Godbert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David M. Payne

Saddam routinely killed more a month than we have killed in any month. I'm sorry that some innocent people died in the war, but as a Vietnam vet I know that that happens in war. That�s why they say war is hell RD. Here is a quote on just how many people died under Saddam. Do you really want to ally yourself with this? (I wonder if you will accept me painting you as a supporter of Saddam, the same way you tried to paint me as a supporter of Bush?)
From WAIS at Stanford university we have this "�Tom Grey answers David Crow's request the empirical basis for his statement on the number of dead under Saddam Hussein. "See deaths under Saddam. Here is an excerpt:": Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power�"

Hum, 6052 to 7703 died so far under us, (most of them combatants BTW RD), according to your web site at the time of this post, and 70 a day under Saddam. I'll use the low side, the high side is much worse, isn't it RD? Do the math RD and then come back and tell me just how bad Bush and his war is for the average Iraqi.

David

Nice example of the constant shameless twisting of the truth and outright lying coming from the extreme right.
Averaging people killed under Saddam is pretty pointless, since most of the people killed under Saddam were killed when the US helped him and later when the US encouraged an uprising that was doomed to fail and end in pointless bloodshed. To include casualties from the war with Iran is just downright idiotic.
The question is how many people was he (and not the sanctions) killing lately and I have seen no evidence he killed anywhere near as many Iraquis this whole fucking millenium as the US did. Maybe there is some, but your post is just complete disgusting, misleading pro-war propaganda.
As for your comment that most of the 6000-7700 dead from the iraq body count site were combatants that is obviously an outright lie, since the site states repeatedly and very, very clearly that it counts civilian deaths.
Assuming that the US did not intentionally target civilians the combatant casualties would have to be ten-thousands.

RLV

Er... it was you and acronos who started it with your claim about being the only centrist, do you remember?

Will we? I doubt so. The pro-war will always be able to claim that the WMDs were destroyed by Saddam just before the war (one wonders why) or shipped to the next country that they want to invade.
And I personally won't believe any WMD found by the US without the presence of independent inspectors allowe to work freely in Iraq, something that isn't happening now. The US gov't has given me all the reasons to doubt about its sincerity, don't you think so?

So, most likely we'll never know for sure about the matter of the WMDs. We can only make reasoned conjectures, and the reasoned conjectures that the facts allow are saying 'there were no WMDs' as loudly and clearly as they can.

Tell this to him, I'm only responsible of what I post here.

Nooooooo.
As I've said before, there are no hard data on the number of Saddam's victims, but it is well known that most of these died before the Gulf War (while the US watched or even applauded) or in '91s post-war Shiite rebellion, encouraged and abandoned by the US.
Since them, there are no news of massive murders by Saddam. You can't say that he 'routinely killed more a month', because there isn't anything to indicate that.

'Some' being in the range of the tens of thousands, and climbing.

Precisely!
War is hell: don't start one without a very, very, very, very good reason!
The pile of lies that Bush & co. uttered before the war were not even a mediocre reason for a war.

Again, most of these deaths were up to '91, while the US either looked the other way or even helped Saddam.

Do you have numbers for the deaths Saddam caused in '02 or '03? Because then it's when Bush & co. started planning the attack on Iraq.

No, that site, Iraqi Body Count, only counts civilians, as it says quite clearly in the middle of its home page:
"A Survey of Projects Counting Civilians Killed by the War in Iraq"

The number of Iraqi soldiers dead is believed to be even higher, but there is no official number. One wonders why.

Btw, I never painted you as a supporter of Bush. I only said that you defend some of the positions that the far right supports. But you really are starting to sound like a Bush supporter, resorting to this kind of tactics, name-caling and number-twisting, to defend him.
I do not support Saddam, just as I do not support Bush, and I oppose the killing of innocent Iraqi civilians, be it done by Saddam or by Bush.


RLV

David M. Payne

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Godbert

Quote:

Originally posted by David M. Payne Saddam routinely killed more a month than we have killed in any month. I'm sorry that some innocent people died in the war, but as a Vietnam vet I know that that happens in war. That�s why they say war is hell RD. Here is a quote on just how many people died under Saddam. Do you really want to ally yourself with this? (I wonder if you will accept me painting you as a supporter of Saddam, the same way you tried to paint me as a supporter of Bush?) From WAIS at Stanford university we have this "�Tom Grey answers David Crow's request the empirical basis for his statement on the number of dead under Saddam Hussein. "See deaths under Saddam. Here is an excerpt:": Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power�" Hum, 6052 to 7703 died so far under us, (most of them combatants BTW RD), according to your web site at the time of this post, and 70 a day under Saddam. I'll use the low side, the high side is much worse, isn't it RD? Do the math RD and then come back and tell me just how bad Bush and his war is for the average Iraqi. David Nice example of the constant shameless twisting of the truth and outright lying coming from the extreme right. Averaging people killed under Saddam is pretty pointless, since most of the people killed under Saddam were killed when the US helped him and later when the US encouraged an uprising that was doomed to fail and end in pointless bloodshed. To include casualties from the war with Iran is just downright idiotic. The question is how many people was he (and not the sanctions) killing lately and I have seen no evidence he killed anywhere near as many Iraquis this whole fucking millenium as the US did. Maybe there is some, but your post is just complete disgusting, misleading pro-war propaganda. As for your comment that most of the 6000-7700 dead from the iraq body count site were combatants that is obviously an outright lie, since the site states repeatedly and very, very clearly that it counts civilian deaths. Assuming that the US did not intentionally target civilians the combatant casualties would have to be ten-thousands.

OK, let me retract the remark about combatants in the above quote. I can't verify whither their count is accurate, as I have no idea who is behind the http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ web site, or what they may have in the way of axes to grind against the US. WAIS appears to be made up of some pretty unbiased scholars, scientists and other members of the academic world. I guess it is the fashion GB to claim anyone who doesn�t follow your line of thinking is some kind of right wing fanatic. They do exist as do those on the left, who like their brethren on the right will look for any way to place their message in its most favorable light, even if they have to shade the truth, or lie outright to make their point. This quote by you is one of the reasons that I rarely venture into PD much anymore:

"�The question is how many people was he (and not the sanctions) killing lately and I have seen no evidence he killed anywhere near as many Iraquis this whole fucking millenium as the US did. Maybe there is some, but your post is just complete disgusting, misleading pro-war propaganda..."

I gave you reasonably unbiased evidence, you refuse to acknowledge it, and basically call me some kind of disgusting etc spreader of propaganda. I'm not WAIS GB, refute their material. It appears that you are following the tried and true, "If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger." How original. I don't remember any of our troops over there helping Saddam kill all those people, perhaps you can provide some evidence that shows otherwise? Did the US support Saddam sometimes? Yes. We also supported Stalin too remember? And for pretty much the same reasons, Saddam was fighting an enemy of ours, Iran. That�s the real world GB, get used to it.

As for the rest of your post, Saddam spent his oil money on real estate and his Baath party supporters. He could have spent his (Iraq's) money of the needs of the Iraqis, but it made great press to show how the sanctions were hurting "His" people. Funny how you can see through the Bush BS, but you are blind to Saddam's propaganda. The world isn't black and white GB no mater how much you guys want to believe it is.

I Don�t like GW Bush, I think he is a religious nut who is looking out for his own kind (the rich kind) and he could care less about the rest of us. But Saddam was a VERY BAD MAN and he needed to be removed. We did that. Will it turn out to be in our best interest? We'll see, but as I made pretty clear in Utopia-612, I think the world is in great peril due to the kind of conflict we see right now.

This thread is getting repetitious and boring. We have different views on the need to remove Saddam, and I don't imagine you will see it my way, nor will see it your way. As I am not in the mood to get into a mud slinging match, you guys have fun, and if someone brings up something interesting, I'll be back.

David

RLV

Methinks you are failing to notice (repeatedly) one key concept that Godbert and I have stressed in our posts:

LATELY

Nobody is disputing WAIS claim about the TOTAL number of people killed. It may be accurate, it may be not, but everybody agrees that Saddam killed lots of Iraqis. Everybody agrees, too, that the great majority of these deaths occurred until '91. The latest massive massacre known was the crushing of the Shiite rebellion after the Gulf War in '91 (encouraged and abandoned by the US, btw). 12 years ago.
Since then, there is NO evidence of any massive massacre in Iraq. Political opponents were killed, but nowhere near the number of deaths caused by the US invasion.

So, according to you Saddam has the green light to massacre people (be it his own or Iran's) when he fights an enemy of the US. Yes, this is realpolitik, and this removes any pretence that Saddam's removal may have any remote relationship with his crimes. Had he still been fighting an enemy of the US in '03, he could kill as many people as he wanted, and the US would do nothing against it.

Not only. Iraq also provided its citizens with help to cover the basic need.

Of course. Saddam was an evil dictator, remember? Did you expect him to act nice to his people? He did, but only as far as it didn't inconvenience him.
But the fact is that the sanctions did hurt the Iraqi people. Had they not been in place, the Iraqis would have lived better.

The welfare of the Iraqi people was not a priority for Saddam, but neither was it for the US.

Btw, if not caring for the welfare of his people is a sufficient reason for invading the country of a ruler, the list of countries to be invaded would be quite long. And the US would be there.

You should try to disprove Godbert's and my points, rather than just claiming that they are propaganda. So far you haven't done this.

Up to here, we are fully agreed.

Not agreed anymore.

You haven't provided any rationale for the need to remove Saddam in '03.
- WMDs: none found, no proof of its existence, hints ot its non-existence (they were not used, remember?), lots of proof of the US lying to make people believe they existed.
- Links to Al'Qaida: none found, and all the intelligence agencies in the world saying that they didn't exist.
- Saddam massacring his people: no evidence found of this after '91.

Is there any other reason for the need to remove Saddam?

Mind you, Saddam's acts in '03 would have been reason enough to remove him, if removing him would mean simply pushing a button and putting him in prison. Even killiing hiim would have been justified.
But killing tens of thousands of innocent people? Injuring and maiming many more, destroying much of the country, threatening it with chaos, anarchy and a possible theocracy?
No, it was NOT justified.

Ah, the welfare of the Iraqi people disappeared from the screen.

You could start by providing a real reason for the removal of Saddam. So far you haven't provided any, as shown above. Despite your claims not to like Bush (something that I've got no reason to dobut), you've swallowed his propaganda whole, and you seem to like it.


RLV

RED DAVE

While we can bat back and forth the exact figures as to how many Iraqis Hussein killed as a murderous dictator, and how many were killed while the US stood by and Hussein slaughtered those who we urged to revolt, here's another set of charming figures that knocks out the US case for the liberation of Iraq from Hussein's terror.

Deaths Due to UN Sanctions

Why some people on this board continue to trust the good intentions, good purposes or good effect of the US invasion of Iraq is beyond me?

I have quoted the following many times. Read it and see the same scenario played out dozens of times before Iraq. And let's not forget the liberation of Granada, Nicaragua and Panama.

Smedly Butler on Intervention

Nothing new under the sun.

RED DAVE

David M. Payne

My toe hurts, I had surgery on it today, so my time here will be brief, I need to get some sleep.

This thread has pretty well run its course for me, besides there are bigger fish to fry than the war in Iraq and who is the real bad guy IMHO. I don't like Bush, I think he is out for his kind, the rich kind, and that isn't most of you and it's definitely not me. That said, Saddam needed to be removed, as do his kind around the world. His kind are the authoritarian kind, and Bush isn't so far away from being one with his beliefs in the "Truth" of the God/religion biz, intertwined with his "Faith" in his brand of big business being the savior of humanity. It's impossible to separate the political and religious strife right now worldwide. Sure there are some small conflicts that aren�t just about the dynamic duo above, but they don't have the impact of the war on terrorism, of which the war in Iraq was just one example. Yes, I believe that Saddam supported terrorism, mostly against his own people, but he killed plenty of other people too. That makes him a terrorist in my book and in need of removal. Yes, he isn't the only one, but we have to get rid of them in a rational manner, and not try to eliminate all the big thugs in the world at the same time. It can't be done in one felt swoop. I know that Saddam was no true believer; he was a Baath Socialist and admirer of Stalin and his methods. But he used religion to support his cause, and you can be sure that the Christian religion played a big role in Bush's desire to invade Iraq. (He knows God is on his side, just ask him. ) Afghanistan is another example of this, but with the God/religion biz clearly on both sides there.

We see the rise of fundamentalist Islamic sects and their desire to cast the world in their mold, or else. That�s the same thing that some of the fundamentalist Christian sects desire. This is a real thing, and could be a major cause for more massive annihilation's of humanity, if not the outright destruction of us all in some perceived apocalyptical battle of Armageddon. A battle that religious and some secular zealots themselves would bring upon humanity in their desire to eliminate all who don't bow to their particular God/religion and/or political dogma/agenda.

WMD are not just nuclear weapons, but also chemical and esp. biological these days. Of the three bio weapons are the most dangerous for the survival of humanity right now, and IMHO the most likely to be used by some dogmatic religious or secular zealots in some apocalyptical "end of times." It is possible today to create bio weapons of genocidal power in a small house, and they could kill much of humanity, as was pointed out in This Study: Influenza May Be Next Bioterror Weapon. How long do you think it will be before some secular or religious zealots try it, if they haven't already? (SARS anyone?) Which takes us to the base problem underlining all of this, the drive by small minorities to gain absolute control of the rest of us with some form of secular or religious authoritarian dogma and/or regime. The secular members of the right and left can't ignore that, or be "PC" about it. It is the eight hundred lb Gorilla sitting in the corner, ready to go psycho on the rest of us, while the two sides keep ignoring it in their quest to overcome each others position in life. In Iran, the Mullahs own the government and the big businesses. That's what the students are rioting for, they see their future being taken away from them by the Mullahs. It's authoritarianism in one of its oldest guise, religion.

It's always the same old sh*t, the struggle for power and control. I think that the rich Christians in the west would and could do the same as the Mullahs in Iran are doing now. But those that are active on the moderate secular right and left are so busy trashing each other, that the most probable bringer of the "end of times," religious conflict, is coming at right at them and many appear to be oblivious to it. This is one of the biggest problems facing the survival of humanity right now, and it's marginalized or ignored by way to many people IMO.

I think the most effective way for the moderate right and left to stop this trend is to gain control of the means of production, businesses, and put it to use for the benefit of humanity, not just the rich, secular or religious. There is one thing that is always constant in this struggle by authoritarian regimes/dogmas to control of humanity, gain control of people through economic control. (Bottom line economic control is control over the survival of us all.)

All economic power must be controlled by one of three means, private ownership, public ownership, and/or some mix of the two. In the end IMO people need to control them using some form of democratic ownership, such as the corporation, which can be very democratic and very well run if you have the right plan. If we keep bowing to the authoritarian control of the economic structure by small groups, secular or religious, this cycle will continue to perpetuate itself and eventually some greedy group using authoritarian means will consume or destroy humanity in its quest for control over us, over all economic power.

So though this thread has been somewhat interesting as an exercise of the right against the left, I think Rome's been burning while you guys trash each other here. Well mostly it�s the left trashing the right, which isn't responding to it, which is how I got to be one of the straw men of the right. You guys need someone to whack at. I don't belong to the right guys, and there is no way you can stick it on me if you read and understand what I write. I take bits and pieces from both sides. I know that�s frustrating for some of you, but what is, is. I just want to put my efforts here into more productive pursuits than whether Bush or Saddam is the biggest jerk in the world. They both are as far as I'm concerned, but Saddam is worse and deserves everything he has gotten and more in this war. Humanity has bigger problems to contend with than this stuff in this thread though. I fear that very bad conflicts are coming that will put 9/11 to shame, and the moderate right and left need to stop poking each other in the eye and look up before they get run over by them.



David

Farren

David,

Your entire standpoint appears to be an appeal to fear, a fear you no doubt harbour.

While accusing others of failing to listen I've seen ample evidence of the reverse.

The fear of which I speak, of course, is a fear of fundamentalist Islam.

What you and others who hold similar views fail to address is that the likes of Al Qaida arose out of and are largely a response to Western interference in the Middle East. The stated, and believable, reasoning for 9/11 was US troop presence in Saudi Arabia.

And your solution is to interfere more in the Middle East.

You appear to have little faith in the ability of people to change their own societies, and almost blind to events that contradict your pessimism, such as the groundswell of popular opposition to the mullahs in Iran.

I use this as a telling demonstration of course because some people at the vanguard of said opposition have said US support at the moment would weaken their cause, while the White House continues to make grand sounding statements about supporting them in every way possible.

The many arguments opposing your view are swept aside because your core paradigm holds that "doing something" must always involve more action. Consider that "doing something" often involves more inaction. I'd advise you to read up a little about Wu Wei.

Respectfully

Farren

Farren

David, to qualify my statement that you're the one not considering any arguments opposing your standpoint.

I've just re-read the entire thread and:

1. You say "Saddam killed .... monster... mass murder". RLV repeatedly answers "In the past, not continually... US support and encouragement...". You simply don't address his somewhat more detailed analysis of the situation. You just keep repeating your original standpoint.

2. I raise international law and the consequences of ignoring it. You simply don't engage me.

There's a pattern here which is common among war supporters. You call yourself a centrist and by this I assume you mean someone who judges each case on its merits, and subscribe to the common (fallacious) reasoning that the so-called "left" and "right" put ideology before reasoning.

The pattern of which I speak is cognitive dissonance. In ignoring the fact that facts can be deconstructed to yield more information (such as considering when most people died under Saddam), and countering only the arguments you have ready answers for, you demonstrate not a considered opposition to the anti-war position, but the dogmatic defense of a standpoint without consideration of any new facts.

As for shooting the messenger, I can't speak for other "lefties" on these fora but I'm certainly not trying to disparage you as a person. You are part of the greater fabric of society and every voice is the center of a ripple of information. If we can convince you of the wrongness of this war that's one more voice adding momentum to a meme some of us consider important.

I'm hope your toe's feeling better when you read this

RLV

Fine. There are many things in your explanation which I would agree with. And the others are not the matter of this thread.

But the problem is one that Farren has already pointed out. While you accuse us not to listen to you, you fail no notice the two key points we've been repeating and repeating at you:

1.- None of us likes Saddam. All of us agree that Saddam was an evil dicator, bad for his people. Most of us don't like Bush either. But we don't have to choose between Saddam or Bush. Saddam did wrong with his actions against the Iraqi people. Bush did wrong with his actions against the Iraqi people.

2.- Saddam in 2003 was NOT massacring his people in bad quantities. He was just an 'ordinary' evil, ruthless dictator. With this in mind, removing him was a good objective, but one that is NOT WORTH the death of tens of thousands of Iraqi people and all the destruction and suffering borne upon Iraq.

These are the points that you are failing to address. With the invasion, an evil has been removed, but at the cost of a greater evil. This is what I oppose (as well as most of the posters here). And this is what you've been defending.

To make an analogy quite close to you: your toe hurts. Will you take an analgesic, or will you amputate your leg?

Bush decided to amputate the leg. I argue that this is worse than taking an analgesic, even worse than just letting the toe hurt.


RLV

David M. Payne

Well RLV, we disagree as to just how bad Saddam's and Bush's actions are when it comes to his removal from power by the US. As to your two points above, I'll be as specific as I can while I sit here soaking the stump of my leg.

1. Not an apples and apples analogy here, Bush wasn't in the business of wholesale murder of his opponents in Iraq, Saddam was. Did innocent people die in the war? Yes, that always happens in war. I think the more relevant question here is did we save more people than were killed by removing Saddam. I don't know yet, and neither do any of you.

2. Sorry but I will include all of the mass murder that Saddam was engaged in during his whole time in power. You know if you look at the logical extension of what you said here, then one could argue that; well you know Hitler wasn't so bad after all, I mean he wasn't killing massive numbers of Jews, Poles and other concentration camp prisoners at the end of his reign. After all he had already killed most of them early on hadn't he, so who was really left for him to kill? Ugh, lousy argument as far as I'm concerned. Your implication was that he had changed his ways and wasn't so bad now. I suspect he had 1.too much heat on him for him to continue his open mass murders, but plenty of people were still dying in his prisons, and 2. he may have killed off most of those who had really challenged his rule already. Time will tell.



Farren, my toe is a little better today, thanks for the thought. As for your post above;

1. Read my reply to RLV above on #2

2. If you want to argue international law, well the Bush people say that the UN resolutions give them the authority to do what they did. I'm not an international lawyer, I don't even play one in any of my stories, and so I don't know who is "absolutely in the right" here. But when it comes to removing guys like Saddam or Osama bin Laden from the international scene, let me give you a hint where I stand. If those guys suddenly showed up in front of me when I'm armed with my favorite piece, they would get holey (not holy) real fast. Know what I mean?

In closing let me say that all wars are wrong, but some are necessary. Everything I write here is done with the idea that perhaps it will in some small way help humanity grow out of the need for war and the other evils that plague us. We are in a war (9/11) not of our choosing. Some here want to believe that if the US had just been nicer to the attackers they wouldn�t have attacked us. I think that's very na�ve, for the roots of this conflict are very old. I think this war is as old as the first fight the Christian west had with Islam, and that it is a war that is about 1400 years old now. During that time it had been hot and cold, and right now it's very hot, and it will get hotter. Was/is the war in Iraq part of that old/new war? I think it's related, because I believe that Saddam would have continued to make trouble in the region and would have found ways to attack us. He ran a nation that was heavily influenced by Islam, even if he was a socialist, and he was a supporter of those that would attack and destroy the west and our way of life. (One of those ways is BB's like this one, which will never see the light of day under an Islamic regime, would they?) Those are my views, and are not just a reflection of the Bush agenda in the area. I agree with Bush on one thing, getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, even if we don't know yet just how it will all turn out in the end. As I made clear in Utopia-612, it may not turn out quite the way that Bush intends it to, we will see.

Well I think this should just about finish my tour of duty on this thread as the straw man right winger, see you guys on the next one.

David