Iraq death tolls exceeds that of the war

[Sergeant Bob]

w4rma, nothing personal but, watching you in these debates is like watching "Crossfire" with Bob Novak's opponent holding up pages of the New York Times as his counterpoints.

It's like watching a Saturday Night Live skit.

 

[w4rma]

It is a complement to be compared to Carville or Begala. Thank you, Sergeant Bob.

Begala and Carville: Dean on K Street
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/001441.html

I try extremely hard to debate with a strong foundation on facts. That is why my posts are source and quote heavy.

 

[Drjones]

If you still, in the face of all the evidence, believe the war had anything to do with terrorism or for whatever reason "needed to be done" there is no amount of reason that will persuade.

For once we agree, malone!

Saddam was, contrary to popular belief, a very nice man who:

a) Never, ever, ever supported any terrorist organization in any way, shape, or form. In fact, his regime (maybe we shouldn't use that word since he was such a kind, generous, democratically elected leader) had a policy similar to the US of not negotiating with terrorists.

b) Never killed so much as a fly. In fact, the one time he did accidentally kill a fly, he ordered all the iraqi flags to be flown at half-staff for a week, had a massive funeral procession for the fly, and cried himself silly all because saddam is such a nice, sweet man.

c) He cared so deeply about controlling government spending that the reason he would make the families of the people he just executed pay for the bullet used to kill them was so as to not place even the tiniest strain on the average iraqi taxpayer. After all, why should Mohammed Al-Akbar (NOT an al-quaeda member that saddam is supporting, BTW) pay for bullets used to kill someone who dared question saddam? That just isn't fair!

Oops! Did I just say that? I'm sorry, saddam never really killed anyone. I guess I've been listening too much to the govt.-controlled media/military propaganda machine like NPR and dan rather and my brain slipped and I typed that.

Oh, and saddam really, really loved America too. He cried every single time an American died in a car accident, on 9/11, or from eating too much McDonalds.

Regards,
Drjones

 

[w4rma]

This link between Islamist zealot and secular fascist just doesn't add up
…
Moreover, an al-Qaida-Saddam alliance defies common sense. Osama bin Laden is an Islamist zealot who despises secular fascists such as Saddam. I heard from Bin Laden himself that he is no fan of Saddam. When I met with the Saudi exile in Afghanistan five years ago he volunteered that he thought the Iraqi dictator was a “bad Muslimâ€. For Bin Laden, that's as bad as it gets.
…
This leader is identified as Abu Musab Zarqawi, who, curiously, is so important that he does not appear on the FBI's list of the 22 most wanted terrorists. Indeed, key US investigators tell me that Mr Zarqawi is not a significant player in al-Qaida. In fairness, European intelligence officials do believe that Mr Zarqawi may have played an important role in al-Qaida operations in Europe.

If al-Qaida's connection with Iraq is far from proven, its links with Saudi Arabia are real. This is not to suggest that the Saudi government, which is also a target of al-Qaida, has actively supported the group. However, Saudi citizens have provided financial and logistical support to al-Qaida and the Saudi government has been unwilling or unable to stop them.

Despite the fact that most of the September 11 hijackers were Saudi, the government is barely cooperating with the US investigation into the attacks. The printable words US investigators use to describe the Saudi attitude towards their inquiries are “obstructionistâ€, “useless†and “despicableâ€.
…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,885139,00.html

DUBAI - A taped message believed to be from fugitive militant Osama bin Laden on Tuesday warned Arab nations against supporting a war against Iraq as threatened by the United States -- but branded Saddam Hussein an infidel.
…
But the statement did not express support for Saddam. It said Muslims should support the Iraqi people rather than the country's government.

Concern that the United States has not made a valid case for war against Iraq has already divided the NATO Western alliance, with France, Germany and Belgium refusing to back preparations to assist fellow-member Turkey in the event of war.

A NATO official in Brussels said after two days of deadlock that efforts to break the impasse in the alliance would continue through the night, with a meeting of its North Atlantic Council set for 3:45 a.m. EST on Wednesday.

While urging Muslims to support the Iraqi people and repel any attack on their country, the tape said Saddam's secular “socialist†government had lost credibility.

“Socialists are infidels wherever they are,†the statement said. But it added: “It does not hurt that in current circumstances, the interests of Muslims coincide with the interests of the socialists in the war against crusaders.â€
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0211-11.htm

FBI website: The 19 suspected hijackers (Note 8 of them are listed as “Possible Saudi national†and Iraq or Iraqi is not found anywhere on the page)
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm

Ghost of al-Qaeda left out of story

Links between Saddam and the terrorist group were cited among reasons to prosecute a war. Jason Burke finds little to support the claims
…
A report published last week by a US congressional committee makes hard reading for them and for all those who, like Blair, appear to have sucked in their propaganda. Not for what it includes, but for what it omits. The report runs to nearly 900 pages and is as comprehensive an account of the unfurling of the plot to attack the Twin Towers as is likely to be published in the near future. But, even in the 28-page special section that is being kept secret, it does not mention Iraq. The foreign nation singled out for criticism is Saudi Arabia.
…
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1006663,00.html

White House 'delayed 9-11 report'

WASHINGTON, July 25 (UPI) -- A member of the independent commission set up to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks has accused the Bush administration of deliberately delaying publication of an earlier congressional inquiry into the attacks.

Former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., told United Press International that the White House did not want the report made public before launching military action in Iraq. He said the administration feared publication might undermine the administration's case for war, which was based in part on the allegation that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had supported Osama bin Laden -- and the attendant possibility that Iraq might supply al-Qaida with weapons of mass destruction.

“The administration sold the connection (between Iraq and al-Qaida) to scare the pants off the American people and justify the war,†said Cleland. “There's no connection, and that's been confirmed by some of bin Laden's terrorist followers ... What you've seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends.â€

Cleland accused the administration of deliberately delaying the report's release to avoid having its case for war undercut.

“The reason this report was delayed for so long -- deliberately opposed at first, then slow-walked after it was created -- is that the administration wanted to get the war in Iraq in and over ... before (it) came out,†he said.

“Had this report come out in January like it should have done, we would have known these things before the war in Iraq, which would not have suited the administration.â€
…
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030723-064812-9491r

 

[Drjones]

BTW, Al Quaeda is not the only terrorist organization in the world.

Frightening how many people don't understand that.

 

[w4rma]

IMHO, considering Bush and the Republican leadership has failed in finding Osama bin Forgotten and shutting down, containing or even preventing the expantion of Al Queda, changing the topic from Al Queda and Osama bin Forgotten is about the only recourse you have in defending him, Drjones.

 

[Drjones]

IMHO, considering Bush and the Republican leadership has failed in finding Osama bin Forgotten and shutting down, containing or even preventing the expantion of Al Queda, that's about the only recourse you have in defending him, Drjones.

You're right. We have failed.

That's why we have had, um, how many terrorist attacks on US Soil since 9/11?

Sorry, I have a bad memory.

 

[w4rma]

A) There weren't any successful Al Queda terrorist attacks on American soil during the 8 years of Democrats, Clinton and Gore.

B) In addition to chosing to attack a nation that had no links to terrorist attacks on America, Bush also failed in protecting America on 9.11.01 when about 2,500 Americans were killed in the WTC buildings.

C) Over 400 Americans have died in Iraq. Over 2,000 Americans have been wounded in Iraq, many of whom have lost limbs and have been otherwise permanently maimed.

D) If Bush were really interested in winning a war on terrorism he would be paying attention to his occupation of the capital city in Afghanistan. I say, "the capital city", because that's the only place in Afghanistan where the Taliban and the warlords don't control, currently.

 

[fallingblock]

Maybe........

There weren't any successful Al Queda terrorist attacks on American soil during the 8 years of Democrats, Clinton and Gore.
************************************************************

That was the terrorist enabling phase...let 'em test their strength, heave a few cruise missiles, share a cigar with Monica, swap some technology with the Chinese for campaign contributions.....

************************************************************
B) In addition to chosing to attack a nation that had no links to terrorist attacks on America, Bush also failed in protecting America on 9.11.01 when about 2,500 Americans were killed in the WTC buildings.
************************************************************

Saddam lurved terrorists who attacked America, and Israel. The man took every effort to assist and fund any enemies of the U.S..
Do you actually think Gore would have had a clue, given the Democ-rats handling of terrorism incidents in their eight years in office?

************************************************************
C) Over 400 Americans have died in Iraq. Over 2,000 Americans have been wounded in Iraq, many of whom have lost limbs and have been otherwise permanently maimed.
************************************************************


An outstanding success! We've deposed a brutal anti-American regime, defeated its military and kept non-combatant deaths to a minimum. Now the Iraq people have their first chance at freedom in nearly three decades, and all for less than the combat deaths suffered in an average week in the Korean war! War does have casualties....the point is to achieve your objective and do it with as few casualties to your side as possible.

************************************************************
D) If Bush were really interested in winning a war on terrorism he would be paying attention to his occupation of the capital city in Afghanistan. I say, "the capital city", because that's the only place in Afghanistan where the Taliban and the warlords don't control, currently.
************************************************************

Another exaggeration of scale....Afghanistan is no longer available for the Taliban as a base, and Kabul is the center of political development there.
A huge improvement on the situation during the Democ-rats tenure in office.

 

[fallingblock]

One more thing, w4rma......

"I try extremely hard to debate with a strong foundation on facts. That is why my posts are source and quote heavy."
************************************************************

What you are posting are ARTICLES....most often from sources which agree with the political left almost exclusively.

"Websters New Collegiate Dictionary":

article 1 a: a distinct often numbered section of a writing
b: a separate clause.
c: a stipulation in a document (as a contract or creed)
d: a nonfictional prose composition usu. forming an independent
part of a publication (as a magazine)

fact: 1: a thing done: as a:crime{accessory after the~}
b obs: feat
c archaic: action
2 archaic: performance, doing
3: the quality of being actual: {a question of ~ brings on actual
evidence}
4 a: something that has actual existence {space travel is now a~}
b: an actual occurence: event {the~of his evidence is proven by
witnesses}
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality

You are presenting ARTICLES (definition 1d), which may or may not be factual in the sense of definitions 3 or 5, or even definition 4b, especially considering your sources

 

[Obiwan]

Falling Block is right on....

Sorry, but your original message re: Biden And Lugar thinking GWB was doing a bad job meant squat.....

Those two wouldn't have a kind word for the President if their lives depended on it.

 

[ojibweindian]

A) There weren't any successful Al Queda terrorist attacks on American soil during the 8 years of Democrats, Clinton and Gore.

USS Cole was pretty successful.

First WTC bombing in 1993 was successful, though it did not bring down the towers.

Embassy bombings in Africa were pretty successful.

And guess what, they're all considered American soil.

 

[w4rma]

On sources. IMHO, folks need to be careful about discounting all "news" sources except those that are owned by either Rev. Moon (Washington Times, UPI, Newsmax) or Rupert Murdoch (NY Post, FOX News, The Weekly Standard). Discounting other sources means that *they* decide what "news" you get…and don't get.

Moon Shadow
With Help From Congressional Republicans And The Bush 'Faith-Based' Initiative, Controversial Korean Evangelist Sun Myung Moon Is Trying To Expand His Religious-Political Empire
…
Reading further, they would have found out that the ALC is a project of the American Family Coalition and The Washington Times Foundation – both front organizations for the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, a controversial Korean evangelist and founder of the Unification Church. The "faith-based summit" itself was sponsored by Watts (R-Okla.), Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and other top congressional Republicans, but efforts to promote it at the grassroots level were turned over to a Moon organization.
…
http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs6013.htm

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 10, 2003
Neo – CONNED !
…
In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They urged early on for war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings. Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clinton’s personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.
…
The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post, and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell’s State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire. Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.†This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.
…
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

 

[fallingblock]

nice response, w4rma.....

And very original and topical as well .

Does typing hurt your fingers?

 

[w4rma]

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq, by George Bush Sr.

"Why We Didn't Remove Saddam"

George Bush {Sr.} and Brent Scowcroft
Time (2 March 1998)

The end of effective Iraqi resistance came with a rapidity which surprised us all, and we were perhaps psychologically unprepared for the sudden transition from fighting to peacemaking. True to the guidelines we had established, when we had achieved our strategic objectives (ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait and eroding Saddam's threat to the region) we stopped the fighting. But the necessary limitations placed on our objectives, the fog of war, and the lack of "battleship Missouri" surrender unfortunately left unresolved problems, and new ones arose.

We were disappointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect. President Bush repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people. Occasionally, he indicated that removal of Saddam would be welcome, but for very practical reasons there was never a promise to aid an uprising. While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

We discussed at length forcing Saddam himself to accept the terms of Iraqi defeat at Safwan--just north of the Kuwait-Iraq border--and thus the responsibility and political consequences for the humiliation of such a devastating defeat. In the end, we asked ourselves what we would do if he refused. We concluded that we would be left with two options: continue the conflict until he backed down, or retreat from our demands. The latter would have sent a disastrous signal. The former would have split our Arab colleagues from the coalition and, de facto, forced us to change our objectives. Given those unpalatable choices, we allowed Saddam to avoid personal surrender and permitted him to send one of his generals. Perhaps we could have devised a system of selected punishment, such as air strikes on different military units, which would have proved a viable third option, but we had fulfilled our well-defined mission; Safwan was waiting.

As the conflict wound down, we felt a sense of urgency on the part of the coalition Arabs to get it over with and return to normal. This meant quickly withdrawing U.S. forces to an absolute minimum. Earlier there had been some concern in Arab ranks that once they allowed U.S. forces into the Middle East, we would be there to stay. Saddam's propaganda machine fanned these worries. Our prompt withdrawal helped cement our position with our Arab allies, who now trusted us far more than they ever had. We had come to their assistance in their time of need, asked nothing for ourselves, and left again when the job was done. Despite some criticism of our conduct of the war, the Israelis too had their faith in us solidified. We had shown our ability--and willingness--to intervene in the Middle East in a decisive way when our interests were challenged. We had also crippled the military capability of one of their most bitter enemies in the region. Our new credibility (coupled with Yasser Arafat's need to redeem his image after backing the wrong side in the war) had a quick and substantial payoff in the form of a Middle East peace conference in Madrid.

The Gulf War had far greater significance to the emerging post-cold war world than simply reversing Iraqi aggression and restoring Kuwait. Its magnitude and significance impelled us from the outset to extend our strategic vision beyond the crisis to the kind of precedent we should lay down for the future. From an American foreign-policymaking perspective, we sought to respond in a manner which would win broad domestic support and which could be applied universally to other crises. In international terms, we tried to establish a model for the use of force. First and foremost was the principle that aggression cannot pay. If we dealt properly with Iraq, that should go a long way toward dissuading future would-be aggressors. We also believed that the U.S. should not go it alone, that a multilateral approach was better. This was, in part, a practical matter. Mounting an effective military counter to Iraq's invasion required the backing and bases of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm

IMHO, Bush, Sr. was exactly correct and we are now seeing nearly exactly what he predicted happen.

 

[Mad Turner]

Mad Turner

My Friends, I read with sadness the reports of American boys being killed in Iraq, I am English in England and I have a grandson in Iraq in the British Army and English boys also get killed but I have no idea of the percentage comparisons between America and England. I am glad we are together in this.
My sister has lived in America for over forty years and is naturalized and so American politics mean something to her. She says that 'old men' start the wars and send 'young men' to fight them. She thinks that you need young men in government who can send the old men to do the fighting.

 

[Lonestar]

Mad, I'm glad you resurrected that old post (it was from 2003), People were throwing around figures of about two hundred US dead, 51 British and about Two Thousand wounded, and everything seemed win-able. Now those number went up 10 fold in 3 years, and there is no end in sight.

Check out post #115, now talk about a prediction.

 

[geronimotwo]

Report seems a little biased

i used to work for a liberal organization. one of the things i always had trouble wrapping my head around was how they would always talk about the conservative mainstream media.

it is interesting how the more conservative crowd insists that it is a liberal mainstream media.

me, i find biased reporting fairly easy to spot, and it goes both ways.

i guess the left is only the left if you view it from the right, and vice versa.

as far as those killed in iraq....