Godbert

Originally posted by 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.

you may want to read the next five words after that statement:

150 from executions.

Are you just making stuff up now?

16,269 cases of dissapearances related to the Saddam regime in five years, i believe.

Just in case you were not informed about this: 1988 was last millienium.


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."

See above, we are talking about this millenium remember - I notice you have some problems with counting, numbers and memory but there is always a career in social sciences (or plumbing)


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.

Iraq had compulsory draft. The large majority of their soldiers were consequently completely innocent people who in all likelihood would have served their term without commiting anything despicable and then gone home to their families if the US had not killed them.

The hundreds permonth are innocent civilians. Also, to say that the 250 per month is an anomoly is ridiculus.

What is even more ridiculous is that just an hour ago you said it was 750 per month.

And also interesting since my major problem in all this was your claim of countless killings day: so far your definition of "countless" seems to have sunken to 8.3
Well, in this spirit, let me just take this opportunity to wish you countless successes for the rest of your debating career.



There is nothing in the article to support that analysis.
How about the fact that the next largest single incident described concerned a whopping 40 people?
As I said above the article characterized that 1500 killing as a 2 month long large effort.
And I'm not taking into account that this number is quoted just like the Niger uranium claim, saying someone else said this and this. And that that someone else is someone looking for asylum in a country that is fervently looking for any excuse to go to war.
And once again: further down it says they were killing 50 prisoners a month "to intimidate the population". That would be a pretty strange way to intimidate a population if that population were used to 750 random people being rounded up and shot every month.
Furthermore, the authorship, date of the article and 'we can blame it on someone else' phrasing support the analysis that the whole incident is misrepresented or never happened at all.


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.

You might not have heard about this but the liberation of the Jews was actually part of a larger event called world war II that was started by the germans. And when the Russians freed the Jews they had a slightly more substantial reason for attacking the Germans than the US had to attack Iraq: the germans actually attacked them and killed 20 million russians.
And not that it matters much but the Hitler was killing jews (among many others) at a 1000fold higher rate than Saddam was killing this millenium.
All considered - top analogy

Does that mean that we should have done nothing?

The US did in fact do nothing against the germans until it was clear that the russians would win the war, but that is understandable and doesn't have anyting to do with the matter at hand . Also, if I were a Bush supporter I would be less eager to use Nazi-analogies.



That was really sad, maybe you should think about another member-ID

Ion

No.

Bush lied.

Bush, Rumsfeld and Powell claimed WMDs are near Baghdad, north of Baghdad.

They aren't.

So, they lied.

By the way, there is no excuse to have English as native language like you do, then write "...WMD's..." meaning WMDs, like writing "...car's..." meaning cars.

Take this English lesson from me who speaks many languages, and pass it onto Bush, also:

both of you, you will be grateful to me, about the lesson.
What about the guerilla war?

Is it because Bush 'liberated' Iraq?

Are you joining the war for 'liberation' of Iraq, soon?
Let's see:

.) Exxon-Mobil,

.) the American branch of B.P.

they got contracts for $45 billion.

The war was selfless, suuuuure:

.) to 'liberate' Iraqis -who guerilla war now against their U.S. 'liberators'-;

.) to 'liberate' China, Bangladesh, Rwanda, North Korea, Israel who ask with impatience to be 'liberated' by Bush;
but these have no oil, so there is no 'liberation' for them;
too bad...
Which "...liberal left gets away with the lies they push on people..."?

Care to document this?

garraty

Just a small point, but that link that debater10 was using to support the contention that "only one out of 6 companies profiting from Iraqi oil is american" misses one small point...

None of those companies (besides the U.S. one of course) is actually producing Iraqi oil (e.g. where any profits would come from) they are simply buying Iraqi oil.

All oil in Iraq will be produced by American companies for sale to the highest bidder. And of course article 13303 ensures that no harm will come to them regardless of whatever humanitarian/environmental laws they may happen to violate.

Also note that while "the U.S.A." may not profit from Iraqi oil, I can assure you that once they return to the private sector Bush Co will be making a tidy sum from it.

Ion

debater10, did you notice this?
That's grave, you know?

'Oil for blood'...

Ion

Atta boy!
'Oil for blood' is right here, in your post.

Godbert

that's the main point Bush fans don't seem to get. Almost every single Bush government decision/legislation no matter if it concerns international politics, taxation or the environment ranges from bad to catastrophic for the US but is just great for the involved firms which coincidentally almost always have close ties to Bush & Co or are at least major campaign contributors.
It really couldn't possibly be more obvious what's going on

Ion

U.N. is above "...the US had it in its best interest to...".

Case in point:

just look at Bush's U.S. and how poorly it fares with U.N..

Ion

This is an imbecile paragraph:

(courtesy of an enlightenment from Lynchburg.

Lynchburg!)
It's been said -including by me repeatedly- that what "...we should have done..." is work under the U.N. international law, because nobody -including Bush- is above the international law to which U.S. signed.

Free Thinkr

I'd just like to add:

If the liberation of the Iraqi people was truly the administration's intent, a well thought out exit plan would be key. Clearly, there is no well thought out exit plan in place. Therefore, we must conclude that the liberation of the Iraqi people was not the administration's reason for war.

So, what about the WMD's? We know that at the very least, the evidence the administration presented was greatly exaggerated. Exaggerating evidence in order to go to war is criminal. Period.

Debator:
You claim time and time again that our actions were justified because of the crimes against humanity Hussein and his followers committed. You claim that other UN countries are morally reprehensible because they refused to help in our little war. But let me ask you this:

Are the Iraqi people more safe now than they were at the first of the year?

Or how about this:

What guarantees do we have that an even more opressive regime won't take over the country?

The United States' record in these matters is less than stellar.




Edited to add:

Yay! 300th post!

kiwimac

Unfortunately the US has a habit of doing this kind of thing, please note the following from a speech given in the 1930s.

Kiwimac