This makes me ill! (100,000 Excess Iraqi Deaths Since War) - Page 7

**John Scott** · 10-30-2004, 09:22 AM

TGR,

I don't know Ferret. I do know his debate tactics, and that is what my post refers to. And, "childish"? If childish means I prefer a higher level of debate, sure, I'm childish.

Ferre · 10-30-2004, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

I don't care about how the politicians debate. Watching these election campaigns is sickening. They all seem to have sunken to the level of spin and rhetoric.

In this I fully agree, but this is what the world is getting from the US govenment to explain their foreign politics to us since a long time now and this is the main reason the US has lost its trust with their allies and all the rest of the world. They really believe we (the people, you, me, our families) can't see through all that and figure out the facts. They are living in their own happy twisted world and because of their immense power they do whatever they want to anyway, what is sickening is that politicians all over the world are just the same imbreed low life corrupted criminals and they nearly all agree with them.

Politicians are ruining this earth, world peace, the invironment and what are hey supposed to do? Represent us? I don't see much of that happening.

TGR · 10-30-2004, 09:56 AM

Gotcha, John. I'm sure you prefer a higher level of debate but this is a Webmaster forum. And it would be nice if everyone felt comfortable expressing their views. This is one of the few places left where you can say how you feel without being attacked personally.

I don't understand why people can't just agree that a bunch of dead Iraqi civilians is a tragic disaster.

Ferre, what is that Arabic crap in your sig?

Ferre · 10-30-2004, 10:15 AM

can I ask you why you label it "crap" without you even knowing what it is?

SVB · 10-30-2004, 10:17 AM

I think it says weed/grass

Ferre · 10-30-2004, 10:19 AM

حشيش is 'cannabis' in Arabic

**John Scott** · 10-30-2004, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGR

I don't understand why people can't just agree that a bunch of dead Iraqi civilians is a tragic disaster.

Dead civilians are always tragic. But there's a huge illogical leap from dead civilians are tragic to Bush is a bloodthisty murderer and a mole for the oil kingpins.

Ferre · 10-30-2004, 10:25 AM

Funny how more and more of the Iraqui people are dying every day to save them from being killed by Saddam...how long is he out of power now?

**John Scott** · 10-30-2004, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferre

Funny how more and more of the Iraqui people are dying every day to save them from being killed by Saddam...how long is he out of power now?

I think that statement fails to understand the reason for the war.

Try this - tell me why the US Civil War was justified. It lead to 620,000 deaths. It's most likely that it didn't save 100,000 lives. According to your logic, we shouldn't have done it.

By the same logic, any time it two people die to save one life, it isn't justified.

Tell me, if you can, why the Civil War was justified.

Ferre · 10-30-2004, 11:14 AM

The American civil war was about separation and freedom fought inside a country, the Iraq invasion was about "saving the Iraq people from Saddam", that's the difference John.

evilregis · 10-30-2004, 11:20 AM

I believe the leap is made because the man invaded the country (rather than dealing with far greater and more iminent threats) for false reasons using selective intelligence that helped make his case... told the people that you'd be greeted as liberators, not occupiers... that he invaded with far fewer troops than needed which resulted in chaos which lead to insurgents being able to organize and fight back. That fighting back is what is leading to these civilian deaths.

No one expects that the US could come in and control every facet of Iraq and keep insurgency at zero. That's obviously unrealistic, however, a former senior Defense Intelligence Agency analyst has estimated over 100,000 people involved in the insurgency (before you jump on that, that's including those aiding insurgents with financial assistance, logistical, housing, etc.).

It was estimated there were approximately 5000 originally during the fall of Baghdad, I believe. Had there been enough troops (which Shinseki called for) there they would have been in a much better position to squash that insurgency and instead of all of this fighting, could have been rebuilding Iraq and helping them recover from the Saddam years.

Then when Baghdad falls, instead of protecting piles and piles of explosives at the largest collection weapons facility in Iraq they secured oil fields and ministries. Now explosives are in the hands of those fighting back and it's a huge mess. It shouldn't have been a matter of "do we protect highly explosive material, or do we protect the oil fields". Having more troops would have enabled the US to do both.

Perhaps Bush isn't a blood thirsty murderer and a mole for the oil kingpins, but he sure hasn't done a very good job of proving himself otherwise.

**John Scott** · 10-30-2004, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferre

The American civil war was about separation and freedom fought inside a country, the Iraq invasion was about "saving the Iraq people from Saddam", that's the difference John.

No, Ferre, the war wasn't about seperation. Nobody cares whether the South secedes from the union. It was about freedom. The principle of freedom. It doesn't matter whether the Civil War saved one life - the principle of freedom was worth 620,000 deaths. In fact, it was worth the death of every single American. "Give me freedom or give me death."

The same applies to Iraq. The war was not about saving lives. It was about establishing freedom. Civilians will always die when war happens, and freedom is worth going to war for.

SVB · 10-30-2004, 11:39 AM

The civilians are free from Saddam though, and have been for a good while. Its small groups of freedom fighters who are attacking the British and Americans now, because it is them who are currently restricting the peoples freedom. Its about time to withdraw troops, and end needless deaths, as the "freedom" reason is no longer valid.

**John Scott** · 10-30-2004, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evilregis

I believe the leap is made because the man invaded the country (rather than dealing with far greater and more iminent threats) for false reasons using selective intelligence that helped make his case... told the people that you'd be greeted as liberators, not occupiers... that he invaded with far fewer troops than needed which resulted in chaos which lead to insurgents being able to organize and fight back. That fighting back is what is leading to these civilian deaths.

There have always been enough troops in Iraq. But we are not willing to lock up every single possible insurgent. The fact that you believe that insurgency could be prevented is ... naive. It doesn't matter how many troops there are in any given region; the freedom of movement granted to the people makes insurgency a possibility. It's possible here in America, it's possible in Iraq, and it's possible anywhere people have freedom of movement.

As for "greeted as liberators". Where did you learn otherwise? I saw the tape of Iraqis rejoicing and toppling Saddam's statues and cheering the troops. Check your facts before posting, plz.

And the explosives - so far they don't even know if the explosives were there when we invaded. They know that the explosives were there before we invaded, but they don't know when they were moved. And that wasn't George Bush's call. No president is going to be capable of micro-managing a war. He's not going to wake up the troops in the morning, wash the latrines, and see to it that every single gun is secured. Trying to blame George Bush for the missing explosives is rediculous. I doubt it would even be up to a 4 star general to look after that kind of detail.

**John Scott** · 10-30-2004, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Bradley

The civilians are free from Saddam though, and have been for a good while. Its small groups of freedom fighters who are attacking the British and Americans now, because it is them who are currently restricting the peoples freedom. Its about time to withdraw troops, and end needless deaths, as the "freedom" reason is no longer valid.

Freedom fighters? Nope. It's the Shiites and Sunni Muslins. Most of all, the Shiites. They don't want a Democracy or freedom - they want religious rule.

Ferre · 10-30-2004, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Freedom fighters? Nope. It's the Shiites and Sunni Muslins. Most of all, the Shiites. They don't want a Democracy or freedom - they want religious rule.

Can you supply any prove of this John, and not by "American intelligent" sources?
See, too much of the "American intelligence" has been proven to be false and very unreliable you know.

**John Scott** · 10-30-2004, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferre

Can you supply any prove of this John, and not by "American intelligent" sources?
See, too much of the "American intelligence" has been proven to be false and very unreliable you know.

Just watch the news. No "freedom fighters" are taking responsibility for the bombings. Most of the attacks are being done by that radical Muslim cleric Muqtada al Sadr - his group is taking credit for the attacks so why should we belive otherwise?