revising my opinion on the war - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-21-2003, 04:07 PM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:33 AM
Fizzing,

"You didn't answer my question: if we supported Saddam, why did we campaign under the slogan NO TO WAR; NO TO SADDAM?"

Its fine to say you don't like Saddam. Its another to actually support actions that would end his regime.

"The "anti-war crowd" as you so disparagingly refer to them knew perfectly well the nature of Saddam's regime. They simply didn't believe that dropping thousands of tonnes of explosives onto innocent people was the best of of deposing him and allowing Iraq to develop any form of stable government."

Another area many in the Anti-War crowd seem to be unfamilar with is the military tactics and technology. The US military does not drop thousands of tonnes of explosives onto innocent people. Thats just rubbish. Rather, military units are targeted and destroyed with precision weapons.

In any event, the Anti-War crowd never had alternative to military force that could actually succeed in toppling SADDAM.


"And finally, as evil as Saddam was, he didn't murder a million people. Your figure includes deaths due to the UN sanctions which denied Iraq such basic products as pain medication for hospitals or refrigerated trucks in order to move food around the country."

Iraq was allowed to sell as much oil as they wanted to buy huminitarian supplies. Were talking Billions of dollars, far more than what would be needed to adequately take care of the country. Saddam controlled the means of distribution in Iraq. Iraq was a police state. Saddam could choose to provide area's of Iraq with humanitarian supplies that supported him and deny area's the same supplies if they were not fully supportive of him. The whole idea that UN sanctions (which were a essentially a weapons embargo) was killing large numbers of Iraqi's has been proven to be total rubbish. Iraqi Doctors have come out and said this now that Saddam is gone. Also, often humanitarian supplies purchased by Iraq would often show up for resale in Jordan. Again proving that the Anti-War crowds claims about UN sanctions were rubbish.

A minimum estimate of the number of people killed by Saddam's rule is 1.7 million. This of course includes those that dies in Saddam's wars, Iranian soldiers and civilians, Kuwaiti soldiers and civilians, Iraqi soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

Ultimately, the cost of the war in terms of human lives was far far less than continued rule by Saddam would have been for a year or more. More Iraqi's would have died following the Anti-War crowds policies than Bush's. More Iraqi's would be locked up and under going brutal torture by one of Saddams 12 security services under the Anti-War crowds policy than Bush's.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 04:22 PM   #47
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,277
Local Time: 07:33 PM
So is "anti-war" a slur now?
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 07-21-2003, 04:25 PM   #48
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 12:33 AM
Quote:
The US military does not drop thousands of tonnes of explosives onto innocent people.
Anyone who watched the news during the war will be aware the the US military dropped tonnes of explosives on Baghdad. We saw it with our own eyes. Baghdad is a city of a similar size to London and I defy anyone to claim you could drop thousands of tonnes of explosives on London and not kill hundreds of innocent people. If the US only ever attacks military targets then account for the civilian casualties in Iraq.

The UN officials who were in charge of implementing the sanctions admitted sanctions caused the deaths of thousands of Iraqis. Two of them resigned because they couldn't bear the suffering they were inflicting on the people of Iraq. Saddam is evil but that doesn't change the fact that the UN sanctions also caused unbearable suffering. Those sanctions weren't as you put it simply a "weapons embargo" - they prevented hospitals in Iraq from getting many medical supplies, including chemotherapy treatments for people with cancer and even including painkillers to alleviate the suffering of those they were unable to treat.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 04:28 PM   #49
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 12:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
So is "anti-war" a slur now?
If it is then it's one I'm proud to have thrown at me.

I'll never be ashamed to have been part of the biggest anti-war movement this country has ever seen.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 04:48 PM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:33 AM
Fizzing,

"Anyone who watched the news during the war will be aware the the US military dropped tonnes of explosives on Baghdad. We saw it with our own eyes. Baghdad is a city of a similar size to London and I defy anyone to claim you could drop thousands of tonnes of explosives on London and not kill hundreds of innocent people. If the US only ever attacks military targets then account for the civilian casualties in Iraq."

There were some accidents that happened for sure. Nothing is 100% perfect. Police in England and the USA have caused accidents in enforcing the law, but no one says they should stop doing it because of that. I have friends that were involved in the bombing of Baghdad and know first hand what happened. I specifically asked several of my friends that have been back from Iraq about damage to civilian infrastructure do to bombing and fighting during the war and they said there was virtually none. That talked about the destruction of Iraqi tanks and other military vehicles and how precise it was.

In any event, the fact remains that the war saved far more Iraqi lives, because it removed Saddam, than it took.


"The UN officials who were in charge of implementing the sanctions admitted sanctions caused the deaths of thousands of Iraqis. Two of them resigned because they couldn't bear the suffering they were inflicting on the people of Iraq. Saddam is evil but that doesn't change the fact that the UN sanctions also caused unbearable suffering. Those sanctions weren't as you put it simply a "weapons embargo" - they prevented hospitals in Iraq from getting many medical supplies, including chemotherapy treatments for people with cancer and even including painkillers to alleviate the suffering of those they were unable to treat."

First, the UN officials were not in charge of the distribution of humanitarian supplies in Iraq. Saddam was in charge of that. Iraq is a Police State, and its sad that UN officials would let themselves be duped by Saddams propaganda. Iraq was flooded with humanitarian supplies, much of it ending up for re-sale on the black market. If as you say sanctions were killing so many people, why were UN humanitarian supplies being re-sold by the Iraqi government on the black market?

In any event, sanctions would not exist if Saddam had simply complied with the terms of the Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement. Again, regardless of what one thinks of the effects of the UN sanctions on the Iraqi people, the Anti-War crowd puts the blame on the USA and the West rather than Saddam. During the past year, how many of the Anti-War protestors went to a rally that was solely about protesting Saddam?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 04:51 PM   #51
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 01:33 AM
STING2:

It's fine to end Saddams regime, but it's not fine to do that for any price.
I'm glad the US tried to have low "colateral damage" by using more smartbombs than usual, nevertheless thousands of innocent Iraqis were killed emediately or indirectly (by destroying water-/enrgysurply or because the Hospitals were unusuable after the war).

The dramatic number of rapes in Iraq are another downside of this chaos - in some regions they officially tell the parents not to bring the Childs back to school until there are less sexual abuse on the streets.

We now have pretty much the situation where lots of us from the "anti-war crowd" (and some high ranks from the US military and the US secret services too) were warning about.

Klaus

--- edited from here ---

p.s. just because Mr. Husseins behaviour is the reason for the UN Embargo it dosn't make him the only person who's guilty. Several big UN members f**ed it up with the embargo, they used the embargo as an excuse to block goods from countries they didn't like (for example pencils, eggs etc)
So - also we the "modern western world" should be ashamed of what we have done to the Iraqi people
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 05:11 PM   #52
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 12:33 AM
Quote:
There were some accidents that happened for sure. Nothing is 100% perfect.
So bombing Baghdad was an accident? My goodness. It's a city of six million people, if the US military bombed that by accident then that's really cause for concern.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 05:17 PM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:33 AM
FizzingWhizzbees,

"So bombing Baghdad was an accident? My goodness. It's a city of six million people, if the US military bombed that by accident then that's really cause for concern."

Ummmm, NO. Out of every several thousand bombs and missiles, there are some that do not hit their intended target. The bombing of military targets in and around Baghdad was an incredible success. Unfortunately there were a few bombs and missiles that missed their military targets resulting in a few civilian losses.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 05:25 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:33 AM
Klaus,

The coalition did not remove Saddam for any price. The number of Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the war was less than 1,400. This is rather tiny compared to the lives that Saddam would take in any given year.

Rapes were common place in Iraq prior to the war. It was a state practice that the Security Services and Saddam's sons engaged in on a regular basis. Staying at home did not keep this from happening either.

The Anti-War crowd warned of million of deaths from the war itself. They warned of a total disaster. This is not the case even remotely. Iraq is now being rebuilt and the long difficult process of nation building is begining. Of course, there are always those, just as in Bosnia and Kosovo, who will complain about the problems as if the prior environment to the invasion was better. This of course was rubbish in Bosnia and Kosovo as it is now in Iraq. To believe otherwise is to be un-informed or ignore the conditions that existed prior to intervention.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 05:33 PM   #55
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 01:33 AM
STING2:


There was Rape as torture in Iraq, that's correct - but Rape on the streets was dramatically below the level it is now.

Me and lots of others were warning that they will be happy that Saddam is gone - and they will still hate the US - that's what hapenes - maybe you can change that in the next 20 years but the question is...
How long do you think the US will stay in Iraq? How many dead soldiers per day is it worth to US public?
What if the Public wants to vote for a cleric ruled Iraq not a democratiq one? Will the US stay their with their troops as long as it takes the Iraqi people to accept that governments in a western democratic style are the only solution for them?

It is not allways rubbish - in almost every change there are good and bad sideeffects. At the end we have to question - was it the best way? And: Was it worth it?

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 06:15 PM   #56
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:33 AM
Klaus,

"There was Rape as torture in Iraq, that's correct - but Rape on the streets was dramatically below the level it is now."

Rape by Saddam's security services and military was greater than random street rapes then and now.

"Me and lots of others were warning that they will be happy that Saddam is gone - and they will still hate the US - that's what hapenes - maybe you can change that in the next 20 years but the question is..."

The people who hate the USA are those that benifited from Saddams rule, primarily those people that lived in Baghdad who were Sunni as well as his hometown in Tikrit. 90% of the attacks against US troops have occured in the Baghdad/Tikrit area, not other places in Iraq.

I think the USA will stay in Iraq for at least another 10 years although, the number of troops will probably significantly be reduced. Its sad and terrible in any situation when someone is killed. So far the US public is fully supportive of the effort to stabilize Iraq despite the problems.

Certainly there are always good and bad side effects. By the results of the war and the current conditions in Iraq, it obvious that those who supported Bush's policy were correct. No one in the Bush camp claimed that Iraq would look like Disney Land after the war. But there are liberals and others who point out this and that problem. To them I say, what did you expect?

Nationbuilding is a difficult process that takes time an patience as we have seen in Bosnia and Kosovo. But as both of those cases prove, intervention was the way to a better future.

Was it worth it? Yes, thats probably the easiest question to answer at the moment.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 06:51 PM   #57
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Where do you have your statistics about the rapes?

Its not only the people who benifited from Saddam who hate the US now. The US sometimes behaves verry arrogant if you watch it from outside the US, some people over there think that the US just wants to steal their oil.
I have seen a map with a triangle on it where most attacks against the US troops hapened - and it wasn't only Baghdad and Tikrit.

What do you think about the plans to add troops from turkey? i guess that was the only thing were you and i agreed that Turkey troops in Iraq can become a serious problem (especially if they are placed in the north)

Was it worth it?
I wouldn't give an answer before the occupation is over. Many things can change in the next years. If saddam or any other dictator gets the power again i wouldn't say "yes it was worth it" then the relatives of the fallen US soldiers should ask the responsible persons why they did it this way

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 11:03 PM   #58
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:33 AM
Klaus,

I don't have statistics about the rapes, but the knowledge of a well planned campaign of the use of rape on the family members of political prisoners, for Security services to do as they please, and for Saddam's sons. There were 10s of thousands of political prisoners in Iraq over the past 24 years. They and their families were subjected to rape and other forms of torture. Considering the number of political prisoners and the well planned and executed use of torture and Rape, its easy to see that Rapes performed by the government greatly exceed those performed at random on any street corner in Iraq, then and now. One is being performed on a daily basis in a planned way to an unknowable number of people. The other requires chance and other random things, which is why it is most likely a much smaller number.

"Its not only the people who benifited from Saddam who hate the US now. The US sometimes behaves verry arrogant if you watch it from outside the US, some people over there think that the US just wants to steal their oil."

Thats a typical anti-US charge. When ever one is a successful and strong, the charge of arrogance always comes from some corner. This happens with individuals, it happens with countries.

"I have seen a map with a triangle on it where most attacks against the US troops hapened - and it wasn't only Baghdad and Tikrit."

90% of the attacks are in the Baghdad Tikrit area. My friends in southern Iraq with the US Marines know this.

"What do you think about the plans to add troops from turkey? i guess that was the only thing were you and i agreed that Turkey troops in Iraq can become a serious problem (especially if they are placed in the north)"

I really do not want to see Turkish troops at all in Iraq. It might be ok in the South where the Shia are, but if Turkish troops are placed in the North where the Kurds are, it could get real ugly there.

"Was it worth it?
I wouldn't give an answer before the occupation is over. Many things can change in the next years. If saddam or any other dictator gets the power again i wouldn't say "yes it was worth it" then the relatives of the fallen US soldiers should ask the responsible persons why they did it this way"

I look at it this way, did we accomplish are main objective which was to ensure the disarmament of Saddam Hussein and did we do that very thing with a small loss of life. The answer to that question is a resounding yes. Everyone, Iraqi citizens, and other countries in the region are already benefiting from the dismantlement of Saddam's regime. The man that invaded and attacked four different countries in the region, used WMD more times than any other leader in recent history, is out of power. This dramatically improves the security situation for all countries in the region and makes the supply of energy to the world safer.

The occupation will be a very long process in which there will be many ups and downs. What is unfair are the criticisms now that expect everything to be perfect and for Iraq that has been oppressed for 24 years to all of a sudden become California.

The process of nation building is going to take years if not decades. Nation building is still continueing in Bosnia and Kosovo, 7 and 4 years later respectfully. There are still problems there though, but things continue to improve. Bosnia now has a standard of living that is 66th in the world, out of 190 countries. Already this high of a standard of living in a country that was just recently torn apart by war and 300,000 were murdered.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-22-2003, 02:00 AM   #59
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Bombing people with depleted amunition and cluster bombs are no mistakes, that are warcrimes. Depleted bombs leave a lot of radioactive waiste and there are kids killed every day because of not exploded clusters,...
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 07-22-2003, 05:21 AM   #60
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:33 AM
Rono,

"Bombing people with depleted amunition and cluster bombs are no mistakes, that are warcrimes. Depleted bombs leave a lot of radioactive waiste and there are kids killed every day because of not exploded clusters,..."

Thats incorrect. There is currently no evidence that proves that depleted uranium used on the battlefield has caused any civilian or military personal side effects. Miners of natural uranium, who mined uranium were studied from the 1940s to the 1970s. The miners of natural uranium despite breathing in the dust, did not experience any health problems at all. Natural uranium is more toxic and radioactive than Depleted Uranium by a factor of two to one.

Unexploded shells and bombs can be a probably and this is not something exclusive to cluster bombs. Every country on the planet has a certain number of bombs and shells that do not detonate when they are supposed to. These are accidents and the best one can do is to spend more money to make the shells and bombs better so there is less unexploded ordanance on the battlefield after a war. Perhaps something can be developed where if a warhead does not detonate, something can warn military experts and allow them to more easily locate and deactivate the unexploded ordanance.

These are not warcrimes. A war crime is the targeting and killing of innocent civilians. The first case above is an unproven allegation, the second is an accident.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com