War in Iraq has killed over 100.000 Iraqis

[El Tejon]

Mat, Germany and Japan may be different situations in 1945 but same result: docile prosperous nations that have not started trouble with their neighbors.

Kristoffer, Germans fought us after May 7, 1945 after the US and allies liberated Germany. Some Germans hated us. Our troops pacified Germany and saved Western Europe from the USSR.

The solution is to allow the Iraqis to work it out. Just like Germany.

I would think you would have paid more attention to the UN Oil-for-Food scandal as it shows the ulterior motives (money) of those nations against the War of Continuation. It constitutes a stab in the back to those who pro-claim to be "anti-war" for non monetary reasons.

Spark, were not Germany and Japan complex situations? I cannot image a war that was/would not be complex. If you have no faith in the Iraqi people, then that is your opinion. The Iraqis will have problems and then will fix them. The end result is to the benefit of the West just as Germany's and Japan's end result.

[Spark]

Originally posted by El Tejon
Spark, were not Germany and Japan complex situations? I cannot image a war that was/would not be complex. If you have no faith in the Iraqi people, then that is your opinion. The Iraqis will have problems and then will fix them. The end result is to the benefit of the West just as Germany's and Japan's end result.

Of course they were complex situations, I'm not denying that. But you are comparing apples to oranges. Just because Germany turned out ok certainly doesn't mean Iraq will.
Faith has nothing to do with it. If you followed the news, or again had even a basic understanding of middle east politics, religion, culture etc ... you would see how the statement "the Iraqi people will come back" is nothing more than a catch phrase.

[jun_erh]

the US is in Iraq because of Saddam hussein

People are dying today because of the actions of terroists and insurgents.

THEY are responsible for 100,000 iraqis being dead.

The US is innocent and, in fact, themselves victims of coward terrorists who hide behind women and children adn crowds of people.

Do yu think the US army is killing people because it's sadistic or because of terrorism?

[David Jamieson]

jun, you sound like a neo con ditto head.

you're not in bed with Rove are you as you type?

lol

it's the Iraqi peoples fault that Iraqis are dead?
are you on glue?

dude, If we put a standing arab army of 138,000 into let's say pennsylvania, would the penn staters who take up arms to get rid of the invading army only be killing themselves?

Your logic is skewed, or missing entirely in your pro-america war mongering philosophy...or pardon me, it isn't your philosophy seeing as it's all too clear you are incapable of thinking for yourself and will eat up whatever propaganda you are fed by teh Bush admin andwhite house press corps.

whatever...redneck

[jun_erh]

yes, the terrorist and dictator supporters among them would be respnsible for the deaths of themselves and others.

please anwer my previous question in regards to the motivations of the Coalition forces.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by jun_erh
the US is in Iraq because of Saddam hussein

People are dying today because of the actions of terroists and insurgents.

THEY are responsible for 100,000 iraqis being dead.

The US is innocent and, in fact, themselves victims of coward terrorists who hide behind women and children adn crowds of people.

No. What you are saying is black and white, and somewhat surprising from you jun.

Yes, terrorists, insurgents, and even some freedom fighters are responsible for a lot of deaths in Iraq. But so are the 'allied' armies.

No-one is innocent.

Do yu think the US army is killing people because it's sadistic or because of terrorism?

In some cases, because they are confused as to who is a combatant and who is a civilian. In some cases this is an acceptible example of collateral damage.

In some cases because they no longer care who is a combatant and who is a civilian. This is not acceptible.

In some cases because they are suffering from PTSD (although not actually 'Post' - don't know the expression... is it Combat Stress Disorder?). This isn 't acceptible, and they should be treated, as it will cause more problems when they finally get back home.

Again jun, your offering of two alternatives, sadism or terrorism, is equivalent to Bush saying other countries agree with him or they support terrorism. The presentation of only two alternatives rarely actually means that there are actually only two alternatives. It is a simplistic form of obedience test and thus, by extension can be taken to be an infringement on the liberties of an intellectually and/or cognitive-logically challenged or otherwise uninformed population.

[jun_erh]

My point wasn't that it's one or the other. My point was that in general do you think americans are there to rape pillage and plunder like the iraqis did in Kuwait circa '91? or are they there because because of terrorists, baathists, arab natinalists, old iraqi grandmothers, are causing a lack of security? I'm not a dittohead, but if you want to see some real dittoheads, guys who believe to the death every last thing ther master says, just go to iran or Gaza. Those guys take conservatism to the hilt

[PangQuan]

Remember the word Jihad? Know what that means? Ignorance and hate are what killed every person in this war, on both sides. All parties are responsible in different ways. It is the loss of life that should be mourned, for all lives lost. This is a debate that could continue endlessly because it is a subject created upon opinion and belief. There for there will always be contradictions and differences in opinions. This Jihad has been around for much longer than we think. It is a very old way. A very new way has imposed itself. I DO NOT in any way condone the actions of terrorists, I would pull the **** trigger myslef. But we must remember that each pesron killed in the war (on both sides) is merely doing what their country tells them to do. If your country came to you and said "kill them" you would kill them or you would die. Look at vietnam. We did what our country told us to do. And it was the wrong thing to do. Women and children did not need to die by american hands, yet they did. Very similar situation on the part of iraqi soldiers. They do what they are told. Period. It does not mean it was the right choice. But it is non the less the choice that is imposed on their culture by thier leaders. The word Leader is exactly that. They lead. Others follow. It is the chain of command. Only the leaders are to blame. Not the followers. To blame a soldier for following orders is to blame the sun for burning you. It is called duty. This is a very misfortunate turn of events that have led us to this path. But this is, in the sum total of all wars ever waged, very small. Alexander, Kahn, Qin, Ceaser, Vlad, Hitler, Tokugawa. Remember the past. We are humans. This may end one day, and another shall arise, until all mankind excepts the gift of enlightenment. Peace.

[Newb]

Originally posted by El Tejon
Toby, the war in Iraq is a continuation of the 1991 ceasefire. Kindly Uncle Saddam failed to maintain the terms of the ceasefire and the U.S. renewed its offensive in 2003.

The defeat of the USSR was the ending of the Cold War, 1945 to 1989.

Self-defense question is asked of any actor, nation state or individual.

Saddam violated the terms of his probation and failed to honor the 1991 ceasefire agreement.

This form of sophistry is not good for the US or the world. The reason we invaded Iraq was for the non existant Weapons of Mass Distruction. If the US were to spend over $200 Billion dollars every year for every single incident involving some made up or real cease fire violation, we would have been in the doghouse years ago.

/edit
Which is why Congress would never have authorized a pre-empitve invasion on a simple 10 year old (and unfair) cease fire agreement. They authorized it on the false and fraudulant claims of 'weapons of mass distruction'.

[Newb]

Originally posted by El Tejon
Mat, Germany and Japan may be different situations in 1945 but same result: docile prosperous nations that have not started trouble with their neighbors.

Kristoffer, Germans fought us after May 7, 1945 after the US and allies liberated Germany. Some Germans hated us. Our troops pacified Germany and saved Western Europe from the USSR.

The solution is to allow the Iraqis to work it out. Just like Germany.

I would think you would have paid more attention to the UN Oil-for-Food scandal as it shows the ulterior motives (money) of those nations against the War of Continuation. It constitutes a stab in the back to those who pro-claim to be "anti-war" for non monetary reasons.

Spark, were not Germany and Japan complex situations? I cannot image a war that was/would not be complex. If you have no faith in the Iraqi people, then that is your opinion. The Iraqis will have problems and then will fix them. The end result is to the benefit of the West just as Germany's and Japan's end result.

The policies that rebuilt Germany and Japan were the policies of Eisenhower and Gen. Doughlas Macarthur. I studied Macarthurs reconstruction of Japan and his campaign in the Pacific in detail. With a FDR President, the USA was the most productive per capita nation in the entire world. We were able to have a physical economy that could outproduce most of the world combined. The fact is, the Bush administration does not have the policies that will rebuild Iraq, or the USA. Their policies will continue to spread death, chaos, poverty, and delibrate misinformation like we've seen. Can you tell me what the Bush policy for a solution is? You can't, because they don't have a solution.


Edit: Also, it's not about having faith in Iraqis, it's not having faith in the Bush Administration to do the right thing. They have been more concerned with their own pocketbooks and personal intrests, than they have in winning the peace.

[MonkeyBoy]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
dude, If we put a standing arab army of 138,000 into let's say pennsylvania, would the penn staters who take up arms to get rid of the invading army only be killing themselves?

KL,

The short answer is "Yes." and as in most cases that kind of comparison leads to fallacy. The expectations of you or I to believe that the Middle Eastern world to react as ours would is un-founded. Americans and Canadians have elected Gay government officials, they bury those people up to their waste in sand and stone them to death. We conduct a criminal investigation when a criminal accusation is made, while they have the relatives of the suspects beaten, raped and killed off until someone, anyone confesses. True we all breathe, breed and bleed the same but similarities do come to an end.

As for your question:

If the Governer of Penn. were murdering, raping common citizens and gassing minorities on an industrial scale was a hobby of his 10 or 15 years ago, if he was taking food and medicine donated to ease suffering and usingthose resources to fuel his private armies and line his coffers, then the people of that great state would welcome an outside army to depose him. Those who opposed a return to civility and order would, of course, be getting themselves killed.

[Newb]

Originally posted by MonkeyBoy
KL,

The short answer is "Yes." and as in most cases that kind of comparison leads to fallacy. The expectations of you or I to believe that the Middle Eastern world to react as ours would is un-founded. Americans and Canadians have elected Gay government officials, they bury those people up to their waste in sand and stone them to death. We conduct a criminal investigation when a criminal accusation is made, while they have the relatives of the suspects beaten, raped and killed off until someone, anyone confesses. True we all breathe, breed and bleed the same but similarities do come to an end.

As for your question:

If the Governer of Penn. were murdering, raping common citizens and gassing minorities on an industrial scale was a hobby of his 10 or 15 years ago, if he was taking food and medicine donated to ease suffering and usingthose resources to fuel his private armies and line his coffers, then the people of that great state would welcome an outside army to depose him. Those who opposed a return to civility and order would, of course, be getting themselves killed.

The imperial policies of the United States and "Great" Britain have been responsible for more deaths, rapings, poverty, slavery, and looting of nations than Saddam could even dream of. The greatest damage Saddam did was when he was a direct ally of the US using US weapons.

[El Tejon]

The policies of the US and the UK ended slavery as a global enterprise. The policies of the US and UK have ended rape and looting and lessened poverty across the globe. The policies of the US and the UK have brought liberation to dozens upon dozens of nations across the globe.

The policies of kindly Uncle Saddam brought death, rape, murder, theft, thuggery and corruption, especially with the Oil for Food scandal, across the globe.

[MonkeyBoy]

Originally posted by MonkeyBoy
KL,

The short answer is "Yes." and as in most cases that kind of comparison leads to fallacy. The expectations of you or I to believe that the Middle Eastern world to react as ours would is un-founded. Americans and Canadians have elected Gay government officials, they bury those people up to their waste in sand and stone them to death. We conduct a criminal investigation when a criminal accusation is made, while they have the relatives of the suspects beaten, raped and killed off until someone, anyone confesses. True we all breathe, breed and bleed the same but similarities do come to an end.

As for your question:

If the Governer of Penn. were murdering, raping common citizens and gassing minorities on an industrial scale was a hobby of his 10 or 15 years ago, if he was taking food and medicine donated to ease suffering and usingthose resources to fuel his private armies and line his coffers, then the people of that great state would welcome an outside army to depose him. Those who opposed a return to civility and order would, of course, be getting themselves killed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Newb
The imperial policies of the United States and "Great" Britain have been responsible for more deaths, rapings, poverty, slavery, and looting of nations than Saddam could even dream of. The greatest damage Saddam did was when he was a direct ally of the US using US weapons.

Newb,

If Kung Lek wants to answer me, he will and he'll pick on my post.

You replied and it didn't have anything to do with my post, what gives?

Why didn't you mention that the USA and Britain were responsible for ending more poverty, preventing more deaths, raising the standard of education, raising the standard of medicine, ending slavery, securing rights for women and protecting the sovereignty of more nations than all other nations combined in all of human history so far?

[jun_erh]

so a suicide bomber blows up twenty people in a mosque. Are you attributing that to the US???