Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » 1,001 American Soldiers Dead in Iraq (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: 1,001 American Soldiers Dead in Iraq
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I will not make any comments. You guys can discuss.
Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow, it could have been worse if the UN were in charge. No comments necessary.
Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kelcimer
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As it could have been 10,010 I am going to remain thankful with how damn good out military is that they give us such low casualty numbers.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rockeye
Member
Member # 2018

 - posted      Profile for Rockeye   Email Rockeye   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To put the casualty total (thus far) in perspective, the total killed in both Afghanistan and Iraq during these last few years would be surpassed by less than four days of combat during WW2, if you only consider American casualties.
(about 400,000 American dead, about 3.75 years of American participation)

Never in history has any military force accomplished so much with so few casualties. Every death is a tragedy to those involved, but still one has to be amazed at the stunning military success Afghanistan and Iraq have been. Contrast this with Vietnam which lasted well over a decade and saw over 58,000 Americans killed and ended without accomplishing anything of lasting value.

Posts: 137 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pseudoCode
Member
Member # 771

 - posted      Profile for pseudoCode     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, some more stats to put things in perspective

D-Day (1 day):
KIA 1465
WIA 3184
MIA 1928

Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War (1 week?):
(US, Korea, Australia combined)
KIA 1,536
WIA 7,764
MIA 11

This war has a KIA count of about these 2 battles combined so far (I am counting those who died in the WTC attack). Unfortunately, I suspect there will be many more causalties before this is over. At this point, the goal is to inflict more damage to them then thay do to us, though.. this is the face of war.

Posts: 314 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is important to also note that there have been 6,497 wounded soldiers in Iraq.
Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kit
Member
Member # 1299

 - posted      Profile for Kit   Email Kit   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
True, I think the ratio between Killed to Wounded is also very interesting. I think it says a lot about the improved protection soldiers have now. Not that losing a leg doesn't suck, it just sucks less than losing your life.
Posts: 704 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When the bell hit one thousand, did the Kerry campaign celebrate? It appears this was a much anticipated event for Kerry and the anti-Bush factions.

I have heard attacks and hit-speech from the Kerry Kamp over this sad milestone, but haven't heard much in the way of regret.

If this does not occur to them as something to mourn, let me do it for them. It is a sad happening and we've lost many heroic soldiers who did their duty in the greatest traditions of their country and have forever earned the everlasting respect and honor from that country.

Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If this does not occur to them as something to mourn, let me do it for them."

Wow. Talk about serious spin from the Lambert camp. [Smile]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KenBean
Member
Member # 603

 - posted      Profile for KenBean   Email KenBean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SPIN my ass, Tom!

Those kids are dead!

I mourn!

Some of our kids died being men and women to respect.
KenBean

Posts: 1539 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And some people reduce the sacrfiice and the acknowledgement of that sacrifice to little more than a debating barb, calling it spin. Could we spit on their graves anymore sourly?
Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why not take a moment and mourn their deaths?

Anyone?

Or do we gleefully pull up their corpses in an attempt to make political points?

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
musket
Member
Member # 552

 - posted      Profile for musket         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I do not mourn for their deaths. The dead are dead. Death is not a problem for the dead. It's a problem for the living. I mourn for those who must live with those deaths.

All I see here is are attempts to justify those deaths with remarks about how wonderful it is there haven't been more deaths, as though those who have died were nothing but a statistic proving how wonderfully efficient the US military has become... all from the safety of home, on an internet bulletin board.

Try telling that to any of the loved ones of the soldiers who have already died... and to the loved ones of those who will die in Iraq in the future. Tell it to those soldiers who will have to live with being maimed for the rest of their lives.

Posts: 1524 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ahh so we shouldn't feel relief that the deaths are nothing close to the deaths experienced in any other war? When do we feel relief, when no one dies? In heaven perhaps?

quote:
Try telling that to any of the loved ones of the soldiers who have already died...
I have, I went to one of those 1000 funerals one of which was out of camp Pendleton for a marine that was buried in CA. The mother and father (he was a retired jarhead that encouraged his son to be a marine) and all of them knew my brother. Descent folks really, nothing like the killers that Michael Moore made them out to be. Both parents said they mourned their sons death more than anything else, they loved their son (the youngest in the family). Their words, not mine. The dad went on to say:

"He died for his country and he died to protect innocents" and then something like "if people must die let it be a noble cause". It was mostly from memory.

I also know a hispanic corporal who lost his leg below the knee. The local spanish stations did an interview with him and about him and his family. He wishes he could have his lower leg back. He regrets the death of a comrade. But he also tells me that Iraq and the Iraqi people are better off for his sacrifice. He wants the marines home, but in his words "not before the Iraqi's can stand on their own".

I think he would summarily dismiss you from his presence as someone who doesn't understand or refuses to. I doubt his feelings or the feelings of those parents are unique either.

So you might say I, who have family in Iraq, have passed beyond your little theory into a much closer reality of what to say, or how to feel. Its a little closer to home for me than it seems to be for you.

No attempts to justify their deaths here, their deaths are justified with every breath the Iraqi's take that isn't tainted with poison gas, every time their daughters don't have to worry if they catch the attention of Iraqi leaders, and everytime the Shia can enter the mosque freely and without fear of death. By the thousands upon thousands of Iraqi's that no longer end up in mass graves. Damn straight their deaths are justified.

How cheap those who count the death of a thousand as being too expensive to liberate a people. Freedom must be an inexpensive and baseless commodity. Lets hope you don't view your own in such a way.

[ September 08, 2004, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: Ron ]

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kelcimer
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Great post Ron.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GlobalDemocrat
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron:
Why not take a moment and mourn their deaths?

Anyone?

Or do we gleefully pull up their corpses in an attempt to make political points?

It seem Ron is doing just that by making his first remark:
quote:
Wow, it could have been worse if the UN were in charge. No comments necessary.
1. If the UN had been in charge, there would not have been an invasion or occupation (if these terms are not to your liking, tough) in the first place.
2. If the UN had somehow been (magically) in charge immediately AFTER the invasion, they wouldn't have gone after the oilfields that much and would have protected the hospitals much more, so goodwill amongst at least the Iraqi pop. would not have been eradicated. So there's reason to suspect that less (UN) soldiers would have died.


Lmabert did also 'gleefully make political points' with a big amount of pathos:

quote:
When the bell hit one thousand, did the Kerry campaign celebrate? It appears this was a much anticipated event for Kerry and the anti-Bush factions.

I have heard attacks and hit-speech from the Kerry Kamp over this sad milestone, but haven't heard much in the way of regret.

If this does not occur to them as something to mourn, let me do it for them. It is a sad happening and we've lost many heroic soldiers who did their duty in the greatest traditions of their country and have forever earned the everlasting respect and honor from that country.

Can he/she point to some evidence that Kerry is enjoying this?

Okay, let's for a moment accept that those 1000 soldiers were guys with integrity. Then I'm confused by the whole prisoner abuse thing. And not so much the 'sexy' events we saw on the photo's. No, apperently there is more abuse going on, outside the prison system. During arrests, or when they search for suspects, they abuse and torture Iraqis.
And I think those of those 1000 guys, some portion must have been acting quite harshly vis-a-vis the Iraqi's. So, since they're on your side, i see how you want to mourn them. I doubt however, if Iraqis and other non-Americans should do that too.


And another point:
I too, think that all those guys with half a leg or missing an eye, are the worst of. Does anyone know, what kind of money they get? Or they get no money?

It seemed to me that Vietnam vets and gulf war vets had it bad for a long time, with the higher unemployed of the first and the unwillingness of the us military (under Clinton!) to acknowledge the gulf war syndrome.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Okay, let's for a moment accept that those 1000 soldiers were guys with integrity.
Integrity, a word whose meaning escapes you.

quote:
And another point:
I too, think that all those guys with half a leg or missing an eye, are the worst of. Does anyone know, what kind of money they get? Or they get no money?

A man who tries to put a value on everything ends up valuing nothing.

quote:
It seem Ron is doing just that by making his first remark:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, it could have been worse if the UN were in charge. No comments necessary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At face value I believe it to be true. If the UN were in charge, Kofi Anan's son would certianly be richer, more of Saddam's palaces would be built. Certainly more women would be raped and more mass graves dug. Yes, the UN would have accomplished much, for Saddam. Apparently that appears to be Global Democrats point, he supports Saddam and the growth in Palaces the UN's support engendered.
Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lets just say that the friend who lost part of his leg would have kicked Global Democrats ass with his other one. Of course that friend has both integrity and an understanding of the value that freedom gives us.

His sacrifice was real and he made it with a concious decision. Global Democrats bargain basement ethics are easily sold and discarded because they have little meaning in the real world.

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Snowden
Member
Member # 407

 - posted      Profile for Snowden   Email Snowden   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A man who tries to put a value on everything ends up valuing nothing.
I agree, but try telling that to some Rand folks and economists.
Posts: 971 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
True, but I haven't heard of a Rand study (or any study) that put some specific dollar value on freedom.
Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Congradulations, David.

But as I remember, it did not exactly help Gore in Minnesota when the ABBs did the little coffin dance thing, and I don't think it will help the Kerry cause in Iraq, either.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Delirium Tremens
Member
Member # 1997

 - posted      Profile for Delirium Tremens     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"He died for his country and he died to protect innocents" and then something like "if people must die let it be a noble cause".
1000 deaths are tragic and I think those people and their relatives deserve proper respect. It is respectfull to say that they died for a noble cause... That said, here are some my views from the other side of the Atlantic.

- I have the impression that the number of deaths are more of an argument in an election period (too many vs not much compared to the ...-war). I find this quite disgusting - but it probably happens in every country.
- I also heard on the radio that the number of dead Iraqi's is "not officially counted, but estimated at 11000". Shouldn't their story be told as well? Since I don't think that not all of them were terrorists, I hope those who weren't died for a noble cause as well.

Posts: 432 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How many supporters of the Iraq invasion believe that 1000 dead is unacceptably high?

How many who oppose the war in Iraq feel that the number is reasonable and justifiable?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The story of the dead Iraqi's should be told. The question is how many were dying to fight tyranny and how many were dying to replant it. Those that died fighting tyranny deserve the same reverence we hold for our dead.

An unfortunate reality is that there is very little recognition of the victims of tragedy. They usually consist of the highest number of the dead.

In either case, those who decide that 1000 is some kind of opportunity to score political points desecrate the sacrifice made.

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ATW
Member
Member # 1690

 - posted      Profile for ATW   Email ATW   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Delirium Tremens:



- I also heard on the radio that the number of dead Iraqi's is "not officially counted, but estimated at 11000". Shouldn't their story be told as well? Since I don't think that not all of them were terrorists, I hope those who weren't died for a noble cause as well.

Last month the US military says they killed over 1000 resistance fighters. Considering that US forces have been there 16 months and the Iraq resisted during the invasion, I'd have thought 11,000 was low.

In any cases, sure, let's tell the story of the Iraqi people.

Saddam ruled around 32 years. We've found mass graves where he executed in excess of half a million people but let's call it an even .5 million for the sake of the math.

So Saddam averaged killing 15625 people per year. Men, women, children, imagined political dissidents, etc.

Since the US took over, the deaths have been at a rate of 7333 per year which is less than half of the previous rate.

Many (in my opinion the overwhelming majority) of those killed while the US have been there have been armed combatants. If they weren't trying to kill people, they would not have been killed themselves.

And I'd argue that these armed combatants are responsible for the large part of the civilian deaths. The car bombs they are setting off on crowded streets aren't being selective and destroying only military targets.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Delirium Tremens
Member
Member # 1997

 - posted      Profile for Delirium Tremens     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The question is how many were dying to fight tyranny and how many were dying to replant it.
Until there is no correct answer to that question, the opinion of the average U.S. supporter of the war will probably be miles away from the opinion of the average Muslim.

For the rest, I agree with you Ron.

Posts: 432 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The question is how many were dying to fight tyranny and how many were dying to replant it.
Well-said, ATW.

quote:
Until there is no correct answer to that question, the opinion of the average U.S. supporter of the war will probably be miles away from the opinion of the average Muslim.
I agree with the second part of what you said, but don't understand the first part.

The numbers for iraqi dead instances includes:

* Suicide bombers.
* Terrorists killed by US forces.
* Insurgent Militia killed by US forces.
* Insurgent Militia killed by other militia in friendly fire
* Innocent Iraqi civillians deliberately killed by terrorists.
* Innocent Iraqi civillians killed by terrorists as collateral damage.
* Innocent Iraqi civillians killed by Insurgent Militia as collateral damage.
* Iraqis opportunistically killed by other Iraqis for causes not related to the war, but seizing the opportunity that the war allows for settling an old score.
* Iraqi police and new government troops killed by insurgents and terrorists.

etc.

Until such information is available, the Iraqi numbers are objectively meaningless. I agree that most Muslims will see things differently, since they will blame America for all of the deaths, even the deaths of suicide bombers, or for the Ayatollahs opportunistically murdered by the Mahdi thugs in the first days of postwar chaos. But then, many of them blamed America for all of the deaths caused by Saddam, and for the Iraqi children that starved because of the French and Russian subversion of the food-for-oil program. So if we take their opinion seriously, we were damned regardless of what we did.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They died for a noble cause? Hardly.

They died in a fradulently authorized, pre-emptive war that never should have occurred. They died at the hands of a lying, cheating, coward commander who spent their lives like monopoly money.

Tragic, pathetic and preventable, yes. But not noble.

Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They died at the hands of a lying, cheating, coward commander who spent their lives like monopoly money.
You must be mistaken Zyne. Clinton was President BEFORE the Iraq war.
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KenBean
Member
Member # 603

 - posted      Profile for KenBean   Email KenBean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hi delirium
good post.
Hi Zyne
goofy.
Hi Daruma
tch tch [Smile]
Hi global democrat
...what is that dog....t smell on my shoe?
Hi Ron
we grieve too, for those youngsters assaulting the gates of hell.
Hi Musket
...ever been shot or blown up? It hurts. Been there, got the T-shirt.
KenBean

Posts: 1539 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They died for a noble cause? Hardly.

They died in a fradulently authorized, pre-emptive war that never should have occurred. They died at the hands of a lying, cheating, coward commander who spent their lives like monopoly money.

Tragic, pathetic and preventable, yes. But not noble.

No they died saving Iraqis. I find it amazing how easily we push the tragedy of a Saddam Hussein Iraq aside. How easily some of us tend to discount the importance of those human lives. I have heard some people call Arabs "towel heads", a refrain I find insulting to all civilized people. But then such insults are not nearly as bad as someone who decides that soldiers who have died and prevented more poisoned gas attacks, mass graves, and tortured deaths to be nothing more than pathetic dupes as being be the lowest insult. Sure maybe Zyne is right, maybe Iraqi's do not deserve to be saved, maybe Zyne believes that the only thing that does count is politics, regardless of the oppression, the rape rooms, the torture sessions and the people who disappear in the night. Maybe Zyne is all for empowerment, but empowerment of whom?

When Hitler first suggested the final solution, some of his advisors were aghast at the idea. But then Hitler looked at them and said "Who remembers the Armenians?".

In Zynes world someone can say "Who remembers the Kurds" or "Who remembers the marsh Arabs?" or "Who remembers the Shia?". Take your pick, saving them is little more than a pathetic exercise for Zyne, not a noble or just cause. Better to let them be. But then, who do people with this position empower? I wonder if Zyne feels the discomfort of being on the same side of Saddam Hussein? Calling what America did "ignoble" or "pathetic" are very much his statements.

The cause is just. While not all of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq have yet panned out (and may not), many of them have been shown to be more forceful when the information became more clearly known. The mass graves, the empty villages, the films of torture. Stopping this is noble. Calling it pathetic reflects a poor ethics that puts politics above the well being of a nation and does indeed spit upon the graves of the dead who have sacrificed so much for another country.

Of course Zyne lives in the theoretical. Feeling nothing for the deaths that came to pass, beyond the contempt of the protected for their protectors. There is no need to feel any closeness with death, only disdain and the political points count. I have to wonder who is more pathetic, the dead or those who debase them?

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron: Why aren't we in Sudan.
Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think we shall eventually be in Sudan, given the lack of desire of the UN to stop genocide. Like Iraq, we are giving the UN the opportunity to prove itself, and like Iraq, it appears the UN is once again failing.
Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Under Ron's logic, we should have been in Sudan over a year ago. Seeing as how the US is the last country to call genocide what it is, maybe now, just maybe, the UN can act (recall, the US has security council veto and isn't afraid to use it).

Under Ron's logic, we should invade numerous other counties where we don't like their civil rights situation.

Under Ron's logic, the president has unlimited liberty to lie.

Under Ron's logic, you are with us or you're against us. So shut up and don't ask questions. There is no room for complexity or maturity.

And also, under Ron's logic, we should be invaded, since we deliberately and ceremonially kill our own citizens.

Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL, very funny, but the description of your own logic tends to hit closer to home. Since you were stymied in your rhetoric regarding Sudan you have no choice but to make a weak parody. Unfortunately for you, I believe the plan Bush followed, including going to the UN first was the correct one.

Zyne saw Saddam Hussein as a "civil rights problem". Perhaps the Jews too experienced "civil rights problems". Nothing to die over thats for sure.

No one has shown the president lied. So that is incorrect.

Yes, what was complex exactly about Saddam? That he was supported by a corrupt system in the UN or that he trained terrorists and protected them and gave money to them? Or that there was proof he had weapons of mass destruction and most nations, including France and Germany, believed he had weapons of mass destruction?

The only complexity is Zynes penchant for confusion and justification for calling those who died for the freedom of others as "pathetic".

[ September 09, 2004, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Ron ]

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here, for example, the greatest hits from Bush's lies about Iraq are detailed.

Ron knows full well that Saddam never did genocide, wasn't doing genocide, and wasn't planning genocide. But he talks about the extermination of the Jews as a distraction, because he justifies invading Iraq on the basis of how its leader treated its people and can't distinguish oh, any number of other situations, including Sudan.

But he doesn't need to resort to such things. The philosophy is simple. Bush says bad. Bad is bad! Go kill bad. Bad is bad!

Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Zyne, it bit disengenuous don't you think? Wasn't I responding to your issue on Sudan? Or perhaps you weren't aware of the Marsh Arabs I mentioned earlier?

Apparently you suffer from some disinformation.

quote:
The Destruction of the Marshes

The marshes were the scene of much of the fierce fighting in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s - easily the longest and bloodiest war in modern Middle Eastern history. This fighting did not harm the marshes much, however, because the Iraqi government deliberately increased the flow of water into the marshes as a tactic for stopping Iranian advances. While plans had been developed for various engineering works in the marshes since the early twentieth century, the wholesale destruction of the marshlands did not begin in earnest until 1992 - after the Marsh Arabs rose in revolt during the Gulf War. An October 2002 paper by John Fawcett and Victor Tanner entitled “The Internally Displaced People of Iraq,” published by the Brookings Institution and the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, reports that Iraqi state-owned media preceded the assault on the Marsh Arabs with a series of articles deriding them as primitive “monkey-faced” people, who were not real Iraqis.

The destruction of the marshlands served no other purpose than to destroy the cultural and social cohesion of the Marsh Arabs. Dams and massive drainage canals were built without any even apparent agricultural or developmental purpose. Today only a few thousand Marsh Arabs remain in the region of the former marshes, and it is far from clear whether the others would return if the marshes could be restored. It had become impossible to survive where they were when the water disappeared and the land dried up. Some 40,000 of the Marsh Arabs still live in refugee camps in Iran. The remainder of the Marsh Arabs dispersed throughout Iraq simply because they had no choice but to seek new places to live and work.

Ecocide as Genocide

High quality satellite imaging of southern Iraq exists for about the last 30 years. That imaging clearly shows that while some damage had been inflicted on the marshes there before 1992, the marshes were largely intact as of that date. The satellite images show that the marshes to all intents and purposes no longer exist. The only part of the marshes that remains intact straddles the Iran-Iraq border and is fed entirely by stream flows from Iran, which Iraq cannot control. That segment represents about 10 percent of the original marsh area. The removal of a wetland affects the regional climate. The resulting reduction of evaporation is likely to increase summer temperatures, making the area even more inhospitable and also causing a decline in rainfall. Further complicating the situation are the 32 dams on the Tigris and Euphrates upstream from the marshlands. These dams have the capacity to hold and store the entire capacity of the two rivers. The spring floods disappeared because of regulation of the rivers. That by itself caused damage to the marshlands, but not their wholesale destruction.

An inevitable consequence of such massive destruction is the extinction of species of animals and plants that were endemic to the marshes and are found nowhere else. Because these were the largest wetlands in western Asia and one of the largest in the world, the destruction of these marshes has effects far beyond the region itself. The marshes were a crucial stopover for migratory birds flying between Africa and the north of Asia and Europe. While some of these birds can find substitute stopovers, there is no wetland of similar size anywhere near the historic paths these birds used. Similar effects are likely for fish that formerly bred in the marshes even if they lived most of the lives in the rivers or the Gulf. Thus, while neither the number or extent of species extinction or of negative impacts on migratory birds or fish that spend most of their life elsewhere can now be documented, clearly these effects have been massive.

The scale of the destruction and of the effects of the destruction are such that the actions of the Iraqi government can fairly be described as a leading example of “ecocide” - the destruction of an entire ecosystem. There are numerous other examples of ecocide that one can identify in the twentieth century or earlier. What is unique about this instance of ecocide, and what sets it apart from other instances of ecocide, is that the destruction was for the purpose of destruction and not for some, arguably beneficial purpose such as economic development. Here ecocide was adopted as a deliberate mechanism for bringing about genocide.

The Genocide Convention, approved by the United Nations in 1948, defines “genocide” as, among other things, “deliberately inflicting on [a] group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” with the intent “to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such.” The Marsh Arabs are a distinct subset of humanity, and as such are subject to the protection of the Convention, which in turn reflects the broader rule of the prohibition of genocide in customary international law. As a result of the massive engineering works constructed in the area after 1992, the Marsh Arabs have seen their economic base and their way of life destroyed, been forced into out-migration, and generally have been pauperized. While it is not clear how many individual Marsh Arabs died as a result of these actions, clearly the group as a whole is in the process of being destroyed.


From Villanova University Law School Professor Joseph Delapenna

It appears you are wrong in your information, again.

Perhaps the complexity you seem to love so much is based on your confusion of what is bad and what is not bad.

Genocide regarding the Marsh Arabs "Bad"
Killing Kurds with gas "Bad".
Mass graves and torture "Bad".

Freeing a country that is under those conditions? "Good".


You may wish to cheapen the sacrifice of our military, and the progress being made in Iraq. But then, thats for those who put politics above ethics, depending on what your ethics are of course. Maybe it would have been better if Saddam stayed in power? Is that your alternative Zyne?

[ September 09, 2004, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: Ron ]

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Zyne - Don't even start on genocide. It's not an itty bitty "civil rights" situation, and it's precisely your logic that lets millions of people get killed. Until you learn a little about the history of genocide, don't set yourself up to sound like an absolutely terrible human being.

Lemkin -- the guy who invented to *word* genocide -- would be absolutely pissed at you.

It's precisely your grey area thinking that let us off the hook in Cambodia so we didn't have to save 2 million people from Pol Pot. It's precisely your kind of thinking that let elder Bush and Clinton stay out of Bosnia (Clinton wouldn't do anything until politically, he had to admit -- and I quote -- "I'm getting creamed!"). It's your thinking that let us off the hook in the wake of the Iran-Iraq War. It's your kind of thinking that let Clinton get away from spending a few million dollars to save hundreds of thousands of Rwandans... ultimately we ended up spending way more on humanitarian aid that didn't solve the problem at all. It's your kind of thinking that kept Clinton from doing what was necessary to *really* save the Kosovar Albanians.

What exactly is that kind of thinking?
quote:
Ron knows full well that Saddam never did genocide
Saddam killed over 100,000 Kurds, even by Chemical Ali's own admission. You know nothing about this.
The Iraqis used chemical weapons to shoo Kurds out of their cities, executed those who wouldn't flee, and then used dynamite to destroy their towns. There were many mass grave sites. He herded those who weren't killed and didn't flee across borders into what amount to concrete grids. That way they'd be easy to keep track of and "disappear" over time. This is all documented.

Under Zyne's logic, we should stress the complexity of genocide and make it as paltry an issue as the rest of the unenforceable Declaration of Human Rights rather than using the spirit of Lemkin's words in the genocide convention. Oh wait, that's how we let Cambodia, Iraq, Serbia, Rwanda and Kosovo go as far as they did! We stressed that it was very hard to legally define genocide, so we better play it safe and not save hundreds of thousands to millions of people! Special thanks go out out to Clinton's first Secretary of State, Warren Christopher!
If you truly knew about the history of genocide, you'd see how horrible you sound.

And the US doesn't kill its own civilians in order to destroy ethnic groups either in identity or in effect. There was no due process for the victims of the real genocides of the last 50 years.

You want room for complexity or maturty? Then stop trying to group together unenforceable human rights issues like literacy for women with patently enforceable acts like a systematic genocide campaign so that we never have to act on any of them. Stop trying to connect our due process executions of individuals with massive efforts to exterminate entire groups of people. The US should be invaded because soem of us truly believe that killing 2 million Cambodians is wrong -- some because they had glasses, and thus it could be inferred they knew how to read, and thus it could be inferred they had caught "the bourgeios disease"? We give our convicts a better ending than the Khmer Rouge who held plastic bags over Buddhist monks' faces, and we don't have 6-year-old boys execute pregnant women by beating them to death with the dull end of an axe, in public, forcing others to watch as a warning. The US has never had as many people on death row as Serbia has killed, castrated, and raped. We've never executed as many people as Saddam's death squads did after the Iran-Iraq War, and we don't kill our convicts with helicopter attacks on their families. We've never organized the killing process quite like the Rwandans did when they used machetes to hack 800,000 people to death in 100 days. Clinton didn't bomb the radio tower communications that organized the impromptu armies of hard-line Hutus to kill Tutsis and moderate Hutus. Your average butcher was a guy with a handheld radio and a machete. Names, addresses, and license plates were even broadcasted to organize the hunt. Rather than spend a few million to jam the radio broadcasts or bomb the radio towers, Clinton ended up sending hundreds of millions in practically useless foreign aid. And our prisons, even the Death Rows, aren't like Serb "shower rooms" with only one shower head -- guess what those rooms were used for before Milosevic was done in Bosnia.

Zyne - I usually don't launch this kind of attack. But you have excused some of the most despicable acts of the last half century, probably out of ignorance, and I can't let that continue without jarring you out of your terrible position as firmly as I can. We need people to stand up and confirm that we won't let genocide happen, NEVER AGAIN.

A long time ago people around the world respected the US for its values. It would be the smart thing to do not to cheapen the actions and sacrifices of our soldiers as they remove an evil genocidal bastard and his genocidal lieutenants from power and influence, by denying that the genocidal bastard ever actually committed genocide. Just because he wasn't as successful as Hitler doesn't mean he wasn't committing genocide.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stayne
Member
Member # 1944

 - posted      Profile for stayne   Email stayne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Zyne,

If ever I have regretted swearing an oath to defend this nation, it is when confronted by the absolute contempt that those like you are so quick to display. Your liberty to insult and dissemble was purchased through battle like the one we are now waging in Iraq.

If you are _truly_ convinced of your position, then _demonstrate_ that conviction: renounce that which you have gained through what you claim illegitimate and dispicable ways. Cast aside your liberty as ill gotten spoils of war. Renounce your privelege as a citizen of a free state, for that state was born and nurtured through the very thing you claim is so monstrous: bloody war against tyrants.

"War is an ugly thing, but it is not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made so by the exertions of better men than himself."-John Stuart Mill

Posts: 594 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tshaw
Member
Member # 1984

 - posted      Profile for tshaw   Email tshaw       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess it's pick on Zyne day. So I'll take my swipe as well.

Zyne you call Bush and Co. liars for the statements they have made about Iraq. Let me waste a whole lot of space here with some quotes from Democrats:

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD

JANUARY 30, 2004
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

Posts: 121 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1