revising my opinion on the war

[STING2]

Scarletwine,

"Being a sceptic where authority is concerned and especially politicians, the inability of the admin. to demonstrate in a tangible way the threat of Sadaam was a major reason I protested the war, especially with the former head of the inspection team refutting the "facts" the admin. used. The other was the lack of OK and involvement by NATO and the UN."

Did you realize that the majority of the Bush Administrations case against Iraq was based on what the UN inspectors had found up to the end of 1998 in Iraq. When Bush got UN inspectors back into Iraq in 2002 and Saddam failed to cooperate by giving up or showing the remains of the WMD that he was documented by the UN as having in 1998, what was the administration supposed to do? Peaceful disarmament of Iraq is incumbent upon Saddam's cooperation with the process. If Saddam does not cooperate, the only way to insure that he is disarmed is through military force.

Now we are stuck in a QUAGMIRE with no outlet in sight.

Why do you say Quagmire? Iraq is a country that has been drained by 24 years of Saddam in power, 3 wars, and international economic sanctions. The administration and everyone new that after the war was over, US troops would have to be there for years.

But lets say the French and the Germans were with us all the way. What precisely in detail, do you think would be different about the post-war situation in Iraq considering the majority of the attacks have been by surviving loyal members of Saddams regime?

What happened to a Iraqi intermeddiate gov't?

 

[deep]

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Sting,
What could well be different if more countries than simply the US were involved (and I'm including countries other than just France and Germany) is that Iraqis might feel less like their country is being occupied by an aggressor. Whether you agree with them or not, you must admit that there are many in Iraq who feel hostile to the US because it is seen as an aggressor as it attacked their country. There are very many people in Iraq who will have been badly affected by the war, whether because they lost a friend or family member or because their home or local school was damaged in the bombing.

Of course it could also be different if the US would begin to treat innocent Iraqis in a more humane fashion. Perhaps you've seen the news reports which show US soldiers bursting into people's homes in the dead of night, tying their arms behind their backs at gunpoint and then ransacking their home. This clearly isn't the way for the US to establish a good relationship with the people of Iraq.

*Fizz.

 

[STING2]

Fizzing,


"What could well be different if more countries than simply the US were involved (and I'm including countries other than just France and Germany) is that Iraqis might feel less like their country is being occupied by an aggressor. Whether you agree with them or not, you must admit that there are many in Iraq who feel hostile to the US because it is seen as an aggressor as it attacked their country. There are very many people in Iraq who will have been badly affected by the war, whether because they lost a friend or family member or because their home or local school was damaged in the bombing."

How many people in Iraq can actually distinguish Italian from Polish troops or French from Dutch troops? To most people, they are foreign soldiers, plain and simple. Most people in Iraq, mainly the Shia and Kurds do not feel their country was necessarily attacked, but feel an evil leader that has killed 1.7 million people in the region was removed. There are plenty of disagreements on what to do now of course as their always is when such a big change like the fall of a dictator happens.

Despite a vocal minority in the south, British and US Marines have gotten along very well with people in Southern Iraq. Over 90% of the fighting and hostile fire against US troops is in the Baghdad/Tikrit area.

Damage from the war to civilians has been very small. Most of the poor conditions in many area's of Iraq have been there for over a decade, even two decades. Saddam executed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people. The war in contrast was a small costs to Iraqi civilians compared to the rule of Saddam Hussien. An Uncountable number of Iraqi lives have been saved because of the war. People in Iraq for the first time in a quarter century have the opportunity to have a real future. The cost of not going to war would have been far greater for Iraqi civilians than the war has been.

"Of course it could also be different if the US would begin to treat innocent Iraqis in a more humane fashion. Perhaps you've seen the news reports which show US soldiers bursting into people's homes in the dead of night, tying their arms behind their backs at gunpoint and then ransacking their home. This clearly isn't the way for the US to establish a good relationship with the people of Iraq."

Actually I hope they would do more of this. This is how weapons are siezed and Saddam loyalist captured. These are the people that are planting bombs around Baghdad and killing people. Its one thing to be waken up in the night like this, its another to have a family member killed, a daughter or mother raped, and to live in fear of the unknown. Its going to take some time to root out the Baath Party and Saddam loyalists, but its necessary if people in Baghdad want to have a safe and secure future.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

"Of course it could also be different if the US would begin to treat innocent Iraqis in a more humane fashion. Perhaps you've seen the news reports which show US soldiers bursting into people's homes in the dead of night, tying their arms behind their backs at gunpoint and then ransacking their home. This clearly isn't the way for the US to establish a good relationship with the people of Iraq."

Actually I hope they would do more of this.

You make me sick.

Go ahead and ban me if you like mods, but I'd like to have my say on this point.

How would you like this to happen to you Sting? You're sleeping in your bed at night when suddenly six or eight people break down your front door with a battering ram. They run into your home speaking in a language you don't understand. They come into your bedroom and point guns at you before dragging you from your bed, throwing you to the floor and tying your hands behind your back. They search your house, throwing your possessions on the floor, you don't know if theyr'e damaging your possessions, stealing them or anything else. Do you have children, Sting? Imagine their fear as they see their parents being handcuffed at gunpoint. Imagine their terror as their home is searched by foreign soldiers. Imagine trying to feel safe enough to go back to sleep after this happened, imagine trying to clean up the mess the soldiers made of your home, imagine trying to get the door they smashed down fixed.

And you want to see more of this? Like I said: it makes me sick.

I don't care if people supported or opposed this war, we should all have the basic decency and respect for human rights to realise that this treatment of innocent people is WRONG.

 

[Dreadsox]

How many people in Iraq can actually distinguish Italian from Polish troops or French from Dutch troops? To most people, they are foreign soldiers, plain and simple. Most people in Iraq, mainly the Shia and Kurds do not feel their country was necessarily attacked, but feel an evil leader that has killed 1.7 million people in the region was removed. There are plenty of disagreements on what to do now of course as their always is when such a big change like the fall of a dictator happens.

STING, with all due respect, if this were a war that was clearly sanctioned by the UN, with troops from other MUSLIM Nations involved, with the support of multiple nations from the Middle East, I do not think they would have to distinguish between them. Of course, if you think it is better that Americans alone are killed instead of working through the international comminity then so be it.

Yes, Saddam was evil. I am pretty sure even the nations who were opposed to the war and the protestors in the streets before the war would agree with this. How is it even remotely relevant to the situation?

Of course most people in Iraq are happy Saddam is gone, but guess what, they are equally not happy about being dominated by an OCCUPATION force dominated by the US.

Despite a vocal minority in the south, British and US Marines have gotten along very well with people in Southern Iraq. Over 90% of the fighting and hostile fire against US troops is in the Baghdad/Tikrit area.

Wow, I think today may be the first time I have seen you admit there is some dissent elsewhere in Iraq. I wonder, do you truly believe that the vocal minority of Shite Muslims, will remain a minority if it appears the US is preventing their religious leaders from participating in the governing of Iraq?

Damage from the war to civilians has been very small. Most of the poor conditions in many area's of Iraq have been there for over a decade, even two decades. Saddam executed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people. The war in contrast was a small costs to Iraqi civilians compared to the rule of Saddam Hussien. An Uncountable number of Iraqi lives have been saved because of the war. People in Iraq for the first time in a quarter century have the opportunity to have a real future. The cost of not going to war would have been far greater for Iraqi civilians than the war has been.

Again, back to the EVIL SADDAM, which if we did a poll here in FYM everyone would agree was EVIL. This point you make about saving lives is true, and I believe I used it months before the war started here in FYM. The problem is, this was NOT the main thrust of the administrations case against Iraq.

Actually I hope they would do more of this. This is how weapons are siezed and Saddam loyalist captured. These are the people that are planting bombs around Baghdad and killing people. Its one thing to be waken up in the night like this, its another to have a family member killed, a daughter or mother raped, and to live in fear of the unknown. Its going to take some time to root out the Baath Party and Saddam loyalists, but its necessary if people in Baghdad want to have a safe and secure future.

I totally 100% disagree with this statement. I suppose we identify Ba'ath Party and Saddam loyalists from our trusty intelligence? There needs to be some type of system modeled after South Africa, where people can come to the table, confess crimes, and move on. A weapons turn in would be nice as well. To a person who has been treated the way you describe above, there is NO DIFFERENCE between SADDAM breaking down the door or the new bully on the block, it is just another bully.

 

[80sU2isBest]

You make me sick.

Go ahead and ban me if you like mods, but I'd like to have my say on this point.

How would you like this to happen to you Sting? You're sleeping in your bed at night when suddenly six or eight people break down your front door with a battering ram. They run into your home speaking in a language you don't understand. They come into your bedroom and point guns at you before dragging you from your bed, throwing you to the floor and tying your hands behind your back. They search your house, throwing your possessions on the floor, you don't know if theyr'e damaging your possessions, stealing them or anything else. Do you have children, Sting? Imagine their fear as they see their parents being handcuffed at gunpoint. Imagine their terror as their home is searched by foreign soldiers. Imagine trying to feel safe enough to go back to sleep after this happened, imagine trying to clean up the mess the soldiers made of your home, imagine trying to get the door they smashed down fixed.

And you want to see more of this? Like I said: it makes me sick.

I don't care if people supported or opposed this war, we should all have the basic decency and respect for human rights to realise that this treatment of innocent people is WRONG.

Fizzing, maybe you need to go back and read Sting's post. This is happening to Baath Party members and Saddam loyalists. It's not some willy nilly "Oh, let's get this Iraqi" kind of thing. They are going after the bad guys, not innocent Iraqis.

 

[STING2]

FizzingWhizzbees,

How would you like it if your family members were killed by a bomb made in a house that you decided not to search because its some how some grave human rights violation. If you wanted to catch a Baath Party member or Saddam loyalist that you believe is hiding somewhere, you don't invite the occupants of the house to come outside in the middle of the day and ask them politely over Green Tea if it would be okay to search the house. Your not going to catch anyone that could potentially kill dozens of people with a bomb that way. The only way to catch someone like that is through surprise, best done when they would least suspect it.

As far as what happens when you search a house where it is suspected that a Baath Party leader or Saddam loyalist that has been killing US troops is hiding, what the soldiers did was totally appropriate. If a Baath Party member of Saddam loyalist was there, people could easily be killed. The best chance for the survival and safety of the civilians and the US soldies in this action is to do precisely what they did. Its not pleasent and its not nice, but its important to do if want to save peoples lives.

For me, its about protecting Iraqi civilians and US troops from the violence that is being conducted by Baath Party members and Saddam Loyalist. Protecting peoples lives is more important that the experience of being ruffed up and scared in the middle of the night.

I don't think it is sick at all for US troops to be conducting raids to intercept Saddam loyalist and Baath Party members that are killing people. This is not a tiny villiage on the Irish coast, this is the Baghdad/Tikrit area.

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

"STING, with all due respect, if this were a war that was clearly sanctioned by the UN, with troops from other MUSLIM Nations involved, with the support of multiple nations from the Middle East, I do not think they would have to distinguish between them. Of course, if you think it is better that Americans alone are killed instead of working through the international comminity then so be it."

The United States is not working alone! There are many reasons though why it is not a good idea to have soldiers from many middle eastern countries in Iraq. As I said before, if you have a breakdown of what the troop commitment should be for you to consider it "multi-national" please tell me what it is. What is your historical model for a multi-national force for Iraq?

I'd be happy as hell if no US troops had to be in Iraq at all. But this mission requires US troops, a large number of US troops. Without them, any sort of international effort would most likely not work, at least in this initial phase.

I'm going to ignore your last sentence. I remind you that my best friend is currently serving in the US Marine Corp in Southern Iraq. He is a Captain and a Cobra Attack Helicopter Pilot. I normally communicate with him through E-mail, but he actually got to call me from Iraq a few weeks ago. Another good friend has had the luck of being home from Iraq for the past two months, but he served for 6 months in Afghanistan in the last half of 2002. He got home from Afghanistan and 6 weeks later was headed to Iraq.

"Yes, Saddam was evil. I am pretty sure even the nations who were opposed to the war and the protestors in the streets before the war would agree with this. How is it even remotely relevant to the situation?"

I was responding to what Fizzing had stated. Not everyone understands how terrible Saddam was, especially those in the Anti-War community. Its important to remind those that talk about the cost of the war, what the cost of not acting would be.

"Of course most people in Iraq are happy Saddam is gone, but guess what, they are equally not happy about being dominated by an OCCUPATION force dominated by the US."

Most people in Iraq are concerned about their daily needs, not the composition of the current coalition force. Many people are still scared about Saddam. Continued coalition presence will help to alleviate this. To compare the US soldiers with SADDAM's secret security services and military is absurd.

"Wow, I think today may be the first time I have seen you admit there is some dissent elsewhere in Iraq. I wonder, do you truly believe that the vocal minority of Shite Muslims, will remain a minority if it appears the US is preventing their religious leaders from participating in the governing of Iraq?"

There is someone dissenting about someone or something in every part of the planet. I have stated my concerned about this vocal minority before, especially in regards to their relations with Iraq. I can't say what the the future holds, but I know that it would be a mistake to allow the fundamentalist Shia, a level of position in the government in which they could eventually take over the government and surpress the minority Sunni and Kurdish populations in the future.

"Again, back to the EVIL SADDAM, which if we did a poll here in FYM everyone would agree was EVIL. This point you make about saving lives is true, and I believe I used it months before the war started here in FYM. The problem is, this was NOT the main thrust of the administrations case against Iraq."

Its not a problem because in the context I was discussing the above, I was not discussing the administrations case for war against Iraq. Again, I was responding specifically in the above case to Fizzing's statements about the conditions of Iraqi civilians.

"I totally 100% disagree with this statement. I suppose we identify Ba'ath Party and Saddam loyalists from our trusty intelligence? There needs to be some type of system modeled after South Africa, where people can come to the table, confess crimes, and move on. A weapons turn in would be nice as well. To a person who has been treated the way you describe above, there is NO DIFFERENCE between SADDAM breaking down the door or the new bully on the block, it is just another bully."

Yes, I'm sure Saddam and his followers will walk up and confess their crimes and move on. This is not even remotely like South Africa. I trust the intelligence that US soldiers have been gathering on the ground rather than some crazy idea that the best way to take out a sniper is to ask him to come downtown to the palace and confess his sins.

A weapons turn is already taking place. Those that have no real need for them turn them in. Those that are interested in attacking coalition troops do not turn them in.

There is a BIG difference between the coalitions occupation of Iraq and Saddam Hussien. In one case the person is killed or maimed in someway. Or perhaps they spend years in a torture chamber. In the US case, a family experiences what its like when the military performs a legitamite search operation in order to head off the potential killing of dozens of people. Its not fun for anyone involved including the soldiers. Saddam acted to take lives, while US soldiers are acting to save them. If you equate Saddam with the good work that US soldiers are doing, your misinformed on what Saddam did on a routine basis in the past.

 

[Scarletwine]

Fizzing, maybe you need to go back and read Sting's post. This is happening to Baath Party members and Saddam loyalists. It's not some willy nilly "Oh, let's get this Iraqi" kind of thing. They are going after the bad guys, not innocent Iraqis.

I don't quite get this idea. All the citizens that wanted a job were Baath Party members. What intelligence sources are they using? A next door neighbor that never liked the guy?

I have to agree with with Fizz and Dread, this is bullshit.
They are invading homes in the middle of the night and using unnecessary force. There are better ways to deal with the situation. We are acting no better than Sadaam.

 

[Popmartijn]

They are invading homes in the middle of the night and using unnecessary force. There are better ways to deal with the situation. We are acting no better than Sadaam.

Correction, under Saddam the Iraqi people had (a bit more) food, heat, electricity and security. Not much maybe, but still a bit...

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I'm going to echo Dread and Scarletwine - how do you know the people who are being held at gunpoint and having their homes ransacked by US troops are "Saddam loyalists"? Is it acceptable to treat people in this way on a mere suspicion? It isn't happening *only* to people who were members of the Ba'ath party, although that reminds me: weren't some of the pro-war people here arguing that people needed to be members of the Ba'ath party in order to secure food and other supplies in Iraq prior the war...?

STING: Not everyone understands how terrible Saddam was, especially those in the Anti-War community

Actually I think you'll find that the anti-war movement knew perfectly well what Saddam was like. It's why we campaigned under the slogan NO TO WAR; NO TO SADDAM. Opposition to the war does not mean support for Saddam.

We knew just how terrible Saddam was in the 1980s when Western politicians were still happy to have their photos taken shaking hands with Saddam while we were arguing that he was a vile dictator and the West should stop supplying him with weapons.

In the year before the war I worked with a refugee campaign group which included several Iraqi Kurds who were fighting to prevent the British government sending them back to Iraq. We argued they should be allowed to stay in this country because of what Saddam's regime would do to them if they were sent back.

Does any of that suggest to you that people in the anti-war movement supported Saddam or were under any illusions as to the nature of his regime?

 

[STING2]

FizzingWhizzbees,

In order to take down Baath party member and other Saddam loyalist, it is necessary to conduct raids on area's where they might be hiding. Capturing Saddam loyalist and Baath party members saves lives. The raid itself is conducted in a way that any police or swat team in a US city would do wants the decision is given to move in. To do otherwise risks the lives of anyone inside and the soldiers themselves.

"We knew just how terrible Saddam was in the 1980s when Western politicians were still happy to have their photos taken shaking hands with Saddam while we were arguing that he was a vile dictator and the West should stop supplying him with weapons."

The situation in the 1980s saw Iraq nearly get overrun by Iran. While there was a small amount of Western help to prevent this, the vast majority of it came from the SOVIET UNION. Look at the weapon systems that the Iraqi military actually uses!

The Anti-War crowd recently has supported policy options that would have left Saddam in power. Their ideas would never of disarmed Saddam and would of led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's. The War removed Saddam and removed the threat of his use and production of WMD. It also saved hundreds of Thousands of Iraqi's from torture and death. In my opinion, if the Anti-War crowd really understood the threat that Saddam was and what he had done to his people, they would have supported military action to remove Saddam. Then again, if your a pacifist, maybe not. Bottom line, Bush's actions removed a threat and saved far more lives than it took. Anti-War crowds policy's would have left a threat in place that could blow up in the future, and would have been enormously costly in terms of lives for the Iraqi people.

Popmartijn,

Correction, if you were Sunni muslim and in no way a political opponent of Saddam, you might have been a little better off under Saddam than you are now. If you were a Kurd or a Shia, the conditions that people live in now have been the conditions they have been experiencing without any help for years.

Lets not forget the nearly 1 million people that Saddam murdered. I think they have a slightly different opinion about life under Saddam.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

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

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.

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.

 

[verte76]

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

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.

Right. Some Iraqis believe that now, Iraq is never going to be stable. *Never*. That's scary. And no, we didn't support Saddam. He's a . I never felt any differently. He's still at large and is still causing problems.

 

[STING2]

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.

 

[anitram]

So is "anti-war" a slur now?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

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]

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.

 

[STING2]

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?

 

[Klaus]

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

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

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.

 

[STING2]

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]

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.

 

[Klaus]

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

 

[STING2]

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.

 

[Klaus]

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

 

[STING2]

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.

 

[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,...

 

[STING2]

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.