Not true. Saddam has been pretty much dormant for many many years. The "sins" he has committed to were from the past. Any Iraqi will tell you they were happier before the invasion with Saddam in power.

Including this Iraqi. Saddam was no angel, but the USA has no right to enter a sovreign country and impose a new "government" - which by the way consists of a bunch of (ex)terrorists (jaafari and his pathetic Dawa party) and con artists (chalabi and his thugs).

Quoting NWA742 (Reply 18): The article says that these are anti-war activists throwing out these numbers. They have a bias, and they are using these numbers as propoganda, because they leave out the other side of the story. They left out the fact that a lot more civilians would be dead if Saddam was still in power.

Survey confirms U.N. findings
The death toll almost mirrors a U.N.-funded survey conducted last year, which found some 24,000 conflict-related deaths since the U.S.-led invasion.

Oh, but wait, the UN is an evil organization just waiting to take away our sovereignty!


www.msnbc.com

[Edited 2005-07-20 01:19:32]

OK...let me start out by saying that I was and am completely against this war on moral and practical grounds, given our history in the region and so many other factors which I won't even go into here. And I certainly believe that whatever Bush personally believed about the reasons for going into Iraq, his advisors and the brains behind the invasion had quite cynical reasons.

But that's as may be. I'd like to raise a couple of serious questions. The left can be as simplistic and naive as the right about these things, and some of the things I heard back at protests I went to or see from the anti-war movement now leave a sour taste in my mouth. It seems to me arguments about this war (on a.net and elsewhere) always go back and forth bewteen the same intransigent positions which are largely based on "what if" arguments. Here are a couple of thoughts about these claims:

Question 1: Would Saddam have killed more people or fewer than the US occupation.
My thoughts: Arguments about how many innocent Iraqis we have killed are some of the most visceral but least helpful ways to approach the questions at hand. There seems little way to answer them honestly; it is really a hypothetical guess. Saddam was a brutal dictator who did indeed order the slaughter of enormous numbers of people.

What I do know is that now the blood is on OUR hands directly. And--laying aside the moral questions about whether the invasion will ultimately have saved or cost lives--on the practical side, we will certainly be blamed and resented by many in Iraq who have lost family members directly because of us or at our hands, and by many in the entire region, so this cannot have made the US safer. Furthermore, we are partly responsible for the earlier deaths under Hussein, since we propped him up in the Iran-Iraq war and even gave him the chemical weapons he used on the Iranians and Kurds; and then of course there is the sanctions issue. To me it is all the more obvious that due to this past we will be resented when many more die at our hands now. Time and diplomatic methods could have been used much better than a rush to war, bullying our allies, and breaking international laws...

Finally, many of the dead that the pro-war boosters count among Saddam's "innocent victims" were the same religious radicals we now believe we can just call "terrorists" and consider their deaths good. So this is also a disingenuous argument...

Still, the fundamental question of whether the invasion will save or cost lives is not simple, and I'm not sure in the abstract it can be used to make a clear argument.

Querstion 2: Are Iraqi's "better off" now or before?
My thoughts: Personally, I can't imagine how the average Iraqi can be better off right now, since we have more or less destroyed the entire infrastructure of the country. I believe too that under Saddam most citizens (but then of course there were the Kurds etc.) could count on having basic services and personal security within the limits of a brutal autocratic dictatoriship. That is, if they "behaved well," they would be safe and could go about their daily lives. If they were free thinkers or radical Islamists they would be killed. Now, no one has any security and people are being killed much more indiscriminately. Probably the present situation is worse in most people's experience.

I'd like to be wrong about all this, and to find out that in the long run things do improve for the average citizen. I have no doubt that there are some Iraqis who geniuinely are grateful for the invasion. I believe, though, from the best picture I can put together from many different sources that they are strongly in the minority...and that many people enpountered by individual US soldiers who are in the short term grateful for their help in specific personal situations also blame the invasion for their problems in the bigger picture.

But...again, I think that we should admit that even here there is room for uncertainty. It is not as though there clear controlled polling can be done throughout the whole country that really shows what "the average Iraqi" is thinking. Polls are done with limited controls or anecdotally, and in limited regions, and have wildly divergent results depending on who is doing the polling and who is asked.

Most of us form our opinions without being on the ground in Iraq, and those who do personally observe events there report back very different sides of the story depending on everything from their biases in advance to what they chance to see to when they are there and how much ground they cover.

I guess what I'm saying is I wish the left and the right would carry this discussion to a level behind the same soundbites and admit that there is a lot of uncertainty (about events, intentions behind actions, etc.). It is too late to undo the invasion, much as I wish this were not so. What can we do now to make things better?

[Edited 2005-07-20 01:10:49]

Well if that's your opinion, so be it. Keep relying on media outlets which will only tell you that everything is bad in Iraq, and that nothing positive has come as a result of the war.

That's the ignorant, deluded way to judge things.

How about reminding us why we are in Iraq? Why do we have 140,000 regular army and National Guard troops there? To build frikkin' schools? While the Bush-sanctioned "government" is cozying up to the other bastion of democracy and liberty in the region - IRAN???!!!!

Give me a break with your pathetic "propoganda" (do me a favor and google that word will ya?). Iraq is a bust. We're just makin' more terrorists, and it WILL come back to haunt this country. And the great majority of Saddam's victims were killed on Reagan and Bush I's watch - while they sat back and did nothing (other than provide him with chemical weapons, that is).

Here's how it was explained to me: About 25,000 civilians killed. The terrorists/extremists/whatever are considered civilians in this survey also, because they do not belong to an organized military or organization. So, accounting for all of those killed that were actually the enemy, you get a dramatically lower and much more realistic number of civilian deaths. Including the terrorists/extremists/whatever in this survey allows the publisher a much more dramatic result to display. One could argue that he is a democrat using this against republicans and/or the war effort. Respond politely please.

BaylorAirBear

Some points for you to consider:

1. You copied and pasted this text: "The Iraq Body Count -- a London-based group comprising academics and human rights and anti-war activists -- said . . ." Don't you think academics, human rights & anti-war activists might be somewhat prejudiced? Isn't it possible that prejudice might have a tiny influence on which reports they choose to consider, and how they resove conflicting reports et cetera?

But we'll assume for the moment that the numbers are correct.

2. The report, generated by people who, by their own admission, oppose the war in the first place, says that U.S.-led forces were sole killers of 37 percent of civilian victims" Now I make that at most, 9200 killed by the US forces. The tone of your thread and your posts seems to lay all twenty five thousand deaths on the front porch of the Whitehouse.

Do you think that is fair?

3. There has been a legal, civilian government in Iraq for some time now. If the insurgents would simply accept that and work within the framework of the new republic and its laws wouldn't the killing stop?

Might you even say that the deaths subsequent to the establishment of that new government are at least mostly the fault of the insurgents who (a.) refused to vote and (b.) refuse to recognize a legally elected government?

4. In view of the fact that the US has spent billions of dollars developing smart bombs and weapons and training their soldiers in their use, and in view of the fact that the terrorists seem to specifically target civilians both in Iraq and elsewhere in the world, don't you, maybe just a little bit, question the assertion in this report that the US military killed something like four times as many civiliians as the "anti-occupation forces" which seems to be their word for the insurgents. Gee, almost makes them sound like an army.

5. According to the report "82 percent of those killed were adult males, 9 percent were adult women, 1 in 10 was under age 18;" Another common name for adult males is "military-age" males. Doesn't it strike you as odd that these adult males just happened to be in the area of a firefight - but they were civilians.

Guess what. Other than the Iraqi army ALL the insurgents are civilians. They are civilians with AK-47s and civilians with explosive vests strapped to their bodies in some cases, but they are civilians in that they do not wear a uniform and carry a military ID.

Now unless you just blindly hate Bush or hate the USA so much that you cannot admit to any of the points I raise, you just might have something to think about.

6. There is something missing in the report.

37% killed by US forces
9% killed by "anti-occupation" forces
36% killed by "criminals"
82% TOTAL

Where is the other 18% - killed by drunk drivers?

Well, I barely beat SlamClick. You can consider my post a paraphrase. 

BaylorAirBear

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4692881.stm

A view from someone who's been there... if you the time, very interesting article.

B

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 25): You copied and pasted this text: "The Iraq Body Count -- a London-based group comprising academics and human rights and anti-war activists --

Also the same figure provided by the UN.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 25): The tone of your thread and your posts seems to lay all twenty five thousand deaths on the front porch of the Whitehouse.

I believe that the White House is indeed guilty of creating this mess, lying to its own people, and not creating an exit plan.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 25): There has been a legal, civilian government in Iraq for some time now

A puppet of the Bush Regime.

Quoting BaylorAirBear (Reply 24): Now unless you just blindly hate Bush or hate the USA so much that you cannot admit to any of the points I raise, you just might have something to think about.

Yes, I dissaprove of Idi I mean Bush, President for Life. No, I do not hate America, I just don't like the direction we are headed.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 25): 2. The report, generated by people who, by their own admission, oppose the war in the first place, says that U.S.-led forces were sole killers of 37 percent of civilian victims" Now I make that at most, 9200 killed by the US forces. The tone of your thread and your posts seems to lay all twenty five thousand deaths on the front porch of the Whitehouse.

We did start this war and are hence we are the reason why the other insuregents and terrorists in Iraq exist at this moment. However, as I stated in my earlier post, to which no one has yet responded, I think ultimately that accounts of the numbers of dead here do not translate clearly into good arguments for either side...

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 25): 5. According to the report "82 percent of those killed were adult males, 9 percent were adult women, 1 in 10 was under age 18;" Another common name for adult males is "military-age" males. Doesn't it strike you as odd that these adult males just happened to be in the area of a firefight - but they were civilians. Guess what. Other than the Iraqi army ALL the insurgents are civilians. They are civilians with AK-47s and civilians with explosive vests strapped to their bodies in some cases, but they are civilians in that they do not wear a uniform and carry a military ID.

A case in point: not counting the wartime massacres of Saddam's enemies, which were many years ago, these were many of the same people that Saddam was killing. Thus pro-war advocates claiming that Saddam was a threat because he continued to kill his own people are guilty of the same ways of grouping people to make their arguments.

Well, I did ask several questions, which I beleived to be reasonable ones, to which you have not responded.

edit: This is addressed to the thread starter, as was my first post.

[Edited 2005-07-20 02:15:59]

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 30): Well, I did ask several questions, which I beleived to be reasonable ones, to which you have not responded.

Who? I assume you are addressing dtwclipper. If you mean me, I believe that I addressed many of your points about playing the numbers game before you made them.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 30): edit: This is addressed to the thread starter, as was my first post.

That better?

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 28): Also the same figure provided by the UN.

Hardly impartial either. My point was that in accepting figures from a group that is obviously biased (whether it is the Pentagon or anti-war activists) you run serious risk of being misled. "lies, damn lies and statistics" to paraphrase Mark Twain.

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 28): I believe that the White House is indeed guilty of creating this mess, lying to its own people, and not creating an exit plan.

While I agree in part with the first part of that, I am unalterably opposed to publishing an "exit plan." An exit plan made available to the insurgents is no different from a security plan made available to bank robbers. Utter foolishness. Besides, an exit plan has always been implicit. When there is an acceptable reduction in combat against the new government and the Iraqi army and police are capable of handling it, I'd expect we will be coming home. What do you think?

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 28): A puppet of the Bush Regime.

If you have some proof of this let's see it. Otherwise it sounds like a wild-ass rant. After all, the people did vote there. If they voted in officials who are favorable to US policy there then wouldn't that seem to you to be the will of the majority? Do you have actual information to the contrary or just an unreasoning hate?

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 28): Yes, I dissaprove of Idi I mean Bush, President for Life. No, I do not hate America,

Comparing Bush, as bad as he might be, with Idi Amin seriously erodes your credibility with adults. Worse, it trivializes what Amin did. Did you know that the machete was one of the leading causes of death during his regime? If you would like to persuade anyone to your point of view you should edit out all such hyperbole. If you are merely writing for those who already feel as you do, by all means, leave it in.

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 28): I just don't like the direction we are headed.

Few of us do. Where we are heading is, in part, dictated by the events around us, the doings of other nations and other people.

Here is an exit plan for you:

We pull out. We say "good luck" to the Iraqi military and police forces and we come home and vow never to go back.

Now, what do you think is going to happen?

I think the insurgents, primarily Saddam's former secret police cadre will assert their power and very quckly will come to dominate the country.

What do you think will happen then?

Quoting MichaelJP (Reply 8): Watch Farenheit 9/11 people if it hasnt been banned in the US!

Oh geez..more of Michael Moore's crap  
  

I think 25k is a pretty low number...considering the amount of attacks occuring in Iraq everyday.

But if the civilians are like Mohamed Atta's father...then good riddance, let them burn in Hell for all I care.

Atta's father praises London bombs

Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 4): The "sins" he has committed to were from the past. Any Iraqi will tell you they were happier before the invasion with Saddam in power.

Both your comments here are pure horseshit.

And taking to word of Anti-War activists is an absurdity in and of itself.

Show me how many civilians have been killed by Insurgents vis a vis a military member from any country. . . .

Shoot, I just saw SlamCLicks reply 25, he's covered everything. Raised the    enough for both of us.

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 21): Oh, but wait, the UN is an evil organization just waiting to take away our sovereignty!

Incorrect, the UN isn't evil, simply a clusterfuck of disjointed out of date inept psuedo politicians hunkered down on the Hudson trynig to reinvent their useless selves.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 35): Incorrect, the UN isn't evil, simply a clusterfuck of disjointed out of date inept psuedo politicians hunkered down on the Hudson trynig to reinvent their useless selves.

Funny! I thought the UN was a bunch of people with no real marketable skills who'd do ANYTHING to stay in (evil empire) New York rather than go home to face reality of life in their own countries.

All of the political arguments go back and forth to no end.

The left trusts the New York Times and the established media.

The right says its all a pack of lies to destroy Bush, and rely on Rush and Fox and friends.

The UN is evil and Germany and France don't understand.

Well, then tell me please. What is the truth? Who is right, who is wrong?

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 36): Funny! I thought the UN was a bunch of people with no real marketable skills who'd do ANYTHING to stay in (evil empire) New York rather than go home to face reality of life in their own countries.

Other then your New York comment, a lot of that is true! My "ex" was a career diplomat at the UN, and man he did not want to leave the US!

Quoting Dtwclipper (Thread starter): The Iraq Body Count -- a London-based group comprising academics and human rights and anti-war activists -- said on Tuesday that 24,865 civilians had died between March 20, 2003 and March 19, 2005.

Then how come these groups haven't taken a body count on
how many the terrorists have killed in US,Europe and Asia and taking it
to the streets in protest?The Middle East in general? Of decades
and decades of bloodshed where there is no good guy or bad anymore.
Just blood.When is going to stop! Where are you! Why aren't you protesting!

I'm a little suspect of your motives here.

With some entries,I hope I didn't repeat.
Thanks

[Edited 2005-07-20 03:28:55]

The body count really doesn't matter, Oil prices are at record highs and for that we say ....MISSION ACCOMPLISHED !!!!!

Quoting MichaelJP (Reply 8):

It's your right to believe this if you choose, but when I hear people say that, and sincerely believe it, I can hardly keep a straight face! Its true, we had no business going there, and there were probably no WMD. But we do know that Iraq did possess them at one time, and used them to kill a lot more of his own people, the Kurds in the North, and on the people in Neighboring Iran during the 1980's, then your "estimated" 25,000 youve read in the european media. I think it was reasonable to suspect he might still well have some left in his stockpile. Wouldn't that be logical? And before any of the cool aid thinkers go off about how Bush lied.... Well, not only did the CIA have intelligence to believe there were WMD, but so did the intelligence agencies of Britain, and the other European Countries, as well as many other world countries. Even your Boy President Bill Clinton had seen the intelligence to come to the conclusion there were likely WMD in Iraq.
I didn't want to go into Iraq either, but the fact is that we're there now and need to deal with where we are now and in the future instead of fighting so much about Bush's choice to go in in the first place. And if you still feel that Bush has mislead, and lied to us and got us into the situation we are in now, keep in mind that John Kerry said he would have taken the same actions as President Bush has had he had been elected.
As far as an illegal war? I'm sorry, maybe it might be unjust, but not illegal seeming Iraq had disregarded 13 U.N. resolutions over a 13 year time period. The U.S. or any UN member country had the right to invade legally the very first time one of these thirteen were violated some 15 years ago now.
You can hate Bush all you want, but these are the cold facts that cant be disputed. And it probably wouldn't be any different if Kerry had been elected.
Oh yeah, and for those who claim Al-qieda wasn't in Iraq before the occupation. Try doing a little research on what Salmon Pak -SP?-
was in Iraq during the late 90's.
Just my two-cents since I've read so many ludicrous posts on this topic on here for so many months, all while biting my tongue and hardly being able to keep a straight face at times.

Adam

Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 40): But we do know that Iraq did possess them at one time, and used them to kill a lot more of his own people, the Kurds in the North, and on the people in Neighboring Iran during the 1980's, then your "estimated" 25,000 youve read in the european media

Don't forget that America and the CIA were actively supporting Saddam during those events.

Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 40): Oh yeah, and for those who claim Al-qieda wasn't in Iraq before the occupation. Try doing a little research on what Salmon Pak -SP?- was in Iraq during the late 90's.

That means nothing, the point is GWB was trying to tie al qaeda, saddams iraq, and 9-11 all into one puzzle and it was and is an outright lie.

Its only a lie when the person telling it honestly knows that what they are saying is false. If somebody sincerely believes in what they are saying, then even if it PANS out not to be true, then its not a lie. With peoples overwhelming hatred towards Bush its much easier to want to believe he purposely lied. I guess Bill Clinton, Blair, and Kerry were also lying when they stated that previously to the occupation, that based on the intelligence they had seen, they believed that Saddam possessed WMD? You have a right to your opinion I guess. And you're right 9-11, Iraq and Al-qaeda weren't all part of one puzzle, but we' are there now and we cant get out in the future if all we do is focus on the past instead of the present. Once we do that you can "try" to elect your next Democratic canadate in 2008 and can have a party with lots of Kool-Aid when George Bush finally leaves office.

Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 40): in the future instead of fighting so much about Bush's choice to go in in the first place. And if you still feel that Bush has mislead, and lied to us and got us into the situation we are in now, keep in mind that John Kerry said he would have taken the same actions as President Bush has had he had been elected

Also,the reason I didn't vote Kerry,the Democratic party line was,"Bush mislead and lied about Iraq on the WMD's." But Clinton did bomb Baghdad,insisting that UN get on with the inspections.Didn't a letter signed by Sen.Kennedy and then Sen.Kerry arrive on President Clinton's desk,expressing their deep concern about Saddam having WMD'S?
There was no deception, that both parties were concerned about Saddam's
intention.If anything,there was an intelligence failure.

Sorry for the repeat.I guess we were working on the same idea.

[Edited 2005-07-20 04:15:48]

[Edited 2005-07-20 04:16:35]

People, this was a bad war. It is that simple. It was a war for oil. Those of you that refuse to accept that, just look at the Rwandan and Sudanese genocides. The officially determined that it would be bad to intervene in Rwanda because there was nothing there that we could benefit from and that it could possibly destabilize the regions economies which would result in slumps in the U.S. In Sudan it is practically the same thing. There is not a lot there that we need. Now, if Sudan had immense amounts of oil....then maybe there would be intervention.


Please...take a step back and look at Iraq. Can you honestly say to yourself, "Hey, that turned out alright"?


Now don't confuse my message with Afghanistan. That was a reasonable "war" that had a good outcome (there was even a female candidate for PM). However, if only we had stayed devoted to that war, maybe the world could have been a better place.


-Tim  

Quoting Dtwclipper (Thread starter): The Iraq Body Count -- a London-based group comprising academics and human rights and anti-war activists -- said on Tuesday that 24,865 civilians had died between March 20, 2003 and March 19, 2005.

Quoting Northwest717 (Reply 44): People, this was a bad war. It is that simple. It was a war for oil. Those of you that refuse to accept that, just look at the Rwandan and Sudanese genocides. The officially determined that it would be bad to intervene in Rwanda because there was nothing there that we could benefit from and that it could possibly destabilize the regions economies which would result in slumps in the U.S. In Sudan it is practically the same thing. There is not a lot there that we need. Now, if Sudan had immense amounts of oil....then maybe there would be intervention.

So,why don't these people who say they care about life,who would protest in a heartbeat about the war,not protest and take it to the street on the genocides?How many civilian were killed there?

"Speaking to CNN producer Ayman Mohyeldin Tuesday in his apartment in the upper-middle-class Cairo suburb of Giza, Mohamed el-Amir said he would like to see more attacks like the July 7 bombings of three London subway trains and a bus that killed 52 people, plus the four bombers."

That reporter just sat there and did nothing? He should have beat the living shit out of that sick pig for saying something like that.

I'm not even going to argue with the blind ones on here who say "well, Saddam did....". Two wrongs don't make a right, guys. We were wrong to invade a nation without just cause. It doesn't matter if Saddam killed them or we did-they're still did.

Like it's any more "moral" that it was our actions that killed them. Please. Stop spreading these bull cookies, it's not working anymore.

Quoting Northwest717 (Reply 44): Please...take a step back and look at Iraq. Can you honestly say to yourself, "Hey, that turned out alright"?

Well things dont happen overnight Northwest717. I think even two years is a relatively short amount of time to see the final outcome of the situation in Iraq, let alone any major conflict. Lets look down he road ten years and see what the final outcome is after things have played out. Its a mess now, but perhaps it wont always be. Other conflicts in history, although perhaps driven by different events, have lasted a lot longer than two years and killed a lot more people.
Oh yes, and its a bad thing hundreds of school and public facilities such as water treatment plants and eletricity grids have been rebuilt. And yes, it must be Bush's fault when the insurgents go and blow these things up killing their own citizens. Of course you dont hear much about the good things that have been done in the media we read. When it comes down to it, the media is the only thing most people have to go on. And we know it doesnt always report the facts. I suppose thats Bush's fault to probably?
If all the U.S.A wanted was the oil we would have wiped out that whole country ourselves, taking the lives of alot more civilians without regard to them, than have been killed as a result of being in a war zone. We wouldnt have been putting the millions of dollars into repairing their country.. To still be hearing people say It was a war for oil, has gone from being frustarting to downright amusing! So if we've been there two years for oil, why havent I seen the first ships full of "looted" Iraqi crude arriving in tankers to refineries in Philadelphia? Why haven't we said "The hell with you Saudi Arabia, and OPEC we're not being forced into these prices!" and seen the gas prices at the pump here drop back down below .83 cents per gallon , since we'd be getting all this free oil from a coutry that we invaded for this purpose.? Must be because Bush is so evil he's letting our troops die in the line of duty for a few years as a front so that it wont be obvious were really there for the oil!  

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 47): We were wrong to invade a nation without just cause

We had thirteen of them. Saddam ignored 13 UN resolutions over 13 years. Legally, he could have been invaded after the first one of those. Simple as that!