Iraq: Past, Present, Future

[Sand]

Not invade a country that is not a threat? Hmm... Not attacking someone... I think that is quite doable, Xard. Lets see, not spend resources to rebuild a country that attacked us seem quite doable as well. Just leave. leaving is very doable. Just get on the transport and go. Seems easy enough.

[Xard]

With 9/11 we should have went in Afganistan, focus on killing every single member of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, then simply leave afterwards.

 

This part is impossible

 

 

What about all the innocent whose lives you have ruined due to your dutiful punishment of their goverment? Is it right they're just left right there to die after "the evil goverment" is destroyed?

Edited March 28, 2008 by Xard

[Nick_i_am]

He was talking about killing everyone.

 

EDIT: ooops, beaten.

Edited March 28, 2008 by Nick_i_am

[Walsingham]

I think we're missing a trick here. Clearly Sand can tell who is and is not a Taliban or Al Qaeda sympathiser just by looking at them. Computer analysis suggests he should also be able to fly and shoot lightning from his kneecaps. I say we send him to Iraq asap.

[Sand]

This part is impossible

 

 

What about all the innocent whose lives you have ruined due to your dutiful punishment of their goverment? Is it right they're just left right there to die after "the evil goverment" is destroyed?

 

If the roles were reverse do you honestly think they would have aided us? I think not.

[Xard]

That is something to wonder and think. But that is not justification. Shouldn't you thrive to be better than your enemies?

[Sand]

Shouldn't you thrive to be better than your enemies?

 

A nice naive view, Xard. We should thrive to make sure that our own people are taken care, and those who seek us harm eliminated. A government's first and foremost priority should be to its own people. May that be my government, your government, or Walsh's. Once that priority is satisfied and the country is secured then a government can set aside resources to aid others. I am not saying that the US should not help those in need, but let the US take care of those who are in need at home before those in other countries.

Edited March 28, 2008 by Sand

[Xard]

Of course, it is natural that goverment's look after their own people. But there's line. I for one would never endorse destruction of some foreig people for my safety. Unless you at least try to be something more graceful there's no distinction between you two.

 

And those who were important to ones you kill will remember. And cycle continues.

 

Without some amount of idealism world never gets any better

[Xard]

Considering how misanthropic I can be at times it is funny that Sand makes me talk like this. But he takes this despisable "eye for eye" line way too far

[Sand]

Idealism? HA!

 

Crap in one hand and fill the other with hope. See which one gets full first, Xard.

[Tigranes]

Sand, I still don't get one very simple thing.

 

You say the US has no compunction to help rebuild a country that has attacked the US. That's fine.

 

1/ No 'country' attacked the US, but ano rganisation. That's like saying if the KKK bombs China, China has the right to invade US and destroy US and just leave.

 

2/ Iraq had nothing substantial to do with Al Qaeda. So, as you say, invadingi n the first place was wrong. So what's wrong with helping restabilise the place? I mean, does'nt the US have an obligation HERE if not in Afghanisatn?

[Sand]

Considering how misanthropic I can be at times it is funny that Sand makes me talk like this. But he takes this despisable "eye for eye" line way too far

 

At least I am against pre-emptive strikes. If they leave me alone I am more than willing to leave them alone.

[Xard]

I digress. Men of idealism and valour has managed to get some good done in the world. Progress has been slow but it is there.

 

Just think of Jesus or Mahadma Gandhi. France slipped into anarchy but thriumph of Enlightement ideals was huge step for mankind. Some sort of proper execution of these were only seen as far as 20th century but still, it is important that someone even tries to make these unsensical ideas.

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be as one

 

Wonder where I took my title from, Sand?

[Sand]

Sand, I still don't get one very simple thing.

 

You say the US has no compunction to help rebuild a country that has attacked the US. That's fine.

 

1/ No 'country' attacked the US, but ano rganisation. That's like saying if the KKK bombs China, China has the right to invade US and destroy US and just leave.

 

2/ Iraq had nothing substantial to do with Al Qaeda. So, as you say, invadingi n the first place was wrong. So what's wrong with helping restabilise the place? I mean, does'nt the US have an obligation HERE if not in Afghanisatn?

 

 

There is a difference. The KKK isn't backed by our government while Al Qaeda was supplied and supported by the Taliban, the government of Afganistan at the time. As for Iraq we should pull out, take care of the problems at home, and once that is done then fully focus on repairing the damage Bush did to that country.

[Sand]

I digress. Men of idealism and valour has managed to get some good done in the world. Progress has been slow but it is there.

 

Just think of Jesus or Mahadma Gandhi. France slipped into anarchy but thriumph of Enlightement ideals was huge step for mankind. Some sort of proper execution of these were only seen as far as 20th century but still, it is important that someone even tries to make these unsensical ideas.

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be as one

 

Wonder where I took my title from, Sand?

 

I have respect for Gandhi, but he was the exception and not the human norm. Who the frack knows with any degree of certainty what Jesus stood for. After 2000 years of interpretation and reinterpretation, translating and retranslating, of his teachings, and all the killing done in his name I don't have much respect for the guy nor the religion he inspired.

[Xard]

I have respect for Gandhi, but he was the exception and not the human norm. Who the frack knows with any degree of certainty what Jesus stood for. After 2000 years of interpretation and reinterpretation, translating and retranslating, of his teachings, and all the killing done in his name I don't have much respect for the guy nor the religion he inspired.

 

You have many reasons to criticise Christian Churches. Don't take it on Jesus himself though.

 

And you'd be surprised how far and analytically scriptures have been managed to be studied - most of the time researchers can say with 90 % certainty "Yes, this is Jesus's own words" or "these aren't Jesus's own words directly but are right presentations of his values" or "these are musings of the writer based on his sources who propably knew Jesus somehow" or "no, Jesus had nothing to do with this"

 

Jesus, be him son of god or not, deserves all the praise one human being can. And you'd be horribly naive if you think world got worse due to Christianity. Quite the contrary, world became better place. Without Christianity Middle-Ages would've been far worse and gone longer on.

 

Lutherian work ethics and Luther's (who was damn smart fellow btw, IQ 190 by some studies) thoughts on role of goverment have been central in creating Scandinavian "dream" societies (from many viewpoints Finland and Sweden are best places to be born in the world). Sorry, I lack the word. Folkhemmet they call it in Sweden. Calvinism has been often seen as reason for development of modern capitalism - though if it is good thing or bad is something to be argued about.

 

And Jesus's main message of love and turning the other cheek is greatest mankind has ever had. Sure, some kind of Golden Rule can be found from all major religions, but when going into details Jesus's message was even more encompassing

Edited March 28, 2008 by Xard

[walkerguy]

Thats a little bit extreme. Not every war is neccessarily, say, "just"... just think about the wrong ^ could bring about.

 

If a country attacks the United States, causing lost of life and damaging property, then we should go in and make damn sure they don't have the ability to do so again. With 9/11 we should have went in Afganistan, focus on killing every single member of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, then simply leave afterwards. Iraq did not attack us therefore we should not have invaded.

 

You don't live in real world if you honestly think that is doable

 

Seconded with Xard.

 

With 9/11 we should have went in Afganistan, focus on killing every single member of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, then simply leave afterwards.

 

This part is impossible

 

 

What about all the innocent whose lives you have ruined due to your dutiful punishment of their goverment? Is it right they're just left right there to die after "the evil goverment" is destroyed?

 

Yeah like what are we doing?

 

I think we're missing a trick here. Clearly Sand can tell who is and is not a Taliban or Al Qaeda sympathiser just by looking at them. Computer analysis suggests he should also be able to fly and shoot lightning from his kneecaps. I say we send him to Iraq asap.

 

He's needed in Afghanistan, let the Turks blow Iraq up.

[walkerguy]

Shouldn't you thrive to be better than your enemies?

 

A nice naive view, Xard. We should thrive to make sure that our own people are taken care, and those who seek us harm eliminated. A government's first and foremost priority should be to its own people. May that be my government, your government, or Walsh's. Once that priority is satisfied and the country is secured then a government can set aside resources to aid others. I am not saying that the US should not help those in need, but let the US take care of those who are in need at home before those in other countries.

 

Xard meant it quite broadly, Sand. You just can't look out for #1 all the time.

 

Of course, it is natural that goverment's look after their own people. But there's line. I for one would never endorse destruction of some foreig people for my safety. Unless you at least try to be something more graceful there's no distinction between you two.

 

And those who were important to ones you kill will remember. And cycle continues.

 

Without some amount of idealism world never gets any better

 

Quite so.

 

Sand, I still don't get one very simple thing.

 

You say the US has no compunction to help rebuild a country that has attacked the US. That's fine.

 

1/ No 'country' attacked the US, but ano rganisation. That's like saying if the KKK bombs China, China has the right to invade US and destroy US and just leave.

 

2/ Iraq had nothing substantial to do with Al Qaeda. So, as you say, invadingi n the first place was wrong. So what's wrong with helping restabilise the place? I mean, does'nt the US have an obligation HERE if not in Afghanisatn?

 

 

There is a difference. The KKK isn't backed by our government while Al Qaeda was supplied and supported by the Taliban, the government of Afganistan at the time. As for Iraq we should pull out, take care of the problems at home, and once that is done then fully focus on repairing the damage Bush did to that country.

 

Seconded with Sand for this one. Not realistic there, 'Tigger'.

[walkerguy]

Is this a peaceful calm in the storm or are Xard and Sand firing away via PMs?

 

Cause its been a half-hour with no new posts, a bit surprising...

Edited March 28, 2008 by walkerguy

[Brdavs]

I'll buy 2.5 million displaced. But 1 million dead? Would that be from the Lancet report which assumed that some 70% of people killed never turned up in either a hospital or morgue? See the criticism expanded on at:

 

critique of the Lancet figure of 650,000

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

 

I suggest that given your eveident partisan hostility you restrain your use of figures to those which can be backed up by evidence.

 

I refer you to the same site to observe the falling off of civilian deaths, even in this fiercely independent source.

 

The action in Basra the last few days is probably misguided, but if nothing else it proves the Iraqi government are not mere pawns of the Coalition, since it contradicts the line taken by the USA of attempting peaceful integration of the Mehdi army, and reconciliation with the Shia.

 

I could quote economic indiactors at you, to show improvemnt, but it would be a total waste of time since the sources are governmental and will no doubt be ignored.

 

 

Actually I was thinking of the ORB survey wich actually stated 1.2mil deathes but I for one am opened to the idea the numbers could be inflated so I opted to round the number.

 

You`re throwing partisanity and dubious sources and estimations to my face? That`s a good one coming from a stern supporter taking every report with a ".gov" slapped on it heh.

We`re both inteligent, we both realise statistic is a whore to any and all willing to ask. Independant agencies are no worse that the "official" numbers, heck it`s bad PR to have a body count equaling a small genocide. Fine. Let`s say the truth is in the middle. 500k violent deaths in Iraq since the beggining of the invasion. Does the fact that it`s now not a 7 digit number make it any better or help you sleep at night?

How can I not be partisan agains western intervetionism and the Iraq war when you operate with human lives like it`s monopoly money! As long as it`s not coalition lives, ofcourse. As far as "them" are concerned, the fact that "civilian deaths are falling" can be touted as a huge victory making it all worth while eh.

Btw if I were really hardcore partisan I`d say those numbers are falling cos civilians are being classified as combatants whenever possible.

 

And the daydreams you`re having about "Iraqi government not being mere pawns of the Coalition" are simply mind-blowing. Honestly, there is no level of astonishment to describe the naivitee of such a statement. But hey, to each hisown heh. I for one base my conclusion on what I see and the track record demonstrated in such matters, both recent one and well in the past. Iraq is about as soverign as the keyboard I`m just using.

 

 

Ofcourse economic indicators are up. Oil flows, that`s the point. + The falling dollar helps. Not to mention all the multinationals that now moved in capitalising on the chicago boys paradise "tabula rasa" that is Iraqi society... They`ve truly managed to create a paradox in Iraq, I`ll give them that... an econimic state that is by the numbers doing great while the society around it implodes. A neo-liberal paradise.

[~Di]

The most verifiable account of civilians killed during the Iraq War can be found at Iraqi Body Count Database?, which supports its current estimate of 82,566

[Azarkon]

100,000 deaths is still pretty damn significant, and is incredibly hard to justify if Iraq does not emerge out of this better than it was before.

[Gorgon]

Well, how much is freedom worth in lives, to use Bush speak. I guess it depends on where you live. The Kurds are flourishing and clear of insurgency and terrorists. Of course now they have to deal with Turkey, who would like nothing better than eradicating them.

Edited March 29, 2008 by Gorgon

[Brdavs]

The most verifiable account of civilians killed during the Iraq War can be found at Iraqi Body Count Database?, which supports its current estimate of 82,566

Edited March 29, 2008 by Gorth
Lets try without the negative racial labels

[Walsingham]

If we are going to have any sort of meaningful exchange we can't just rubbish the whole concept of statistcs. Yeah they can be bent, but we have to use 'reasonable doubt'. IBC, for example, at the bottom of that page, says that their figures are still indicative of a systematic catatstrophe. Does this sound like a group trying to produce Coalition friendly stats? Indeed, does having a stealth bomber on the front page, rather than a suicide bomber make any damn sense? IBC's own stats (which include many incidents minutely catalogued) demonstrate the majority of civilian casualties are caused by insurgents!

 

However, this leads on to your next statement:

"Bottom line is no statistic showing how good the conflict is going, how (civilian) deaths are "down" and how GDP is growing can justify what is ultimatly a illegal, dare I say criminal, war. Period."

 

Which is your strategic viewpoint. Plenty of people say the war is illegal, but I refer you to the very clear and FULL version of the attorney general's report at the Guardian newspaper

 

The official reason given by Snr Bush was the war was justified under 'a' - 'self defence' (WMD). This is an imponderable, because the truth of what the intelligence services told our governments is effectively hidden for all time. Let's just agree we haven't found any. More importantly, Lord Goldsmith argues that pre-emptive strategic attack is not a mechanism under international law. Point to you.

 

However, arguments 'b' and 'c' still hold.

 

It is true that both the French and Russiaans blocked a UN security council resolution _adding_ to the existing resolution mandating force to make Iraq comply with inspections. Point to you, or so it would seem. There is a problem however, which is that two of the judges hearing that case were owed 20 billion and 300 billion USD by the defendant! Oddly these were the two judges who blocked the guilty verdict and further action. Tied point, caused by collapse of court in hysterics.

 

Argument 'b' is most interesting. It states that intervention is legal where necessary to 'avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe'. He goes on to admit it was used in Kosovo, and was in current usage to enforce the no fly zones. However, Lord Goldsmith claims Iraq did not constitute such a situation. Given the hundreds of thousands dead one wonders what would constitute a humanitarian catastrophe to Lord Goldsmith. Nonetheless, the point is established by precedent.

 

As to your last point I find it deeply offensive for two reasons. Firstly you impute that I regard Iraqi and Afghan lives as unworthy because I am a racist. I intend to appeal your use of language to the moderating team.

 

The second reason is that in turn I find it extraordinary that I should be on the receiving end of such a charge when it seems to me that so-called liberals have no problem with hundreds of thousands of foreigners dying provided our flag isn't anywhere nearby! I am a supporter of intervention where achievable, to use our military advantages to break the stranglehold of tinpot violent abusers. We've made terrible errors in how we've gone about it. But the principle is still sound. It was when JFK argued freedom is indivisible. It will be true when we're all long dead.