An estimated 655,000

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

BBC Report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6040054.stm)

Sickening. By 2010 i imagine it will be over a million Iraqi civillians killed.

[LuXe]

Hopefully by 2010 There will have been a coooldown in the voilence.

I belive so. during the heat of the war it was EXTREME. And it will never reach that same climax.

However this is just sad and sickening.

[KC]

You should add in those killed by the sanctions before the invasion, which is about 1.5 million people according to the UNSC, with 500,000 of those being children.

[LuXe]

Fuck the capitalists and their "oil lust".

[colonelguppy]

The figure is considerably higher than estimates by official sources or the number of deaths reported in the media.

funny

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 04:37 PM
Hopefully by 2010 There will have been a coooldown in the voilence.

I belive so. during the heat of the war it was EXTREME. And it will never reach that same climax.

However this is just sad and sickening.
dude, there hasnt been a climax yet

its only getting worse and worse :(

[KC]

funny

Sure is.

[LuXe]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+Oct 11 2006, 06:16 PM--> (NewKindOfSoldier @ Oct 11 2006, 06:16 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 04:37 PM
Hopefully by 2010 There will have been a coooldown in the voilence.

I belive so. during the heat of the war it was EXTREME. And it will never reach that same climax.

However this is just sad and sickening.
dude, there hasnt been a climax yet

its only getting worse and worse :( [/b]
It would be rather wrong to say that the climax would be reached after the actual physical conflict. (The war)

[Enragé]

Originally posted by LuXe+Oct 11 2006, 06:29 PM--> (LuXe @ Oct 11 2006, 06:29 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:16 PM

[email protected] 11 2006, 04:37 PM
Hopefully by 2010 There will have been a coooldown in the voilence.

I belive so. during the heat of the war it was EXTREME. And it will never reach that same climax.

However this is just sad and sickening.
dude, there hasnt been a climax yet

its only getting worse and worse :(
It would be rather wrong to say that the climax would be reached after the actual physical conflict. (The war) [/b]
errr

are you missing something?

the actual physical conflict is still going on today!

whether its carbombs, or yanqui soldiers raping and murdering.

[LuXe]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+Oct 11 2006, 06:42 PM--> (NewKindOfSoldier @ Oct 11 2006, 06:42 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:16 PM

[email protected] 11 2006, 04:37 PM
Hopefully by 2010 There will have been a coooldown in the voilence.

I belive so. during the heat of the war it was EXTREME. And it will never reach that same climax.

However this is just sad and sickening.
dude, there hasnt been a climax yet

its only getting worse and worse :(
It would be rather wrong to say that the climax would be reached after the actual physical conflict. (The war)
errr

are you missing something?

the actual physical conflict is still going on today!

whether its carbombs, or yanqui soldiers raping and murdering. [/b]
HOWEVER the climax was long ago.

Yes, there is still physical engagement, however this is not as intense and costly in lives as before. You can say it has "coooled down". Maybe just a little bit.

[Comrade J]

Well I think you can say it has cooled down in one way, mainly the Iraqi-American conflict, though only slightly (they probably murder innocent Iraqis on daily basis, we just don't hear about all the cases), yet the violence has escalated between the different religious sects in the country, the invasion just gave the spark to the existing tension.
The country is a wreck at the moment, and all this to serve the economy and an invisible man in the sky... :rolleyes:

[pastradamus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 05:50 PM

The figure is considerably higher than estimates by official sources or the number of deaths reported in the media.

funny
Are you ever going to give us a proper reply and not the crappy one liners you spit out on every occasion?

[Enragé]

Originally posted by LuXe+Oct 11 2006, 07:01 PM--> (LuXe @ Oct 11 2006, 07:01 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:16 PM

[email protected] 11 2006, 04:37 PM
Hopefully by 2010 There will have been a coooldown in the voilence.

I belive so. during the heat of the war it was EXTREME. And it will never reach that same climax.

However this is just sad and sickening.
dude, there hasnt been a climax yet

its only getting worse and worse :(
It would be rather wrong to say that the climax would be reached after the actual physical conflict. (The war)
errr

are you missing something?

the actual physical conflict is still going on today!

whether its carbombs, or yanqui soldiers raping and murdering.
HOWEVER the climax was long ago.

Yes, there is still physical engagement, however this is not as intense and costly in lives as before. You can say it has "coooled down". Maybe just a little bit. [/b]
cooled down only in the sense that the yanks are no longer bombing bagdad from the sky

coalition casualties have stayed roughly the same, maybe even increased ( http://icasualties.org/oif/ ), whereas iraqi civilian casualties continue to rise


in the last twelve days alone, 44 coalition soldiers have been killed, of which 42 american.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by pastradamus+Oct 11 2006, 06:09 PM--> (pastradamus @ Oct 11 2006, 06:09 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 05:50 PM

The figure is considerably higher than estimates by official sources or the number of deaths reported in the media.

funny
Are you ever going to give us a proper reply and not the crappy one liners you spit out on every occasion? [/b]
i felt that this one liner was adequate

[Tungsten]

Khayembii Communique

You should add in those killed by the sanctions before the invasion, which is about 1.5 million people according to the UNSC, with 500,000 of those being children. Why? Those sanctions were put in place by the UN to protect sattelite countries from Iraqi imperialism. Any deaths from those were Saddam's fault for going on his own little "war for oil" (in Kuwait).

[socialistfuture]

Saddam was told he had full US support to attack Kuwait,
who sold him arms, and supported him in his early days?


in the past Saddam was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism and they used him as their instrument for more than 40 years, according to former U.S. intelligence diplomats and intelligence officials.

United Press International has interviewed almost a dozen former U.S. diplomats, British scholars and former U.S. intelligence officials to piece together the following account. The CIA declined to comment on the report.

While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2849.htm (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2849.htm) the article if from 2003 - intresting read

[Tungsten]

socialistfuture

Saddam was told he had full US support to attack Kuwait,
Not according to the link you posted:
The Saddam-U.S. intelligence alliance of convenience came to an end at 2 a.m. Aug. 2, 1990, when 100,000 Iraqi troops, backed by 300 tanks, invaded its neighbor, Kuwait. America's one-time ally had become its bitterest enemy.

who sold him arms,
The main supplier of arms doesn't take much working out. Look at the origin of the weaponry carried by the Iraqi army. All Russian.

and supported him in his early days?
The US also supported Bin Laden in the early days as the lesser of two evils. They shoudn't have done it, but so what. It's got nothing to do with capitalism.

[Krypto-Communist]

The US also supported Bin Laden in the early days as the lesser of two evils. They shoudn't have done it, but so what. It's got nothing to do with capitalism.

Why were you involved in the first place with the "lesser of two evils"?

That's not what America was founded on!


The Framers of our Constitution had a fear of standing armies, and of governments backed by them, that one legal scholar calls "almost hysterical." A standing army of professionals, they were sure, would eventually do one of two things: agitate for foreign military adventures to keep itself employed, or turn against its civilian masters to create a military dictatorship. To these two political threats they added a third, moral danger: that citizens used to relying on professionals for the defense of their liberties would come to take their freedom lightly.

Not only does this huge military establishment represent an enormous waste of money, Hart argues, it is also politically disastrous. As he notes, in language echoing the Framers: "A permanent standing military seeks causes for its continued existence and resources to maintain itself. A citizen army--an army of the people--participates in the debate as to why it exists, what threat it must repel, and how and where it may be used. For a democratic republic, there is a world of difference between these two institutions."

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/126arm.htm

[Tungsten]

Krypto-Communist

Why were you involved in the first place with the "lesser of two evils"?
Don't refer to me as "you"- I'm not American (thank god).

Bin Laden was a CIA agent fighting a proxy war again the Soviets. This was preferable to a direct confrontation between the US and the Soviet union, which would have been very unpleasant indeed.

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 04:35 PM
BBC Report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6040054.stm)

Sickening. By 2010 i imagine it will be over a million Iraqi civillians killed.
I oppose the Iraq war, but this statistic is a bit of a stretch, when you include those dying from poverty, famine, and crime.

Technically, if you took into account those same factors, millions of Iraqis died from the previous economic sanctions against Iraq.

[socialistfuture]

they have

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 12:45 PM
they have
And I'm not trying to diminish that, but only trying to point out that, by contrast, the economic sanctions were more harmful than the war.

Had we provided direct aid, under an "oil for food" program that wasn't dominated by corrupt bureaucrats, it could've been the other way around. As it stands now, it looks like deposing Hussein was a good idea, though the justification for the war was dubious, post-war planning was poor, and there's no necessity for the continuing occupation.

The best choice would've been to maintain sanctions against Hussein and provide direct aid to the Iraqi people. But so many involved were just embezzling money out of the program, one can't expect much more of the government, and economic sanctions were generating anti-American sentiment among Iraqis, just as much as it was hurting Hussein's military. So, at the end of the Gulf War, the U.S. should've never called for a cease-fire until Hussein was gone.

So, even if Hussein's secular dictatorship was less oppressive than a Shiite theocracy, more Iraqis would still be alive today if we'd deposed Hussein years ago.

Of course, what I'm saying also depends upon how long we stay in Iraq and whether or not the Iraqis retain control of their oil.

[KC]

Why? Those sanctions were put in place by the UN to protect sattelite countries from Iraqi imperialism. Any deaths from those were Saddam's fault for going on his own little "war for oil" (in Kuwait).

The reason that Saddam invaded Kuwait is because Kuwait was directional drilling into the Rumaila oilfield. That's pretty much common knowledge.

Moreover, the sactions were imposed at the urging of the US, as a way of removing Saddam from power.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Blue dog liberal

Economic Sanctions are the UN's bread and butter.

Its a way of controlling developing countries through economic control. This isnt illegal (well under capitalism) but the invasion of iraq was.