This makes me ill! (100,000 Excess Iraqi Deaths Since War)

[TGR]

Check out "carlyle group" in google and you will get an idea.

See also: 'war profiteering'

[evilregis]

The final version of the $87 billion spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan is missing provisions the Senate had passed to penalize war profiteers who defraud American taxpayers. House negotiators on the package refused to accept the Senate provisions.

“When the Senate Appropriations Committee considered this supplemental request, Senators Leahy, Feinstein, and I joined together to criminalize war profiteering – price gouging and fraud – with the same law that was passed during World War II. Yet this amendment, was stripped out of the final bill,” said Durbin. “I fail to understand how anyone can be opposed to prosecuting those who want to defraud and overcharge the United States government and the American taxpayers.”

If they don't care about screwing over their own country's citizens, I guess it's quite a stretch to think that they'd give a fat rat's ass about the well being of a group of people on the other side of the world...

[I, Brian]

If this proves that the Iraqi people were actually better off under Saddam Hussein, does that mean that the Iraqi people therefore have a legal right to invade the USA?

[TGR]

What are they going to invade us with? They haven't had a real military since the early 90's.

Besides, "Mission Accomplished!" -That's all that matters!

[Dark_Matter]

These deaths are acceptable collateral damage, after all, if we hadn't gotten Saddam out of power he wouldve killed lots of Iraqis.....umm..wait..

I think comparing this war to WWII is pretty silly. WWII was a cut and dry situation of an agressor attempting to take over the world, and a unified world defeated him. Comparing a pre-emptive war (against a nation who MIGHT have been able to AID a third party in attacking us) to a war against an agressing nation doesnt add up.

I think Saddam was a threat, I think he needed to be dealt with. I think there may have been better ways of dealing with him and I'm sure there were better ways to conduct this war.

FOUR MORE DAYS!!!

[Fusion]

Its simple: Clash of cultures. You lot dont want mullahs getting any level of power, so you kick ass. Whos next? Oh yea those Koreans.

[John Scott]

The North Koreans are a fun topic. We should get into that. They tested a medium range ICBM over Japan, and another downed North Korean warhead was found in Alaska. What do the liberals think we should do? I got a feeling that if Pyongyang did nuke Japan, Democrats would simply call for "peace talks".

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Dark_Matter

I think comparing this war to WWII is pretty silly. WWII was a cut and dry situation of an agressor attempting to take over the world, and a unified world defeated him.

Saddam wasn't an aggressor? You might want to tell the Kuwaitis and the Kurds that, and all families of the people who were killed just for not agreeing with him.

[TGR]

We took the whole killing of innocents job out of Saddam's hands. Giving him the weapons to do it himself wasn't enough.

You can't tell me that there wasn't a better way to go about doing this.

[Dark_Matter]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

The North Koreans are a fun topic. We should get into that. They tested a medium range ICBM over Japan, and another downed North Korean warhead was found in Alaska. What do the liberals think we should do? I got a feeling that if Pyongyang did nuke Japan, Democrats would simply call for "peace talks".

well they apparently wouldnt be alone, last I heard the current administration thinks this is a situation better handled by diplomacy. I don't disagree.

Korea is known for these types of scare tactics, they have a proud tradition of flagrant threats that usually turn out to be bluffs. On the other hand, warheads dont bluff their way to Alaska, so we need to be watching this closely.

To me, this seems like a situation that can be handled with diplomacy. If a nuke hit Japan (seems unlikely even if they have the capability), it wouldnt be hard to get other nations to help subdue Korea.

Pre-emptive strikes seem a little more reasonable in this situation, if we have proof of intercontinental nuclear capability.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by TGR

You can't tell me that there wasn't a better way to go about doing this.

Let's hear it. Maybe we could have dropped sleeping gas over the entire country?

[John Scott]

To me, this seems like a situation that can be handled with diplomacy. If a nuke hit Japan (seems unlikely even if they have the capability), it wouldnt be hard to get other nations to help subdue Korea.

Bull****. You say that now, but the first time a Korean kid dies, you'd be calling the President a murderer.

[evilregis]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

The North Koreans are a fun topic. We should get into that. They tested a medium range ICBM over Japan, and another downed North Korean warhead was found in Alaska. What do the liberals think we should do? I got a feeling that if Pyongyang did nuke Japan, Democrats would simply call for "peace talks".

That is a real weak argument. Under whose watch was that allowed to happen on?

So let's talk North Korea. The Koreans had a stash of radioactive fuel rods, taken in the early 1990's from its nuclear power plant in Yongbyon. These rods could be processed into plutonium. With that plutonium, the means to acquire nuclear bombs. Not in years but in months.

The Clinton administration brokered an agreement whereby the rods were locked in a storage facility under the monitoring of international weapons inspectors.

All the Bush administration had to do was keep these rods locked up.

Under Bush's failed failed diplomatic meetings over the uranium, North Korea ousted the weapons inspectors, broke the locks on the fuel rods, loaded them onto a truck, and drove them to a nearby reprocessing facility, to be converted into bomb-grade plutonium.

The White House sat by and let this happen without so much as a peep because Bush had a hard on for Saddam. Instead of using proper force on a country that would only need months to create nuclear weapons, he instead chose to use force against... Saddam. And now North Korea has nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to your country.

What about Iran? Whose watch did that happen on?

So Bush thought it better to invade and occupy a nation that turns out didn't have chemical/nuclear weapons and is spending $287 billion as well as proposing another $70 billion for continuing effort if he gets elected again to accomplish this goal all the while two countries who are imminent threats to US security have been given a pass to build nuclear weaponry.

All the while, the President has been telling you you are safer. Do you feel safer? Knowing that Saddam had no WMDs and even if he did, none of which could ever reach you, or two countries with KNOWN AND ESTABLISHED ties to terrorism having the capability to do so. Mmmmm, that's good comfort.

[TGR]

Let's hear it. Maybe we could have dropped sleeping gas over the entire country?

No way! 500,000 pound bombs are much more effective.

To be honest, I don't know what the perfect solution would have been. It's obvious that his capacity to cause damage was severely weakened.

You think it was worth the lives that have been lost. I do not.

[John Scott]

Instead of using proper force on a country that would only need months to create nuclear weapons

LOL!!! So Bush should have used force on Korea, which is backed up by China? Are you on crack? If we did any sort of pre-emptive anything on Korea, you think China would not decide to retaliate by re-unifying the Korean peninsula?

Just face the facts - you don't like war if anybody actually dies. You're a typical Liberal rubber-bullet strategist. "We should have stopped North Korea", but if we actually did, you'd be calling the President a murderer. You couldn't stomach the deaths involved.

[TGR]

Just face the facts - you don't like war if anybody actually dies.

Is that bad?

[littleFella]

The topic of North Korea was funny indeed, but for reasons not mentioned here yet, although those reasons are very well known. Well, the US already tried Korea before. Someone remind me please, how that went.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by TGR

Is that bad?

Yes. It's like those New Yorkers would don't like to get involved so they just walk on by as some innocent girl gets raped and murderer. It's called cowardice.

[TGR]

I believe only a few million people died, littleFella.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by littleFella

The topic of North Korea was funny indeed, but for reasons not mentioned here yet, although those reasons are very well known. Well, the US already tried Korea before. Someone remind me please, how that went.

Korean War (1950-53): 2 800 000

* Deaths:
* I don't understand why all the sources I check are so sure of their numbers when they all give different numbers. Okay, some of the discrepancies come from disagreement over what to include -- do we count only the 33,741 Americans killed in battle, or do we add the 2,827 non-combat deaths as well? But some of the other disagreements are harder