A quick look at the war in Iraq

[Subversive Pessimist]

What we are told:
Saddam posed a dangerous imminent threat and was linked to Al Qaeda. Tactical precision laser-guided weapons would keep civilian casualties at a minimum. We will quickly eliminate and be greeted with parades and showered with gifts from Iraqis. The sale of iraqi oil will pay for the war.

What we got:
No WMDs. No link to Al Qaeda. Cluster bombs dropped in heavily populated neighborhoods. We are now employing the republican guard to help us subdue the very people we were sent to "liberate".
The war cost us 100s of billions of dollars, thousands, if not millions of lifes, the respect of the world, and an increase of muslim hatred and terrorist threats.

What Bush (Carlyle Group), Cheney (Halliburton), Rummy (Bechtel), Perle (Trireme), and the financial backers of the PNAC got:

Billions of dollars in government awarded no-bid contracts.

[thatCHEr]

Tactical precision laser-guided weapons would keep civilian casualties at a minimum
They have. If we had not used the advanced technology we did use, then the casualties on both the coalition and civilian side would have been much greater.
You people complain about how many civilians have died, but have you even compared it to previous wars? I can assure you, if you do, you will applaud the coalition for managing to keep collateral damage so low.
The reason it seems like otherwise is simple. The media is now more involved and closer to wars, and communication accross the globe is now far quicker and easier. Having an amplification effect on what is occuring there.

Also, firms always have a higher demand for their goods/services after a war. Look at what happened to West Germany after world war 2, do you not think Allied countries benefited from that? Both firms, who had increased demand placed on them, and the government which was essentially investing in the country.

[James]

Valid point.

[Agent provocateur]

Last time I heard (in the television news) a little over 9,000 Iraqi civilians have perished. Now that, I think, is a very conservative estimate. In a Third World country like Iraq many people live alone without identification cards and no one bothers to find out anything about them.

[Wiesty]

i totally agree
damn oil robbing americans

[Fidel Castro]

you will applaud the coalition for managing to keep collateral damage so low.

I find it amazing that human lives, innocent human lives, can be fobbed of as "collateral damage".

When the World Trade Center fell it was a tragedy, yet when thousands of innocent civilians die under US bombing it is collateral damage :rolleyes:

Isn't it funny how before the Iraq war, Bush was only interested in the WMD threat, and even said that Saddam could stay in power if he only handed over the WMDs, yet after invasion and no WMDs were found it all of a sudden changed to the tune of "Saddam was evil to his people and deserved to go"? :lol:

[mysticofthewest]

u make a good point dude

[socialistfuture]

operation iraqi freedom - weapons of mass destruction - minimal damage - american freedom -british democracy - liberating iraq for the people - blair the brave - bush the wise - hmmmm wait something not right.. an invasion, destruction of a third world country... in the name of peace and freedom....?

thatcher - james - maybe you to can go snuggle up to blair and bush - or join the british army and take part in the murder of iraqi civilians in the name of $ - oppps i mean ''freedom''. go kill children, woman, workers, destroy a country, bombs its buildings, do everything.... then say it is democracy in action, take the oil, import western companies to rebuild what western soilders destroyed, plant a US/UK friendly government and say how good god is... wait thats already being done.

may i ask why you two are on a socialist forum?

[MiniOswald]

ok so you think that the laser guided bombs were what we used.
well we did, admittedly from american A-10s onto the british armys heads but thats a different matter entirely.
im talking about mr bushes lovely idea of a depleted urainium bombardment, hits the ground explodes and exposes hundreds, maybe even thousands to fatal radiation thanks to the strong sand storms of iraq, not just the iraqi civis but its coming back and hitting the coalition forces as well. these urainium bombs also have a terrible habit of messing up land and water supplies as well, theres an epidemic for you.
Now we can move onto the repeated breakings of the geneva convention (not that anyone has ever upheld it), the convention states that 'it is prohibited to attack, destroy , remove or render uselesss objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population'- article 54 subsection 2, the yanks ignored this and destroyed many of the plants supplying and treating the water for most of iraq, this resulted in the death of a few hundred

[thatCHEr]

Last time I heard (in the television news) a little over 9,000 Iraqi civilians have perished. Now that, I think, is a very conservative estimate. In a Third World country like Iraq many people live alone without identification cards and no one bothers to find out anything about them.
It is a lot of people, but still, like I said, compare it to other wars.
In world war one, it is estimated some 6 million civilians died [source: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww1-loss.htm]
In world war two, we have many sources which estimate civilian deaths range from 15 to 20 million(thats not including the deaths caused by the holocaust).
In the Pacific world war two, it is estimated some 15 million also died
The Tibet war from 1950 has claimed some 65000 civilian lives [Eckhardt]
At the start of the 20th century the population of Congo fell from 25 million(the average estimate) to 8 million.
The mexican revolution of the 1920's took 125000 civilians.
The korean war: between 250000 and 400000 in south korea, and on average 450000 in North Korea.
The Ethiopian civil war killed around 50000 civilians.
The first Afghanistani war, involving the soviets, took between 300000 and 600000 lives.

And so on. Compared to these, I feel 9000 civilian casualties is a good improvement.



[b]I find it amazing that human lives, innocent human lives, can be fobbed of as "collateral damage".
It's a term, and helps prevent repetition of phrases, something deemed bad grammar.


When the World Trade Center fell it was a tragedy, yet when thousands of innocent civilians die under US bombing it is collateral damage
Are you questioning that the WTC attacks were not tragic? Innocent people died, due to squabbles that had nothing to do with them.
The term collateral damage is not used there because it was not an act of war, it was an act of terrorism. The difference being state-backing, and who is targetted(civilians or armed threats).


Isn't it funny how before the Iraq war, Bush was only interested in the WMD threat, and even said that Saddam could stay in power if he only handed over the WMDs, yet after invasion and no WMDs were found it all of a sudden changed to the tune of "Saddam was evil to his people and deserved to go"?
No, it isn't. It is a failing of democracy that he was able to do so against the wishes of those he is meant to represent.


thatcher - james - maybe you to can go snuggle up to blair and bush - or join the british army and take part in the murder of iraqi civilians in the name of $ - oppps i mean ''freedom''.
To do that I would have to be in support of the war, which I'm not. Nor have I suggested anywhere that I am in favour of it. Nice thinking, genius. As for Blair and Bush, they (too) are morons, and completely corrupt the market.


go kill children, woman, workers, destroy a country, bombs its buildings, do everything.... then say it is democracy in action, take the oil, import western companies to rebuild what western soilders destroyed, plant a US/UK friendly government and say how good god is... wait thats already being done.
Good job, socialistfuture, you're a clever one.

[Intifada]

what has the iraq war achieved for the iraqi people?

[Commie Girl]

"Are you questioning that the WTC attacks were not tragic? Innocent people died, due to squabbles that had nothing to do with them. "

Sounds alot like the people of Iraq, Central America, Chile, and any other place the U$ chooses to invade/support/install puppets. The only tragedy for the U$ with the WTC attacks is that, what they have done to millions of people, was revisted upon them on their own soil! Hits a little too close to home, eh?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 03:56 PM

Last time I heard (in the television news) a little over 9,000 Iraqi civilians have perished. Now that, I think, is a very conservative estimate. In a Third World country like Iraq many people live alone without identification cards and no one bothers to find out anything about them.
It is a lot of people, but still, like I said, compare it to other wars.
In world war one, it is estimated some 6 million civilians died [source: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww1-loss.htm]
In world war two, we have many sources which estimate civilian deaths range from 15 to 20 million(thats not including the deaths caused by the holocaust).
In the Pacific world war two, it is estimated some 15 million also died
The Tibet war from 1950 has claimed some 65000 civilian lives [Eckhardt]
At the start of the 20th century the population of Congo fell from 25 million(the average estimate) to 8 million.
The mexican revolution of the 1920's took 125000 civilians.
The korean war: between 250000 and 400000 in south korea, and on average 450000 in North Korea.
The Ethiopian civil war killed around 50000 civilians.
The first Afghanistani war, involving the soviets, took between 300000 and 600000 lives.

And so on. Compared to these, I feel 9000 civilian casualties is a good improvement.



[b]I find it amazing that human lives, innocent human lives, can be fobbed of as "collateral damage".
It's a term, and helps prevent repetition of phrases, something deemed bad grammar.


When the World Trade Center fell it was a tragedy, yet when thousands of innocent civilians die under US bombing it is collateral damage
Are you questioning that the WTC attacks were not tragic? Innocent people died, due to squabbles that had nothing to do with them.
The term collateral damage is not used there because it was not an act of war, it was an act of terrorism. The difference being state-backing, and who is targetted(civilians or armed threats).


Isn't it funny how before the Iraq war, Bush was only interested in the WMD threat, and even said that Saddam could stay in power if he only handed over the WMDs, yet after invasion and no WMDs were found it all of a sudden changed to the tune of "Saddam was evil to his people and deserved to go"?
No, it isn't. It is a failing of democracy that he was able to do so against the wishes of those he is meant to represent.


thatcher - james - maybe you to can go snuggle up to blair and bush - or join the british army and take part in the murder of iraqi civilians in the name of $ - oppps i mean ''freedom''.
To do that I would have to be in support of the war, which I'm not. Nor have I suggested anywhere that I am in favour of it. Nice thinking, genius. As for Blair and Bush, they (too) are morons, and completely corrupt the market.


go kill children, woman, workers, destroy a country, bombs its buildings, do everything.... then say it is democracy in action, take the oil, import western companies to rebuild what western soilders destroyed, plant a US/UK friendly government and say how good god is... wait thats already being done.
Good job, socialistfuture, you're a clever one.
It's easy talking when you haven't been into a war. Constant bombardments, machinegunfire, dead people, mines, poison, deseases, body parts, blood, guts, hunger, no electricity, no water, shortages and the constant fear that you get killed the closest encounter that you get is in a movie. I can tell from first hand that a film or book can never ever show the real face of war. It doesn't even come close.

Every person who has been into war, will never forget. For a person who has been into war it doesn't matter if there has been 9000 people killed or 60 million. The quantity doesn't count. The experiences stay the same, the pain stays the same, a part of you dies anyway. Even today whenever I see images of war I become distressed.

I wonder how many of you warmongering apes have been into war. How many of you understand the pain and the fears good enough to do this to others. I'd really like to know, how many warsupporters have been into war?

[martingale]

The US should be tried for war crimes, because committing aggression against a soveriegn state is a war crime. In fact, it is the gravest of all war crimes --- the war crime from which all other war crimes are spawned --- according to the Nuremburg Trials.

Here's another thought --- do you really believe the US military would be investigating these outrageous abuses against Iraqi prisoners if there were no photos that were shown throughout the world? It would simply be the words of some Iraqi prisoners and you know how much weight the US military places on that.

As for US policy in Iraq, the US goal was always to install a PRO-AMERICAN client regime in Iraq that it can control. All this talk about "democracy" by the Bush administration was to make this illegal aggression against a sovereign state more palatable to the American people.

(The US claim of its desire to spread "democracy" around the world is the 21st century analog of the "white man's burden" of wanting to spread "western civilization" to the darker races during the heyday of the British Empire. It is an effective way of justifying its naked aggression around the world to its domestic population.)

The problem with Saddam in the eyes of America's ruling elite was not that he was brutal, but that he became too INDEPENDENT. After all, in the 1980's, when Saddam committed the most heinous of his atrocities, he was a perfectly acceptable ally of the US precisely because he was doing America's bidding in the region.

It is interesting to note that the US is now beginning to discard even the pretense of wanting democracy in Iraq as it scrambles to put in place a pro-American Iraqi regime. The re-Bathification process it has started suggests that the US will settle for the kind of relationship it had with Iraq in the 1980's.

An interesting article discussing this topic:

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=2455

Quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The current issue of National Review advocates that the US adopt Saddam Hussein’s policies toward Iraqis. Nothing less will subdue them, says the conservative publication. To beat them, National Review says, we must become like them.

No sooner said than done. The US has appointed Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard General, Jasim Muhammed Saleh to deal with the Fallajuh insurgency. And, judging from news reports and photographs of tortured Iraqis, the US has put Saddam Hussein himself back in charge of the notorious prison, Abu Ghraib.

US prestige will never recover from the photos of Americans abusing Iraqi detainees. With no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, with no terrorist link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, President Bush’s last remaining excuse for his invasion of Iraq was his boast that the torture prisons have been closed.

In his war propaganda, President Bush portrays America as a morally superior country whose innate virtue is the reason we are in Iraq. America alone is willing to tax its citizens and send its sons to die in order to bring freedom and democracy to other lands. Bush describes our mission as one in which our troops are dying and we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars not to acquire a colony or to control the oil, but to liberate Iraqi women and to make Iraqis safe from torture.

With the US now guilty of war crimes as defined by Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, our sanctimonious president will never again be able to wear American virtue on his sleeve without the entire world laughing in his face.

The US military is making a big show of dealing with the Saddam Hussein imitators in its ranks, but the sickening fact is that both the US government and the American media sat on the story for one month, keeping it a secret until the photos began circulating independently.

The neocons, whose war this is, were quick to say that the US should be judged by what it proclaims, not by what it does. What’s a little torture after all, compared to building freedom and democracy?

It was ten minutes into the news hour on the day the story broke before the Ministry of Propaganda, a.k.a. Fox News, could bring itself to mention, fleetingly, the torture story. Americans who rely on Fox News for their understanding of the war must be scratching their heads.

By showing the true nature of the US occupation, the photos may have broken the rush to wider war and the return to military conscription. Polls released at the end of April show that a majority of Americans had soured on the war prior to the torture story. The photographic evidence that US troops are committing atrocities will further reduce support for the war.

The impact on the Muslim world will be different. For decades extremists have called the US "the Great Satan." The US invasion and violent occupation of Iraq have given credibility to this characterization of America. Our Middle Eastern puppets are sending us frantic signals that unprecedented hatred of America is endangering the stability of their countries. One thing is certain: the photographs showing a female US soldier laughing at the sexual humiliation of Muslim men will not make Americans safer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[thatCHEr]

The only tragedy for the U$ with the WTC attacks is that, what they have done to millions of people, was revisted upon them on their own soil! [quote]
Uh, no. I am fairly sure if you were to ask a family member of someone who died in those attacks(who would go under the heading 'the U$' I suppose) they would be upset for reasons other than other countries or groups getting a one-up on the united states. Possibly the death of their relatives, mm?
Also of note is that you generalise what, 500million(?) people, under one heading.
Or are you saying that that is your opinion? It's hard to tell. If it is, then you're a hypocrit. Supporting the deaths of people just because they are American. Sounds kinda like hmm, discrimination.

[quote]Hits a little too close to home, eh?[/
Incorrect. You make the false inferration, namely that it is the citizens of the United States that control US foreign policy.


For a person who has been into war it doesn't matter if there has been 9000 people killed or 60 million. The quantity doesn't count./quote]
If this line of thinking was used, then it could be argued once one civilian casualty has occured, we might as well stop bothering to be accurate at all. Because hell, 1 death, 100 million deaths, its all the same!
Here in the civilised world however, we tend to prefer using quantative methods when looking at wars. So, a war where lots of civilians die will be deemed worse than a war where few civilians die.

Also you admit yourself, you are not taking an objective view of the wars.

[quote]I wonder how many of you warmongering apes have been into war. How many of you understand the pain and the fears good enough to do this to others. I'd really like to know, how many warsupporters have been into war?
The argument that you cannot support something unless you have done it yourself is a very poor one. You have never been a politician. Therefore you cannot criticize the actions of politicians. See? It's a flawed way of reasoning. Although, I guess it figures, going by how you look at civilian casualties.

[Commie Girl]

[quote]Uh, no. I am fairly sure if you were to ask a family member of someone who died in those attacks(who would go under the heading 'the U$' I suppose) they would be upset for reasons other than other countries or groups getting a one-up on the united states. Possibly the death of their relatives, mm?[/[quote]

Of course the families are upset. Just as are millions of relatives that have had horrible tragedies visited upon them by the U$. http://americanpeace.eccmei.net/](a small list of reminders)

[quote]Hits a little too close to home, eh? Incorrect. You make the false inferration, namely that it is the citizens of the United States that control US foreign policy.[/[quote]


:huh: Last time I checked, the U$ was a "democracy", (at least that is what they tell everyone) so yes, the citizens of that country elect the leaders who are responsible for their foreign policy. Where do you think these leaders come from?


[quote]Supporting the deaths of people just because they are American. Sounds kinda like hmm, discrimination.[/[quote]

I never said I supported the deaths of those people, I am putting it in context with what happens every day all over the world.

[thatCHEr]

Of course the families are upset. Just as are millions of relatives that have had horrible tragedies visited upon them by the U$.
Well, this is different to what you were saying earlier.


Last time I checked, the U$ was a "democracy",
Incorrect.


I never said I supported the deaths of those people, I am putting it in context with what happens every day all over the world.
You said the only tragedy involving the WTC was that chickens had come home to roost, basically.
"The only tragedy for the U$ with the WTC attacks is that, what they have done to millions of people, was revisted upon them on their own soil! Hits a little too close to home, eh? "
Either you meant that was the opinions of Americans, ie that was the only reason they were upset, or you meant yourself.

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 01:09 PM


Of course the families are upset. Just as are millions of relatives that have had horrible tragedies visited upon them by the U$.
Well, this is different to what you were saying earlier.


Last time I checked, the U$ was a "democracy",
Incorrect.


I never said I supported the deaths of those people, I am putting it in context with what happens every day all over the world.
You said the only tragedy involving the WTC was that chickens had come home to roost, basically.
"The only tragedy for the U$ with the WTC attacks is that, what they have done to millions of people, was revisted upon them on their own soil! Hits a little too close to home, eh? "
Either you meant that was the opinions of Americans, ie that was the only reason they were upset, or you meant yourself.
No, read what I said again!

[martingale]

Here's an example of how the US torture of Iraqis is swelling the ranks of the anti-American resistance fighters:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0503-02.htm

The pictures of Iraqi humiliation at the hands of the Americans will also provide Al Qaeda with the perfect recruitment posters. These pictures make concrete the central message of Al Qaeda --- that the US is out to humiliate the Arab world - by stationing US military forces in their holy lands, by violating their sovereignty and invading their countries at will, and now forcing their men to strip naked and simulate homosexual acts in front of mocking American female guards.

This may well prove to be a turning point, not only for the US occupation of Iraq, but for the whole relationship between the US and the Arab and Moslem world.

[James]

thatcher - james - maybe you to can go snuggle up to blair and bush - or join the british army and take part in the murder of iraqi civilians in the name of $ - oppps i mean ''freedom''. go kill children, woman, workers, destroy a country, bombs its buildings, do everything.... then say it is democracy in action, take the oil, import western companies to rebuild what western soilders destroyed, plant a US/UK friendly government and say how good god is... wait thats already being done.

may i ask why you two are on a socialist forum?



I fail to see how my agreement with Thatcher's point that the deaths could have been much higher, warrants such a reply.
Who knows, maybe i'm just a retard.


Or maybe you are.

[hawarameen]

i would say a hell of a lot more than 9000 people died every year in Iraq under Saddam. the 'troublemakers' in this situation are the Iraqis themselves (as surprising as this may sound). in the Kurdish controlled north, there are NO problems just people trying to incite racial hatred.

some months ago the headquarters of the two political parties in Kurdistan were the targets of suicide bombers. people were arrested, none of them from Iraq. one Yemeni and two Palestinians. the coalition army isn't the only foreign force. this has almost become a religious war with people from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen to name but a few going to Iraq for the sole purpose of making trouble.

whatever the reasons for the war in the first place it is totally clear how Iraq could be just by looking at the Kurdish north. its almost a different country, there is democracy we have elections, people from Baghdad go north to get basic amenities because they cant get them in the south.

and as for oil, well some of you may prefer to see dead Iraqis than to see another country take its oil but not me. if it means the end of someone like Saddam and a relatively peaceful life then i don't care, those things are priceless.

[DaCuBaN]

some of you may prefer to see dead Iraqis than to see another country take its oil but not me. if it means the end of someone like Saddam and a relatively peaceful life then i don't care, those things are priceless

amen! I'm withholding my judgement until after the UN have been at it a while, but I have no objections to the 'victors' taking the 'spoils of war' as they are. Any objection's I ever raised were simply on the grounds that the reasons for war were a web of deceipt. I lost that fight (although I've since been proved right!) and so I gave in.

[Salvador Allende]

I do not blame Bush for the war, the war was good because it removed someone who was harming the people. However, the reasons for it were bad. Imperialism in any form is bad.

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 7 2004, 09:25 PM
I do not blame Bush for the war, the war was good because it removed someone who was harming the people. However, the reasons for it were bad. Imperialism in any form is bad.
:huh: The war was not good, it removed Saddam Hussein from power and as we have all seen and heard, another form of dictatorship has emerged. They didnt go to war to remove a "bad" person...if that was their reasoning, they would have done it 15 years ago! No, they didnt mind when he gased his own people, hell, they even supplied him with the Weapons to do so, provided tactical and logistical support so he could drop them in the "right" spot...dont be so naive!

The war was good, the reasons are bad....what kind of logic is that? And you dont have to blame Bu$h, also include Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell and all the left-over cronies from Bu$h1....they are war criminals.

If we all used the same logic, a war against the U$ is justified to remove someone from power that is hurting people. Perspective...thats all.

[DaCuBaN]

If we all used the same logic, a war against the U$ is justified to remove someone from power that is hurting people. Perspective...thats all.


I do follow that logic, and it seems perfectly reasonable to me. I also believe the world will one day come round to my way of thinking.


The war was not good, it removed Saddam Hussein from power and as we have all seen and heard, another form of dictatorship has emerged. They didnt go to war to remove a "bad" person...if that was their reasoning, they would have done it 15 years ago! No, they didnt mind when he gased his own people, hell, they even supplied him with the Weapons to do so, provided tactical and logistical support so he could drop them in the "right" spot...dont be so naive!

The problem is getting them all into court to admit it. <_< :angry:
We can&#39;t &#39;attack&#39; them, as with their superior standpoint we&#39;d simply get squashed.

[The idealist]

That is the problem with being a communist. You have to fight the golden rule:

"The one who has the gold, makes the rules"

But popular protest can only help.

Long live the internet. The ideal way to spread the ideology

[SittingBull47]

Originally posted by t[email protected] 2 2004, 03:56 PM

It is a lot of people, but still, like I said, compare it to other wars.
In world war one, it is estimated some 6 million civilians died [source: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww1-loss.htm]
In world war two, we have many sources which estimate civilian deaths range from 15 to 20 million(thats not including the deaths caused by the holocaust).
In the Pacific world war two, it is estimated some 15 million also died [brzezinski]
The Tibet war from 1950 has claimed some 65000 civilian lives [Eckhardt]
At the start of the 20th century the population of Congo fell from 25 million(the average estimate) to 8 million.
The mexican revolution of the 1920&#39;s took 125000 civilians.
The korean war: between 250000 and 400000 in south korea, and on average 450000 in North Korea.
The Ethiopian civil war killed around 50000 civilians.
The first Afghanistani war, involving the soviets, took between 300000 and 600000 lives.

And so on. Compared to these, I feel 9000 civilian casualties is a good improvement.

how can you say improvement. I&#39;m sure the 9000 casualties are thrilled as they lie in shallow graves, knowing that at least this war they died in was an "improvement". It only makes sense to use precision technology. Still the Military has managed to fuck that up.

[The idealist]

The only time I think war is allowed is in responce to a country invading your own. Being the country declaring war should, with the exemption of some extreme cases, be classified as a crime.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

For a person who has been into war it doesn&#39;t matter if there has been 9000 people killed or 60 million. The quantity doesn&#39;t count./quote]

If this line of thinking was used, then it could be argued once one civilian casualty has occured, we might as well stop bothering to be accurate at all. Because hell, 1 death, 100 million deaths, its all the same&#33;
Here in the civilised world however, we tend to prefer using quantative methods when looking at wars. So, a war where lots of civilians die will be deemed worse than a war where few civilians die.

You&#39;ve missed the point. I have been into war. At that moment, it didn&#39;t matter to me how many casualties there were. My fears, my pain wouldn&#39;t change from numbers. And one can ask - how civilized is "your world" when it constantly support terrorists like Osama Bin Laden, Cuban Hijackers, South American dictators.


Also you admit yourself, you are not taking an objective view of the wars.

[quote]I wonder how many of you warmongering apes have been into war. How many of you understand the pain and the fears good enough to do this to others. I&#39;d really like to know, how many warsupporters have been into war?

The argument that you cannot support something unless you have done it yourself is a very poor one. You have never been a politician. Therefore you cannot criticize the actions of politicians. See? It&#39;s a flawed way of reasoning. Although, I guess it figures, going by how you look at civilian casualties.

I am not objective about wars, I admit that. But you can say that you&#39;re objective?

War, isn&#39;t something that you do. There is a big difference between supporting a plumber altough you&#39;re not one and supporting a war. My point is; do you know war good enough to support it. War is a big thing, having a lot of consequences for a lot of people. Do you really accept the destruction of their lives (mentally/physicall).

You can&#39;t imagine even imagine war. That is especially clear, after reading your reaction on the decapitation of the US citizen. That what you saw, is the most normal thing in war, the only difference is now, is the public attention to it. How many "civilized world&#39;s" newschannel gave attention when Afgan citizens were tortured to death at Bagram Airbase, Afganistan. What you&#39;ve seen there is war, that&#39;s war. And imagine how it was for the poor bastard and all the other people who received the same treatment by their conquerers. No, if your reaction is already so strong after one decapitation, then you have truly no idea what war is.

Edit:


It is a lot of people, but still, like I said, compare it to other wars.
In world war one, it is estimated some 6 million civilians died [source: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww1-loss.htm]
In world war two, we have many sources which estimate civilian deaths range from 15 to 20 million(thats not including the deaths caused by the holocaust).
In the Pacific world war two, it is estimated some 15 million also died [brzezinski]
The Tibet war from 1950 has claimed some 65000 civilian lives [Eckhardt]
At the start of the 20th century the population of Congo fell from 25 million(the average estimate) to 8 million.
The mexican revolution of the 1920&#39;s took 125000 civilians.
The korean war: between 250000 and 400000 in south korea, and on average 450000 in North Korea.
The Ethiopian civil war killed around 50000 civilians.
The first Afghanistani war, involving the soviets, took between 300000 and 600000 lives.

And so on. Compared to these, I feel 9000 civilian casualties is a good improvement.

According to the UN, half million Iraqi&#39;s have died because of Depleted Uranium from the first Gulf War. More DU was used this time, so how many more will die? Improvement? :rolleyes:

[Hybrid v9]

Originally posted by Agent [email protected] 2 2004, 12:08 AM
Last time I heard (in the television news) a little over 9,000 Iraqi civilians have perished. Now that, I think, is a very conservative estimate. In a Third World country like Iraq many people live alone without identification cards and no one bothers to find out anything about them.
are you aware your name is the same as a lengerie store in Los Angeles?