The Toll Grows Higher and Higher -6,100 to 7,800 have been killed. - Page 6 - 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 10-10-2003, 11:26 AM   #76
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 11:13 PM
I think US will have to rethink its "new doctrine of pre-emptive strikes" and will do so pretty soon. But I guess some new people will come to the White House, first. The events in Iraq show that even the strongest, most powerful state cannot do certain things defying the opinion of the world community. "U can win but you cannot secure the victory". Or "...u can push but u can't direct it..."
STING2,
this "preemptive doctrine" is nothing new to the rest of the world. "If I feel insecure, I will kill everybody who may have been involved in that" is precisely the words that many terrorists, extremists etc. are looking forward to hearing from the US to recruit new followers and fighters. But it is the right and even the duty of any state to protect its citizens from any outside or internal danger. And Americans support it I guess. What they dislike though I think is a situation when threats and dangers are ostensible, when lies are made up, when taxpayers money go into pockets of a very limited number of smb's cronies...and the most outrageous thing is that all is being done "in the name of God and American people".
Meanwhile, the toll grows higher indeed
"More body bags than in Vietnam?..."
__________________

__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 10-10-2003, 04:11 PM   #77
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:13 PM
Scarletwine,

"I'd say the number that died this month far outcedes the number under Sadaam. That is pure supposition and what mood he was in. These are facts."

1 million Iraqi's were killed during Saddam's time in power. An average of 4,000 Iraqi's were murdered every month under Saddam either through his wars of conquest, torture, starvation or executions. Thats far more than any month since Saddam was overthrown.

Although certain people may not want to see a Saddam free Iraq succeed, its going to. Its going to take time, but the people now free of Saddam have the best opportunity they have ever had for a bright future. This is thanks to the wise course of action the Bush Administration took.

I really do know how anyone could rationalize that Iraq and the world would be better off now with Saddam still in power, but I'm always willing to listen.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-10-2003, 04:16 PM   #78
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 12:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
1 million Iraqi's were killed during Saddam's time in power. An average of 4,000 Iraqi's were murdered every month under Saddam either through his wars of conquest, torture, starvation or executions. Thats far more than any month since Saddam was overthrown.
STING, I'm curious. How many of those 1,000,000 innocents did Saddam murder while he was a buddy of the US?
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 10-10-2003, 04:25 PM   #79
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:13 PM
ALEXRUS,

"I think US will have to rethink its "new doctrine of pre-emptive strikes" and will do so pretty soon."

The so called "new doctrine of Pre-emptive strikes" is nothing new and has been a part of US Foreign Policy since 1945.

"The events in Iraq show that even the strongest, most powerful state cannot do certain things defying the opinion of the world community."

To the contrary, the events in Iraq show that France, Germany, and Russia cannot re-write resolutions and dictate to other countries what is a threat or not a threat to their national security. Over 32 countries are currently working with the United States right now in reconstructing Iraq. Iraq is starting the long process of nation building and already, Iraq has a country has more electrical power now than they did before the war. Things continue to improve but it takes time. Victory in nation building is not measured in months, but in years and decades.

"What they dislike though I think is a situation when threats and dangers are ostensible, when lies are made up, when taxpayers money go into pockets of a very limited number of smb's cronies...and the most outrageous thing is that all is being done "in the name of God and American people"."

#1 Iraq failed to Verifiably disarm of all WMD. That alone authorized military action.

#2 No one lied.

#3 In the long run, the people that benefit the most are the people of Iraq.


"Meanwhile, the toll grows higher indeed"

Actually, with Saddam out of power now, the toll has dropped. Over 1 million Iraqi's died under Saddam's rule. Over 24 years, that works out to average of nearly 4,000 a month.

""More body bags than in Vietnam?...""

Not for the USA in Iraq. 209 US troops have been killed by hostile fire in Iraq compared to over 60,000 in Vietnam.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-10-2003, 04:28 PM   #80
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:13 PM
Thatguy,

"STING, I'm curious. How many of those 1,000,000 innocents did Saddam murder while he was a buddy of the US?"

Saddam was never the USA's buddy. the USSR and Saddam were buddies though. We saw that Iraq might lose to Iran in the Iran/Iraq war and the threat Iran would then pose to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, we did send a small amount of aid to Iraq to prevent Iran from overruning Iraq.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-10-2003, 04:39 PM   #81
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 12:13 PM
So while we were looking away and providing money and equipment to Saddam, how many? You didn't answer the question.
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 10-10-2003, 05:38 PM   #82
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:13 PM
Thatguy,

"So while we were looking away and providing money and equipment to Saddam, how many? You didn't answer the question."

I don't know the exact number but I could find out. In any event its irrelevant, unless you wanted a greater loss of life from an Iranian victory. Its not the first time the USA has aided a dictator temporarily. The USA aided Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union in World War II. While a large number of Iraqi's died during the Iran/Iraq war, an even greater number of Iraqi's would have died if Iran had won.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-10-2003, 05:42 PM   #83
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 12:13 PM
But were we supporting Saddam's fight aginast Iraq because we were concerned about the number of Iraqis that would have died if Iran had won?
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 10-10-2003, 07:21 PM   #84
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:13 PM
ThatGuy,

"But were we supporting Saddam's fight aginast Iraq because we were concerned about the number of Iraqis that would have died if Iran had won?"

That was one of the concerns but the biggest concern was what would happen if Iran successfully cut off a majority of the worlds energy supply by defeating Iraq and then overrunning Kuwait and Saudi Arabia which had much smaller military's. Iranian victory in Iraq would have meant terrible consequences for the Sunnie population. If you think Bosnia's ethnic violence was bad, this could have been far worse. In addition, what would happen to the civilian populations in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia if Iranian militants overran those countries?

There were multiple reasons to prevent an Iranian victory just as there were multipe reasons to prevent a Nazi victory in World War II. The USA has never sent more supplies to a single country in history than it sent to the Soviet Union during World War II. But Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union murdered and committed some of the worst human rights abuses during the war. Over a Hundred Thousand Polish freedom fighters, fighting against Nazi rule, were betrayed by the Soviets, and were murdered and buried in mass graves as Soviet troops pushed towards Germany.

US aid to the Soviet Union was still justified though, because if the Eastern Front had collapsed, that would have been it for the Allied effort. The entire planet would be speaking German or Japanese today.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-10-2003, 08:12 PM   #85
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 12:13 PM
That's fine, STING. We never invaded the Soviet Union supposedly to free the people from the tyrannical, murderous rule of the dictator we had previously sent money and supplies to. That's what makes these two situations very different.

Frankly I have a hard time swallowing the revisionist reasoning for our most current war in Iraq. When it was in our own best interests we gave money and supplies to Saddam, so what if he was murdering his own people. Now that we've waged a war and deposed Iraq, those same people are now free. That is a very nice side-effect of a war we started with our own interests in mind. Please don't try to argue that the crux of our mission was to free the Iraqi people.

I understand that wars are started for many reasons. However, Mr. Bush and his cabinet made the case to the American people for the war based on the idea that Saddam was a intergral part of the terrorist threat, and an imminent threat to Americans. Now the war is over, and it's been shown that that evidence was at best flimsy, and in some cases downright wrong. I am glad that our intervention has made headway towards possibly providing a better life for the people of Iraq. I am glad that it means that Saddam can't kill anymore of his own people. But I am unhappy that we were led into a war in Iraq on false pretenses. You can quote UN resolutions until you're blue in the face, STING. I know that 1441 authorized the use of force. I'm glad that you feel this justifies the actions of the president to act unilaterally. I don't feel that way. I feel that if the president was going to lead our nation into war, he had to give us very good reasons why. Without quoting UN resolutions, can you give me those reasons?
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 10-11-2003, 06:22 AM   #86
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:13 PM
ThatGuy,

"That's fine, STING. We never invaded the Soviet Union supposedly to free the people from the tyrannical, murderous rule of the dictator we had previously sent money and supplies to. That's what makes these two situations very different."

The two situations are not different but the same. They prove that it is sometimes necessary to temporarily support someone you don't like in order to achieve a greater good.


"Frankly I have a hard time swallowing the revisionist reasoning for our most current war in Iraq. When it was in our own best interests we gave money and supplies to Saddam, so what if he was murdering his own people. Now that we've waged a war and deposed Iraq, those same people are now free. That is a very nice side-effect of a war we started with our own interests in mind. Please don't try to argue that the crux of our mission was to free the Iraqi people."

No one has ever stated that freeing the Iraqi people was the main reason for the war. But it is was a reason, if not the main one. Building a democratic Iraq solves a decades old problem for US and International security. That problem was that an Iraq that had the capability to defend itself from Iran would always have the capability to overrun Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, simply because of its size relative to them.

Because Iraq would always have this capability, the best way to ensure stability and security in the Persian Gulf is to have an a democratic Iraqi government respectful and friendly to its neighbors rather than an unpredictable dictatorship like Saddam's, hostile to its neighbors. A Free, prosperous, and stable democratic Iraq makes for a more secure Persian Gulf.

"I understand that wars are started for many reasons. However, Mr. Bush and his cabinet made the case to the American people for the war based on the idea that Saddam was a intergral part of the terrorist threat, and an imminent threat to Americans. Now the war is over, and it's been shown that that evidence was at best flimsy, and in some cases downright wrong."

This is false. Saddam failed to Verifiably disarm of all WMD. It was already determined back in 1991 that Saddam's failure to disarm would be a threat to the world. The case for war was based on Saddam's failure to disarm. The Coaltion never had to prove anything!!!!!!! It was incumbent upon Saddam to prove that he had disarmed of all WMD.

Saddam invaded and attacked four different countries over the past 20 years completely unprovoked in each case. I'm sorry but thats not peanuts. Its behavior that is a serious threat to world peace and international stability especially considering the threat to the WORLD's energy supply.

"But I am unhappy that we were led into a war in Iraq on false pretenses. You can quote UN resolutions until you're blue in the face, STING. I know that 1441 authorized the use of force. I'm glad that you feel this justifies the actions of the president to act unilaterally."

You don't really seem to care or understand the resolutions, but if you would take the time to read them, I think you would understand their value and the seriousness of Saddam's violations. If you have and don't, oh well.

The President never acted unilaterally. It is the UN that authorized the use of force through multiple resolutions. That makes it a multilateral act.

"I feel that if the president was going to lead our nation into war, he had to give us very good reasons why. Without quoting UN resolutions, can you give me those reasons?"

Thats simple. If Saddam could not be verifiably disarmed and sufficiently contained, given Saddam's prior behavior, the invasion and attacks, unprovoked, of 4 independent countries, the highest percentage of GDP devoted to the production of WMD, the greatest use of WMD ever, having nearly successfully built a nuclear bomb just prior to the Gulf War, Saddam's continueing and obvious regional ambitions, the risk to the energy supply coming from the Persian Gulf would simply be to high if Saddam were allow to remain in power with WMD or WMD potential.

Because of culture and Politics, the USA could not maintain large numbers of troops in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Secondly, the efforts to keep Saddam contained were failing as evidence of the flow of 4 Billion dollars worth of goods every year through smuggling across Iraq's borders.

Saddam perhaps not now, but in the future would have the ability to smuggle in new weapons banned under the embargo which could improve the conventional effectiveness of his fighting forces and aid in the delivery of various kinds of WMD.

Deterence against Saddam having failed so many times in the past could not be counted on in the future to work against him indefinitely. Especially as the smuggling continued or even increased, and Saddam's capabilities improved.

The Ultimate risk here is that sometime in the future, Saddam would obtain the means to either grab control of most of the Persian Gulf Oil Fields or subject them to destruction through the use of WMD if that failed. These fields, spread from Kuzistan in Iran, Southern Iraq, Kuwait, and Northeastern Saudi Arabia contain a majority of the worlds energy supply currently.

The capture or destruction of this energy supply, regardless of how it is done, would be a global disaster. With more than 50% of the worlds supply of energy suddenly gone from the market, energy cost would skyrocket out of control worldwide. The average person, the average business, would be unable to live or do business if the price of energy jumped to these alarming levels. The Planet would fall into a Global depression worse than the Great Depression of the 1930s. The Economic effects can be estimated, the human cost cannot be! Global depression on this scale intails far more than simply the loss of jobs and money, were talking potentially the loss of society and anarchy.

The USA and other countries have known how vital the energy from the middle east was since the 1940s. As time has passed it has become even more vital to the whole planet. It will continue to be well into the future if or until another cheaper alternative source of energy is found. But until that time, one must deal with the reality of today and doing everything to prevent the ultimate disaster.

Saddams past actions and Behavior + the possesion of various types of WMD, and potentially aquiring eventually WMD such as nuclear weapons , together, represented a threat to global security that could not be overlooked and had to be either 100% contained and disarmed or either removed.

The USA tried for 12 years to completely insure the containment and 100% disarmament of Saddam. This policy unfortunately failed, leaving removal of Saddam with military force, as the only option.

This is the chief reason why the USA and other member states of the UN had to act. There are a variety of other reasons as well, that involve WMD and terrorism, and of course Iraqi freedom and democracy as means to produce lasting peace and security for the Persian Gulf Region.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-11-2003, 12:30 PM   #87
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: 09:13 PM
STING2:

Do you think it's ok that a country to start a war just for a economical reason?
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-11-2003, 06:13 PM   #88
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:13 PM
Klaus,

This is NOT just an economical reason, but the survival of society as we know it. It is Saddam that has made the choices of aggression and WMD use which threaten the planet. Saddam was given a choice in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War, he could remain in power as long as he verifiably disarmed of all WMD or be removed from power if he chose not to do that.

Saddam was the one that invaded Kuwait and for him to remain in power after that serious violation, he was required to verifiably disarm 100%. He didn't.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-11-2003, 06:17 PM   #89
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: 09:13 PM
STING2:

just that general question. Not only Iraq war...

Do you think it's ok that a country to start a war just for a economical reason?
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-11-2003, 07:24 PM   #90
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:13 PM
Klaus,

If your talking about the situation I described with Iraq, yes. If your talking simply about a dispute over trade barriers and tarrifs that have happened between Europe and the USA recently, the answer is no.
__________________

__________________
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 03:13 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