Iraq Invasion

[Hoot]

Unfortunately, I can find no accurate accounting of deaths due to warfare for just the city of Baghdad...simply statements by reseachers who confirm the death rate has gone up 58 times in Iraq since the war began...compared to pre-war death rates./QUOTE]

I'd like to see the stats on that...

Then teach me how to do links? LOL

As I said once before, on AOHell all I had to do was save the page as a favorite place, then drag it with the mouse into the text.

Now I access the internet through Charter, and for some reason, I cannot drag these links into the text as I once did...I'll be the first to admit I am not a computer whiz.

In the future, I'll try to be more precise about where I get my info.

 

[teacher]

ow

This is a question for all you conservatives out there...Why did we invade Iraq?

Now before you answer, consider the following:

We didn't invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons, we knew that, for whatever reason, Saddam had stopped his mass murders. If we wanted to go there to help Iraqis, we should have gone there during the 90's, when we knew Saddam was killing people. And besides, how can a war truly be for humanitarian reasons? Consider that, because of this war, 15,000 Iraqi civilians are dead.

We didn't go there to "spread freedom and democracy" to Iraq. If that's Bush's "reason" then it seems we could have spread democracy in some other country that wasn't hostile to the US. Also, take into account that we supported a brutal dictator in the old African nation of Zaire (now Congo) for over 30 years. So it seems that if the war was to spread democracy, then the question becomes "what makes Iraq so special" seeing as their are plenty of other countries that are ruled by dictators. (also our "allies", the Saudis, have a monarchy! so why dont we make our allies democratic before our enemies?)

This war definitely wasn't in defense of the USA or any of our allies. Strangely, all of Europe knew that Iraq had no WMD's and wasn't any sort of threat. But when we, the mighty USA, saw this third world nation struggling to survive with hostile nations surrounding it (notably Iran and, the true superpower of the middle east, Israel) we saw a superpower. We knew that Iraq had no capability of attacking the US, we also knew that Iraq was no threat to Europe or Israel.

Lastly, it was not because we saw some huge connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The only connections are minor ones (for example, Saddam said he supported the actions of terrorists on 9/11, just like many other leaders of countries hostile to the US). If you look hard enough at any Middle East Country, I'm willing to bet you can find some vague connection between them and Al Qaeda. And what about the one country (other than Afghanistan) that we KNEW had definite connections to Al Qaeda and was harboring terrorists? Our old buddies the Saudis! Just look at the 9/11 hijackers! A good majority are from Saudi Arabia! And yet we attack Iraq?

So, taking all this into account, would any supporters of this war please tell me the reason we went there?

You are correct on all counts. It is just spin and talking points for the unwashed masses. We invaded Iraq so another 9/11 does not happen. If we destroyed all Jews and retreated inside our borders would that be enough for the terrorists? Islam dictates convert or kill all nonbelievers. Not something Jesus would say in my opinion. If a terrorist could detonate an atomic bomb in N.Y.C. would he? A rhetorical question I know but for the uninformed the answer is yes. To those with their fingers in their ears, don,t worry about it, strong men will take care of it. To those that think such horror is unthinkable, then you obviously don,t know the evil in men and I won,t tell you because you can,t handle it. To those that understand the answer is yes without thought with a prayer to Allah on their lips as they vaporize millions read on. Can you stop 100 percent of the time one willing to commit suicide if that is what it takes to fulfill a mission. No. Can we so shut down our borders and heighten security to stop all threats and retain that which makes America great? Of course not. Could we simply kill them all? Actually yes but that's a tad distasteful. Fifty years ago it took powerful nations to make atomic weapons. Now the details are on the net and in the library. How long before the ability is downright commonplace? The weapons comparatively easy to produce or procure? At that time will Muslim fanatics change their tactics to men knocking on doors with little "Allah loves you" literature? What will we do when the first mushroom cloud rises over an American city? I accept no debate on this statement. If not prevented now or soon it WILL happen. We can't stop every determined attempt (just ask the Jews). We shouldn't barricade ourselves. We shouldn't obliterate then.(How quickly that would change if Cleavland turned to glass). No debate, appeasement, reason, bribe, education, or show of force begins to solve this. Only conversion, death, or what that C student ex addict cowboy W. is trying to do will avert the eventual nuke. We have to change their entire way of life. Not until generations are born and grow up free and educated will there be an end to the inescapable final product the young Arab boys can't help but become. We have to force freedom and accessibility to all ideas down their women controlling thoughts. The idea of planting democracy in the middle east may not work but it's our only option other than genocide. So far it's going great. 47 percent female vote in Afghanistan. Mo mar folded right away. Syria out of Lebanon. Satellite dishes all over Iraq. And don,t forget the ink stained fingers obtained while under threat of death. Why Iraq. Afghanistan is to poor, isolated, and not a big enough player to set an example. Saddam was a horrible guy. But most importantly the Arab world had no great love for Iraq generally and it was not led by religion. An invasion of a Islamic theocracy would unite the Arab world in a real Jihad. This will take generations. Consider only as recently as the 60's that black's could not use the same water fountain. They are still around and rightly upset. And we wonder why there is a race issue in this country. The Arab men don't want to lose control of who in any other context would be called slaves. If you passed in the street a man beating a woman would you claim it's their culture I've no right to force my beliefs upon them. With great power comes great responsibility. We shout loudly in this country to help to needy, fight for the disenfranchised and less fortunate. It's the moral imperative to do so we argue. How can a line on a map change that? Who has ever freely given up power? Iraqi men will be mad forever. But for me, I relay don't care what happens to men teach, demand, and do beat women with sticks.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I don't think it's that meaningless. It's useful to help people understand that the reports of the "hellhole" that is Iraq are overblown.

I understand the intent of the comparison. However, since the conditions are so remarkably different the comparison isn't very helpful. If our soldiers were living the same way that the residents of LA were living or if the residents of LA lived in bunkers, wore armor and drove armored vehicles w/ chopper support, then the comparisons would be more useful. As it is we're comparing soldiers who are well prepared enough to content their Commander in Chief and SECDEF, who observe strict procedures for their safety with people who wander the city in convertible, drunk and wearing bathing suits.

As to the "hellhole" reports you're talking about, I'd have to see each report to make a decision about them. "Hellhole" is a notably vague term. As we know, the more vague, the more true. Yet the increase in veracity's bought by a decrease in content. Having to be outside in full body armor in 100F+ weather, IMHO, would be enough to qualify as a hellhole.

What's the non-fatal casualty rate in Iraq? Anyone know?

 

[RightinNYC]

I understand the intent of the comparison. However, since the conditions are so remarkably different the comparison isn't very helpful. If our soldiers were living the same way that the residents of LA were living or if the residents of LA lived in bunkers, wore armor and drove armored vehicles w/ chopper support, then the comparisons would be more useful. As it is we're comparing soldiers who are well prepared enough to content their Commander in Chief and SECDEF, who observe strict procedures for their safety with people who wander the city in convertible, drunk and wearing bathing suits.

As to the "hellhole" reports you're talking about, I'd have to see each report to make a decision about them. "Hellhole" is a notably vague term. As we know, the more vague, the more true. Yet the increase in veracity's bought by a decrease in content. Having to be outside in full body armor in 100F+ weather, IMHO, would be enough to qualify as a hellhole.

What's the non-fatal casualty rate in Iraq? Anyone know?

The non-fatal rate is whatever figure you choose to use for wounded (12,000 - 18,000) divided by 1,048,000

 

[GarzaUK]

The non-fatal rate is whatever figure you choose to use for wounded (12,000 - 18,000) divided by 1,048,000

Ah you sound like 12,000-18,000 is nothing.

As Stalin said, one killed is a tragedy, a thousand killed is a statistic. I know it's wounded, but they need not be wounded. Wounded for our safety?

Seriously did we ever feel threatened by Saddam before 9/11 and THAT INCLUDES Bush in charge of government between 1/01 until then?

I was shittin my pants.

 

[Pacridge]

Ah you sound like 12,000-18,000 is nothing.

As Stalin said, one killed is a tragedy, a thousand killed is a statistic. I know it's wounded, but they need not be wounded. Wounded for our safety?

Seriously did we ever feel threatened by Saddam before 9/11 and THAT INCLUDES Bush in charge of government between 1/01 until then?

I was shittin my pants.

Yes, I think we were threatened by Saddam prior to 9-11. Didn't we have a whole war back in the 90's because of him?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Why was such a "threat" allowed to stay in power after that war?

 

[teacher]

Why was such a "threat" allowed to stay in power after that war?

After the "Highway of Death" during Gulf War 1 the Arab world began to suggest "enough". The main mission of liberating (we do that a lot) Kuwait done and wanting to keep the coalition together, Bush Sr. found it prudent (he he) to halt short of Bag dad. It's reported that after ordering the assault stopped, Sr. went home and told Jr. "Free the women".

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Why was such a "threat" allowed to stay in power after that war?

Mostly because the removing him via the options available to us was deemed to be more trouble than it was worth.

We encouraged internal dissent and provided safe havens for dissidents in the no-fly zones. There was a rebellion shortly after GWI. We had encouraged that. However, it was discovered that the parties we were backing didn't have the domestic support they were saying they did. We withdrew our support, yet Chalabi et al went ahead with their venture to the detriment of thousands. Several thousand of the luckier ones were relocated to Michigan just outside Detroit.

 

[RightinNYC]

Ah you sound like 12,000-18,000 is nothing.

As Stalin said, one killed is a tragedy, a thousand killed is a statistic. I know it's wounded, but they need not be wounded. Wounded for our safety?

Seriously did we ever feel threatened by Saddam before 9/11 and THAT INCLUDES Bush in charge of government between 1/01 until then?

I was shittin my pants.

On the contrary, I don't think 12-18,000 is nothing. I'm simply impressed that our military has managed to keep the wounded rate so low in comparison to previous wars. It reflects well on the advanced state of our troops training.

 

[nkgupta80]

Yes, I think we were threatened by Saddam prior to 9-11. Didn't we have a whole war back in the 90's because of him?

Our war with them back in the 90s was never in response to some imminent direct threat against the US, but as a response to Iraq's aggression in Kuwait. I really doubt Hussein would have lost enough of his mind to attack the US.

 

[Pacridge]

Our war with them back in the 90s was never in response to some imminent direct threat against the US, but as a response to Iraq's aggression in Kuwait. I really doubt Hussein would have lost enough of his mind to attack the US.

Welcome to Debate Politics.

True enough. But he might have had the sanctions not kept him from rebuilding his arms. I think he was pretty insane and he really did hate the US.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

On the contrary, I don't think 12-18,000 is nothing. I'm simply impressed that our military has managed to keep the wounded rate so low in comparison to previous wars. It reflects well on the advanced state of our troops training.

Also, it reflects on the vast differences between the aforementioned conflicts and this one. We're not fighting an organized army for control of territory. Compared to say WWII, there's a lot of staying inside fortified areas.
Moreover, the goals of this situation are different than any of these other conflicts.
I'll have to agree with SECDEF Rumsfeld that establishing a meaningful, practical and useful metric for this war is problematic. The body count comparisons are not that meaningful, practical and useful metric.

Also, while the "major combat operations" may be done, this war is not over. As Mr. Wolfowitz pointed out this is the war for Iraq.

 

[pidrow]

Spanish judge requests to interrogate American soldiers responsible for death of journalist
Judge Santiago Pedraz will file a request for interrogation to the United States in accordance with the request established by “Journalists Without Borders.” Pedraz intends to interrogate three American soldiers, Sergeant Thomas Gibson, Captain Philip Wolford and Lt. Colonel Philip de Camp in regards to the death of Spanish reporter José Couso. Couso was killed at the Hotel Palestine when the M-1 Abrahms tank controlled by Gibson fired upon the hotel. Wolford was the officer who authorized the shot after Gibson had notified him that there was someone watching them with binoculars from the hotel; de Camp was the officer who ordered to open fire on Hotel Palestine. Pedraz accuses the three soldiers of a crime against the international community stated in article 611.1 of the Penal Code, incurred in by whomever "with occasion of armed conflict carries out or orders the carrying out of indiscriminate or excessive attacks or subjects the civilian population to attacks, reprisals or menacing acts of violence with the intention of scaring it." Pedraz will offer American authorities to have the American soldiers travel to Spain for the interrogation, or to have himself travel to the United States to interrogate them. Spanish Minster of Justice, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, stated Wednesday that the current administration will help the judge to the extent of its capabilities. Aguilar went on to lament the United State’s “resistance” to putting its soldiers under the disposition of “a third country,” though he stated that this is a “constant element in their foreign policy.”

 

[RightinNYC]

Spanish judge requests to interrogate American soldiers responsible for death of journalist
Judge Santiago Pedraz will file a request for interrogation to the United States in accordance with the request established by “Journalists Without Borders.” Pedraz intends to interrogate three American soldiers, Sergeant Thomas Gibson, Captain Philip Wolford and Lt. Colonel Philip de Camp in regards to the death of Spanish reporter José Couso. Couso was killed at the Hotel Palestine when the M-1 Abrahms tank controlled by Gibson fired upon the hotel. Wolford was the officer who authorized the shot after Gibson had notified him that there was someone watching them with binoculars from the hotel; de Camp was the officer who ordered to open fire on Hotel Palestine. Pedraz accuses the three soldiers of a crime against the international community stated in article 611.1 of the Penal Code, incurred in by whomever "with occasion of armed conflict carries out or orders the carrying out of indiscriminate or excessive attacks or subjects the civilian population to attacks, reprisals or menacing acts of violence with the intention of scaring it." Pedraz will offer American authorities to have the American soldiers travel to Spain for the interrogation, or to have himself travel to the United States to interrogate them. Spanish Minster of Justice, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, stated Wednesday that the current administration will help the judge to the extent of its capabilities. Aguilar went on to lament the United State’s “resistance” to putting its soldiers under the disposition of “a third country,” though he stated that this is a “constant element in their foreign policy.”

Hollow grandstanding. This is little more than a political statement with little to no legal backing. The claims that American soldiers deliberately target journalists have been made time and again, and they've worked oh so well. Just ask Eason Jordan.