Cost of War

[urowndisaster52]

http://www.costofwar.com/

[Cal Smith]

The cost of no war........link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=3&u=/ap/20050416/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_mass_graves)

Iraq Excavators Identify Kuwaiti Graves
By JAMIE TARABAY, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The bodies of 41 Kuwaitis believed killed during the first Gulf War have been unearthed in southern Iraq, one of 295 mass graves containing thousands of Saddam Hussein's victims uncovered in the two years since U.S.-led forces invaded and ousted the dictator, an Iraqi official said Saturday.

The discovery in the city of Amarah, 180 miles southeast of Baghdad, was another step in documenting what happened to 605 Kuwaitis who have been missing since the 1991 Gulf War. The bodies of only 190 other Kuwaitis have been identified.

Around the country, Iraq's human rights minister, Bakhtiar Amin, said some mass graves contained the remains of dozens of people, while other had thousands, with victims including Kuwaitis and minority Kurds, who were systematically killed during Saddam's rule.

"Iraq is a land of mass graves due to the genocide policy of Saddam Hussein," he said. "We have hundreds of thousands of people missing."

It was difficult to estimate how many people were buried in the different sites, since some graves had several layers that have not yet been uncovered, Amin said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

At a a site in Hatra, Amin said, "we went looking for one and we found 11. It's difficult to say. It could be more, it could be less. The number of missing is calculated to be about one million in Iraq," he said.

Some 2,000 bodies were found recently in the area of Samawah in northern Iraq. The entire site is believed to hold members of Massoud Barzani's clan. Some 8,000 relatives of Barzani, who heads the Kurdish Democratic Party, were taken from a camp in the northern city of Irbil in 1983 and never heard from again.

Amin said hundreds of thousands of Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south were killed and remained missing after rising up against Saddam's regime during the first Gulf War.

"We are in the beginning of this search for truth. More than half the Iraqi population has a loved one who is missing, disappeared," he said.

The Iraqi Human Rights Ministry so far has files on 150,000 people missing from the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, the first and second Gulf Wars.

Amin said he informed the Kuwaiti government of the discovery in Amarah three days ago. The difficult security situation in Iraq is hampering the work of investigators as authorities find or are alerted to the discovery of mass graves, which will provide evidence in war crimes cases the government is building against Saddam and his top ministers, Amin said.

Cases already have been brought to court against Barzan Ibrahim al-Hassan al-Tikriti, one of Saddam's half brothers, former Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan and Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as "Chemical Ali" for his part in the chemical weapons gassing of Kurds in the north of the country.

"The list of crimes that these people committed is long, and the trials will start as soon as possible," Amin said.

Since January, two mass graves were discovered in Kirkuk, two were found in Sulaymaniyah, and one in Halabja — all containing Kurdish victims, Amin said.

Investigators also traveled to Nasiriyah, 200 miles southeast of Baghdad, this week to inspect a site that locals had begun digging up after a farmer plowing in his field discovered about 20 bodies. It was not known where the bodies came from.

"We're calling on our citizens. No one should open the mass graves. They should inform the authorities and the human rights people. It needs to be done properly, scientifically, respectfully," Amin said.

Files sent from the International Committee of the Red Cross on missing persons altogether weighed about 130 pounds, Amin said.

He said the ministry hoped to open three centers in the north, south and center of the country to create rehabilitation programs for the families of victims.

"We have had unfortunately this terrible legacy of wars and families left behind in pain," Amin said. "Saddam has caused pain and suffering to these people and its neighbors because of his aggressive policies. The healing process is going to take time, the tender wounds are still fresh."

[apoemtothedead]

So $163+ billion is worth the lives of the 150,000 people missing in Iraq. 150,000 people no one in this country gave a damn about when the killings were actually happening?

[Cal Smith]

So $163+ billion is worth the lives of the 150,000 people missing in Iraq. 150,000 people no one in this country gave a damn about when the killings were actually happening?

What does what I put in bold have to do with what is not in bold?

[apoemtothedead]

What does what I put in bold have to do with what is not in bold?

From your point of view: One is fact, one is liberal spin.
From my point of view: They are both true.

[Cal Smith]

From your point of view: One is fact, one is liberal spin.
From my point of view: They are both true.

Seriously though what do they have to do with each other?

You should start by answering your first statement............"So $163+ billion is worth the lives of the 150,000 people missing in Iraq."

You do the math and it comes out to about a million dollars a person (that's considering the killings would have stopped too). So what do you think?

[apoemtothedead]

Seriously though what do they have to do with each other?

You should start by answering your first statement............"So $163+ billion is worth the lives of the 150,000 people missing in Iraq."

You do the math and it comes out to about a million dollars a person (that's considering the killings would have stopped too). So what do you think?

I think our country is $7 trillion in debt and shouldn't be throwing around money to save people who won't matter to us if they're dead or alive.

[Cal Smith]

I think our country is $7 trillion in debt and shouldn't be throwing around money to save people who won't matter to us if they're dead or alive.

2 questions then............

--How about when we had the surplus under Clinton?
--Do you think we should be spending hundreds of millions on welfare programs here at home on people who won't matter to us if they're dead or alive?

[apoemtothedead]

No and define in greater detail.

[Cal Smith]

No and No.

Could you please explain? Mainly explain why on the 2nd question about welfare. Because this really seems to contradict your philosophy.

On one point you're arguing we shouldn't have conducted this war because we are in a great debt and these lives mean nothing to us. Then on the other point you think we should keep spending on welfare even though we are in great debt and these peoples lives mean nothing to us.

[apoemtothedead]

I just changed it before you replied.

What do you mean by the second one?

[Cal Smith]

I just changed it before you replied.

What do you mean by the second one?

Do you think the US government should keep funding things like welfare programs, medicare/medicaid (or universal healthcare), etc............eventhough we are in this great debt and these people lives mean nothing to us if they are dead or alive?

[apoemtothedead]

They do mean something though. They are still tax payers.

[Cal Smith]

They do mean something though. They are still tax payers.

No they're not. If you're recieving medicaid, and are on welfare you are paying NO federal taxes. So again................."Do you think we should be spending hundreds of millions on welfare programs here at home on people who won't matter to us if they're dead or alive?"

[apoemtothedead]

They still mean something. They are people in our community, who can still [but no likely] do something good for the community.

A bunch of Iraqis aren't going to get my cat out of a tree.

[Cal Smith]

They still mean something. They are people in our community, who can still [but no likely] do something good for the community.

A bunch of Iraqis aren't going to get my cat out of a tree.

Could you explain what they do? I mean if your examples are no better than getting your cat out of a tree I'd really have to argue on spending hundreds of millions on welfare programs. I'd also have to find what you're arguing in the two situations to be completely political and hypocrtical.

[apoemtothedead]

It's a pretty important cat.

[Cal Smith]

It's a pretty important cat.

thanks for proving my point :love:

[apoemtothedead]

If I really cared, I'd continue. But I don't.

[Cal Smith]

If I really cared, I'd continue. But I don't.

:lol:

[apoemtothedead]

:dweeba21:

[punkerz2003]

so what ever happened to "we have to invade iraq because saddam has weapons of mass destruction and he could attack us with them" idea? now its the "oh wait...saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people so he needed to be removed" idea. it sure does seem like all you right wingers are trying a little too hard to justify the war in iraq.

[Cal Smith]

so what ever happened to "we have to invade iraq because saddam has weapons of mass destruction and he could attack us with them" idea? now its the "oh wait...saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people so he needed to be removed" idea. it sure does seem like all you right wingers are trying a little too hard to justify the war in iraq.

Hmmmm...........both reasons were used, and so was his connection to terrorism. Some have just forgotten.

Also I find it sad that you believe the murder and torture of hundreds of thousands of civilians, is a "hard justification" for war. What should be then?

[urowndisaster52]

so what ever happened to "we have to invade iraq because saddam has weapons of mass destruction and he could attack us with them" idea? now its the "oh wait...saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people so he needed to be removed" idea. it sure does seem like all you right wingers are trying a little too hard to justify the war in iraq.
fuck yeah brother


i forget the figures, but before the war there was an interview with one of bush's guys and he said that the war will only cost 1.9 billion (i'm pretty sure that was the number) the man continued to say that we would only be in there to topple sadaam and that we "will not be doing a nation building process"

[Poopy]

fuck yeah brother


i forget the figures, but before the war there was an interview with one of bush's guys and he said that the war will only cost 1.9 billion (i'm pretty sure that was the number) the man continued to say that we would only be in there to topple sadaam and that we "will not be doing a nation building process"

You heard it here first! Once again a clear example of how Bush lied. Some guy said the war would cost 1.9 billion (and urowndisaster52 is pretty sure this is the number). Why hasn't Bush been impeached?

[punkerz2003]

Hmmmm...........both reasons were used, and so was his connection to terrorism. Some have just forgotten.

Also I find it sad that you believe the murder and torture of hundreds of thousands of civilians, is a "hard justification" for war. What should be then?

Ok, so if we knew that Saddam was torturing and murdering his people for over a decade, then why did we wait until 2003 to invade? Also, what connections to terrorism did he have? From what I heard, Al Qaeda tried to make connections with him but he refused.

And I think I worded that wrong about the justification, yeah Saddam was a brutal bastard but the Bush administration didn't start using that justification heavily until they found zero weapons of mass destruction. It just seems like they're changing their tune because they realized they screwed up.

And also, Saddam is not the only one. There are plenty of other brutal dictatorships out there...like North Korea. So why aren't we invading North Korea to save their people?

[Cal Smith]

Ok, so if we knew that Saddam was torturing and murdering his people for over a decade, then why did we wait until 2003 to invade? Also, what connections to terrorism did he have? From what I heard, Al Qaeda tried to make connections with him but he refused.

And I think I worded that wrong about the justification, yeah Saddam was a brutal bastard but the Bush administration didn't start using that justification heavily until they found zero weapons of mass destruction. It just seems like they're changing their tune because they realized they screwed up.

And also, Saddam is not the only one. There are plenty of other brutal dictatorships out there...like North Korea. So why aren't we invading North Korea to save their people?

One, probably obvious reason we didnt invade prior was because you probably would not of had the American public support, or even have been able to take the case to the security council for a vote.

You can look up the terrorism connections for yourself. Look at Powell's speech in Feb. 03 at the UN, and look for other things. I know it's hard to believe but Al Qaeda is not the only terror organization in the world.

Of course they're going to use that more heavily as justification. I mean would you expect them to keep using WMD's? No..........of course not. So obviously they'll push the other reasons for war and removing Saddam.

[trinekat]

Ok, so if we knew that Saddam was torturing and murdering his people for over a decade, then why did we wait until 2003 to invade?

ah...ummmm...

Hey this whole issue dates way back prior to Kuwait. Then, In the early 90's when Saddam invaded Kuwait, there was immense support for the war against Iraq, on just about all fronts, and amongst most politicians. What happened there was terrible. The US and allies decided not to push to Bagdad and overthrow the government... and hence Saddam continued on his ways.

Exit, Prez Bush, Enter, Billy "Wanker" Clinton....

So, the pressing issue in the middle east never actually bettered. But Billy boy was too busy getting his pole polished. He didn't want the trouble, and what would Hillary think? God forbid, that could ruin her own chances of becoming president on the near future.

Bill essentially did not put any pressure on the UN to actually enforce it's sanctions on Iraq. Bill wanted to ensure that he had a babe under the desk for his second term. Having the UN actually enforce the sanctions, could have sent him packin' after just 4 years of affairs....

So for more than 10 years, 8 of them under Clinton, we took no action as part of an international organization, no part as the only world super power, no part in trying to curb Iraq from doing whatever it pleased, as long as they did not fly over that mythical line--the no fly zone.

So without supporting facts, other than supporting Billy's Balls, you can see why it took so long?

When 9/11 arrived, the US---for the first time in their history---was attacked on their own soil. One thing leads to another... first Afganistan, then hunt the others...

Saddam, had been a sort of unfinished business, not only for the Bush family, but for the entire world. Bush Jr. steps to action and wanted to finish the job AFTER seeing that the UN inherited Bill Clinton's Laissez-faire attitude towards terrorism, and sensitive world stability issues.

The intelligence was wrong. But not only the US was wrong about it. Russia, France and Germany as well suggested and brought forth evidence of WMD. It's just that these as well as other countries did not want to attack, thinking that UN sanctions will eventually do the trick. -- "Oh please Mr Saddam! Let us back into your country so we can inspect your facilities. Pretty Pleeeeeaaaase".

Bush may have overstepped his bounds, not allowing the needed diplomacy, but there probably wasn't a better tactical time and opportunity to put the whole Iraq issue at rest. And thanks to the Democrats, and Billy (with a stroke of his pen--and when he was too busy with his hand), the intelligence agencies in the US were limited by both law and financial cuts which, as we know today, was probably a drastic, and catastrophic choice.

There really isn't any right or wrong here. You can always argue this thing both ways.

But in the end, the Middle East is most likely better off without Saddam, even if it cost us a fortune, caused our European allies to turn their heads, and left a once stabile, dictatorship-ruled country in shambles and unstable.

Now... on to N. Korea, and then China....

[Rebs]

I think our country is $7 trillion in debt and shouldn't be throwing around money to save people who won't matter to us if they're dead or alive.
the united states isnt the only country in the world. being that we have the most available funds and military power and a member of the UN it is our job to help situations such as this.


so what ever happened to "we have to invade iraq because saddam has weapons of mass destruction and he could attack us with them" idea? now its the "oh wait...saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people so he needed to be removed" idea. it sure does seem like all you right wingers are trying a little too hard to justify the war in iraq.
it also seems like the lefties are trying to hard to find fault in president Bush. personally, i dont really care why we invaded Iraq. It needed to happen. Saddam was massacreing his own people and played a major part in the middle eastern terrorist ring. saddam was not beneficial to peace in the middle east and needed to be taken out.


You heard it here first! Once again a clear example of how Bush lied. Some guy said the war would cost 1.9 billion (and urowndisaster52 is pretty sure this is the number). Why hasn't Bush been impeached?

what politician hasnt lied? there are so many inner-workings of the government that we have no idea about. i have family in the CIA and there is so much that they are not allowed to talk about. its crazy.

ah...ummmm...

Hey this whole issue dates way back prior to Kuwait. Then, In the early 90's when Saddam invaded Kuwait, there was immense support for the war against Iraq, on just about all fronts, and amongst most politicians. What happened there was terrible. The US and allies decided not to push to Bagdad and overthrow the government... and hence Saddam continued on his ways.

Exit, Prez Bush, Enter, Billy "Wanker" Clinton....

So, the pressing issue in the middle east never actually bettered. But Billy boy was too busy getting his pole polished. He didn't want the trouble, and what would Hillary think? God forbid, that could ruin her own chances of becoming president on the near future.

Bill essentially did not put any pressure on the UN to actually enforce it's sanctions on Iraq. Bill wanted to ensure that he had a babe under the desk for his second term. Having the UN actually enforce the sanctions, could have sent him packin' after just 4 years of affairs....

So for more than 10 years, 8 of them under Clinton, we took no action as part of an international organization, no part as the only world super power, no part in trying to curb Iraq from doing whatever it pleased, as long as they did not fly over that mythical line--the no fly zone.

So without supporting facts, other than supporting Billy's Balls, you can see why it took so long?

When 9/11 arrived, the US---for the first time in their history---was attacked on their own soil. One thing leads to another... first Afganistan, then hunt the others...

Saddam, had been a sort of unfinished business, not only for the Bush family, but for the entire world. Bush Jr. steps to action and wanted to finish the job AFTER seeing that the UN inherited Bill Clinton's Laissez-faire attitude towards terrorism, and sensitive world stability issues.

The intelligence was wrong. But not only the US was wrong about it. Russia, France and Germany as well suggested and brought forth evidence of WMD. It's just that these as well as other countries did not want to attack, thinking that UN sanctions will eventually do the trick. -- "Oh please Mr Saddam! Let us back into your country so we can inspect your facilities. Pretty Pleeeeeaaaase".

Bush may have overstepped his bounds, not allowing the needed diplomacy, but there probably wasn't a better tactical time and opportunity to put the whole Iraq issue at rest. And thanks to the Democrats, and Billy (with a stroke of his pen--and when he was too busy with his hand), the intelligence agencies in the US were limited by both law and financial cuts which, as we know today, was probably a drastic, and catastrophic choice.

There really isn't any right or wrong here. You can always argue this thing both ways.

But in the end, the Middle East is most likely better off without Saddam, even if it cost us a fortune, caused our European allies to turn their heads, and left a once stabile, dictatorship-ruled country in shambles and unstable.

Now... on to N. Korea, and then China....


thank god someone finally decided to take a logical look at the situation.
both sides can make an argument for this war. the US military and the UN cannot fight in the middle east, N. Korea and China all at once. it must be taken one at a time in order for us to be able to concentrate our efforts.

personally, i believe that as a country we need to start backing our soldiers. we are in Iraq and they are risking their lives every day. The last thing that they need to hear is that their country is not behind them. Without the support of the people it will only be another Vietnam.

[Love As Arson]

The UN's laissez-faire attitude? I direct you to this, which was vetoed by the US:

1987-Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0303/S00085.htm

[trinekat]

:woot: thanks!

[open mind]

The cost of no war........link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=3&u=/ap/20050416/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_mass_graves)

Iraq Excavators Identify Kuwaiti Graves
By JAMIE TARABAY, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The bodies of 41 Kuwaitis believed killed during the first Gulf War have been unearthed in southern Iraq, one of 295 mass graves containing thousands of Saddam Hussein's victims uncovered in the two years since U.S.-led forces invaded and ousted the dictator, an Iraqi official said Saturday.

The discovery in the city of Amarah, 180 miles southeast of Baghdad, was another step in documenting what happened to 605 Kuwaitis who have been missing since the 1991 Gulf War. The bodies of only 190 other Kuwaitis have been identified.

Around the country, Iraq's human rights minister, Bakhtiar Amin, said some mass graves contained the remains of dozens of people, while other had thousands, with victims including Kuwaitis and minority Kurds, who were systematically killed during Saddam's rule.

"Iraq is a land of mass graves due to the genocide policy of Saddam Hussein," he said. "We have hundreds of thousands of people missing."

It was difficult to estimate how many people were buried in the different sites, since some graves had several layers that have not yet been uncovered, Amin said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

At a a site in Hatra, Amin said, "we went looking for one and we found 11. It's difficult to say. It could be more, it could be less. The number of missing is calculated to be about one million in Iraq," he said.

Some 2,000 bodies were found recently in the area of Samawah in northern Iraq. The entire site is believed to hold members of Massoud Barzani's clan. Some 8,000 relatives of Barzani, who heads the Kurdish Democratic Party, were taken from a camp in the northern city of Irbil in 1983 and never heard from again.

Amin said hundreds of thousands of Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south were killed and remained missing after rising up against Saddam's regime during the first Gulf War.

"We are in the beginning of this search for truth. More than half the Iraqi population has a loved one who is missing, disappeared," he said.

The Iraqi Human Rights Ministry so far has files on 150,000 people missing from the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, the first and second Gulf Wars.

Amin said he informed the Kuwaiti government of the discovery in Amarah three days ago. The difficult security situation in Iraq is hampering the work of investigators as authorities find or are alerted to the discovery of mass graves, which will provide evidence in war crimes cases the government is building against Saddam and his top ministers, Amin said.

Cases already have been brought to court against Barzan Ibrahim al-Hassan al-Tikriti, one of Saddam's half brothers, former Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan and Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as "Chemical Ali" for his part in the chemical weapons gassing of Kurds in the north of the country.

"The list of crimes that these people committed is long, and the trials will start as soon as possible," Amin said.

Since January, two mass graves were discovered in Kirkuk, two were found in Sulaymaniyah, and one in Halabja — all containing Kurdish victims, Amin said.

Investigators also traveled to Nasiriyah, 200 miles southeast of Baghdad, this week to inspect a site that locals had begun digging up after a farmer plowing in his field discovered about 20 bodies. It was not known where the bodies came from.

"We're calling on our citizens. No one should open the mass graves. They should inform the authorities and the human rights people. It needs to be done properly, scientifically, respectfully," Amin said.

Files sent from the International Committee of the Red Cross on missing persons altogether weighed about 130 pounds, Amin said.

He said the ministry hoped to open three centers in the north, south and center of the country to create rehabilitation programs for the families of victims.

"We have had unfortunately this terrible legacy of wars and families left behind in pain," Amin said. "Saddam has caused pain and suffering to these people and its neighbors because of his aggressive policies. The healing process is going to take time, the tender wounds are still fresh."
if people being killed is a justifiable reason for going to war why aren't we in the sudan now? why'd we do nothing about rwanda?
this argument doesn't hold up because we really don't give a shit about people being treated like shit and killed, as shown by our complete lack of action concerning other cases of mass killings

[punkerz2003]

One, probably obvious reason we didnt invade prior was because you probably would not of had the American public support, or even have been able to take the case to the security council for a vote.

You can look up the terrorism connections for yourself. Look at Powell's speech in Feb. 03 at the UN, and look for other things. I know it's hard to believe but Al Qaeda is not the only terror organization in the world.

Of course they're going to use that more heavily as justification. I mean would you expect them to keep using WMD's? No..........of course not. So obviously they'll push the other reasons for war and removing Saddam.

You didn't answer my last question. Why aren't we invading other countries that murder their people? If that's the main justification, then we should invade a lot more than Iraq.

[trinekat]

The UN's laissez-faire attitude? I direct you to this, which was vetoed by the US:
....
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0303/S00085.htm

Great link.

However, just opposing something doesn't mean anything.

For instance... would you be for better roads in NYC?
At first glance, yes, because there are too many pot holes here. But if it makes my taxes skyrocket, well, then NO WAY in hell!

Anyway, back to my point, there is more to it than just the title. And this in and of itself does not prove or disprove anything. In any case, back in 1987, the US was still thinking it was "untouchable".

It is well known, that the UN kept trying to send inspectors into Iraq, only to have them sent home by Saddam, and they added futile pressure upon Iraq, claiming sanctions mixed with diplomacy would work. Wrong, they never complied.

As far as Billy boy, it's pretty clear, regardless if your a Dem or Rep, that international affairs was not his forté--nor did he want to dirty his hands with the Iraq situation, in particular.

I called this laissez-faire for this point. -- If you don't take action, no one can blame you, and besides they (the UN) are handling it. As far as the UN, also in my opinion, they just let it go on and on and on. "Well, eventually they have to comply, eventually"... this is pretty laissez-faire attitude to me.

;)

[Cal Smith]

You didn't answer my last question. Why aren't we invading other countries that murder their people? If that's the main justification, then we should invade a lot more than Iraq.

I answered your question: "One, probably obvious reason we didnt invade prior was because you probably would not of had the American public support, or even have been able to take the case to the security council for a vote."

Some of you just dont get it. Openmind above proves my point. He's thinking i'm arguing based on America fighting for human rights, against mass killings, etc.....,etc. I'm simply saying that in the case of Iraq, Saddams mass killings are a justification for the war. See you, nor Openmind can argue against that! All you can say it..........well why don't we go to this and that country too then?

The answer is simple...............it's politics, and there are a number of things you have to consider than just the fact that you have mass killings in some sort of moraly higher cause. You have to look at the attitude and politics of countries surrounding that country as well (Ex: North Korea/China/Japan).

[xforestxwaitsx]

It saddens me to think of all the blood that has been shed for the Iraqi people. Not only that of Americans, but of other nationalities as well. So many times I think we get far too caught up in politics to actually realize that everyday someone looses their life and everyday, that is one less breath for someone to take. The concept of death is not a new one to us as humans but that is not a reason to simply throw lives away.

[Cal Smith]

If things were as simple as ya'll are putting it we wouldnt have much use in study world poltiics. We'd simply apply anything we do in country 'A' that works.........to country 'B', and so on and so on.

That's why liberalism is so easy :animateds

It saddens me to think of all the blood that has been shed for the Iraqi people. Not only that of Americans, but of other nationalities as well. So many times I think we get far too caught up in politics to actually realize that everyday someone looses their life and everyday, that is one less breath for someone to take. The concept of death is not a new one to us as humans but that is not a reason to simply throw lives away.

I think its interesting the value of life has increased so much. I mean just over 140 years ago we losted many more men in single battlefields like Shiloh, and even in prison camps like Andersonville. Also just 60 or so years ago we lost hundreds of thousands of men in single days in Europe. Now..........we hear about the individual deaths of one or two soldiers on the news a day. The value of human life has increased.

[Love As Arson]

Great link.

However, just opposing something doesn't mean anything.

For instance... would you be for better roads in NYC?
At first glance, yes, because there are too many pot holes here. But if it makes my taxes skyrocket, well, then NO WAY in hell!

Anyway, back to my point, there is more to it than just the title. And this in and of itself does not prove or disprove anything. In any case, back in 1987, the US was still thinking it was "untouchable".

It is well known, that the UN kept trying to send inspectors into Iraq, only to have them sent home by Saddam, and they added futile pressure upon Iraq, claiming sanctions mixed with diplomacy would work. Wrong, they never complied.

As far as Billy boy, it's pretty clear, regardless if your a Dem or Rep, that international affairs was not his forté--nor did he want to dirty his hands with the Iraq situation, in particular.

I called this laissez-faire for this point. -- If you don't take action, no one can blame you, and besides they (the UN) are handling it. As far as the UN, also in my opinion, they just let it go on and on and on. "Well, eventually they have to comply, eventually"... this is pretty laissez-faire attitude to me.

;)
What a laughable response.

[open mind]

I answered your question: "One, probably obvious reason we didnt invade prior was because you probably would not of had the American public support, or even have been able to take the case to the security council for a vote."

Some of you just dont get it. Openmind above proves my point. He's thinking i'm arguing based on America fighting for human rights, against mass killings, etc.....,etc. I'm simply saying that in the case of Iraq, Saddams mass killings are a justification for the war. See you, nor Openmind can argue against that! All you can say it..........well why don't we go to this and that country too then?

The answer is simple...............it's politics, and there are a number of things you have to consider than just the fact that you have mass killings in some sort of moraly higher cause. You have to look at the attitude and politics of countries surrounding that country as well (Ex: North Korea/China/Japan).
if politics were cited as the reason we needed to go into iraq nobody would have gotten behind going in, (rightfully) so the people were force fed manufactured bullshit 24 hours a day about iraq being an imminent threat.
a hundred thousand iraqis dead, over 1500 american troops dead, and hundreds of billions of dollars for..............what you apparently see as a political vendetta. :headshake

[trinekat]

Politics and the political climate have much to do with any foreign policy choice--including war. -- Don't forget, all politicians are like flags, they fly in the direction of the wind.

With Iraq, for instance, it's also interesting to look at the region as a whole. We as westerners and predominantly Christians, look at the ME filled with turmoil and political and human rights violation issues, often based on some very foreign religion. It's not up to us to change it... unless there is something at stake.

Consider this: Petroleum.

This brings in a radically important factor to consider--money--not necessarily for pocketed by the US directly, but it gets into the world economy, etc etc etc... "and the buck stops here"... You get the point.

Now with Iraq there were some really wild things going on.

France is well known for building oil refineries and pipelines, for instance... by chance they were running many of the refineries in Iraq... by chance other European countries also had their stake... But by far the worst is France. France's ParisBas was in charge of the Oil for Food program. So ParisBas, (France's largest bank, predominantly government owned, I think) was quite naturally pissed that the US would invade. Add to this fact that the French government who was making billions of dollars along side ParisBas with this program, eventually rejected involvement and support for invasion--maybe for fear that they would loose their grasp on the situation.

Other parties with similar interest, also backed by various governments, also saw this as a great threat.

As far as justifying it by "invading other countries that murder their people", is kind of a shortfall, but is of utmost importance when considering why the US went into Iraq in the first place.

For the US, it is terribly important to have broad public support, and when the war first started, support was manifested across party lines. Even though it was a very swift war, historically speaking, people got frustrated with seeing ourselves defeated day after day.

I am not saying that the US went into Iraq because of its oil. They went there primarily based on post 9/11 events, terrorism, non-UN compliancy, human rights and WMD fears. Everything adds up, and in the end, after seeking 'reasonable' diplomatic solutions, you either make the choice to invade or not. You go in based on what you know about the situation and what you **anticipate** it would become without intervention.

I'll tell you what... If we could use the US armed forces to it's full effect, I would bet that the war may have lasted max. three weeks. But you can't do what Saddam did to his people, namely kill and brutalize them and still obey the Geneva Conventions...

In wars before the 1950's, it was easy as going in to a region and bombing the smithereens out of the place. You simply can't do that no more!

Now you have to pride yourself to say: "Well, out infrared guided missile has a one-meter accuracy, and the shell did not destroy anything but the garbage can we intended to destroy".

Meanwhile, the "enemy" is crying foul in the world areans, and stating: "You killed my innocent brother who was somewhere near the bombing, in fact you killed my whole village".

Actually what happened, was that their own men set off their bomb accidentally, but called the international European press to report it.

"Outrage!" the Europeans exclaim! Soon thereafter, Democrats could be heard reiterating the exact same words, since the wind was blowing in the direction of a future election.

Without the oil, we probably won't find ourselves in N Korea, but then again, we have been to Honduras, Nicaragua and beyond. We have even supported political factions, providing them technology, money and weapons, to have them turn against us.

[Poopy]

if politics were cited as the reason we needed to go into iraq nobody would have gotten behind going in, (rightfully) so the people were force fed manufactured bullshit 24 hours a day about iraq being an imminent threat.
a hundred thousand iraqis dead, over 1500 american troops dead, and hundreds of billions of dollars for..............what you apparently see as a political vendetta. :headshake

You ate bullshit 24 hours a day? How did it taste? But seriously though its time for some new rhetoric. The vast majority of americans, american politicians, and even other world leaders saw Saddam as a threat. You cant look back now and say oh we were all wrong, lets kill the messenger. Hindsight is 20/20. America is better off for going into Iraq, if you want to make the argument that money was spent inefficiently then I will entertain that because nothing the government does is effecient, but you cant keep clinging to your one-dimensional view of the Iraq war.

[trinekat]

What a laughable response.

Thanks, I thought it was quite fun too, but feel free to elaborate.

[open mind]

You ate bullshit 24 hours a day? How did it taste? But seriously though its time for some new rhetoric. The vast majority of americans, american politicians, and even other world leaders saw Saddam as a threat. You cant look back now and say oh we were all wrong, lets kill the messenger. Hindsight is 20/20. America is better off for going into Iraq, if you want to make the argument that money was spent inefficiently then I will entertain that because nothing the government does is effecient, but you cant keep clinging to your one-dimensional view of the Iraq war.
i'm sorry that the truth isn't that deep, but you of all shouldn't be talking about one dimensional views being a bad thing.
you'd think when someone gets proven wrong about something they'd be a bit humbled by it, and perhaps try look at things from a different angle, but that's just crazy talk i guess
how is america better off for going into iraq?

Politics and the political climate have much to do with any foreign policy choice--including war. -- Don't forget, all politicians are like flags, they fly in the direction of the wind.

With Iraq, for instance, it's also interesting to look at the region as a whole. We as westerners and predominantly Christians, look at the ME filled with turmoil and political and human rights violation issues, often based on some very foreign religion. It's not up to us to change it... unless there is something at stake.

Consider this: Petroleum.

This brings in a radically important factor to consider--money--not necessarily for pocketed by the US directly, but it gets into the world economy, etc etc etc... "and the buck stops here"... You get the point.

Now with Iraq there were some really wild things going on.

France is well known for building oil refineries and pipelines, for instance... by chance they were running many of the refineries in Iraq... by chance other European countries also had their stake... But by far the worst is France. France's ParisBas was in charge of the Oil for Food program. So ParisBas, (France's largest bank, predominantly government owned, I think) was quite naturally pissed that the US would invade. Add to this fact that the French government who was making billions of dollars along side ParisBas with this program, eventually rejected involvement and support for invasion--maybe for fear that they would loose their grasp on the situation.

Other parties with similar interest, also backed by various governments, also saw this as a great threat.

As far as justifying it by "invading other countries that murder their people", is kind of a shortfall, but is of utmost importance when considering why the US went into Iraq in the first place.

For the US, it is terribly important to have broad public support, and when the war first started, support was manifested across party lines. Even though it was a very swift war, historically speaking, people got frustrated with seeing ourselves defeated day after day.

I am not saying that the US went into Iraq because of its oil. They went there primarily based on post 9/11 events, terrorism, non-UN compliancy, human rights and WMD fears. Everything adds up, and in the end, after seeking 'reasonable' diplomatic solutions, you either make the choice to invade or not. You go in based on what you know about the situation and what you **anticipate** it would become without intervention.

I'll tell you what... If we could use the US armed forces to it's full effect, I would bet that the war may have lasted max. three weeks. But you can't do what Saddam did to his people, namely kill and brutalize them and still obey the Geneva Conventions...

In wars before the 1950's, it was easy as going in to a region and bombing the smithereens out of the place. You simply can't do that no more!

Now you have to pride yourself to say: "Well, out infrared guided missile has a one-meter accuracy, and the shell did not destroy anything but the garbage can we intended to destroy".

Meanwhile, the "enemy" is crying foul in the world areans, and stating: "You killed my innocent brother who was somewhere near the bombing, in fact you killed my whole village".

Actually what happened, was that their own men set off their bomb accidentally, but called the international European press to report it.

"Outrage!" the Europeans exclaim! Soon thereafter, Democrats could be heard reiterating the exact same words, since the wind was blowing in the direction of a future election.

Without the oil, we probably won't find ourselves in N Korea, but then again, we have been to Honduras, Nicaragua and beyond. We have even supported political factions, providing them technology, money and weapons, to have them turn against us.
going into iraq was a political disaster and we knew it was going to be one but we went ahead with it anyways.

[Poopy]

i'm sorry that the truth isn't that deep, and you of all shouldn't be talking about one dimensional views being a bad thing.
you'd think when someone gets proven wrong about something they'd be a bit humbled by it, and perhaps try look at things from a different angle, but that's just crazy talk i guess
how is america better off for going into iraq?


going into iraq was a political disaster and we knew it was going to be one but we went ahead with it anyways.

Saddam is not in power, America is better off.

[open mind]

Saddam is not in power, America is better off.
it's been proven saddam was no threat, so i think not.

[Poopy]

it's been proven saddam was no threat, so i think not.

You logic doesnt even hold up. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove someone is not a threat. For someone to be a threat that means they will or could do harm in the future. Since we havent invented the time machine yet we have no way of knowing what Saddam would have done.

[Love As Arson]

Thanks, I thought it was quite fun too, but feel free to elaborate.
You made no real point.

[trinekat]

You made no real point.

hmmm. silly me!

[Love As Arson]

hmmm. silly me!
I know, right? Go back, read my post, and actually address it.

[trinekat]

I know, right? Go back, read my post, and actually address it.
i would suggest likewise.

Also, if just because the UN brings something up for a vote, doesn't mean that something is being done proactively... it just means it was voted on... and the US voted against it? Big F'n Deal... This also don't mean much to me. Every day, there are many votes at the UN. Quite often, the UN votes on sanction or sanction enforcement. Even when ratified, they can take years to go into effect and to have any effect at all. In addition, the nations involved must also be collaborators, or it simply never works.

Your comment and link do not have any bearing on my original statement. The UN did have a lax attitude during the last 10 years in respect to Iraq and sanctions thereof. There was little to no real pressure to evoque any substantial reaction or cooperation from Iraq.

UN: "Mr Saddam, please let my inspectors in!" ...
SH: "Okay, but for one week, then I need to hide and destroy some stuff, so out you go" ....
UN: "Okay, but we will bring this to a vote, and reinforce the UN position"
SH: "Hehe ... you bastards go and vote! I am Saddam and I control the Gates of Bagdad" ...
UN to self: "What do we do now?"... "More sanctions".

This just happened over and over, it was a joke by the end of 2002... and then bush did something about it -- for better or for worse -- nothing is ideal in this situation.

Now you tell me ... what exactly were the specifics of this vote? tell me please since that topic means nothing to me without the substace...

[Cal Smith]

if politics were cited as the reason we needed to go into iraq nobody would have gotten behind going in, (rightfully) so the people were force fed manufactured bullshit 24 hours a day about iraq being an imminent threat.
a hundred thousand iraqis dead, over 1500 american troops dead, and hundreds of billions of dollars for..............what you apparently see as a political vendetta. :headshake

this is obviously a subject and point you are apparently not getting...........either simply dont understand or i'm doing poorly explaining it to you. Either way your comment is way off mark

it's been proven saddam was no threat, so i think not.

ignorance like that makes me sad :(

If you seriously think the only threat Saddam posed would have been through WMD's you'd be dead wrong.

He helped destabilize oil, destabilize the middle east by being a threat to his neighbors, funded terror in Israel, and was scratching the back of some UN workers while they scratched his.

And you want to be so ignorant (possibly dumb) to tell me the US and the world for that matter is not better off????????? Wow, I dont know a better way to put this but please learn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Love As Arson]

i would suggest likewise.

Also, if just because the UN brings something up for a vote, doesn't mean that something is being done proactively... it just means it was voted on... and the US voted against it? Big F'n Deal... This also don't mean much to me. Every day, there are many votes at the UN. Quite often, the UN votes on sanction or sanction enforcement. Even when ratified, they can take years to go into effect and to have any effect at all. In addition, the nations involved must also be collaborators, or it simply never works.

Your comment and link do not have any bearing on my original statement. The UN did have a lax attitude during the last 10 years in respect to Iraq and sanctions thereof. There was little to no real pressure to evoque any substantial reaction or cooperation from Iraq.

UN: "Mr Saddam, please let my inspectors in!" ...
SH: "Okay, but for one week, then I need to hide and destroy some stuff, so out you go" ....
UN: "Okay, but we will bring this to a vote, and reinforce the UN position"
SH: "Hehe ... you bastards go and vote! I am Saddam and I control the Gates of Bagdad" ...
UN to self: "What do we do now?"... "More sanctions".

This just happened over and over, it was a joke by the end of 2002... and then bush did something about it -- for better or for worse -- nothing is ideal in this situation.

Now you tell me ... what exactly were the specifics of this vote? tell me please since that topic means nothing to me without the substace...
Once again, you make excuses, and refuse to address the point in a direct manner.

[open mind]

this is obviously a subject and point you are apparently not getting...........either simply dont understand or i'm doing poorly explaining it to you. Either way your comment is way off mark



ignorance like that makes me sad :(

If you seriously think the only threat Saddam posed would have been through WMD's you'd be dead wrong.

He helped destabilize oil, destabilize the middle east by being a threat to his neighbors, funded terror in Israel, and was scratching the back of some UN workers while they scratched his.

And you want to be so ignorant (possibly dumb) to tell me the US and the world for that matter is not better off????????? Wow, I dont know a better way to put this but please learn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you said it was purely politics, i responded to that, if i missed the mark it was because of your inability to coherently write down your thoughts.
he helped destabilize oil? care to elaborate?, his neighbors didn't feel threatened enough to be pro war, from what i know he gave money to suicide bombers families, but didn't give money to terrorists groups, either way though what goes on in palestine and israel has no bearing on the general well being of AMERICA, once again no bearing on americans
it's funny that your telling me to learn. :animateds

[Cal Smith]

you said it was purely politics, i responded to that, if i missed the mark it was because of your inability to coherently write down your thoughts.

At first I thought i might have not coherently written down my thoughts, but when you said the part in bold I realized you simply didn't understand. Let me quote myself since you missed it the first time................"I'm simply saying that in the case of Iraq, Saddams mass killings are a justification for the war. See you, nor Openmind can argue against that! All you can say it..........well why don't we go to this and that country too then?"

See what I said was politics was the reasons why we arent going into other places. I'm sure politics did play a big role in goign into Iraq, BUT we had justification, and rightfully so, for going into the war because of his mass killings.

he helped destabilize oil? care to elaborate?, his neighbors didn't feel threatened enough to be pro war, from what i know he gave money to suicide bombers families, but didn't give money to terrorists groups, either way though what goes on in palestine and israel has no bearing on the general well being of AMERICA, once again no bearing on americans
it's funny that your telling me to learn. :animateds

Yes, over the years he's helped destabilize oil prices.

See again you prove ignorance. What goes on between Israel and Palestine has a direct bearing on the general well being of America. You want proof just look at one of the prime reasons 9/11 occured and why Bin Laden hates America..........our support for Israel as an ally and our unwillingness to allow terrorists and other countries to destroy Israel.

Again............learn............p lease.............it's not fun explaining everything.

[open mind]

You logic doesnt even hold up. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove someone is not a threat. For someone to be a threat that means they will or could do harm in the future. Since we havent invented the time machine yet we have no way of knowing what Saddam would have done.
no wmds and no intent to attack america or fund those who would means no threat.

[Cal Smith]

no wmds and no intent to attack america or fund those who would means no threat.

it's really quite sad :headshake

[trinekat]

Once again, you make excuses, and refuse to address the point in a direct manner.
what a lame answer. is that all you can say?

[Love As Arson]

what a lame answer. is that all you can say?
That's all that needs to be said, as your hypocrisy is evident.

[FinchBulldog2]

That's all that needs to be said, as your hypocrisy is evident.
Picking arguements left and right....Admiral Arguement, control yourself :headshake .

[Love As Arson]

Picking arguements left and right....Admiral Arguement, control yourself :headshake .
Well, the object of debate is to argue, moron.

[open mind]

At first I thought i might have not coherently written down my thoughts, but when you said the part in bold I realized you simply didn't understand. Let me quote myself since you missed it the first time................"I'm simply saying that in the case of Iraq, Saddams mass killings are a justification for the war. See you, nor Openmind can argue against that! All you can say it..........well why don't we go to this and that country too then?"

See what I said was politics was the reasons why we arent going into other places. I'm sure politics did play a big role in goign into Iraq, BUT we had justification, and rightfully so, for going into the war because of his mass killings.



Yes, over the years he's helped destabilize oil prices.

See again you prove ignorance. What goes on between Israel and Palestine has a direct bearing on the general well being of America. You want proof just look at one of the prime reasons 9/11 occured and why Bin Laden hates America..........our support for Israel as an ally and our unwillingness to allow terrorists and other countries to destroy Israel.

Again............learn............p lease.............it's not fun explaining everything.
the political fallout from going into iraq was enormous, going into the sudan wouldn't be nearly as controversial. also you left out the first sentence of what you wrote.
i asked for you to explain how that's so, back up what you say otherwise it has no merit, as you like to say.
our support of israel effects america, i was in a hurry so i said it wrong, my bad, if we didn't support israel it wouldn't effect us and i don't believe we should, but that's a whole other ball of wax
all in all we've lost more with iraq then the negligble gains, which is why i don't believe america is better off because we went into iraq, the cost for what we've gotten for our trouble has been much to high, so america is not better off now, that's all i'm saying.
and.............dude..........fuck. .............you............you.... .......condescending............... ...prick. ;)

it's really quite sad :headshake
keep denying the truth and acting like everybody who knows it is stupid, i'm sure it'll take you places.