Around 100,000 Iraqi dead

[Dexter]

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.

The methods used were similar to those used in Kosovo which turned out to be accurate. It was the sanctions that was the major killer in Iraq, one of the reasons given by OBL for attacking America.

[Dexter]

Some did, most didn't.  

Well thats ok then, as long as some did. Little comfort to the dead and crippled.

How many did Saddam kill while in power per year?  

A hell of a lot less than the US policy not to allow sanctions to be lifted did. The Pope himself at the time said "The weak and the innocent cannot pay for mistakes for which they are not responsible". It would have been less still if Bush senior hadn't promised to support an uprising and then back down, leaving those set to rise up to be massacared.

[TA Pilot]

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.

Um...   this is if he commits a crime while a POW.
NO POW has ever been tried over his staus AS a POW.  if you captrue people on the battlefield, you detain them until the war is over or you decode to let them go.  They get no trial to deterine their guilt as a POW.

Hundreds of thousands of Germans and Italians were captrued by the allies in WW2.  Many of them were sent here.  None got a trial.



- International Court of Justice - International Criminal Court

-The ICC is non-binding and participation is voluntary.
Its rulings arent enfoceable as there is no body to enforce them.
Your point?




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. "

Thats beautiful, man.

[DrewKaree]

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

So anyway, as it was pointed out 2 days ago,  you had to use our biased media reports, when clearly your "state-run, state-funded non-partisan media outlets" should be all over this story giving us the "fair and balanced" outlook on it.

Nice hypocrisy.  We all look forward to you talking down to us in the future.  Pray tell when can we expect more "enlightening" from you?  After tomorrow, probably never, as your "non-partisan media outlets" can't seem to be bothered with things people find important, like facts, and making sure they are correct.  

[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'?

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% )

Lol, we'll make a liberal of you yet!

At this rate by the time you get to the polling booth you'll be ready to vote for Ralph Nader! (Ok, maybe not).

[DrewKaree]

Here's a link for everyone, but it's not for the weak.

Dexter, what is on the other end of that link is a strong dose of reality.  It will probably send you into convulsions.  You may not want to click it, or at least cover your screen and keyboard with plastic before viewing it.  I'm afraid the amount of spittle flying forth as you struggle to validate Sadaam and his actions and foist further blame on Bush may short something out.

http://varifrank.com/archives/2004/10/blood_red_fury_1.php

I know, it's not the same number as your 'state-run non-partisan media" made in their factless accusation, but it's hard to fit it all in the pictures so you can count....although getting past 21 seems as if it may be quite a challenge.

[Santoro]

Watch out.  MrC will be here accusing you of exploiting the dead.

[patrickl]

It's just like when Clinton said he hadn't had sex with "that woman". He lied. If he had just said he had sex there would not have been a big issue.

In this case Bush said Saddam was a threat to the world (or more specifically the US), Saddam was co-responsible for 9/11 attacks (by helping al-qaida) and he housed huge stockpiles of WMD that he would give to his terrorist friends freely. So with those claims he convinced the American people it was justified to start a war. In fact of course none of those claims were true, so he lied. Now he tries to spin it so that he went in there to help the people of Iraq just like Clinton tried to claim oral sex isn't sex. BS!

[Santoro]

The difference is that the world thought Iraq had WMDs.  It wasn't a lie, it was the best we all knew at the time.

Clinton outright lied from the start.

Nice try though.  

[Dexter]

I'm afraid the amount of spittle flying forth as you struggle to validate Sadaam and his actions and foist further blame on Bush may short something out.

Please point me to one instance where I have tried to validate Saddam and his actions. I haven't, so why would I do it now? I don't speak in favour of mass murderers, be it Saddam OR Bush.

[DrewKaree]

The difference is that the world thought Iraq had WMDs.  It wasn't a lie, it was the best we all knew at the time.

Clinton outright lied from the start.

Nice try though.  

Actually, that doesn't seem all that different, now that you mention it.  I believe the world knew Clinton was getting hummers and lying about it.  

Ya know, it should be easy to figure out.  Bush acted on what the world knew to be true at the time as well.  

How that makes it a lie is beyond me...it's reasoning that requires flips, twists, and turns that would make a roller-coaster designer dance with glee.  I guess "to right a wrong from 2000" does that to people, though.

[patrickl]

The difference is that the world thought Iraq had WMDs.  It wasn't a lie, it was the best we all knew at the time.

Clinton outright lied from the start.

Nope, just before Bush rushed into war "the world" did NOT believe Iraq had WMD's. Not after Hans Blix went in for the last time. Only the warmongers kept insisting there were WMD and that they knew where they were even after the WMD weren't where they told Hans Blix they would be.

You should try to follow the whole story and not just the bits you like to hear. I'll make this easy for you:
US: "Iraq has WMD"
World: "Could be yes, but they can't seem to be found, so there is no proof to go to war over really. We should at least see if we can find them."
US: "We know where they are, go look on <these locations>"
Hans Blix: "OK I'll go look"
Hans Blix: "Nothing there"
US: "Ah they must have moved them. They MUST own WMD. We sold them the damned factories and supplies so we know ---by the flying spaghetti monster's hairy nether regions!---!"
Worl: "Well we went look where you said they were and they weren't, so who is to say your not just blowing it out of your ass?"
US: "OH ---by the flying spaghetti monster's hairy nether regions!--- WE WANT TO GO TO WAR!"
World: "What on earth for?"
Blair: "My whole country disagrees, but I want to go to war too!"
US: "OH ---by the flying spaghetti monster's hairy nether regions!--- WE WANT TO GO TO WAR!"
Blair: "Oh come on let's present our case and ask the world if we should go to war"
Colin Powell: "Really we have pictures of trucks and bunkers. See? They moved things around, so they must have WMD"
World: "Ehm no sorry, that's not really convincing and neither was the "proof" you came with before. Just go home and do something about your crippled economy, poor education, health care mess and such"
US: "OH GODAMMIT WE WANT TO GO TO WAR!"
US: "Ah what the ---fudgesicle---, we just go to war anyway"
World: "You sure you're not just lying to your people about those terrorist links, WMD and all that other talk?"
US: "No problems. We know what we know and don't know what we don't know"
World: "And?"
US: "Well, uhm, eeeeehhhhmmm"
World: "And?"
US: "We went in there to free the people of Iraq"
World: "Sigh, sure"
World: "Well at least your economy is completely crapped up now so you have no money to start any other wars and our money is now worth about 50% more. That's at least something good. Too bad your mishandling of the 'peace' created thousands of extra terrorists."

[Grasshopper]

The difference is that the world thought Iraq had WMDs.  It wasn't a lie, it was the best we all knew at the time.

Clinton outright lied from the start.

Nope, just before Bush rushed into war "the world" did NOT believe Iraq had WMD's. Not after Hans Blix went in for the last time. Only the warmongers kept insisting there were WMD and that they knew where they were even after the WMD weren't where they told Hans Blix they would be.

You should try to follow the whole story and not just the bits you like to hear. I'll make this easy for you:
US: "Iraq has WMD"
World: "Could be yes, but they can't seem to be found, so there is no proof to go to war over really. We should at least see if we can find them."
US: "We know where they are, go look on <these locations>"
Hans Blix: "OK I'll go look"
Hans Blix: "Nothing there"
US: "Ah they must have moved them. They MUST own WMD. We sold them the damned factories and supplies so we know ---by the flying spaghetti monster's hairy nether regions!---!"
Worl: "Well we went look where you said they were and they weren't, so who is to say your not just blowing it out of your ass?"
US: "OH ---by the flying spaghetti monster's hairy nether regions!--- WE WANT TO GO TO WAR!"
World: "What on earth for?"
Blair: "My whole country disagrees, but I want to go to war too!"
US: "OH ---by the flying spaghetti monster's hairy nether regions!--- WE WANT TO GO TO WAR!"
Blair: "Oh come on let's present our case and ask the world if we should go to war"
Colin Powell: "Really we have pictures of trucks and bunkers. See? They moved things around, so they must have WMD"
World: "Ehm no sorry, that's not really convincing and neither was the "proof" you came with before. Just go home and do something about your crippled economy, poor education, health care mess and such"
US: "OH GODAMMIT WE WANT TO GO TO WAR!"
US: "Ah what the <auto-censored>, we just go to war anyway"
World: "You sure you're not just lying to your people about those terrorist links, WMD and all that other talk?"
US: "No problems. We know what we know and don't know what we don't know"
World: "And?"
US: "Well, uhm, eeeeehhhhmmm"
World: "And?"
US: "We went in there to free the people of Iraq"
World: "Sigh, sure"
World: "Well at least your economy is completely crapped up now so you have no money to start any other wars and our money is now worth about 50% more. That's at least something good. Too bad your mishandling of the 'peace' created thousands of extra terrorists."

Lol, good stuff, I think that about sums it up.

[Santoro]

Heh, that's funny stuff.  

The UN threatened action, then wimped out when Saddam called its bluff.  Pure and simple.

[patrickl]

Heh, that's funny stuff.  

The UN threatened action, then wimped out when Saddam called its bluff.  Pure and simple.

The US was at war before anyone even had the time to call anyones bluff.