Around 100,000 Iraqi dead

[Dexter]

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/

Some quotes:

"The experts from the United States and Iraq said most of those who died were women and children and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths."

"While the major causes of death before the invasion were heart attack, stroke, and chronic illness, the risk of dying from violence after the invasion was 58 times higher than in the period before the war."

"Democratic imperialism has led to more deaths not fewer. This political and military failure continues to cause scores of casualties among non-combatants. It is a failure that deserves to be a serious subject for research."

Would our usual contributors like to comment on this report? This fake war has been raged in the name of your freedom and the war on terror. The 45 minute claim, WMD claim and Saddam-Osama link has proven to be BS as the world knew beforehand it was.

Close your eyes everyone and try to imagine what 100,000 people looks like. Did they deserve to die?

Dexter

[rchadd]

Yes, thanks a lot Mr Bush - very Christian of you.

[Magnet_Eye]

Hmmm. Well, should the world have continued to let Saddam commit genocide and other atrocities against humankind?

[Dexter]

Hmmm. Well, should the world have continued to let Saddam commit genocide and other atrocities against humankind?

'The world' had no say or part in Saddams removal or the death of 100,000 innocents, as the unilateral invasion was outside the mechanisms of the UN. 'The world' wanted to do it differently. I'm part of 'the world' outside of the invading force, we are not part of the slaughter.

[Crazy Cooter]

Hmmm. Well, should the world have continued to let Saddam commit genocide and other atrocities against humankind?

...and miss out on all the fun?
Not a chance.  Looks like we're more efficient at it too...

"Hmmm. Well, should the world have continued to let Saddam commit genocide and other atrocities against humankind?"
Too bad none of those people were Saddam.

[abrannan]

Hmmm. Well, should the world have continued to let Saddam commit genocide and other atrocities against humankind?

Depends.  Did he kill more than 100,000 per year?  Will those death rates continute to stay that high in Iraq post invasion?  Am I in Iraq?  I'd have to say that the last question probably would have more of an impact on my opinion than anything else.

[rchadd]

Hmmm. Well, should the world have continued to let Saddam commit genocide and other atrocities against humankind?

no maybe not, but i would have waited until i had at least caught bin laden.

i'm sure there could have been a more intelligent way of overthrowing sadam that would not have resulted in so many innocent people being killed. assasination? oh can't do that - its illegal....so we'll have an illegal invasion then instead!

hey america are you feeling safe yet? will you ever?

have you not realized that politicians are benefiting from creating a scared population? oops there goes another right in the name of patriot act.

whats the next country on your invasion list? north korea? iran?

i just hope there are enough people in the US with more than 2 digit IQ and enough sense to Get Bush Out.

[spocktwin]

  Sometimes good people do the wrong thing for the right reasons.  It is not logical but it is often true.  War is hell and a blight on the thing we call humanity.  We need to weep for the loss of life now and in the future because there is no end in sight as long as men believe it is right to kill in the name of God.

[DrewKaree]

'The world' had no say or part in Saddams removal or the death of 100,000 innocents, as the unilateral invasion was outside the mechanisms of the UN.

patrick seems to be under the impression he has countrymen in Iraq, danny may also know a few of his countrymen over there, and a few of the Brits here may know of a person or two that have that "funny" english accent over there.

It's amazing to me how "unilateral" means something completely different to you.  It prolly has something to do with your unfettered access to an "unbiased state-run media".  Mebbe someday I can become as enlightened as you.  Until then, I'm going to go outside by the styrofoam/old tire fire I have constantly burning, and shoot off a few rounds to blow off steam.  

Stereotypes....who knew?  


    *edit*  who'da thunk THIS?  "The report was released just days before the U.S. presidential election, and the lead researcher told The Associated Press he wanted it that way."

Thank goodness you gave us a report from your "unbiased state-run media" instead of our partisan med......woops, guess that one just slipped, hey?

[Mameotron]

Dexter, it's funny that you condemn ALL US media as biased, but then you quote from it when it suits your views.

I traveled to England, Scotland, & Wales about 8 years ago.  At that time I couldn't believe the signs I saw all over the place warning people to report any suspicious packages or any unattended boxes or briefcases left out in the open.  It seems that the threat of terror has visited Europe far sooner than it has come home to me at the US.

In another thread someone mentioned that English police do not carry guns.  Funny that nobody pointed out that this is not true.

Last year I traveled to London, Paris, Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Norway.  I still feel safer from terrorist threats in the US than anywhere in Europe.

[patrickl]

'The world' had no say or part in Saddams removal or the death of 100,000 innocents, as the unilateral invasion was outside the mechanisms of the UN.

patrick seems to be under the impression he has countrymen in Iraq, danny may also know a few of his countrymen over there, and a few of the Brits here may know of a person or two that have that "funny" english accent over there.

It's amazing to me how "unilateral" means something completely different to you.

I must be missing your point or it makes no sense. Did the Dutch or Australian army invade Iraq? I don't know about the Australians, but our army was asked to fulfil a humanitarian and policing role and they decided to help out. This was after the "mission over" claim.

In fact we should indeed have been invited (and been there) before the "mission over" claim since Bush apparently forgot that after the "mission" was over, there was another mission that he needed to get over with.

[patrickl]

I traveled to England, Scotland, & Wales about 8 years ago.  At that time I couldn't believe the signs I saw all over the place warning people to report any suspicious packages or any unattended boxes or briefcases left out in the open.  It seems that the threat of terror has visited Europe far sooner than it has come home to me at the US.

Yeah, we have had terrorism threats here for decades. Sometimes terrorism against americans, but since it's hard to get to the US with a bomb they just try to take out americans outside the US. So they bomb targets in europe.  It's not really a big deal. Of course it sucks if you (or your loved ones) are on the receiving end of this, but it happens so rarely and you cannot do anything against it, that it's a waste of time to even worry about it.

Last year I traveled to London, Paris, Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Norway.  I still feel safer from terrorist threats in the US than anywhere in Europe.

And  then to think that the terrorist threat in europe is even minimal. You are much more likely to get killed by many other reasons than terrorism in any safe (non muslim?) country. For instance, aren't there like 50.000 people dead every year in traffic accidents in the US?
 
I actually felt a lot less safe during my stays in the US. Not because of terrorist threats, but because there are so many shootings in the US. I don't remember the exact figures, but wasn't it like 15.000 firearms related homicides per year? That alone is already way more than the 600 (or so) terrorist deaths globally. Even the number of firearm deaths in the US of close to a 1000 deaths annualy (which I was told is negligent in another thread) is higher than the total number of people who die from terrorism globally per year.

Why is terrorism such an item? Partisan politics of course. Keep em scared and say you are the only one who can help. Even if your actions show you only make things worse, words seem to speak louder than actions. Even while Bush has brought the US to an economical, moral (and what not) low point in ages people still consider voting for him.

[Santoro]

I would argue that terrorism is 'such an item' because it is mostly preventable.    Individual murders will always happen.

(I would be interested in  per-capita figures for murder in different countries.  The numbers you threw out there seem big, but everything is relative.)

[Crazy Cooter]

I would argue that terrorism is 'such an item' because it is mostly preventable.

Think so?  Do tell... the entire world is listening...

[Santoro]

I would argue that terrorism is 'such an item' because it is mostly preventable.

Think so?  Do tell... the entire world is listening...

Um...

Rooting out terrorists by overturning states that support them.  Applying economic pressure on countries to stop the madrassas from inciting religious fanatacism.  Seizing terrorist assets.  Covert ops.  Infiltration. Tracking the coming and going of visitors to the US, fingerprinting them.  Strengthening surveillance abilities.  

Sound familiar? Oh, yes, my President is doing these things. Kerry would not.

It will take 20 years, but large scale organizations like Al Quaeda can be eliminated.  You won't stop small groups of wackos, but you can get the ones capable of 9/11 style attacks.

Why, you feel there is no way?  How very defeatist of you.  

[DrewKaree]

blah blah blah lotta dead people blah blah blah

We should never leave the house!  Too much of a chance to die!

Wait!  If we sign up for the military, they seem to be dying at a much reduced level, in spite of how the reporting works to make it sound like people are dropping like flies.

Yeah, join the military if you live in Compton, there's a smaller chance you'll get killed    In Detroit, I heard it's getting worse too....unless you're a fat white "documentary" maker....then, running the mean streets of Detroit is like a stroll in the park  

[patrickl]

I would argue that terrorism is 'such an item' because it is mostly preventable.    Individual murders will always happen.

(I would be interested in  per-capita figures for murder in different countries.  The numbers you threw out there seem big, but everything is relative.)

That's the number of firearm related murders (15000) and the number of firearm related accidental deaths (950) in the US alone! I'd say it's much easier to decrease the number of accidental firearm deaths then it is to decrease terrorism.

In fact, since Bush started with his antics, terrorism is on the rise (estimates are up to 1700 for 2004) so indeed terrorism might become a significant threat in the coming years.

[Santoro]

I'd say it's much easier to decrease the number of accidental firearm deaths then it is to decrease terrorism.

I agree with this statement.  Wow!  (Believe it or not, I am not a card-carrying conservative - I actually have an independant opinion on individual issues.  I am all for gun control.)

In fact, since Bush started with his antics, terrorism is on the rise (estimates are up to 1700 for 2004) so indeed terrorism might become a significant threat in the coming years.

This is where we diverge.  The terror war is real and must be fought.  Of course an extended war  terror breeds new terrorists.  Duh.  But you need to create world conditions where it can't thrive.    The 'antics' of which you speak are light handed compared to what I think we sould be doing in the Phillipines, Pakistan, Iraq, and remote border regions of Afghanistan.

[patrickl]

But then we (europe) have decades of terrorism experience saying that it won't go away whatever you do. How can you stop all people in the world from being able to blow up a bomb? Wasn't McVeigh alone? Even the WTC attack took only a few people. You cannot use normal combat tactics against that. Have you seen the situation in Israel? They have been at this for even longer than we have and they use pretty aggressive means. We use diplomacy and I have to say terrorism has dropped significantly over here. In Israel it doesn;t seem to have diminished much. I'd say it's getting worse.

More importantly, the terrorist are only out to destroy the fabric of (western) civilization. Since the US seems to be turning into a barbaric nationalist state more and more, they are getting exactly what they want.

And then there is the matter of why such huge actions for apparently so little gain? Why kill 100.000 people to avenge 3000 deaths?

[Santoro]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think that the reason the Netherlands and many other nations don't have terror problems is because they are not leaders in the world, but observers.

Quoting Colin Powell,  "Being responsible sometimes means pissing people off."

If you don't lead, you don't piss people off.  If the whole world is thrilled with everything you do, you are not pushing hard enough for change, rather, you are being pacifist.

[Grasshopper]

The problem with the term 'War on Terror' is that terrorism is not a group of individuals or a country, it is a tactic. Therefore the War on terror is ultimately unwinnable.

And I also think it's unhelpful to bracket all 'terrorists' together under one banner. Bush is only targetting terrorist groups that are perceived as a threat to the US. There is nothing wrong with that per se (although I agree that Bush's actions have been counterproductive) but I just hate this careless use of language.

Why doesn't Bush simply say 'War on Al-Queda' or 'War on Islamic Fundamentalist goups threatening US interests'?

[patrickl]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think that the reason the Netherlands and many other nations don't have terror problems is because they are not leaders in the world, but observers.

Quoting Colin Powell,  "Being responsible sometimes means pissing people off."

If you don't lead, you don't piss people off.  If the whole world is thrilled with everything you do, you are not pushing hard enough for change, rather, you are being pacifist.

You really think that? Just the fact that you "lead" brings terrorists? You mean Israel leads the world? Spain does? Brittain does? Russia does? Ehm no. In fact not even the US does. Perhaps I don't understand what leading the world means, but I don't see how the US would "lead" the world. It just goes into the most wars and tries to force it's will on people by using the military most of all nations. You could call that leading ... "leading" to war I guess.

Countries become the target of terrorism because of hostile act towards a group of people who have no means to strike back in a conventional way. In almost all cases the reason is for a country to occupy a certain piece of land, but any support for these hostile acts (showing you are an ally) will usually do too. People don't kill themselves trying to hurt you just because they don't like you. They do so if they don;t see any other way out.

In the case of the US, the biggest reason for terrorism (I see) is the unconditional support for Israel. A close second would indeed be the hostile meddling of the US all over the world (ie "leading to war").

BTW I was talking about Europe where terrorism seems to be decreasing and not the Netherlands. Although we (Europe) also suffer some increased attacks due to the Iraq situation, but the situation in Germany, Spain and Ireland seem to be stabilizing.

Terrorism can only be fought by the intelligence agencies, police and diplomats not by the military.  Perhaps that makes me a pacifist, but the military way has been proven to only invoke more terrorists. Look at Israel. They throw everything they have against the terrorists. What does it get them? That wall is a good idea, but even that is not going to stop it completely. You have to end the despreat situation people are in and they will lose the will to kill themselves to get back at you.

[Crazy Cooter]

That's because those other countries never applied Santoro's checklist.  Because if they did, He says it only takes 20 years.

- Rooting out terrorists by overturning states that support them.
- Applying economic pressure on countries to stop the madrassas from inciting religious fanatacism.
- Seizing terrorist assets.
- Covert ops.
- Infiltration.
- Tracking the coming and going of visitors to the US, fingerprinting them.
- Strengthening surveillance abilities.  

Sontoro, show me where Kerry has EVER said he is against doing these things.  This stuff is NOT new and NOT something Bush came up with.  These things have all been done for decades (except fingerprinting in the US).  How long have we been fighting "the war on drugs"?  1980?  What makes you think this is going to be any different?

How very defeatist of you.
That is the most ludicris comment I've ever heard.  You need to look into the mirror and think about this:  YOU are the one that is willing to give up your liberties by supporting the "Patriot" Act II.  This Act is part of Bush's campaign.  Have you read it?  YOU are the one that  supports a President that willingly continues to violate the Geneva Conventions.  YOU are the one that that accepts going to war over something that someone "might do".  You justify this because you are afraid of another terrorist attack.  This fear has clouded your vision and your judgement.  You are willing to give up your liberties in order to feel safe from the big bad wolf.  You have already been defeated by terrorism.

Not me.  I don't think it's right to limit our rights to information.  I don't think it's right to hold a person in jail without due process under any pretense.  I don't think it's right to invade my privacy without due cause.  That's why I don't support the "Patriot Act II".  I don't think it's right to make people "disappear".  I don't think it's ok to reject another Nations request for access to a prisoner in order to keep a terrorist behind bars.  I don't think it's right to deny the Red Cross access to prisoners.  I value the intentions of the Geneva Conventions and won't support a President who doesn't.  I don't think invading a country on false information can be justified by saying "The world is a better place without him" but not admit someone F'd up with getting that information.  I don't understand how so many civilians and soldiers are still being killed in a war that "major" operations ended a long time ago.  I don't think it's a good idea to flip off the UN.  They're there for a reason.  I don't fear another terrorist attack, but I am realistic.  It will happen.  When and where, who knows.  But I will not EVER change my way of life.  I will NOT give up my freedoms and liberties that generations have died for in the name of "security".  I am not willing to hide behind someone that says when I am safe and when I am not.  I am not being "defeatist".  Quite the opposite.

[Crazy Cooter]

Why doesn't Bush simply say 'War on Al-Queda' or 'War on Islamic Fundamentalist goups threatening US interests'?

Because that doesn't sound as "fearful" or "valiant".  By using the wording "war on terror", he can extend it to include any group that fits the occasion.  Look at the confusion with Iraq and Afganistan.  Ask 10 people in the street which is the war on terror.  5/10 will say both, 2/10 will say Afganistan, 2/10 will say Iraq and 1/10 will ask if we're even still in Afganistan.

[Santoro]

I stand by everything I have said to date.  

This 'false pretenses' crap is really starting to irritate me though.  It is completely revisionist history.  Pretty much everyone on the planet thought Iraq had these weapons.   Saddam was doing everything in his power to convince the world he had them.  He was openly defying the UN for a decade.  What did the UN do?  It wet its pants and did nothing.  Nice.

Sure, we look like idiots now that we all know there were no weapons after all.  I grant you that.  But it was still the right thing to do based on what we knew at the time.  

So GWB tries to spin the whole thing the best he can.  You would too.   Now that the country has been liberated he has a job to do. It is what it is.

As for making people disappear, if that person is working with a network of people trying to destroy you and me, poof, gone with him.  I am fine with that.   I said this somewhere else - these people are lower than savages and putting ourselves at risk in the name of thier 'rights' is a really bad choice.  Was Mohammed Atta worried about the rights of the people in the WTC?  

If you really want to get down to root cause, the real problem is that Clinton gutted the covert agencies in the nineties so that we had sh!tty information to work with.

[Crazy Cooter]

"If you really want to get down to root cause, the real problem is that Clinton gutted the covert agencies in the nineties so that we had sh!tty information to work with. "

I wasn't aware of that.  That would be a stupid thing to do.  That goes against the motto: "Knowing is half the battle".

I think that ALL political people should be required to maintain a non-editable blog of what they've done each day.  They could then explain why they voted whichever way and would help eliminate some of the spin on BOTH sides.

I didn't use the term "false pretenses" did I?  I hate that term.  I think I used it once before too....

[Santoro]

Looking back, I guess you said 'false information.'  I think the gist is the same though.  It wasn't false back then! It was the information we had.

Anyway, the blog thing is a great idea!  Maybe it should be maintained by independant third parties though.  

[Grasshopper]

As for making people disappear, if that person is working with a network of people trying to destroy you and me, poof, gone with him.  I am fine with that.   I said this somewhere else - these people are lower than savages and putting ourselves at risk in the name of thier 'rights' is a really bad choice.  Was Mohammed Atta worried about the rights of the people in the WTC?  

I must say I find this comment a bit  disturbing to say the least.

What happened to the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'? Surely you don't advocate rounding up people merely suspected of terrorism (or indeed any other crime) and making them 'disappear'. If we stoop to that level then we're no better that Saddam who of course employed similar tactics against dissenters.

It's surely for courts to decide whether a suspect is or isn't a 'savage', after looking at ALL the evidence.

[Grasshopper]

Why doesn't Bush simply say 'War on Al-Queda' or 'War on Islamic Fundamentalist goups threatening US interests'?

Because that doesn't sound as "fearful" or "valiant".  By using the wording "war on terror", he can extend it to include any group that fits the occasion.  Look at the confusion with Iraq and Afganistan.  Ask 10 people in the street which is the war on terror.  5/10 will say both, 2/10 will say Afganistan, 2/10 will say Iraq and 1/10 will ask if we're even still in Afganistan.

Indeed, it's just a meaningless slogan designed to make Bush appear resolute.

[Santoro]

As for making people disappear, if that person is working with a network of people trying to destroy you and me, poof, gone with him.  I am fine with that.   I said this somewhere else - these people are lower than savages and putting ourselves at risk in the name of thier 'rights' is a really bad choice.  Was Mohammed Atta worried about the rights of the people in the WTC?  

I must say I find this comment a bit  disturbing to say the least.

What happened to the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'? Surely you don't advocate rounding up people merely suspected of terrorism (or indeed any other crime) and making them 'disappear'. If we stoop to that level then we're no better that Saddam who of course employed similar tactics against dissenters.

It's surely for courts to decide whether a suspect is or isn't a 'savage', after looking at ALL the evidence.

Innocent until proven guilty is the law in the US.  Why would foreign fighters think that somehow they are entitled to US legal protections off of US soil?  

I don't want to get into the whole 'would you shoot your mother if it would save 500 people' thing again, but there are times when the law is a hinderance to doing what is truly right.  I think it is one in a thousand cases.  It is a matter of grey areas,not black and white.  No law can forsee every possible situation.   If you chose to break the law in the name of doing what is right, you also must be able to accept the penalty if your people don't think is was right afterwards.

I don't think GWB invaded Iraq to gain popluarity.  Certainly there were legal questions, and it was very unpopular.  But he thought it was right, and did it - even at the risk of not getting re-elected.

[Crazy Cooter]

"Innocent until proven guilty is the law in the US.  Why would foreign fighters think that somehow they are entitled to US legal protections off of US soil?"
Off US soil is the key.  Why do you think we're holding them in Guantanamo Bay?  However, they are supposed to still protected under the Geneva Conventions no matter where they are.  (I believe that was Convention 3 articles 4 & 5.)

I don't want to get into the whole 'would you shoot your mother if it would save 500 people' thing again, but there are times when the law is a hinderance to doing what is truly right.  I think it is one in a thousand cases.  It is a matter of grey areas,not black and white.  No law can forsee every possible situation.  If you chose to break the law in the name of doing what is right, you also must be able to accept the penalty if your people don't think is was right afterwards.
Agreed.  Just have to watch for when they change the laws or just outright disregard them.  There's also a thing called "International Law".  It's part of the UN http://www.un.org/law/  If you're a member, you're supposed to abide by them.  Personally, I'm against having "exceptions" to laws about how a prisoner is treated.  I think we should be showing everyone, everywhere what it means to be American.  We treat everyone equally.  Arrest them, charge them, convict them, throw their ass in the slammer.  End of story.  I'm very very much against holding people without charging them and bringing them to trial.  That's not what we're supposed to be about.

I don't think GWB invaded Iraq to gain popluarity.  Certainly there were legal questions, and it was very unpopular.  But he thought it was right, and did it - even at the risk of not getting re-elected.
No, going into war isn't a popularity thing, but a leader of any Nation involved in a war has to be real thoughtful about what is done.  If not, legal issues can arise.  There's no doubt in my mind he lost/will lose votes because of Iraq.  I'm sure he actually gained some votes though too.  Whether the difference will get him booted or keep him around, we'll find out soon.  (I hope it doesn't drag out with recounts and crap.)

[TA Pilot]

Off US soil is the key.  Why do you think we're holding them in Guantanamo Bay?  

You know, of course, POWs arent criminals, dont get trials or get to see lawyers.  "Inniocent until proven" is irrelevant to the issue.




There's also a thing called "International Law".  It's part of the UN http://www.un.org/law/  If you're a member, you're supposed to abide by them.

There's a LOT to "international law" thats well outside the auspices of the UN.  International Law is derived from custom and treaty, and does not necessarily require any reference to the UN to be valid.

For instance - in March 1991, at the very end of the Gulf War, Iraq sighned a cease-fire with the US and our allies.  Later, in April, the UN passed a resolution of cease-fire that pretty much said the same thing.

The March 1991 cease fire in an enforceable insturment of international law, seperate from the UN resolution that followed.  If Iraq were to violate is (and, of course, there are powerful arguments that they did) hostilities could resume immediately, w/o any reference to the UN.

Further, there is no world body that enforces international law - each state is responisble for protecteing and exercising its rights under same.  If another coutnry violates a treaty they signed with the US, then the US needs to act toprotects its rights under that treaty - there isnt anyone we can go to for "arbitration".

The world doesnt function under a government - each of the countries in the world live in the 'state of nature' where they must protects their own rights.  



I'm very very much against holding people without charging them and bringing them to trial.  That's not what we're supposed to be about.

See POW, above.

[Crazy Cooter]

You know, of course, POWs arent criminals, dont get trials or get to see lawyers.  "Inniocent until proven" is irrelevant to the issue.
Refer to the 3rd Geneva Convention Articles 5 & 103.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebCONVFULL?OpenView
Art. 5 - "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
Art. 103 - "Judicial investigations relating to a prisoner of war shall be conducted as rapidly as circumstances permit and so that his trial shall take place as soon as possible. A prisoner of war shall not be confined while awaiting trial unless a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power would be so confined if he were accused of a similar offence, or if it is essential to do so in the interests of national security. In no circumstances shall this confinement exceed three months."

Further, there is no world body that enforces international law - each state is responisble for protecteing and exercising its rights under same.  If another coutnry violates a treaty they signed with the US, then the US needs to act toprotects its rights under that treaty - there isnt anyone we can go to for "arbitration".
http://www.un.org/law/
- International Court of Justice - "The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Its seat is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). It began work in 1946, when it replaced the Permanent Court of International Justice which had functioned in the Peace Palace since 1922. It operates under a Statute largely similar to that of its predecessor, which is an integral part of the Charter of the United Nations."
- International Criminal Court - "The International Court of Justice at The Hague handles only cases between States, not individuals. Without an international criminal court for dealing with individual responsibility as an enforcement mechanism, acts of genocide and egregious violations of human rights often go unpunished."
- Others, including a whole section about treaties.

See POW, above.
Again, Refer to the 3rd Geneva Convention Articles 5 & 103.

As an interesting note regarding the "usefulness" of the UN:
"One of the primary objectives of the United Nations is securing universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals throughout the world. "

[DrewKaree]

But then we (europe) have decades of terrorism experience saying that it won't go away whatever you do.

having decades of working to ban items that help in protection haven't helped?  I thought that's why you guys wanted all guns banned....so that's not working, hey?  Whodathunkit.  

Even the WTC attack took only a few people.

only a few people?  I've got to wonder just how many you think are "just a few people", as this simply didn't take 19 people acting in their little "Death for Allah" club

And then there is the matter of why such huge actions for apparently so little gain? Why kill 100.000 people to avenge 3000 deaths?

huge actions can't be possible, as we've been told by Kerry, we don't have enough of ANYTHING to fight this war over there.  Either Kerry's wrong, or you are, you decide.

Terrorism can only be fought by the intelligence agencies, police and diplomats not by the military.

the same intelligence agencies who gave Bush LIES and misinformation?  You'll have to decide which intelligence agencies you want to use, as the U.N. agencies seem to be corrupt, the British, Italian, Russian, French, Australian, U.S., et all all seem to spew the same "lies", as we've been constantly told.  Or maybe you now agree that those intelligence agencies gave Bush truthful information that prompted Mr Kerry to agree with President Bush's actions - until the election campaigns started in earnest.

[DrewKaree]

The problem with the term 'War on Terror' is that terrorism is not a group of individuals or a country, it is a tactic. Therefore the War on terror is ultimately unwinnable.

And I also think it's unhelpful to bracket all 'terrorists' together under one banner. Bush is only targetting terrorist groups that are perceived as a threat to the US. There is nothing wrong with that per se (although I agree that Bush's actions have been counterproductive) but I just hate this careless use of language.

Why doesn't Bush simply say 'War on Al-Queda' or 'War on Islamic Fundamentalist goups threatening US interests'?

Hold the phone - Grasshopper, you're not gonna believe this, but I believe 99% of what you said to be right on the money (you can guess for yourself which is the 1% )

[Sephroth57]

i say we blow the whole place to hell , and split the oil with the other countries so they wont get pissed and everyone is happy

[patrickl]

But then we (europe) have decades of terrorism experience saying that it won't go away whatever you do.

having decades of working to ban items that help in protection haven't helped?  I thought that's why you guys wanted all guns banned....so that's not working, hey?  Whodathunkit.  

Terorrists use guns? Did I even claim that guns in the hands of criminals can be prevented? What are you babbling about?

Even the WTC attack took only a few people.

only a few people?  I've got to wonder just how many you think are "just a few people", as this simply didn't take 19 people acting in their little "Death for Allah" club

OK lets assume a hundred. It's a lot less, but still. It's still a small group of people and they don't need government support. You can't weed out 100 people out of the whole world by military action.

And then there is the matter of why such huge actions for apparently so little gain? Why kill 100.000 people to avenge 3000 deaths?

huge actions can't be possible, as we've been told by Kerry, we don't have enough of ANYTHING to fight this war over there.  Either Kerry's wrong, or you are, you decide.

I don't have any idea what you mean by that sentence. Besides, what do I care about Kerry? He's a right wing nutter by my accounts too. Well let me reprase that, he has to act like a right wing nutter because otherwise he won't get elected.

Terrorism can only be fought by the intelligence agencies, police and diplomats not by the military.

the same intelligence agencies who gave Bush LIES and misinformation?

Again you fail to see the difference between situations. The CIA took over the inspections in 1998 and yes teh were lying about the threat that Saddam posed. So? That was their mission.

The CIA (or FBI?) knew about the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks. They just failed to arrest them (in fact they did arrest one didn't they?), but they did KNOW about them. Somehow intelligence agencies are very good at getting the names (and even pictures) of these people. So if you want to find 100 people in the global population you need these intelligence agencies to track them down and the police to arrest them. Apart from nuking the whole world I don't see how the military are going to accomplish that.

[Dexter]

So anyway, as I asked 3 days ago...Did they deserve to die?

[Santoro]

Some did, most didn't.  How many did Saddam kill while in power per year?  I'll bet it is a lot more, and that is highly relevant to the discussion here.  

[patrickl]

I wonder how they got these figures. I saw estimates that up to 2 million Iraqi's died due to the sanctions (IIRC mostly babies). Those numbers seem a bit high, so I wonder what they count really.