Iraq is not an unjust war of aggression against the Iraqi people, but rather a just war of liberation for them that has unseated a mass-murdering despot from his bloody rule and that is presently in the process of incubating a constitutional democracy in his place. Unfortunately, both types of wars (liberation and aggression) require occupation and military conquest; in this case, the defeat of the despot's military and the deaths of its soldiers.
Since Saddam Hussein killed, on average, 100,000 of his citizens a year for 21 years, and since the US military has killed about 10,000 Iraqis in a year (mainly the ones who were formerly employed in killing the 100,000 per year), there are at least 90,000 Iraqis who are alive today who would be dead and rotting in Saddam's mass graves if the US had not gone in and deposed him.
And WMD's are showing up in sarin-gas-filled artillery shells, in a truckload of chemical weapons and high explosives stopped at the Syria/Jordan border, in the components of a nuclear centrifuge found buried in an Iraqi scientist's rose garden, and in a seven pound chunk of potassium cyanide found in a house in Iraq. They also showed up in the lungs of 5000Iraqis that Saddam gassed in Halabja.
---- [Blunderov] Perhaps you should do some reading on the subject of what constitutes a 'just war' instead of substituting your own opinion for fact.
A party who goes to war is obliged to do so only as a last resort, amongst other things. Please do not make a spectacle of yourself by trying to pretend that this was even remotely the case.
I am not interested in your body counts. It is, as I find myself forced to repeat, an irrelevant thesis.
As to the WMD's - if that's the best you have to offer it is pathetic. 'Immediate threat', remember? I know Rumsfeld's memory is highly selective in regard to this phrase, but sadly for him, and you, this is a matter of (very) public record.
Then, according to your logic, if Germany had not attacked other nations, it would've been hunky dory to allow Adolph Hitler to gas the Jews? Okay to allow Milosevic, Karadzic and Mladic to massacre the Bosnians and the Kosovars? Great to let the muslims ethnicly cleanse the Christians from East Timor? And it was fine to permit the Hutus in Rwanda and Burundi to slaughter the Tutsis and peachy keen to sit back and watch Pol Pot in Cambodia kill two million of his own people?
Sorry, but I must strenuously disagree, on himanitarian grounds. Murdered people matter. to them, to their families and friends, and to the people who either act to stop such slaughter or whose inaction enables and facilitates it.
When a country is hijacked by a murderous totalitarian despot, the rest of the civilized world has a humanitarian duty to end that despot's slaughter of the citizens under his control, and he should not be able to hide behind national sovereignty and noninterference in his country's internal affairs while he pursues his dirty filthy wetwork.
And what Rumsfeld and Bush said was not that the Iraqi WMD threat was imminent at that precise time; what was said is that we dare not wait again until we are certain that such a threat is imminent, because a mistaken estimation can lead to threats developing to the point of mass slaughter before we take any action at all; you see, we tried that failed theory before, with disastrous results, in New York City, and may end up paying most catastrophically for not preventing such a threat to develop in a now-nuclear North Korea.
[Joe Dees] <snip> Since Saddam Hussein killed, on average, 100,000 of his citizens a year for 21 years, and since the US military has killed about 10,000 Iraqis in a year (mainly the ones who were formerly employed in killing the 100,000 per year), there are at least 90,000 Iraqis who are alive today who would be dead and rotting in Saddam's mass graves if the US had not gone in and deposed him. <snip>
[Blundrov] <snip> I am not interested in your body counts. It is, as I find myself forced to repeat, an irrelevant thesis. <snip>
[rhinoceros] No, I think this is interesting. I had another discussion with Joe in the Politics section of the BBS a couple of months ago. To make this 100,000 per year number Joe had to add, among other things:
- The children who died of malnutrition and diarrhea in all the years of the UN sunctions.
- The results of all the wars Iraq has been involved in, probably the wars with tha USA too. An intersting question is why Joe starts from 1983 (21 years). Why not 21 or 22 or 23 years? Apparently he wanted to include the Iraq-Inaq war (1980-1988) starting from a point when the casualties per year were high enough. Incidentaly, that year was also special for another reason:
"Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983"
[rhinoceros] I won't burden you by pasting the lengthy document associated with that picture, which is dotted with links to official documents of the Reagan era. Here it is:
Thanks for that document, Rhino. I wondered what the background of that picture was. Fisk shook Saddam's two years ago, and is a saint to the anti-war left, whereas old Rummie shook his hand 21 years ago and this is supposed to impute hypocrisy as to his current actions. I am staggered this is still used for propaganda purposes in the 21st century.
Saddam's mass murdering and oppression of his people was for some the chief motivation in their support of the war. In that sense these figures are strongly relevant to any Iraq thesis.
[rhinoceros] No, I think this is interesting. I had another discussion with Joe in the Politics section of the BBS a couple of months ago. To make this 100,000 per year number Joe had to add, among other things:
- The children who died of malnutrition and diarrhea in all the years of the UN sunctions.
- The results of all the wars Iraq has been involved in, probably the wars with tha USA too. An intersting question is why Joe starts from 1983 (21 years). Why not 21 or 22 or 23 years? Apparently he wanted to include the Iraq-Inaq war (1980-1988) starting from a point when the casualties per year were high enough. Incidentaly, that year was also special for another reason:
[rhinoceros] I won't burden you by pasting the lengthy document associated with that picture, which is dotted with links to official documents of the Reagan era. Here it is:
[Joe Dees] <snip> Since Saddam Hussein killed, on average, 100,000 of his citizens a year for 21 years, and since the US military has killed about 10,000 Iraqis in a year (mainly the ones who were formerly employed in killing the 100,000 per year), there are at least 90,000 Iraqis who are alive today who would be dead and rotting in Saddam's mass graves if the US had not gone in and deposed him. <snip>
[Blundrov] <snip> I am not interested in your body counts. It is, as I find myself forced to repeat, an irrelevant thesis. <snip>
[rhinoceros] No, I think this is interesting. I had another discussion with Joe in the Politics section of the BBS a couple of months ago. To make this 100,000 per year number Joe had to add, among other things:
- The children who died of malnutrition and diarrhea in all the years of the UN sunctions.
- The results of all the wars Iraq has been involved in, probably the wars with tha USA too. An intersting question is why Joe starts from 1983 (21 years). Why not 21 or 22 or 23 years? Apparently he wanted to include the Iraq-Inaq war (1980-1988) starting from a point when the casualties per year were high enough. Incidentaly, that year was also special for another reason:
[rhinoceros] I won't burden you by pasting the lengthy document associated with that picture, which is dotted with links to official documents of the Reagan era. Here it is:
[Jonathan Davis] Thanks for that document, Rhino. I wondered what the background of that picture was. Fisk shook Saddam's two years ago, and is a saint to the anti-war left, whereas old Rummie shook his hand 21 years ago and this is supposed to impute hypocrisy as to his current actions. I am staggered this is still used for propaganda purposes in the 21st century.
[rhinoceros] Fisk is a journalist. When he shakes Saddam or Bin Laden's hand that means he is abouit to talk to them and scribble something. Rummie is a politician. When he talks to someone it often means that they are onto something, good, bad, or irrelevant.
The reason I posted the picture first was to get your attention to reading about the whole deal. I am learning.
Thanks for that document, Rhino. I wondered what the background of that picture was. Fisk shook Saddam's two years ago, and is a saint to the anti-war left, whereas old Rummie shook his hand 21 years ago and this is supposed to impute hypocrisy as to his current actions. I am staggered this is still used for propaganda purposes in the 21st century.
Saddam's mass murdering and oppression of his people was for some the chief motivation in their support of the war. In that sense these figures are strongly relevant to any Iraq thesis.
[rhinoceros] No, I think this is interesting. I had another discussion with Joe in the Politics section of the BBS a couple of months ago. To make this 100,000 per year number Joe had to add, among other things:
- The children who died of malnutrition and diarrhea in all the years of the UN sunctions.
- The results of all the wars Iraq has been involved in, probably the wars with tha USA too. An intersting question is why Joe starts from 1983 (21 years). Why not 21 or 22 or 23 years? Apparently he wanted to include the Iraq-Inaq war (1980-1988) starting from a point when the casualties per year were high enough. Incidentaly, that year was also special for another reason:
[rhinoceros] I won't burden you by pasting the lengthy document associated with that picture, which is dotted with links to official documents of the Reagan era. Here it is:
Author
Logged
