Godless Dave

Fatherphil, I knew where you stood on foreign policy but I had no idea you actually bought the Bush team's propoganda. Iraq is not going to transition into a stable democratic government. The US administration does not want Iraq to have a stable democratic government. That was never the goal of our action in Iraq.

We liberated Afghanistan from a brutal, oppressive, cruel regime last year. How close are they to a stable democratic government?

Optional

That may or may not be the case. The majority of the dying that happened in Iraq happened in three times... First, during the war he started against Iran, second during the suppression of the rebellion of the northern kurds, and third during the suppression of the rebellion of the southern shi'a. During the past dozen years or so, he's done the usual evil dictator thing of disappearing anybody that even looked like a potential dissident, but the total number of people involved in that wasn't all that much. More than SHOULD have been, sure... But still and all, if you take the general day-to-day brutality of saddam, and measure it against the tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians that died or were maimed for life as a result of Gulf War II... The likelyhood is that the war comes out more harmful. Difficult to say for sure, of course.

-me

RLV

Very unlikely. I don't think there are hard numbers on the victims of Saddam' regime year by year, but it's quite clear than the worst massacres committed by Saddam ended in '91 (while the US was looking the other way after inciting the victims to rebel).
From there on, only political opponents have suffered persecution and death. No massive massacres are known.
Mind you, this is no good, but it's a far cry from the tens of thousands of dead, wounded or mutilated people caused by the invasion.

Does it know how to deal with anybody else?

Who says they have not a plan? Rebuilding of the oil facilities is proceeding nicely, save for a few sabotage problems.


RLV

RLV

Really? I mean, how do you know? I bet the only data available on bombs used is provided by the US military.

If you mean that the civilian casualties are fewer than they could have been, yes, sure. Nuclear bombs were not used.
But to say that the civilian casualties were as few as possible, or even near, it's something very different. The use of cluster bombs in civilian areas could be avoided. The bombing of undefended bridges without caring to check if there was civilian traffic on them could be avoided. The bombing of markets in Bagdad (intentional or not) could be avoided. Etc., etc...

Even if it was about freedom, one would have to ponder if their deaths were worthy. I won't say that this couldn't have been the case, but we are talking tens of thousands of victims, not a few.

But, as you say, as freedom has no part on this, there is no justification for the massacre.


RLV

Danya

Here are a few:
Anger Rises for Families of Troops in Iraq

Heat and violence hits US troops

Mistrust Mixes With Misery In Heat of Baghdad Police Post
Frustrated Reservists See a Mission Impossible

Ion

The reasons I don't agree with this:
are:

1) Pure statistics
and

2) People want to choose their destiny.

They want to live for a reason and die.

Therefore, Hussein's opponents did choose to oppose Hussein.
Consequences to follow for them.

Hussein's opponents did not choose to have Bush claim in the State of Union speech, January 28:

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including memebers of al-Qaeda."

then attack Iraq, killing and maiming Iraqis.

In spite of Bush's statement, there was never evidence that Hussein gave support or weapons to al-Qaeda.

So innocent Iraqis and Hussein's opponents, died and die now, because of a lie made by a foreign culture.

Not because they did choose their destiny to belive in.

It might be as well that a U.S.S.R. lie 'liberates' Iraq, this way.

Or, by the same token, it might be that due to an Islamic lie, there is an attack on U.S., which 'liberates' U.S. from Christianity, with 'only' 8,000 U.S. deaths.

I am pointing out that reasons matter to people living and dying.

That's why, in the newspapers now, Hussein's opponents say no, to both Hussein and the U.S..

jman0904

Of all things, we have no business being in Iraq any longer.
-Since the threat of Saddam and his oppressive gov. is no more, we can leave on that account
-As al-Qaida had no ties with the now non-existant government, we have nothing to fear from that issue either
-Since we have 'Liberated' Iraq from a dictatorship, should we not allow the Iraqi people to exercise their newfound freedom? You might think so, but what do we do? We claim "occupying forces" rights with the UN and install a puppet government, all the while pumping the oil wells for all they are worth. If we want to help restructure, we should do so by flying in large numbers of medical experts, setting up hospitals, help rebuild the country in the actual sense of 'rebuild'.
Of course, some might claim that we have 'earned' the right to 'help with the structuring' of the new government. You either have the Iraqi people happy or under your thumb. You can't have it both ways. Either pull out military force and hand the government over to the people, or pronounce openly that Iraq is now annexed territory and directly under control of the US.

Jacey

Not a fan of the source, but here's another one.........

Troop Morale Low.........go figure........

Nog

Show me proof of cluster bombs used in civilian areas and of bridges being destroyed. I remember one incident were a tank was hidden under a bridge. We got the tank, the bridge was left standing.... The military was very cautious, more so then any other military has ever been before. Sure mistakes happen, but stop trying to act like we intentionally 'massacred tens of thousands" of innocent's.

Monkeybot

We initiated the war and are therefore responsible for every innocent person that died from an American attack. Including the innocent civilians.