Daggah

The blind faith in Bush never ceases, I see.

The simple fact is that innocent Iraqis SUFFERED AND DIED because the Bush administration and the military failed - miserably - to do what should have been easy! There is NO EXCUSE for not defending the hospitals.

(And we won't even get into the complete lack of attempt to defend the museum which housed countless priceless artifacts.)

If you think the violence and dissent in Iraq is "a few dissenters," you're a moron. Plain and simple.

And begging the question being the flaw in my argument? It's not valid to ask rhetorical questions to help prove my point? I wouldn't expect Liberty U to offer decent courses on logic but yours is utterly pathetic!

Godbert

I assume you refer to this:

In April the U.K.-based Guardian newspaper reported that Lieutenant Colonel Mohamad Daham al-Tikriti, a recent defector from the General Security Service, admitted that in February 150-200 civilians were killed "at random" on suspicion of conspiracy and buried in a mass grave near Baghdad as part of a larger effort in which 1,500 civilians were summarily executed in the first 2 months of the year.

which is admittedly a lot higher than I thought, but sounds like it was as extraordinary measure (described as a larger effort)

Further down it says:
The regime's motive for such high numbers of summary executions, estimated at more than 4,000 since 1997, may also be linked to reported efforts to intimidate the population.

this comes out at about 50 prisoners a month which would not really help intimidate the population if there was a multiple of that in civilians executed. So it seems those 2 months with 750 killings were extraordinary, probably a last lashing out and to keep the population in line before the war.

So let's say he killed 100 people a month which makes 1200 a year and compare that to the 30000 people the US killed (assumes they killed 3 times as many soldiers as civilians).
Hmmm looks like he would have had to live another 25 years to kill as many Iraqis as the US.

Incidently it also comes out as 3 killed a day, which is not exactly "countless" in most peoples vocabulary, including the people who wrote the report you cited (and they are talking decades not days)
"In keeping with its long and established record of executing perceived or alleged political opponents, the regime committed numerous political and other extrajudicial killings throughout the reporting period."

Oh, and by the way, Bushs number is about 60 innocent people killed per day (20xcountless ), not per month since 9/11 (assuming 30000 in Iraq (7000 civilians + my reasonable estimate of 20000+ conscripted soldiers) and 10000 in Afganistan (4000 civilians + my estimate of 6000 Taliban who were not terrorists)

debater10

I mean, you have now fallen into complete incoherency. I would like to refer you ONE MORE TIME to the argument I was making earlier on in this thread that every state acts in its own best interest. This means that the US had it in its best interest to stop th human rights abuses (and I have yet to hear you argue about that, to no surprise).
The dissent in Iraq is NOT a majority. Plain and simple. You have not provided me any reason to believe so. In fact, I have yet to see any bit of evidence for your arguments.
As far as your logical fallacies, which are great in number, begging the question IS an invalid form of argument.
In reference to my attending Liberty University, that has nothing to do with my own capacities. Certainly even you can see the problem in thinking so. My parents do not have much money. I had to find a school that I could afford. The LU debat eteam offered me enough. You'll have to forgive me for being raised in a lower-class family.
And finally, unless you have any constructive points to make (this means NOT resorting to inane personal attacks and pointless repetition) I consider the discussion a moot point. I look and I see that you are left with nothing more than "why didn't the US save the hospitals" and "there were some popel in Iraq who dissented" and realize that it is a pretty big change from when this started. Lacking evidence, I'm afriad your points are worthless, along with the time that I spent reading them. Good day.

Arken

Buh? How is it in the best interest of the United States to help the Iraqi people? It seems to me that the best interest would be to have continued to be chummy with Saddam so we could trade a lot more with him and boost our economy and let him do whatever he wanted to his people. It might not be the most ethical thing to do, but the thing that is in the 'best interests' of a nation usually isn't very ethical.

debater10

You may want to read the whole article. It also cites 250 deaths per month from landmines left after the Iran-Iraq war the Saddam chose not to take care of. 150 from executions. 16,269 cases of dissapearances related to the Saddam regime in five years, i believe. Also:
"After the 1991 Gulf War, victims and eyewitnesses described war crimes perpetrated by the regime, including deliberate killing, torture, rape, pillage, and hostage-taking. HRW and other organizations worked with various agencies to bring a genocide case at the International Court of Justice against the regime for its conduct of the Anfal campaign against the Kurds in 1988."
Let's not forget about the rapes, tortures, and beatings.

And the US actions is calming down, with casualties becoming less and less common. Let alone the fact that your numbers are also counting armed military casualties. The hundreds permonth are innocent civilians. Also, to say that the 250 per month is an anomoly is ridiculus. There is nothing in the article to support that analysis. Also consider the possible continuation of the Iraqi regime. Look at it this way: There were civilian casualties during the liberation of the Jews during the holocaust. Does that mean that we should have done nothing?

John K. Fitzpatrick

Yes Tinhat, I got a call from France just the other day. It said it opposes me. Not just some part of France, but the entire thing. I'm still flustered by the whole episode.

- John

The SwampThing

You know, when reading your posts, i keep bumping into that word, wich leds me to believe that you wave it around hoping people will think you�re smarter just because you know such an "expensive" word!
How pathetic...

OK, let�s start the onslaught:


Oh, haven�t you heard? Don�t the news get way over to Lynchburg?
The majority (not to say the totallity) of the russian oil companies are as of February 2003 owned by BP British Petrolium, and Shell.
Russia had nothing to loose or gain with the war, all the oil has been sold even before extraction. Your "russian officials" all work for a british paycheck.
Let�s continue, shall we?

Ah, the key word here is "in the 1980�s"! Let�s all keep in mind that back then, Germany had the ok from the US Administration to sell such materials. Even more important, the grand majority of such materials were sold by US companies, trough a third country acting as intermediary. I guess you forget to mention that little detail...
Germany contributed mostly with instalations, factories, and bunkers. The "ingredients" needed for WMD production, had the US seal on them.
Moving on, time is short.

Uh, ain�t that sweet? You mean to tell me they were not peace loving?
Then, i assume you think dropping over 150 Tomahawks in 15 days is more peace loving?
Well well, ain�t Bush the good samaritan?!
Perhaps you have a diferent definition of "peace loving", wich we common mortals haven�t grasped yet, uh?
Next!

I think we already tackled that oil issue for France.
But the next sentence amazed me! And disgusted me at the same time...
So, Bush saved those poor iraqis from being robbed out of their human rights, did he? And France was the guilty of all evil?
Should i post a few pictures of what you call Bush�s "salvation"?
And you�re prepared to condemn France over the US, when it was the US who bombed the shit out of Iraq, and helped Saddam into power?
Man, you have some problems... You need a shrink, fast!

They are giving it to the iraqis, you say??
When??? On what century??? Are you of this planet, or have you travelled here mounted on an asteroid???


PS: Shit!!!I just clicked the submit button by mistake...
Must edit and post the rest on a seperate post.
I�ll be back!

The SwampThing

[insult removed]

Shall i help you remeber how the US sanctions crippeled the economy in Iraq, and how thousands died because they couldn�t even get a common antibiotic??
And where did you get your numbers on the casualties? Past and present?
Mayb your media withelds the information, but we get it in full over here.
And the US casualties? If Iraqis are in favour of Bush�s efforts, why are they rebelling day after day?
Every day, a new anti-america group is born, with the firm intention of kicking american asses out of the country. Even today, i saw on TV a new group speaking on Al- Arabyia TV!
And still you believe it�s a bed of roses?

[sarcasm]
Milosevic was framed??? You mean to tell me he was not guilty??
Wow, what a huge mistake we made, uh? We must set it right, no?[/sarcasm]
What do you know of the International Criminal Tribunal (is that the real name in english?), and who works there?
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why Bush refused to sign...
Or the ICBM Treaty? Or the Kyoto Protocol?
Or why he resumed the bio-chemical weapon�s research, or his resume of the Star Wars program? Or the Patriot Act? Or the Homeland Security? Or hundreds of other illegal and malicious programs?
There are so many its hard to keep track.
And yet, you have the nerve to accuse everybody on earth, but not your precious Bush?

[insult removed]

:banghead: :banghead:

Ion

When did the international community ignore "...rights abuses for the sake of maintaining oil lines."?

Tell me.

It seems to me the international community condemns "...rights abuses for the sake of maintaining oil lines.", which is Bush's game that he doesn't get away with in U.N..

Accordingly, let me change:

"The UN can go screw itself if it is harboring the leader of a totalitarian regime."

into:

The U.S. can go screw itself if it is harboring Bush, the leader of a lying and criminal administration

Now, you are all set again, debater10:

pursue your endeavors here.

Which -you realize- might be different than Lynchburg, you know?

John K. Fitzpatrick

404 error. But that's OK! I'll wait to see the massive popular celebrations next summer on the first anniversary of Iraqi liberation. What date was that again, the day we won this war for them? I.V-Day. It should be put into the highschool history books, alongside the other countries the U.S. liberated last century. What a drag they won't be allowed to shoot off fire-crackers. Did we write a national anthem for them yet?

- John