hearing 600,000
now obviously that's still 9/11 200 times over.

[Don't panic]

i dont know.
in 2004 it was 100,000
and last year i was hearing 600,000
now obviously that's still 9/11 200 times over.

and oklahoma city 3570 times over.

[stevento]

republicans, sheild your eyes. i'm about to say something extremely liberal.
i'm talking kucinich style

bush said "iraq causes 3000 deaths on 9/11" (which they didnt)
does that give us the right to go kill 600,000-1,000,000 of their citizens and 4000 american soldiers and countless iraqi soldiers?
we've killed more american soldiers in the war than people that died on 9/11!!!
and john mccain wants this to go on for 100 more years!!!!!!!!

[MacNut]

I think Mccain said that if it takes 100 years we have to stick it out. Not that he wants to be there 100 years. His point is valid that like it or not we can't leave now without more problems in the future.

I wonder what would happen if after Obama gets elected and says we can't pull out of Iraq what would people say.

[solvs]

His point is valid that like it or not we can't leave now without more problems in the future.
And if we stay there will continue to be problems. It's a no win situation. Kinda why we're so pissed at those responsible for screwing it up. Let alone the false pretenses. We keep hearing how the surge is working, but violence is only barely back down to where it was and most of the other goals, especially the political and self sufficiency the surge was supposed to accomplish, have not been met. We simply can't sustain the levels we're at now, we can't be there the way we are now, forever. We need to start preparing for something. Riding it out just doesn't seem like a feasible plan.

The 'stans are being ignored still, and if we actually listen to the military leaders, are where we should be focusing.

I wonder what would happen if after Obama gets elected and says we can't pull out of Iraq what would people say.
We would be disappointed, but sadly, not surprised.

[stevegmu]

Wow, this thread is a circle jerk of hatred for America, Americans, President Bush, our soldiers, Republicans...

I'm surprised the World Socialist Web Site wasn't used as a 'source'.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/sep2007/orb2-s17.shtml

Their views would go over very well here...

[hulugu]

^ Now, now. Let's try to make a few friends. ;)

[solvs]

Wow, this thread is a circle jerk of hatred for America, Americans, President Bush, our soldiers, Republicans...
You think that just because we don't like the war, the way it's going, and have valid complaints about this administration that we hate America, Americans, and the soldiers? That's a pretty weak argument, and pretty inflammatory. Some of us have had friends and family in this war. Most of us are Americans too. We care about our country, which is why we don't like what's going on. I don't want to be attacked by a terrorist either, something that is actually MORE likely now thx, not to mention Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism or terrorists before we got there. Some people care more about their party than the country though, especially while calling everyone else partisan. But you just keep saying the rest of us hate America and don't support the soldiers, because that seems to be all you got left.

There's a reason we don't like Bush and the GOP right now, and if you can't see why (other than thinking it's for no other reason than we're all liberals, or whatever), I don't know what to tell you.

And for the record, Bush and the GOP do not equal America nor the troops.

I'm surprised the World Socialist Web Site wasn't used as a 'source'.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/sep2007/orb2-s17.shtml

Their views would go over very well here...
You obviously don't know us, or have any idea what socialism actually is, but I guess if you keep throwing that word around, I'm sure you can discount us and our very legitimate arguments against this disaster of an administration.

[stevegmu]

You think that just because we don't like the war, the way it's going, and have valid complaints about this administration that we hate America, Americans, and the soldiers? That's a pretty weak argument, and pretty inflammatory. Some of us have had friends and family in this war. Most of us are Americans too. We care about our country, which is why we don't like what's going on. I don't want to be attacked by a terrorist either, something that is actually MORE likely now thx, not to mention Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism or terrorists before we got there. Some people care more about their party than the country though, especially while calling everyone else partisan. But you just keep saying the rest of us hate America and don't support the soldiers, because that seems to be all you got left.

There's a reason we don't like Bush and the GOP right now, and if you can't see why (other than thinking it's for no other reason than we're all liberals, or whatever), I don't know what to tell you.

And for the record, Bush and the GOP do not equal America nor the troops.


You obviously don't know us, or have any idea what socialism actually is, but I guess if you keep throwing that word around, I'm sure you can discount us and our very legitimate arguments against this disaster of an administration.


I know plenty of people who are against the war. They, however, are capable of reasonable, rational discussion, without resorting to saying things like- President Bush is Hitler, Americans are idiots for voting for him, America screwed up Iraq, America and American Soldiers are responsible for the deaths of over 1 million Iraqis, iraq was better under Saddam, the US is occupying Iraq, etc. By the war, when an elected government asks the military of another elected government to leave their country, and the military does not leave said country, it is an occupation. Can anyone provide some links showing where J. Talibani has asked the US to leave?

I know enough from the posts I have read, and the tone of this forum. You must have missed the post the fellow directed at me yesterday, when he said if I mention the word liberal again, he would bomb my house.

You may earn points on here by claiming I do not know what socialism is, but it is no way to win an argument.


We freed the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator. What they chose do do with that freedom isn't on us. If France had broken out into civil war after the Allied liberation, would the Allies have been to blame for freeing them from Hitler's yoke?

[skunk]

We freed the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator. What they chose do do with that freedom isn't on us. If France had broken out into civil war after the Allied liberation, would the Allies have been to blame for freeing them from Hitler's yoke?We destroyed a country which, despite being run by a brutal dictator, had a working infrastructure, a cohesive identity and was no threat to anyone outside its borders. We invaded in clear breach of our treaty obligations under the UN Charter. Our illegal invasion and
occupation has been the cause of at least half a million deaths. The various components of the country are at each others' throats. The country's infrastructure is totally shafted. The country is now a hotbed of terrorism with an almost inexhaustible supply of new recruits to every faction. Places like Fallujah still have only one hour's electricity a day. The dictator was sentenced to death in a show trial by a kangaroo court. To this day, no WMD have been found.

Oh, and by the way, the French were our allies in the war. We liberated them from occupation by an enemy power. Notice the difference?

[Ugg]

You may earn points on here by claiming I do not know what socialism is, but it is no way to win an argument.


That's the most hilarious statement I've heard all week!

Thanks for the laugh!

[stevegmu]

We destroyed a country which, despite being run by a brutal dictator, had a working infrastructure, a cohesive identity and was no threat to anyone outside its borders. We invaded in clear breach of our treaty obligations under the UN Charter. Our illegal invasion and
occupation has been the cause of at least half a million deaths. The various components of the country are at each others' throats. The country's infrastructure is totally shafted. The country is now a hotbed of terrorism with an almost inexhaustible supply of new recruits to every faction. Places like Fallujah still have only one hour's electricity a day. The dictator was sentenced to death in a show trial by a kangaroo court. To this day, no WMD have been found.

Oh, and by the way, the French were our allies in the war. We liberated them from occupation by an enemy power. Notice the difference?

Actually, we didn't. We destroyed as little collateral damage as possible, as we mostly targeted military installations and Saddam's palaces. We have re-built more than we destroyed. The attacks on water treatment facilities, hospitals, schools, universities, oil facilities, etc, weren't carried out by Americans, but by insurgents and terrorists. S. hussein also spent none of the oil for food money on the countries' infrastructure. The biggest misconception is that we are re-building what we destroyed.

No threat to anyone? Not even Iran or Kuwait? How about financing homicide bombings in Israel? No harm there?

Show me 1 UN resolution condemning the removal of Saddam Hussein as an illegal act.

Did the US bring in and finance these terrorists and insurgents?

So Saddam Hussein didn't deserve to die? I seem to recall him being tried by Iraqis in an Iraqi court.

The reference to freeing France apparently went over your head.

[skunk]

Actually, we didn't. We destroyed as little collateral damage as possible, as we mostly targeted military installations and Saddam's palaces. We have re-built more than we destroyed. The attacks on water treatment facilities, hospitals, schools, universities, oil facilities, etc, weren't carried out by Americans, but by insurgents and terrorists. S. hussein also spent none of the oil for food money on the countries' infrastructure. The biggest misconception is that we are re-building what we destroyed.You must have missed an awful lot of news reports. Where have you been all this time? Buried in some bunker with Dick Cheney?

No threat to anyone? Not even Iran or Kuwait? How about financing homicide bombings in Israel? No harm there?This is so old. The invasion of Kuwait was in 1990, and you surely can't be suggesting we went in to protect Iran from harm? Offering money to the families of suicide bombers after the event is not the same as "financing homicide bombings".

Show me 1 UN resolution condemning the removal of Saddam Hussein as an illegal act.Well, obviously nobody is going to present a resolution at the UN which will be immediately vetoed by at least two members of the Security Council, are they?

Did the US bring in and finance these terrorists and insurgents?Nobody "brought them in". The vast majority were Iraqis, fighting the occupation.

So Saddam Hussein didn't deserve to die?Nobody deserves to die.

[stevegmu]

You must have missed an awful lot of news reports. Where have you been all this time? Buried in some bunker with Dick Cheney?

This is so old. The invasion of Kuwait was in 1990, and you surely can't be suggesting we went in to protect Iran from harm? Offering money to the families of suicide bombers after the event is not the same as "financing homicide bombings".

Well, obviously nobody is going to present a resolution at the UN which will be immediately vetoed by at least two members of the Security Council, are they?

Nobody "brought them in". The vast majority were Iraqis, fighting the occupation.

Nobody deserves to die.

Personal insults are childish.
Yet you still don't provide any evidence.
You said he wasn't a threat to anyone. Are you saying he wasn't a threat to Iran? An Iran-Iraq war would affect the US.


CBS) Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has raised the amount offered to relatives of suicide bombers from $10,000 per family to $25,000, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Wednesday.

Since Iraq upped its payments last month, 12 suicide bombers have successfully struck inside Israel, including one man who killed 25 Israelis, many of them elderly, as they sat down to a meal at a hotel to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Passover. The families of three suicide bombers said they have recently received payments of $25,000.

Palestinians say the bombers are driven by a priceless thirst for revenge, religious zeal and dreams of glory — not greed.

Mahmoud Safi, leader of a pro-Iraqi Palestinian group, the Arab Liberation Front, acknowledged that the support payments for relatives make it easier for some potential bombers to make up their minds. "Some people stop me on the street, saying if you increase the payment to $50,000 I'll do it immediately," Safi said. He also suggested such remarks were made mostly in jest.

Saddam has said the Palestinians need weapons and money instead of peace proposals and has provided payments throughout a year and a half of Israeli-Palestinian battles. "I saw on Iraqi TV President Saddam saying he will continue supporting the (uprising) even if it means selling his own clothes," said Safi.

Rumsfeld, who said earlier this week that Saddam and the Iraqi government were offering the lower amount, elaborated on the issue at a Pentagon briefing.

"It turns out that he has raised that amount and it's $25,000 per family, not $10,000 per family," Rumsfeld said.

"Here is an individual who is the head of a country, Iraq, who has proudly, publicly made a decision to go out and actively promote and finance human sacrifice for families that will have their youngsters kill innocent men, women and children," Rumsfeld said.

Though he did not say so, he appeared to refer to the current wave of suicide bombings on Israeli civilian targets.

"I am simply trying to let the people of Iraq understand what their leadership is doing, to let the people of the Middle East and the rest of the world ... know what is in fact being done to arm young people and send them out to blow up restaurants and shopping malls and pizza parlors," he said.

Rumsfeld blasted Iraq, Iran and Syria on Monday for inflaming violence in the Middle East, and said he raised the issue of Iraq on Wednesday to suggest it was important to "recognize that there is an infrastructure to terrorism."

Rumsfeld said Saddam had stated publicly the payment for families "if they're able to persuade a family to have their teen-ager strap explosives on them and go out and kill themselves and kill innocent men, women and children."

"He is pleased with his idea and is promoting it in the region," Rumsfeld said of Saddam. "It is a matter of public record."

Under the new Iraqi payscale, decided on March 12 during an Arab conference in Baghdad, the families of gunmen and others who die fighting the Israelis will still receive $10,000, while the relatives of suicide bombers will get $25,000.

Safi and two others from the Arab Liberation Front visit families in the northern West Bank and make the payments. "We go to every family and give them a check," he said. "We tell them that this is a gift from President Saddam and Iraq."

But Saddam is not the only one giving money. Charities from Saudi Arabia and Qatar — both U.S. allies — pay money to families of Palestinians killed in the fighting, including suicide bombers.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/printable505316.shtml

Resolutions of this sort would be proposed to the General Assembly, not the Security Council.

If the Iraqis are fighting the 'occupation', why do they mostly target civillians?

Again, can you provide a link where J. Talabani has asked the US to leave?

[skunk]

Yet you still don't provide any evidence.Evidence of what? That the invasion of Kuwait was in 1990?
You said he wasn't a threat to anyone. Are you saying he wasn't a threat to Iran? An Iran-Iraq war would affect the US.Oh, come on, this is ludicrous! Firstly, the Iran-Iraq war was in the 80s, and secondly the US supported Iraq against Iran, provided arms, intelligence and diplomatic support. What do you think Rumsfeld is there for?
102739
Again, can you provide a link where J. Talabani has asked the US to leave?Why would I do that? I have never claimed that he has. :confused:

[stevegmu]

Evidence of what? That the invasion of Kuwait was in 1990?
Oh, come on, this is ludicrous! Firstly, the Iran-Iraq war was in the 80s, and secondly the US supported Iraq against Iran, provided arms, intelligence and diplomatic support. What do you think Rumsfeld is there for?
102739
Why would I do that? I have never claimed that he has. :confused:

I thought we destroyed the whole country. Where is the evidence of this? You make all these claims, yet have nothing to back them up.

I guess you haven't heard of the Straits of Hormuz.
Of course we supported Iran. We feared the Islamic Revolution would engulf the entire Middle East.

You claim the US is 'occupying' Iraq. Can you show me where the democratically elected leader of Iraq has asked the US to leave?

[skunk]

I thought we destroyed the whole country. Where is the evidence of this? You make all these claims, yet have nothing to back them up.I must concede that in your parallel universe, Iraq is a pristine and undamaged country.

I guess you haven't heard of the Straits of Hormuz.
Of course we supported Iran.You really are rather confused, aren't you?

You claim the US is 'occupying' Iraq. Can you show me where the democratically elected leader of Iraq has asked the US to leave?Sorry, but what is the connection? Talabani was not elected, he was appointed by the National Assembly, which owed its existence to the occupation. Why would either Prime Minister or President ask the occupation troops to leave? It would be like cutting their own throats.

[stevegmu]

I must concede that in your parallel universe, Iraq is a pristine and undamaged country.

You really are rather confused, aren't you?

Sorry, but what is the connection? Talabani was not elected, he was appointed by the National Assembly, which owed its existence to the occupation. Why would either Prime Minister or President ask the occupation troops to leave? It would be like cutting their own throats.

All talk, and inability to provide any evidence.

You guys keep using the term 'occupation'. It isn't an occupation if the host country doesn't want the foreign military to leave. If the Iraqi government asked us to leave tomorrow, we would, so there is no occupation.

[skunk]

All talk, and inability to provide any evidence.Oh, there's plenty of evidence. We've been over it many times over the years. You should really try to catch up before you start making such foolish assertions. Here is a small sample from eighteen months ago. Of course the source is probably too socialist/democrat for you to take seriously:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10971/
Iraq's Faltering Infrastructure

Introduction
Three years after the fall of Saddam, many Iraqis still lack basic amenities like potable water, regularly endure power outages, and have yet to fully benefit from their country's immense oil wealth. "Efforts to rebuild Iraq are failing," says Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), a leading Democratic critic of Bush administration reconstruction efforts. "We've spent $2 billion and the situation is worse than when we arrived." With triple-digit temperatures fast approaching, "the amount of electricity has to improve for people to survive," said Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari in a June 16 CFR meeting. Although security remains Iraqis' foremost concern, one out of every three Iraqis say restoring infrastructure—not job creation, amending the constitution, or expelling U.S. troops—should be the government's top priority, according to a March 2006 International Republican Institute poll.
How is the quality of life for average Iraqis?
Iraq's human development indicators are among the lowest in the Middle East, according to the World Bank. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, Iraq led the Middle East in development of infrastructure, social services, and health care. Yet after years of successive wars and sanctions, many Iraqis today do not have access to basic staples like potable water and electricity. A shortage of hospitals and health-care facilities has added to their hardships. Current health statistics on Iraq are difficult to find, but a UNICEF report said Iraq's mortality rate for children under five rose from 5 percent in 1990 to 12.5 percent in 2004.
Of 142 health clinics slated for construction with $180 million in U.S. funds, only six have been built so far, according to a recent report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), a U.S.-funded independent oversight office. Water access also remains limited. Only around 8 million Iraqis—one-quarter of the population—have access to potable water, compared to nearly 13 million before the war. Of the 136 water and sanitation projects originally planned by the U.S. government, just forty-nine are expected to be completed. Finally, a recent report by the New York Times claims that "black oil," a byproduct of oil refineries, is polluting the Tigris River and contaminating water supplies in northern Iraq.
What explains Iraq’s lack of electricity?
Iraq has generated roughly 4,000 megawatts per month since the fall of Saddam in March 2003, well short of the American government’s stated goal of 6,000 megawatts per month. In May 2006, there were less than ten hours of electricity per day nationwide; in Baghdad, that number dropped to below four hours a day. One neighborhood in central Baghdad had no power for over a month, according to a June 6 cable (PDF) sent by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, made public by the Washington Post. The reasons for these lingering electicity shortages are multifold. “We misjudged the environment,” says Frederick Barton, co-director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project, “and decided to do the simplest solution, which was to build or refurbish large, centralized facilities, and misjudged there was going to be chronic sabotage, looting, and other things.” A better plan, he says, would have been to set up neighborhood generators, run by locals, capable of reaching between forty and fifty houses. “If there were a problem, everyone would know where to go to solve it,” Barton says. Iraq’s power outages are also due to interruptions at the micro level, experts say, which include damaged transmission lines from insurgent attacks and insecure relay stations.
How does current power generation compare with the Saddam era?
Experts say power disruptions and brownouts also occurred under Saddam but that service is even less reliable now. "There's no question that [power outages] are worse now," says a UN development official, who would only speak on condition of anonymity. After the first Gulf War, when U.S. planes shelled Iraqi power stations and disrupted much of the country's electricity grid, Saddam's government acted relatively quickly to restore service, especially in Baghdad.

[skunk]

You guys keep using the term 'occupation'. It isn't an occupation if the host country doesn't want the foreign military to leave.I see. So there was no occupation of France either? After all, the Vichy government did not ask the Germans to leave, did they? Thanks for clearing that up.

What with this, and claiming that the US supported Iran, it looks like you have a lot of supplementary reading to do before you're up to speed here.

[aquajet]

You guys keep using the term 'occupation'. It isn't an occupation if the host country doesn't want the foreign military to leave.

Who exactly in the "host country" are you referring to? The March 2007 BBC-commissioned poll suggests something different than what you are saying. Take a look at it here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6451841.stm)

Referring to page 15-16 in the poll document, even though only 35% of those polled would like to see the coalition leave immediately, 76% of polled Iraqis disapprove of the US coalition's job as of 2007, and 78% of Iraqis do not approve of the presence of US coalition troops in their country. Additionally, over half of those polled don't have a problem hearing about coalition forces being attacked.

I doubt most people in Iraq see their situation as anything other than an occupation.

If the Iraqi government asked us to leave tomorrow, we would, so there is no occupation.

The Iraqi government has demanded that Blackwater leave the country. Have they left yet?

[stevegmu]

I see. So there was no occupation of France either? After all, the Vichy government did not ask the Germans to leave, did they? Thanks for clearing that up.

What with this, and claiming that the US supported Iran, it looks like you have a lot of supplementary reading to do before you're up to speed here.

Was the Vichy government the legitimate, recognized government of France?

I was in haste, and obviously meant Iraq, not Iran.

[stevegmu]

Who exactly in the "host country" are you referring to? The March 2007 BBC-commissioned poll suggests something different than what you are saying. Take a look at it here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6451841.stm)

Referring to page 15-16 in the poll document, even though only 35% of those polled would like to see the coalition leave immediately, 76% of polled Iraqis disapprove of the US coalition's job as of 2007, and 78% of Iraqis do not approve of the presence of US coalition troops in their country. Additionally, over half of those polled don't have a problem hearing about coalition forces being attacked.

I doubt most people in Iraq see their situation as anything other than an occupation.



The Iraqi government has demanded that Blackwater leave the country. Have they left yet?

Show me where the Iraqi government has asked the US to leave.

The US and Iraq are currently in talks over Blackwater.

Oh, there's plenty of evidence. We've been over it many times over the years. You should really try to catch up before you start making such foolish assertions. Here is a small sample from eighteen months ago. Of course the source is probably too socialist/democrat for you to take seriously:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10971/
[/indent]

Where is the evidence that the US is responsible for destroying Iraq's infrastructure? You simply posted an article stating the re-construction wasn't going fast as planned. It is reconstruction from Saddam-era neglect, and terrorists, not from US bombing, for the most part.

You must have missed this line-

Barton says. Iraq’s power outages are also due to interruptions at the micro level, experts say, which include damaged transmission lines from insurgent attacks and insecure relay stations.

[skunk]

Show me where the Iraqi government has asked the US to leave. Show me where anyone claimed they had.

[skunk]

Where is the evidence that the US is responsible for destroying Iraq's infrastructure? You simply posted an article stating the re-construction wasn't going fast as planned. It is reconstruction from Saddam-era neglect, and terrorists, not from US bombing, for the most part. I really can't be arsed to go over the same territory all over again with someone who has just arrived on the forum and is either completely ignorant of events of the recent past or willfully misinterpreting them.

[aquajet]

Show me where the Iraqi government has asked the US to leave.

You initially said "host country" not "Iraqi government", which is why I took the time to respond. Perhaps you find it acceptable to talk about what the country of Iraq wants based on the fact that a select few people in flashy suits haven't asked the US to leave yet, but I don't find that to be particularly useful when having a meaningful discussion about the situation.

[stevegmu]

You initially said "host country" not "Iraqi government", which is why I took the time to respond. Perhaps you find it acceptable to talk about what the country of Iraq wants based on the fact that a select few people in flashy suits haven't asked the US to leave yet, but I don't find that to be particularly useful when having a meaningful discussion about the situation.

What part about the 2nd sentence did you not understand?

You guys keep using the term 'occupation'. It isn't an occupation if the host country doesn't want the foreign military to leave. If the Iraqi government asked us to leave tomorrow, we would, so there is no occupation.

I really can't be arsed to go over the same territory all over again with someone who has just arrived on the forum and is either completely ignorant of events of the recent past or willfully misinterpreting them.

The use of the word arsed explains everything. Cheerio.

[obeygiant]

I don't know why everyone is all "occupation this" and "occupation that". WHen Obama is president there will be a phased withdraw. So the end is in sight for the Iraq war. Or at least it will be different from what it is now.

Also the comparison of the Iraq war to the German occupation of France isn't one-to-one. First of all The Germans were actively trying to take over the world. In the many levels of grey these things just aren't the same shade, IMHO. :)

Once the war is over, what will we argue about then? :D

[aquajet]

What part about the 2nd sentence did you not understand?

You guys keep using the term 'occupation'. It isn't an occupation if the host country doesn't want the foreign military to leave. If the Iraqi government asked us to leave tomorrow, we would, so there is no occupation.

Do you enjoy being snippy with people? The small amount of time you've spent here, you haven't made the slightest effort to be cordial to anybody. All you've done thus far is make sweeping generalizations about people you've never talked to in this forum, and you take every opportunity to make a snarky comment whenever somebody disagrees with you.

My point is, it's disingenuous to say that the Iraqi govt doesn't want the US to leave simply because they haven't asked the US to leave. The people clearly don't want us to be there and I wouldn't be surprised if some in the government would like to see us gone as well. I also don't believe for a second that if the Iraqis asked us to leave tomorrow, that we actually would.

[Iscariot]

Do you enjoy being snippy with people? The small amount of time you've spent here, you haven't made the slightest effort to be cordial to anybody. All you've done thus far is make sweeping generalizations about people you've never talked to in this forum, and you take every opportunity to make a snarky comment whenever somebody disagrees with you.

My point is, it's disingenuous to say that the Iraqi govt doesn't want the US to leave simply because they haven't asked the US to leave. The people clearly don't want us to be there and I wouldn't be surprised if some in the government would like to see us gone as well. I also don't believe for a second that if the Iraqis asked us to leave tomorrow, that we actually would.

The use of the word arsed explains everything. Cheerio.

stevegmu,

Maybe you're more familiar with how things are done on other forums, I don't know. What I do know is that -- whether you choose to believe it or not -- there are a lot of people in the PRSI forums who enjoy divergent viewpoints and opinions. I'm certainly one of them, and while my posts are usually geared towards my unique form of comedy, I assure you I read and contemplate upon everything written here, especially if it doesn't agree with my point of view.

However, it's very difficult to take what someone says seriously and evaluate it on an objective basis when that individual has taken it upon themselves to be disrepectful of others' points of view.

The MacRumors politics forums are more strictly moderated than most, which is why there's a 100 post/10 day policy to even be permitted to post here in the first place. This has made for a tighter community forum, and it also means that most of the people here have discussed and debated with each other for a number of years. You're not getting 'jumped' on because of the slant of your views, you're getting 'jumped' on because this is a community of colleagues and friends, and they do not take kindly to watching their own being put down.

The thing to take away from this is that there's one of two directions this is going to go.


You can simmer down the rhetoric, man up and admit that you've been aggressive -- perhaps you feel in a defensive manner -- and try to make your points while also making friends. You become a part of the community, and maybe you change some minds; or

You can continue down the same aggressive path. First, you're going to get a nickname -- I'm already suggesting stevesy -- and most of what you say isn't going to be taken seriously because it will grow increasingly difficult to separate any point you have from your acidic personality. Then you are going to inevitably be banned. When you are, I will write a short narrative. It will probably involve terms such as "twisting nether", it will likely reference blood-pacts with the Great Old Ones, involve some kind of horrible machine, a pop-cultre reference or two will be thrown in, everyone will have a good laugh. The important part to remember about this path is that not a single good point you've made will be remembered, and all of the time you've spent here will have been spent for nothing.


I say this because I don't want you to get banned. As I mentioned earlier, I like divergent viewpoints. I want to hear everything you have to say, and see you become a contributor to the intellectual discourse we have here. But that's not going to happen until you realize that we're all friends here, and that we're all in this together. Buy a round, sit and talk, or be made one forever with the Autobot Matrix.

[solvs]

I know plenty of people who are against the war. They, however, are capable of reasonable, rational discussion, without resorting to saying things like- President Bush is Hitler, Americans are idiots for voting for him, America screwed up Iraq, America and American Soldiers are responsible for the deaths of over 1 million Iraqis, iraq was better under Saddam, the US is occupying Iraq, etc.
Other than some people calling this an occupation (notice not all of us, though the argument could be made) I don't see as much of the rest of that as you seem to. People do make references to Bush being Hitler, and are usually made fun of for it. Some people wonder why and how Bush got elected and reelected. This administration screwed up the Iraq war (I don't see how you can argue they didn't). The war is responsible for the death of 1 million Iraqis (or more). In some cases, things were better for some Iraqis under Saddam, this coming from Iraqis themselves (like women for example (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32693), who were actually safer and had more rights). So either you're reading things differently than they're being said, you're looking at a few posters and declaring we're all like that, or you're reading another forum and applying the same quotes from them to us.

By the war, when an elected government asks the military of another elected government to leave their country, and the military does not leave said country, it is an occupation. Can anyone provide some links showing where J. Talibani has asked the US to leave?
The gov might not be officially, if they even can, but we've proven the Iraqis themselves want us gone (and can again (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html))

I know enough from the posts I have read, and the tone of this forum.
Because we're all like that, and you've just been a peach.

You must have missed the post the fellow directed at me yesterday, when he said if I mention the word liberal again, he would bomb my house.
If it was as you say it is, you should have reported it. If it was that bad, the mods would have taken care of it. If it's a pattern, the party responsible would be warned, then banned. Not all of us are doing that, please don't lump us all together.

You may earn points on here by claiming I do not know what socialism is, but it is no way to win an argument.
Neither is calling us socialist.

We freed the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator. What they chose do do with that freedom isn't on us.
We made a lot of mistakes in the lead up and execution of the war, to say nothing of the aftermath. Nor our lack of planning. Especially with an exit strategy. Some of that is the fault of those who not only made the decision to go to war, but have been continuing to make mistakes ever since. Agencies like Blackwater haven't helped either, actually making things even worse, and again, who brought them into it.

But no, you're right, I'm sure it's the fault of the Iraqis, the administration did such a good job they're almost blameless. :rolleyes:

If France had broken out into civil war after the Allied liberation, would the Allies have been to blame for freeing them from Hitler's yoke?
If we were liberating them from themselves and made as many mistakes (like disbanding their military), leading several violent factions to all want to destroy themselves and us, yeah, we would blame the gov responsible for screwing that up.

I thought we destroyed the whole country. Where is the evidence of this? You make all these claims, yet have nothing to back them up.
No one said that, so why would they need to provide evidence of it? Especially since you aren't exactly providing much yourself. The issue in question is right there in the first post, and the war has practically destroyed the country while killing a million of them.

We feared the Islamic Revolution would engulf the entire Middle East.
Kinda like they have, actually even moreso now after this administration's poor planning?

You claim the US is 'occupying' Iraq. Can you show me where the democratically elected leader of Iraq has asked the US to leave?
Again, the people want us to. You can argue about that gov all you want, but that's the issue. The people don't want us there, but there we stay.

All talk, and inability to provide any evidence.
Are you talking about yourself?

You guys keep using the term 'occupation'. It isn't an occupation if the host country doesn't want the foreign military to leave. If the Iraqi government asked us to leave tomorrow, we would, so there is no occupation.
Just like with Blackwater (http://www.infowars.net/articles/september2007/210907Blackwater.htm)?

The US and Iraq are currently in talks over Blackwater.
Yeah, the gov has banned them and they're still there with no actual plan to leave (the above was from Sept BTW, long talks). I'm sure if they asked us to leave, we would. Except why do I have a feeling we wouldn't? Especially with McCain recently saying they couldn't tell us to (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/McCain_Iraqi_government_cant_order_U.S._0513.html).

Where is the evidence that the US is responsible for destroying Iraq's infrastructure?
The current US gov is responsible for the war, which was poorly planned and executed, which is responsible for the current predicament.

Once the war is over, what will we argue about then? :D
I will be a happy man when I no longer have to be angry about how badly the gov is screwing up, and I can go back to merely grousing about them sucking a little and being ineffectual twunts.

[it5five]

Stevegmu reminds me a lot of Swarmlord.

Has anyone looked into this?

His generally condescending attitude and inability to provide any evidence besides personal experience is very similar.

[solvs]

Stevegmu reminds me a lot of Swarmlord.

Has anyone looked into this?

His generally condescending attitude and inability to provide any evidence besides personal experience is very similar.
The coincidence is oddly timed, but I was thinking he was just filling the vacuum after SL and v-ault. Writing styles are different, location and dialect are different, just the tactics that are similar. I suspected v-ault in another thread, the location and condescension are remarkably similar. Who knows, maybe they just all seem to be the same person because they listen to the same talking heads.

[it5five]

Who knows, maybe they just all seem to be the same person because they listen to the same talking heads.

That could very well be it.

[toontra]

The coincidence is oddly timed, but I was thinking he was just filling the vacuum after SL and v-ault. Writing styles are different, location and dialect are different, just the tactics that are similar. I suspected v-ault in another thread, the location and condescension are remarkably similar. Who knows, maybe they just all seem to be the same person because they listen to the same talking heads.

I think the language and style are very similar - not so abrasive so far but that will change. My money is on this being SL. Just when I thought the air quality had improved here!

[skunk]

No, this poster appears to be much younger than Swarmlord. A callow youth with much to learn, especially about debating styles.

[Peterkro]

A bit off topic but it's as well to remember that the US administration was selling arms to both sides during the Iran/Iraq war.

[Ugg]

No, this poster appears to be much younger than Swarmlord. A callow youth with much to learn, especially about debating styles.

I agree. He's way too petty to be swarmy.

[obeygiant]

Stevegmu reminds me a lot of Swarmlord.

Has anyone looked into this?

His generally condescending attitude and inability to provide any evidence besides personal experience is very similar.

The coincidence is oddly timed, but I was thinking he was just filling the vacuum after SL and v-ault. Writing styles are different, location and dialect are different, just the tactics that are similar. I suspected v-ault in another thread, the location and condescension are remarkably similar. Who knows, maybe they just all seem to be the same person because they listen to the same talking heads.

I think the language and style are very similar - not so abrasive so far but that will change. My money is on this being SL. Just when I thought the air quality had improved here!

No, this poster appears to be much younger than Swarmlord. A callow youth with much to learn, especially about debating styles.

I agree. He's way too petty to be swarmy.

You guys got him banned yet he's still haunting you. Thats classic.
It almost sounds like you miss the guy! :) :)

[it5five]

You guys got him banned...

I had no idea he got banned until a few days after it happened, and am still unclear of the circumstances that led to his banning.

If we're going to have angry conservatives that like to stir up trouble for the sake of stirring up trouble, I'd rather have Swarm back instead of these new ones that seemed to fill the void. At least Swarm seemed to have a sense of humor sometimes.

[skunk]

You guys got him banned yet he's still haunting you. Thats classic.
It almost sounds like you miss the guy! :) :)He presumably got himself banned, and I was pointing out a dissimilarity. I have already said I was disappointed at his banishment.

[Qoxiivi]

Just curious, because I haven't seen it mentioned by anyone anywhere in this thread, is anyone aware that the US and UK maintained extensive military and diplomatic support for Saddam Hussein before, during and after his worst crimes - such as the Halabja massacre?

The reason I mention it (and am surprised that no one has before), is that it's a simple and uncontroversial rebuff to claims that the Iraq war was a justified and humanitarian endeavor because it toppled Saddam Hussein. The US and UK weren’t concerned at the time about his humanitarian record and only became concerned about it recently with sole regard to its emotional utility as a propagandistic rationale for the invasion; after other attempted justifications had fallen through.

The Iraq war has nothing to do with spreading democracy and human rights; anyone with even a hint of credible knowledge about the US historical record in, say for example, South America (Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador etc) will be able to tell you that. It most certainly isn’t about curtailing terrorism as it was internally conceded (and obvious) from the start that an attack on Iraq was likely to foment widespread regional US hatred whilst simultaneously creating an ideal breeding ground and training environment for potential martyrs.

Unfortunately, like almost all wars humankind has ever raged, it’s about power, politics, money and resources. Almost everything else you hear is, essentially, an exercise in what Walter Lippmann described as the ‘manufacture of consent’; the use of spin, lies and propaganda by those in control of the communication systems (state/corporations) to steer public opinion in favour of policies that satisfy their specific agenda. The practice is as old as civilization itself and, with the advancement of PR and the social sciences early in the 20th century, is now a precise, testable, well oiled and run-of the-mill political process.

It all sounds very conspiratorial I know, unfortunately though, that’s just how the world is run.

[skunk]

I think most of us are fully aware of these things, as a little light thread-reading will show. :cool:

[Qoxiivi]

I'm not having a go at anyone btw :) perhaps I did miss a comment. It's just that when I read this comment from stevegmu: "We freed the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator" I was expecting to read almost instantly after some mention that we supported him through his worst human rights abuses - against his own people.

I know US support for Iraq against Iran was brought up, but this wasn't against 'the Iraqi people'. Had stevegmu said 'We freed the surrounding countries from the threat of this brutal dictator' then the US Iran/Iraq war stance would be a good indicative that this was clearly not a concern.

However, and I suppose this is my point, the Iran/Iraq conflict wasn't used as a humanitarian imperative in justification for the war, whereas incidences like the Halabja massacre were. Which is why I found it surprising to not see them, and our state support of them at the time, brought up.

Again, I'm not trying to pick anyone's arguments apart here (apart from stevegmu's) just trying to elucidate what I was going on about. From what I've read, there are some really knowledgeable posters contributing to this board and I'm sure you do know of the instances to which I'm referring... and I guess this is why I was surprised not to find stevegmu's argument shot down in flames from this angle which, to me, seemed like the strongest approach.

Of course, as would not have been the first time, I could well have just missed something somewhere along the thread. If so, sorry :)

[Don't panic]

I'm not having a go at anyone btw :) perhaps I did miss a comment. It's just that when I read this comment from stevegmu: "We freed the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator" I was expecting to read almost instantly after some mention that we supported him through his worst human rights abuses - against his own people.

I know US support for Iraq against Iran was brought up, but this wasn't against 'the Iraqi people'. Had stevegmu said 'We freed the surrounding countries from the threat of this brutal dictator' then the US Iran/Iraq war stance would be a good indicative that this was clearly not a concern.

However, and I suppose this is my point, the Iran/Iraq conflict wasn't used as a humanitarian imperative in justification for the war, whereas incidences like the Halabja massacre were. Which is why I found it surprising to not see them, and our state support of them at the time, brought up.

Again, I'm not trying to pick anyone's arguments apart here (apart from stevegmu's) just trying to elucidate what I was going on about. From what I've read, there are some really knowledgeable posters contributing to this board and I'm sure you do know of the instances to which I'm referring... and I guess this is why I was surprised not to find stevegmu's argument shot down in flames from this angle which, to me, seemed like the strongest approach.

Of course, as would not have been the first time, I could well have just missed something somewhere along the thread. If so, sorry :)

possibly it wasn't in this thread, but the point has been raised a brazillion times in the forum and to a lot of the posters it is a 'ca va san dir' point.

it just gets tedious to have to rebutt the same lame arguments over and over again.

it's like discussing with creationists. no amount of evidence or logic will convince them that their position is untenable.
blinders on, they just march ahead.

[Qoxiivi]

possibly it wasn't in this thread, but the point has been raised a brazillion times in the forum and to a lot of the posters it is a 'ca va san dir' point.

it just gets tedious to have to rebutt the same lame arguments over and over again.

Fair enough. I feel the same as well when repeating myself over and over again on the same topics. Unfortunately though, standard propaganda lines such as stevegmu's are just so pervasive (due to the ubiquitous nature of their propagation) that there's little choice but to trot out the same old facts to discredit them. For reasons of efficiency if anything ;)

it's like discussing with creationists. no amount of evidence or logic will convince them that their position is untenable.
blinders on, they just march ahead.

In some ways, you're absolutely spot on there. The one thing, in my mind, that the two camps have massively in common is a vested emotional interest in maintaining their point of view. By and large, people make decisions emotionally (choose to think in a way that elevates themselves) and then pick and choose what they consider to be the legitimate intellectual justifications that support their reality.

It's very comforting to think that you're going to heaven or that the country you're proud of is a force for peace and justice. These are easy things to let yourself think, believe and be convinced of. Conversely, there are few emotional compunctions in believing that when you're dead it's forever, or that the country you live in and have been brought up to be proud of is, well, less than virtuous - and by intention/design as well.

I could go on, by my take away has arrived :)

[solvs]

A bit off topic
Yeah, cuz that never happens. :p

You guys got him banned
We didn't ban them, and while I certainly understood why, I also noted that I hate it when anyone has to be banned, even them.

I don't know what SL did (other than the usual), but it was quite obvious why v-ault was, and it had nothing to do with his political views.

Just curious, because I haven't seen it mentioned by anyone anywhere in this thread, is anyone aware that the US and UK maintained extensive military and diplomatic support for Saddam Hussein before, during and after his worst crimes - such as the Halabja massacre?
That, and Clinton never stopped bombing him. He was kept in check without an invasion needed. Or that, while he was a brutal dictator, so are so many others we do nothing about. Some of whom are far worse, are committing these acts more recent, and weren't our allies when they did them.

We kinda thought this was all well known, and yes, have been over it a million times, but I guess it needs to be said still.

I was expecting to read almost instantly after some mention that we supported him through his worst human rights abuses - against his own people.
We probably should have. Glad you did. Speaking for myself, it gets tiring arguing the same points over and over again just to have the same people come back later spouting the same inaccuracies. At least they stopped linking Iraq to 9/11 as overtly. It gets hard to even dignify that with a remark.

[solvs]

I posted this in another thread, but it might go better here:

UNICEF appeals for $37 million to save vulnerable Iraqi children (http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/iraq_42810.html)

[stevegmu]

Why surveys can not produce a true body count.


Reality checks: some responses to the latest Lancet estimates

A new study has been released by the Lancet medical journal estimating over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. The Iraqi mortality estimates published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things, that:

On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms;
Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;
Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq;
Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued;
The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja.
If these assertions are true, they further imply:

incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began
bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis;
the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas;
an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year.
In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition, totals of the magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy.


http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-checks/

[solvs]

Why surveys can not produce a true body count.
You're right, the war has only killed almost a million people so that makes it ok.

Anyway, it's a bit of a long read, but here's a good article on the Myth of the Surge (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18722376/the_myth_of_the_surge).