500 US soldiers killed in Iraq since March

[ceptimus]

The latest deaths inside the "Sunni triangle" - which has seen the fiercest resistance to US-led forces - takes the total of US soldiers killed in Iraq since the war began to 500.

source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3405525.stm)

[Cain]

Bring'em on.

[Tricky]

There is no mention of how many Iraqi civilians have died in those 9 months. I wonder how the number of dead citizens compares to that of the nine months preceding the war. After all, on of the objectives was to stop the slaughter of them, was it not?

[Richard G]

The objective is to slaughter our enemies, and those who aid and abet them. We are doing an excellent job of it.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tricky
There is no mention of how many Iraqi civilians have died in those 9 months. I wonder how the number of dead citizens compares to that of the nine months preceding the war. After all, on of the objectives was to stop the slaughter of them, was it not?

Hey, you're not supposed to mention the Iraqi civilian deaths. They don't count remember.
All that matters is that Saddam is gone because, after all, that was the primary objective going into this war, wasn't it?;)

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Tricky
There is no mention of how many Iraqi civilians have died in those 9 months. I wonder how the number of dead citizens compares to that of the nine months preceding the war. After all, on of the objectives was to stop the slaughter of them, was it not?


I recall that they stopped releasing information on the number of Iraqi civilian deaths several weeks ago. Brown people that speak funny and and have strange names are only good as test subjects for new weapons. What does it matter if the test subjects are being targeted by the enemy as well? There are plenty more brown people in the world.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Richard G
The objective is to slaughter our enemies, and those who aid and abet them. We are doing an excellent job of it.
Oh yeah, just peachy. Like opening fire on any car they feel like. (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/2357966) That's a great way to slaughter our enemies. You can be sure that if the families of those people weren't our enemies before, they are now. Every time civilians are killed, we increase our enemies.
Or are you of the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" school?

[Crossbow]

Bring 'em on!
Mission accomplished!
Here is a plastic turkey for Thanksgiving!
By the way, there was no hard evidence that Iraq had WMDs.
Saddam has been captured!
US Army to investigate itself for abusing Iraqi prisioners.
and so on.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Tricky
You can be sure that if the families of those people weren't our enemies before, they are now. Every time civilians are killed, we increase our enemies.


Well, when Saddam was in power, he didn't seem to have too much trouble dealing with the families of the people he killed.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Well, when Saddam was in power, he didn't seem to have too much trouble dealing with the families of the people he killed.
Oh really? Then why (according to the war hawks here) did he have to keep killing so many?

But it is well documented that Saddam had been on his best behavior for the last few years. When he was doing most of his killing, the US was doing nothing, not even condemning him.

Also, I'm not sure the US wants to try to emulate Saddam's style of loyalty control, even if they could.

[Roadtoad]

In reading this, I'm galled by the revelations which have come out regarding the war with Iraq. That, according to Paul O'Neill, (I hope I'm spelling that right), the war was being planned from the very beginning of the Bush presidency. That we're now learning that there was no real evidence of WMDs. That there's enough indications of the old boy network influencing decisions that someone probably ought to be spending some time in Club Fed.

My only surprise is that the death toll is not higher.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tricky

Oh yeah, just peachy. Like opening fire on any car they feel like. (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/2357966) That's a great way to slaughter our enemies. You can be sure that if the families of those people weren't our enemies before, they are now. Every time civilians are killed, we increase our enemies.


Joe Haldeman described this in the sci-fi novel, Forever Peace, saying, La muerte es la gran convertidor. He also wrote this, which may help explain what RichardG is getting at:

Two platoons of soldierboys took the towns of Piedra Sola and Igatimi in Uruguay and Paraguay; supposedly rebel strongholds. We did it with their governments' foreknowledge and permission, of course-and there were no civilian casualities, equally of course. Once they're dead, they're rebels.

Joe Haldeman, Forever Peace, 1997, Millennium Books, London

So, you could say La muerte es la gran convertidor has two meanings, depending on how you look at it.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Tricky
I wonder how the number of dead citizens compares to that of the nine months preceding the war.It is slowly approaching 10 000...

If we can believe the compiled reports (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm#db) of independent media, that is.

[hammegk]

BERMAN'S INSIGHT: The liberal interventionist, Paul Berman, expresses my view entirely about the rationale for the war against Saddam, even accounting for the WMD embarrassment:
What was the reason for the war in Iraq? Sept. 11 was the reason. At least to my mind it was. Sept. 11 showed that totalitarianism in its modern Muslim version was not going to stop at slaughtering millions of Muslims, and hundreds of Israelis, and attacking the Indian government, and blowing up American embassies. The totalitarian manias were rising, and the United States itself was now in danger. A lot of people wanted to respond, as any mayor would do, by rounding up a single Bad Guy, Osama.
But Sept. 11 did not come from a single Bad Guy — it was a product of the larger totalitarian wave, and the only proper response was to comprehend the size and depth of that larger wave, and find ways to begin rolling it back, militarily and otherwise — mostly otherwise. To roll it back for our own sake, and everyone else's sake, Muslims' especially. Iraq, with its somewhat antique variation of the Muslim totalitarian idea, was merely a place to begin, after Afghanistan, with its more modern variation.
For me, September 11 told us we faced a huge problem - one that would annihilate our civilization if we did not confront it. Confronting it meant engaging the Arab Musim world and finding a way to bring it into modernity. Only dangerous, time-consuming, casualty-incurring involvement would achieve this. Iraq is the very beginning, not the end game. My fundamental concern with the Dean candidacy is that he doesn't recognize this. He doesn't see the bigger picture: that the terror we face is not a function of mere criminality but of ideology. But unless we have leaders who understand the depth of the problem and the threat, we are doomed not just to defeat but to catastrophe.

source: http://www.andrewsullivan.com/ (jan 13, 04)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Earthborn
It is slowly approaching 10 000...

If we can believe the compiled reports (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm#db) of independent media, that is.
Those dang independant media! Why can't they mind their own business? :mad:

Okay, let's take from that page the "minimum" number which is only about 8000. Now let's say that half of those were somehow deserving of death, having once met Saddam or for some other equally good reason. That's still 4000 dead innocents to 500 soldiers. Eight-to-one. What kind of hero kills eight times as many innocents as "heros"? If this happened in the US, we'd be horrified, demaning some heads. (Policeman kills gunman, eight bystanders). But as PPG reminds us, the lives of brown people are not worth as much. We don't know them. We don't understand them. How can we feel bad when they die? At least they died "free".

[Troll]

Whoo hoo. 500 plus. Damn, it's about time we beat some records. I mean we ain't lost this many since Vietnam, though we lost a trickyload in Beruit in one shot, but hey, Marines are the first ones to go anyhow, am I right;)

Is that what you wanted to hear? Or is the following more suited to your tastes?

500 people for what? So some others can be a little more free down the road while we still have peope in our own country starving each day?

But then it's not just the US, so let me change that a bit.

People from several nations around the world dying to save some others from a caintator's oppressive regime is not how peace can be found my children. The fight is not worth it.

Or is fighting oppression only cool if no one dies? But then, can we seriously forget those that died under the oppression?

If only one man or woman died for this cause would that have been acceptable? could you have tolerated a small number of nice people wanting to do their job and help others dying for the cause? Would you have blown their lives off as there were so few of them that died?

How's the view from the armchair? Have you ever had the chance to have a different view? Or is this all just, "I hate the war and will use the dead who did their jobs honorably as a way of making my point"?

500 volunteers sacrificed all for you and a bunch of people they don't know, just because it was their job, and they didn't wuss out because they were freeing others from an oppressive regime. They could have done as some have in the past and claimed a disbelief in war, they be home right now and never would have risked death. But these folks took their jobs, their misson and their duty seriously and in the process risked all and gave all for others.

Don't cock that up by using their deaths for your cause alone. They gave all while freeing others as well as defending your right to cock their purpose up, but give them the honor of having given what they did for the cause they were fighting for voluntarilly.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Troll
Whoo hoo. 500 plus. Damn, it's about time we beat some records. I mean we ain't lost this many since Vietnam, though we lost a trickyload in Beruit in one shot, but hey, Marines are the first ones to go anyhow, am I right;)
(Oh, how witty! A pity you abandoned our flame war)

So you think that because more people died in Vietnam, the loss of only 500 don't mean squat? I hate to see Marines have their lives thrown away for a vengeful little snot without a clue about foreign policy. I'm a little surprised that you are so cavalier about the lives of our fighting forces.

Originally posted by Troll
500 people for what? So some others can be a little more free down the road while we still have peope in our own country starving each day?
Are they more free? Certainly they are more free to die. Had we spent an equivalent amount of money in non-war causes, do you think we could have freed a lot more people?

Originally posted by Troll
People from several nations around the world dying to save some others from a caintator's oppressive regime is not how peace can be found my children. The fight is not worth it.

Or is fighting oppression only cool if no one dies? But then, can we seriously forget those that died under the oppression?
If you kill more of them freeing them from the oppression than died under the oppression, then exactly how is it "worth it"? Is this the famous "we have to destroy the village in order to save it," philosophy?

Originally posted by Troll
If only one man or woman died for this cause would that have been acceptable? could you have tolerated a small number of nice people wanting to do their job and help others dying for the cause? Would you have blown their lives off as there were so few of them that died?
A single death for such a bad reason would have still been wrong. But I notice you are still only speaking of coalition casualties. Don't you ever think about the lives of the people you are "freeing"?


Originally posted by Troll
How's the view from the armchair? Have you ever had the chance to have a different view? Or is this all just, "I hate the war and will use the dead who did their jobs honorably as a way of making my point"?
I honor the soldiers. I wish they hadn't died for such a foolish cause. You, on the other hand, don't seem to care if they lived or died, as long as they "did their jobs honorably". Is there any military action you would oppose? If so, then you must concede that reasonable people can oppose this one. If not, then you are simply a warmonger. And since you are not over there, you also have an armchair address.

Originally posted by Troll
500 volunteers sacrificed all for you and a bunch of people they don't know, just because it was their job, and they didn't wuss out because they were freeing others from an oppressive regime. They could have done as some have in the past and claimed a disbelief in war, they be home right now and never would have risked death. But these folks took their jobs, their misson and their duty seriously and in the process risked all and gave all for others.
Yes, they fought, as they were paid to do. And they died, at the rate of one American for every eight (or up to 20, depending on the numbers you use) "freed" persons in Iraq. Yet I don't notice you honoring or even mentioning those Iraqis who died in the "cause of freedom". Is it because they didn't volunteer?

Originally posted by Troll
Don't cock that up by using their deaths for your cause alone. They gave all while freeing others as well as defending your right to cock their purpose up, but give them the honor of having given what they did for the cause they were fighting for voluntarilly.
What exactly were they defending? Our safety? Our way of life? Our children? They weren't defending anything. They were attacking. They were soldiers doing what their officers told them to do. For that, I honor them. I truly recognize the need for our armed forces. But for their leaders, I have nothing but scorn. They sent those good men and women to their deaths for a bad reason. I am outraged. You should be too, unless you value the whims of a rich-boy president over the lives of honest volunteers. It is you who dishonor the dead.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tricky

(Oh, how witty! A pity you abandoned our flame war)

So you think that because more people died in Vietnam, the loss of only 500 don't mean squat? I hate to see Marines have their lives thrown away for a vengeful little snot without a clue about foreign policy. I'm a little surprised that you are so cavalier about the lives of our fighting forces.

Not abandoned. Just low on the priorities. Sorry. But it's far from over so we'll have fun there still.

No Tricky, I do not feel 500 mean squat. One means just as much as 1,000,000. But I honor their valor and don't use their deaths as a basis for my own views. I was in favor of this war way before Bush took office and before Clinton took office. I was in favor of it while I was already in the region. I lost friends in the first one, but I will not say they wasted their lives or that their lives were wasted because we didn't go further than we did the first time. They died accomplishing the stated goal and the ones I knew wanted to be there.




Are they more free? Certainly they are more free to die. Had we spent an equivalent amount of money in non-war causes, do you think we could have freed a lot more people?


Yes they are more free. Sure there's some dicks wanting to mess things up and those idiots kill us and their own. But the thing is, it's no longer the government that is going to just kill them for disagreeing with them. It'll take a little time to get things better than they are now, but they are better than they were last year. Using the US as an example, if I may, I still have to sweat some idiot killing me every day. But in my lifetime, I've not had to worry about my government killing my family and me simply because I didn't like the guy in charge.

If you kill more of them freeing them from the oppression than died under the oppression, then exactly how is it "worth it"? Is this the famous "we have to destroy the village in order to save it," philosophy?

I would agree if that were the fact. But it's not. so what's to argue? That accidents suck? that they occur? That innocent people do in fact die in accidents? I wouldn't argue any of that. But are we trying to kill them just to prove a point? Are we targeting them? Nope


A single death for such a bad reason would have still been wrong. But I notice you are still only speaking of coalition casualties. Don't you ever think about the lives of the people you are "freeing"?

No. I'm not talking only of coalition forces. Granted I mentioned them as that was the topic here, but all loss of life is regretable, well, I'm pro-death penalty so not entiely all. Dude, this is gonna sound like some suckup crap of some sort of appeal to emotion here, but yes I have thought about the lives I was freeing. In Kuwait we were in a village ( I say village as the danged place was like a US trailer park, and yes, I lived them in them for a while),and I saw swing sets and jungle gyms and shacks with pictures of kids all riddled with bullet holes and burned from subsequent fire from bombs. And in thinking about those that I was there to free, I became more determined that what I was doing was right.



I honor the soldiers. I wish they hadn't died for such a foolish cause. You, on the other hand, don't seem to care if they lived or died, as long as they "did their jobs honorably". Is there any military action you would oppose? If so, then you must concede that reasonable people can oppose this one. If not, then you are simply a warmonger. And since you are not over there, you also have an armchair address.

You feel the cause was foolish. I can honestly say I respect that. But are you sure you are speaking for those that died for the cause?

Yes I oppose military action against people that can be and have shown they can be reasoned with.

And I have an armchair address now. I was there before and many that I was there with are back again and glad to be finishing up what we discussed the first time we were there.


Yes, they fought, as they were paid to do. And they died, at the rate of one American for every eight (or up to 20, depending on the numbers you use) "freed" person in Iraq. Yet I don't notice you honoring or even mentioning those Iraqis who died in the "cause of freedom". Is it because they didn't volunteer?

No. I don't post mournful things about them here other than when I say that all deaths suck, not just our own people's (which I have said numerous times) simply because it's not been the topic of any posts. The closest we came to one was about cluster bombs being used in messed up places to use them and I spoke about that.

There's roughly some 24,683,313 peopel in Iraq. Let's do the military, former government and roughly 10% that are causing problems now and we have roughly 20,000,000. The 501 Americans then each sacrificed all for roughly 39,920 people each. What saddens me most is not that they died for the cause, not that Iraqis have voluntarilly died for the cause, but that we use the Americans and the number that have given all to argue that their lives were wasted in freeing so many from a regime that no one can or has defended. We ignore those Iraqis that are thankful for those men and women and their sacrifice and we ignore, at least our media has, the people of Iraq who also helped them and risked all they had to offer as well. We, the US and other coaltion forces didn't do this on our own. Many people in Iraq risked and gave all in helping us. To fail to acknowledge them is a discredit to them

What exactly were they defending? Our safety? Our way of life? Our children? They weren't defending anything. They were attacking. They were soldiers doing what their officers told them to do. For that, I honor them. I truly recognize the need for our armed forces. But for their leaders, I have nothing but scorn. They sent those good men and women to their deaths for a bad reason. I am outraged. You should be too, unless you value the whims of a rich-boy president over the lives of honest volunteers. It is you who dishonor the dead.

They were defending our way of life. They were defending the Iraqui people's chance to have the same. Don't make me lose respect for you by telling me what I should feel or that I dishonor my friends for their sacrifice. In fact, you may want to consider apologizing for the last two sentences there. I can understand emotional outbreaks, but it doesn't mean I have to let them slide when they insult me.;)

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Troll
Whoo hoo. 500 plus. Damn, it's about time we beat some records. I mean we ain't lost this many since Vietnam, though we lost a trickyload in Beruit in one shot, but hey, Marines are the first ones to go anyhow, am I right;)


There's that Troll Amnesia at work again. The lesson the US was supposed to learn from Vietnam was not to fight wars for purely political reasons. War as a last resort. But, no, the US (and not to mention Troll) have forgotten that lesson, all of thirty years old, and has gone straight back to fighting a war for political reasons.

Compare to the Vietnam death toll all you like, it doesn't change the fact that the dead US soldiers in Iraq are wasted in more senses than one.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


There's that Troll Amnesia at work again. The lesson the US was supposed to learn from Vietnam was not to fight wars for purely political reasons. War as a last resort. But, no, the US (and not to mention Troll) have forgotten that lesson, all of thirty years old, and has gone straight back to fighting a war for political reasons.

Compare to the Vietnam death toll all you like, it doesn't change the fact that the dead US soldiers in Iraq are wasted in more senses than one.

Again with the "wasted lives" thing? Well i hope you never have to talk with their families about it.

And learn what sarcasm is dude. It'll help you save a little face in the future.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Troll


Again with the "wasted lives" thing? Well i hope you never have to talk with their families about it.

And learn what sarcasm is dude. It'll help you save a little face in the future.

You're posting drunk again, aren't you? I knew you were being sarcastic, just as I knew that the comment you were trying to make was that the casualities in Iraq aren't so significant because more troops died in Vietnam. Which allows me to segue nicely into:

I hope you never have to talk with their families about how their deaths weren't as bad because more died in Vietnam. <----- You see? Argumentum ad Populum is easy!

[Troll]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


You're posting drunk again, aren't you? I knew you were being sarcastic, just as I knew that the comment you were trying to make was that the casualities in Iraq aren't so significant because more troops died in Vietnam. Which allows me to segue nicely into:

I hope you never have to talk with their families about how their deaths weren't as bad because more died in Vietnam. <----- You see? Argumentum ad Populum is easy!

Dude, you're asking me if I've been drinking?


Try context

"Whoo hoo. 500 plus. Damn, it's about time we beat some records. I mean we ain't lost this many since Vietnam, though we lost a trickyload in Beruit in one shot, but hey, Marines are the first ones to go anyhow, am I right

Is that what you wanted to hear? Or is the following more suited to your tastes?"

And then you claimed I was seriously comparing the numbers as justification? Dude , I have to ask, do you think before you post or are you infatuated with me? I asked if that was what they wanted to hear since they were posting about numbers. :hit:

[Mr Manifesto]

So you weren't trying to compare the death toll to Vietnam. You still believe that these soldiers died with valor. You still seem to think they died for some noble cause. They didn't, they just died, just like the soliders in Vietnam.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
So you weren't trying to compare the death toll to Vietnam. You still believe that these soldiers died with valor. You still seem to think they died for some noble cause. They didn't, they just died, just like the soliders in Vietnam.

Why did you try that other crap prior? You know, the weak attempts at insult as opposed to honest opinion?

Yes I believe that they died with valor and honor. To deny that about them is what does them the greatest dishonor.

[espoirpaz]

The estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths is between 7,935–9,766 as of Dec. 6.

more stats: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908900.html

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Troll
Not abandoned. Just low on the priorities. Sorry. But it's far from over so we'll have fun there still.
Well that's good. If you like I will enjoin others from contributing. I know you felt you were being attacked from all sides.

Originally posted by Troll
No Tricky, I do not feel 500 mean squat. One means just as much as 1,000,000. But I honor their valor and don't use their deaths as a basis for my own views. I was in favor of this war way before Bush took office and before Clinton took office. I was in favor of it while I was already in the region. I lost friends in the first one, but I will not say they wasted their lives or that their lives were wasted because we didn't go further than we did the first time. They died accomplishing the stated goal and the ones I knew wanted to be there.
Well, this may surprise you, but I agreed with the first gulf war. Kuwait was our ally and a vital economic interest that we needed to protect. We showed the rest of the Arab community that we would intervene when necessary and not carry out grudges. George H. Bush the first was a real veteran and an honorable man who did what he thought was best for the country, even when it cost him the election. His son, George W. is a draft-dodging hypocrite who does what is best for his rich friends. I wish that he could be half the man his father is. I'd settle for one quarter.

Originally posted by Troll
Yes they are more free. Sure there's some dicks wanting to mess things up and those idiots kill us and their own. But the thing is, it's no longer the government that is going to just kill them for disagreeing with them. It'll take a little time to get things better than they are now, but they are better than they were last year. Using the US as an example, if I may, I still have to sweat some idiot killing me every day. But in my lifetime, I've not had to worry about my government killing my family and me simply because I didn't like the guy in charge.

Yes, Saddam was a monster, albiet a tame one by the time we invaded. No, they're not better than they were last year. They're being murdered at a rate that far eclipses Saddam at the time of the war. Their natural resources (read "oil") are being siphoned off to pay for the war against their own country. They are in danger of changing from the most western of Islamic states to yet another fundamentalist theocracy. No, I'd have to say the upside for Iraqis is rather small.

Originally posted by Troll

I would agree if that were the fact. But it's not. so what's to argue? That accidents suck? that they occur? That innocent people do in fact die in accidents? I wouldn't argue any of that. But are we trying to kill them just to prove a point? Are we targeting them? Nope.
No we are not. I am not making that claim. But being the invaders, every "accident" we make is magnified and pilloried by the locals. We simply cannot win their loyalty or their gratitude. We should have known this from the beginning. (Some of us tried to make this point back then, but it was just a waste of time, it appears.) Our goals were not realistic. Yeah, we can beat them up, even capture their leader. We will never win their hearts.
Originally posted by Troll
No. I'm not talking only of coalition forces. Granted I mentioned them as that was the topic here, but all loss of life is regretable, well, I'm pro-death penalty so not entiely all. Dude, this is gonna sound like some suckup crap of some sort of appeal to emotion here, but yes I have thought about the lives I was freeing. In Kuwait we were in a village ( I say village as the danged place was like a US trailer park, and yes, I lived them in them for a while),and I saw swing sets and jungle gyms and shacks with pictures of kids all riddled with bullet holes and burned from subsequent fire from bombs. And in thinking about those that I was there to free, I became more determined that what I was doing was right.
But aren't you just succumbing to the emotions of seeing horrible things and using it to justify your already-decided course of action? Can you not see that the Iraqis see the bombed-out houses and feel the same feelings, except against us? I am not saying that your passion is wrong, but that it is prejudiced. The same strong feelings you have are felt by others, but against us. And for the same reasons. You, more than most, should feel some empathy with the Iraqis who hate invaders.

Originally posted by Troll
You feel the cause was foolish. I can honestly say I respect that. But are you sure you are speaking for those that died for the cause?
Thank you sir. I appreciate that. And no, I cannot say that I am speaking for them. I can only speak for myself. I think I am a good judge of human nature, but I might be wrong. I have considered my position carefully, and I think it is correct. I am not ignoring the position of those who think the war was necessary. I think they are wrong, based on my own personal morality. I cannot do otherwise.

Originally posted by Troll
Yes I oppose military action against people that can be and have shown they can be reasoned with.
But you must feel they can be reasoned with, or you would not be trying to free them, right? If they are all homicidal maniacs, then what are we doing trying to free them?

Originally posted by Troll
And I have an armchair address now. I was there before and many that I was there with are back again and glad to be finishing up what we discussed the first time we were there.
Nice dream, but it ain't gonna be finished for any forseeable time in the near future. We haven't even agreed on a pull-out date. No, Iraq is now our problem that we will have to deal with for years to come. Since we are their "liberators". We have lots of obligations to them.

Originally posted by Troll
There's roughly some 24,683,313 peopel in Iraq. Let's do the military, former government and roughly 10% that are causing problems now and we have roughly 20,000,000. The 501 Americans then each sacrificed all for roughly 39,920 people each. What saddens me most is not that they died for the cause, not that Iraqis have voluntarilly died for the cause, but that we use the Americans and the number that have given all to argue that their lives were wasted in freeing so many from a regime that no one can or has defended. We ignore those Iraqis that are thankful for those men and women and their sacrifice and we ignore, at least our media has, the people of Iraq who also helped them and risked all they had to offer as well. We, the US and other coaltion forces didn't do this on our own. Many people in Iraq risked and gave all in helping us. To fail to acknowledge them is a discredit to them.
I concede the point. There are some Iraqis who are glad we are there. I do not believe they are the majority. Remember that all of those "roughly 24,683,313 people" are also people who Saddam had not killed. Many of them were and are just working people, trying to make a life in whatever circumstances were around. They were not offensive to Saddam and so were not in danger. Now they are in danger simply because they might be around when a land mine or bomb goes off.

I have seen polls that say that the majority of Iraqis are glad for the invasion. I have also seen polls that say the exact opposite. I don't know if any of them are trustworthy. I am not there, so I cannot say for sure, but my observations based on numerous sources say that we are unwelcome. That may not be true, but I suspect it is. Most people don't like foreigners.

Originally posted by Troll
They were defending our way of life. They were defending the Iraqui people's chance to have the same. Don't make me lose respect for you by telling me what I should feel or that I dishonor my friends for their sacrifice. In fact, you may want to consider apologizing for the last two sentences there. I can understand emotional outbreaks, but it doesn't mean I have to let them slide when they insult me.
Okay, I admit I was going for the emotional closing there, and I apologize. I know you would never intentionally dishoner any of your brothers in arms. I ask, though, that you consider my question about whether there are any situations where you would think it was wrong to send troops. If they sent them anyway, would you be outraged when they were killed? Would you ever consider disobeying what you felt in your heart was a bad and immoral order?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tricky

Well that's good. If you like I will enjoin others from contributing. I know you felt you were being attacked from all sides.

Oh, hell no. I've been rather busy with getting back to school and all, but I've also been working on some songs for Mr. Manifesto and Suddenly as well as yourself. Plus it allows me to avoid any good zingers (if you ever show me one) while I look busy with them. I just like saying you can't handle it alone. :p


Well, this may surprise you, but I agreed with the first gulf war. Kuwait was our ally and a vital economic interest that we needed to protect. We showed the rest of the Arab community that we would intervene when necessary and not carry out grudges. George H. Bush the first was a real veteran and an honorable man who did what he thought was best for the country, even when it cost him the election. His son, George W. is a draft-dodging hypocrite who does what is best for his rich friends. I wish that he could be half the man his father is. I'd settle for one quarter.


Nope. Not surprised. You've shown me that you are a reasoning person. As such the first one would fall in line with other wars where allies help another to push back an invader, which I'm also you'd have agreed with. I'm thinking both world wars off the top of my head, so please don't think I'm leaving it open for putting words into your mouth later


Yes, Saddam was a monster, albiet a tame one by the time we invaded. No, they're not better than they were last year. They're being murdered at a rate that far eclipses Saddam at the time of the war. Their natural resources (read "oil") are being siphoned off to pay for the war against their own country. They are in danger of changing from the most western of Islamic states to yet another fundamentalist theocracy. No, I'd have to say the upside for Iraqis is rather small.


No we are not. I am not making that claim. But being the invaders, every "accident" we make is magnified and pilloried by the locals. We simply cannot win their loyalty or their gratitude. We should have known this from the beginning. (Some of us tried to make this point back then, but it was just a waste of time, it appears.) Our goals were not realistic. Yeah, we can beat them up, even capture their leader. We will never win their hearts.

While attacks upon them are happening, it is going to be hard to win their trust and gratitude and to say they are better off today than this time last year. But I'm looking a little ahead of today and I firmly believe once control is turned over and they develop their election process, the gratitude will be easier to see. But a year ago they weren't anywhere close to that so I have to say they are better off or, if not wholely so, they are one step closer to it than they were. We need to step up their security forces and police forces and give them more control. We need to rebuild the destroyed buildings and infrastructure at a fast pace that allows the people to see the sincerity of us leaving as soon as we can and replacing anything we damaged.

But aren't you just succumbing to the emotions of seeing horrible things and using it to justify your already-decided course of action? Can you not see that the Iraqis see the bombed-out houses and feel the same feelings, except against us? I am not saying that your passion is wrong, but that it is prejudiced. The same strong feelings you have are felt by others, but against us. And for the same reasons. You, more than most, should feel some empathy with the Iraqis who hate invaders.

I don't think I succumbed to the emotions so much as just reassured myself of the value of the work I had. See, I was there now and seeing those places which meant the invaders weren't and the people that lived there will be moving back soon.

I can understand the feelings of the Iraqis who hate us being there. I can also appreciate the feelings of those that are thankful for us having gone there. I understand the feeling of those that were happy and think we've been there long enough. Someone is going to feel alienated. If we help them now and rebuild and leave as quickly as we can, I think the latter two will let it slide a little out of sheer cognitive dissonance. Fortunately the latter two are also the vast majority of Iraqis


Thank you sir. I appreciate that. And no, I cannot say that I am speaking for them. I can only speak for myself. I think I am a good judge of human nature, but I might be wrong. I have considered my position carefully, and I think it is correct. I am not ignoring the position of those who think the war was necessary. I think they are wrong, based on my own personal morality. I cannot do otherwise.

Fully understood and agreed with.

But you must feel they can be reasoned with, or you would not be trying to free them, right? If they are all homicidal maniacs, then what are we doing trying to free them?

Well you have to remember we're talking about those in control that must be reasoned with if possible. I think the general populace of any country is fairly reasonable and wouldn't claim even the vast majority, let alone all of a populace of any country to be homicidal. There were a bunch of Iraqis assisting us beofre the war. Frankly I'm really getting pissed now, thinking about how we backstabbed in the past. I'm surprised any of them trusted us this time around.




Nice dream, but it ain't gonna be finished for any forseeable time in the near future. We haven't even agreed on a pull-out date. No, Iraq is now our problem that we will have to deal with for years to come. Since we are their "liberators". We have lots of obligations to them.

I think they have been saying end of June, beginning of July fairly adamantly. And yeah we've got far more to do after we pullout, but then we have a bunch of other countries wanting to help on the rebuilding now.


I concede the point. There are some Iraqis who are glad we are there. I do not believe they are the majority. Remember that all of those "roughly 24,683,313 people" are also people who Saddam had not killed. Many of them were and are just working people, trying to make a life in whatever circumstances were around. They were not offensive to Saddam and so were not in danger. Now they are in danger simply because they might be around when a land mine or bomb goes off.

Someone here has a Harriet Tubman quote that I know I won't get verbatim but it came to mind when I read this part of your post. It's something like "I have freed thousands of slaves and I could have freed more had they known they were slaves." But I also agree with what you were saying just based upon the human nature aspect. I mean they had a routine for 30 years. Oppressive or not, you get used to things and know how to play the game. But I have a real hard time accepting that being used to something doesn't mean there isn't a want for better.

I have seen polls that say that the majority of Iraqis are glad for the invasion. I have also seen polls that say the exact opposite. I don't know if any of them are trustworthy. I am not there, so I cannot say for sure, but my observations based on numerous sources say that we are unwelcome. That may not be true, but I suspect it is. Most people don't like foreigners.

I rarely go on polls as they seem to change within the reporting of them as well. They don't like foreigners in general or the ones with tanks?


Okay, I admit I was going for the emotional closing there, and I apologize. I know you would never intentionally dishoner any of your brothers in arms. I ask, though, that you consider my question about whether there are any situations where you would think it was wrong to send troops. If they sent them anyway, would you be outraged when they were killed? Would you ever consider disobeying what you felt in your heart was a bad and immoral order?

Sure there are places I wouldn't send troops and trust me, I'd be far louder about it than anyone here has been about this war. I don't view war as an absolute necessity. In fact it's not always a last resort either. Given the structure of Somolia, I'd have never sent troops in unless they were part of a huge UN force. There was no specific enemy. But that's in hindsight on my part.

And yes I would and have disobeyed orders I found to be unlawful. Unlawful orders have a pretty broad range of coverage ranging from personal servitude to criminal so it fits immoral as well.

All things said, and I'm not accusing you of having done anything wrong, especially in light of the length of intelligent postings on the subject here between us, I respect people being against this war, I just wish that some would explain it from their own perspective and state their own reasons a little better. I was for this war, not because I dig war, but because I honsetly felt we owed the Iraqi people a promise we made and failed to keep for quite a few years.

[Tricky]

Well said, Troll. Keep posting like that and you may be in danger of being respected. ;)

I think you and I have reached closure here, so I'm going to let it drop. I'm sure we'll cross paths (and swords) again though.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Tricky
George H. Bush the first was a real veteran and an honorable man who did what he thought was best for the country, even when it cost him the election. His son, George W. is a draft-dodging hypocrite who does what is best for his rich friends. I wish that he could be half the man his father is. I'd settle for one quarter.I am no fan of GWB, but I don't recall that he was a Vietnam era draft-dodger. AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard, yes.

And forgive me, but I'd take exception to your praise of the father. His lies concerning Iran-Contra (as well as the pardoning of Casper Weinberger), the misuse of the Willie Horton issue against his Democratic opponent, and his contempt for fellow citizens (atheists) are just a few of the reasons I'd not applaud loud and long for the man.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
I am no fan of GWB, but I don't recall that he was a Vietnam era draft-dodger. AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard, yes.

And forgive me, but I'd take exception to your praise of the father. His lies concerning Iran-Contra (as well as the pardoning of Casper Weinberger), the misuse of the Willie Horton issue against his Democratic opponent, and his contempt for fellow citizens (atheists) are just a few of the reasons I'd not applaud loud and long for the man.
Well, he's not one of my favorites either, although he did coin the term "voodoo economics" which pretty much described the Regan years. I have the same problems with him, especially in regard to the Willie Horton thing. The only way he looks like a truly great president is when you compare him to his son.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Tricky
Oh really? Then why (according to the war hawks here) did he have to keep killing so many?

But it is well documented that Saddam had been on his best behavior for the last few years. When he was doing most of his killing, the US was doing nothing, not even condemning him.

Those two statements seem contradictory to me. On one hand you’re saying that killing leads to more killing, then you point out that the killing was reduced. <shrug>

Originally posted by Tricky
Also, I'm not sure the US wants to try to emulate Saddam's style of loyalty control, even if they could.

Nor do I. Killing civilians should always be avoided, but it’s not possible to fight a war while avoiding it entirely. Suggesting that it’s the only important factor in winning the good will of the Iraqi people while ignoring the benefits of what could be accomplished I think presumes a rather low level of sophistication among that population that is offensive.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
I am no fan of GWB, but I don't recall that he was a Vietnam era draft-dodger. AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard, yes.



Dude, try stronger arguments, please? It's not like he left the country and protested from a distance. Or were you also not a fan of that guy?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Troll
Dude, try stronger arguments, please? It's not like he left the country and protested from a distance. Or were you also not a fan of that guy?
How about this then. One guy says "I don't believe in this war and I don't want to fight so I'll find a legal way not to. This stance may hurt me in the future, but I must abide by my principles."

Another guy says, "I claim to believe in this war, but I don't want to fight in it, so I'll get my daddy to bump me up in the line over many people who have been in line longer and are more qualified, to get into a unit that is never ever gonna see combat action. Then I'll completely skip out on a year of that committment. That way, there's no record of me being a draft dodger."

You tell me which one is the bigger coward?

[Roadtoad]

I don't like either Clinton or Bush, but for Bush to claim great patriotism as he has, and further to say that if you're against him, (note the wording), you're against the nation. Wrong.

It is not unpatriotic to challenge this war. In fact, as things are turning out, it's beginning to look as though more questions should have been asked in the first place. Given the friends and family that I've seen head off to fight, including my son, I'm more gratified by people asking the wisdom of this war than I am by people who are blindly following the party line and declaring their undying devotion to America.

Believe me, the Michael Savage/Rush Limbaugh mentality gets old, quick.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Roadtoad

It is not unpatriotic to challenge this war.


Seems to me Troll isn't questioning people's patriotism so much as their logic. Yeah, sure, questioning things is good. But flawed arguments against a course of action aren't anything to shout about either.


In fact, as things are turning out, it's beginning to look as though more questions should have been asked in the first place. Given the friends and family that I've seen head off to fight, including my son, I'm more gratified by people asking the wisdom of this war than I am by people who are blindly following the party line and declaring their undying devotion to America.


So is that then a claim that Troll is blindly following party line? Seems to me he's got his eyes open much more clearly than most posters here. As a matter of fact, I'm not actually seeing any argument against what Troll has been saying. As for how things have been turning out, well, it's amazing what a little interpretation can do. I think things have been going fairly well.


Believe me, the Michael Savage/Rush Limbaugh mentality gets old, quick.

No doubt. But I'm not seeing that from Troll.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tricky

How about this then. One guy says "I don't believe in this war and I don't want to fight so I'll find a legal way not to. This stance may hurt me in the future, but I must abide by my principles."

Another guy says, "I claim to believe in this war, but I don't want to fight in it, so I'll get my daddy to bump me up in the line over many people who have been in line longer and are more qualified, to get into a unit that is never ever gonna see combat action. Then I'll completely skip out on a year of that committment. That way, there's no record of me being a draft dodger."

You tell me which one is the bigger coward?

It's a better argument. Thanks. But it's still emotionally charged. I don't consider either a coward. And in Bush's case he could still have been sent. Not that I'm defending him, just stating the facts.

Either way you slice it, both avoided having to fight the war. But for the record, I will have to state this, in the first Gulf War we got a few that decided they were concientious (sp?) objectors. I didn't consider them to be cowards for trying to get out of what I was being sent to do. But i had hoped that it would have placed an end to the illusion some have about serving a short hitch and getting the bennies and never having to actually fight. I don't recall hearing of any instances during this current set of deployments, so I think the lesson has been learned. Don't join if you aren't willing to support the CIC and congress or possibly the nation (depending on the situation).

Vietnam was another one of those places I wouldn't have sent troops into, but then I'm a little younger that the vets from that war and my vision is 20/20 hindsight.

So I'd call neither a coward, and that wasn't the point i was trying to make. It's rather a common event to see party divisions in stuff like this, so when one attacks one president, I ask what their feelings about another is to try to determine if it's party crap or honest moral beliefs.;) Sure it looks like I'm going against them or trying to pull their punk card, as it were, but then I'm not Larry King, just here to give you a platform to speak from.:p

[Troll]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
I don't like either Clinton or Bush, but for Bush to claim great patriotism as he has, and further to say that if you're against him, (note the wording), you're against the nation. Wrong.

It is not unpatriotic to challenge this war. In fact, as things are turning out, it's beginning to look as though more questions should have been asked in the first place. Given the friends and family that I've seen head off to fight, including my son, I'm more gratified by people asking the wisdom of this war than I am by people who are blindly following the party line and declaring their undying devotion to America.

Believe me, the Michael Savage/Rush Limbaugh mentality gets old, quick.

It's not unpatriotic to state your beliefs. It's cowardice to hide them.

Benjamin Franklin did very little if any fighting with weapons against the "enemy". Anyone have the balls to call him a coward?

You've seen my reasoning behind my support of this war, or at least you should have. I don't think it has squat to do with party affiliation.

what do Savage or Limbaugh have to do with any party? They are of a particular party affiliation, so is Zell Miller (Zell is such a funny name). They are mouth pieces and the lesser thinkers need outside information to help them. I see as many Michael Moore and Carvelle quotes as I do quotes from them. Not that Zell is a mouthpiece, but it shows a party affiliation yet not blindly following the party point.

Here's a piece of information you may find useful later. Don't use a self-proclaimed figurehead as the one that speaks for all in a group

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Troll


It's not unpatriotic to state your beliefs. It's cowardice to hide them.

Benjamin Franklin did very little if any fighting with weapons against the "enemy". Anyone have the balls to call him a coward?

You've seen my reasoning behind my support of this war, or at least you should have. I don't think it has squat to do with party affiliation.

what do Savage or Limbaugh have to do with any party? They are of a particular party affiliation, so is Zell Miller (Zell is such a funny name). They are mouth pieces and the lesser thinkers need outside information to help them. I see as many Michael Moore and Carvelle quotes as I do quotes from them. Not that Zell is a mouthpiece, but it shows a party affiliation yet not blindly following the party point.

Here's a piece of information you may find useful later. Don't use a self-proclaimed figurehead as the one that speaks for all in a group

I understand your support for it. My question is: Was this war begun under false pretense? Some (not all) evidence suggests this MAY be the case.

Bush said just after 9/11 that there would be things that we wouldn't know about until many years had passed, and there would be things that we wouldn't ever know, and this was for genuine concerns about security. This is valid, and I'm grateful for that. Part of our problem in Vietnam was the freakish lack of security that existed. I know this because my father was in a position to know about this, and he drilled into me the experiences he had with that in Southeast Asia, and the importance of security in all things military. Sadly, my father and others like him were a rare breed, particularly when you have colonels and generals (not to mention members of Congress and Administration officials) blabbing what was supposed to be secure information.

However, when you are dealing with something as serious as a declaration of hostilities, regardless of what you call it, you'd better be ready to cough up your rationale for calling up our Nation's military and sending them into harm's way. If you can't do that, I don't think you should go. And I'm sorry, unless you can PROVE that there's a genuine threat to the U.S., I think you have no business going.

There may be evidence that we have not seen. But I'd like to see it. That's for damn sure.

BTW: My son's unit lost nearly a half dozen men once they went in to combat, after the hostilities were supposedly over. He lost good friends he'd trained with, some from Basic. I knew about these men from many things my son told me about them. One of them was a close buddy of his. He tells me it was worth it. We're better off, my son tells me. I'm not so sure.

[Tricky]

I am very sorry to hear about your son's friends, Roadtoad. Like you (if I read you correctly) I think it is a tragic waste. But I cannot fault your son for his position. He has to be there and he has to do his job, so to question the reasons why he was there might lead to severe depression. It is better if he believes in the cause while he's fighting for it. He can reflect on it later.

I wish him the very best and hope he is home soon.

[Skeptic]

But it is well documented that Saddam had been on his best behavior for the last few years. When he was doing most of his killing, the US was doing nothing, not even condemning him.

And it is well known that when Ted Bundy was executed, he hadn't murdered a woman for YEARS, being on death row! Where was the police during all those years where he WAS killing them?

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Earthborn:


It is slowly approaching 10 000...

If we can believe the compiled reports of independent media, that is.

Interesting site, and the data is no doubt useful. But I think a closer look is in order. (Let me admit right now that this analysis is very cursory, but it does not, imo, bode well for the objectivity of the site).

The site tracks civilian deaths attributable to the war, beginning in March 2003 and continuing until now. By “attributable” it appears they mean any civilian death which would not have occurred if the war had not taken place, though they apply this broadly, as I hope I will show.

There is one listing for five civilians killed by coalition forces targeting “bank robbers.” One assumes that bank robbers would not have been targeted under Saddam’s regime. Actually, it is reasonable to assume that bank robbery was extremely rare under that regime, though if this is a good thing is open for debate.

The list also does not differentiate between sources of the deadly fire. For instance, there are two listings, one for the Red Cross and one for a United Nations convoy, that were targeted by non-coalition forces that are included. More importantly, the listing includes casualties from all the roadside bombings and attacks initiated by non-coalition forces.


It gives both a minimum figure and a maximum figure:

MINIMUM: 8015
MAXIMUM: 9052

Here’s a quick analysis of it.

First, tally the numbers of those things completely attributable to non-coalition forces or ‘resistance’ fighters or what have you. Be strict and only include the undoubtable things:

MINIMUM: 680
MAXIMUM: 1358

Second, tally the numbers for everything attributable to Coalition Forces, being generous with what is considered attributable, and ignoring that “assailants” are counted as civilians for the purpose of this list.

MINIMUM: 1088
MAXIMUM: 1459

Now tally the numbers that are questionable, meaning they may have been caused by either Coalition Forces or someone else:

MINIMUM: 493
MAXIMUM: 635

Now comes the largest category that I pulled out of all the rest. There are 8 entries that look like the following. The first number is the minimum casualties, second is the maximum. The next is the location, next is the cause of death, next is the date or date range. Not all entries had all this information:

633______633 No location given; various causes; 20 March - 6 April
1482_____2009 Baghdad hospitals; no causes; 19 March – 9 April
224______358 Najaf hospitals; various causes; no dates
201______201 Basrah Hospital; loss of electricity; 20 March – 7 April
182______200 Basrah Teaching Hospital; no causes; 20 March – 9 April
778______1213 Baghdad morgue; no causes; 20 March – 24 April
1214_____1297 Baghdad morgue; violent deaths; date given but I can’t read my writing
362______367 Baghdad morgue; over 55% gun shot wounds; date given but can’t read it

5076_____6278 Total

Most of these eight entries have a link to details. I could only get one to lead me anywhere, though. That one is the second to last which has a min/max of 1214/1297.

It’s interesting reading. It says these things:
a) 60% of the violent deaths are gunshot wounds
b) This compares to 10% before the war
c) They estimate 15% to 20% of gun shot wounds are from coalition forces.

There are two ways to apply those percentages.

1) Take 60% of the initial number and then 15% or 20% of that for your final figure
2) Take 50% of the initial number as your final (comparing 60% postwar to 10% prewar)

But what is the initial number? The source says it is 1519. Which gives you either 182 or 760, both well short of even the minimum number of 1214.

Now if we extrapolate the same reasoning to the other of these entries (except for the Basrah Hospital loss of electricity), our numbers suddenly become for low end min/max:

76_____76
178____241
27_____72
201____201
22_____24
94_____146
146____156
44_____44

788____960 Total

or, for high end min/max

317____317
741____1005
112____179
201____201
91_____100
389____607
607____649
181____184

2639___3242 Total


Which means, I think, that the real overall minimum is: 1166
And the real overall maximum is (counting the gray area numbers): 5336

There is no ‘good’ number of civilian deaths, but it is a far cry from the 8015/9052 min/max at the site.

And this is before deducting whatever expected violent civilian deaths there would continue to have been under Saddam’s regime if it had been left in place.

As I said, though, this was done quickly. I could be wrong.

P.S. I have not had a chance to look at the site posted by espoirpaz

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Skeptic

And it is well known that when Ted Bundy was executed, he hadn't murdered a woman for YEARS, being on death row! Where was the police during all those years where he WAS killing them?
If you are using the the police and Ted Bundy as an analogy for the US and Saddam, then what the police were doing for many of those years was cheering him on. We only became "retroactively horrified."

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tricky

If you are using the the police and Ted Bundy as an analogy for the US and Saddam, then what the police were doing for many of those years was cheering him on. We only became "retroactively horrified."


Not quite. The US has never really been a single entity, and as long as we are free to elect different people, different goals and ideals will pop up. The best analogy to suit your claims would be that some cops supported the guy as a CI, then some realised he was breaking the rules, then some let him break the rules, then one decided to put out a warrant for his arrest.

Saying "We only became "retroactively horrified."" would mean that no one was bothered by the man and his actions prior or that there was a change of heart among those in charge. America tends to have changes in policies as we change from within and withing our leadership.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Troll
Not quite. The US has never really been a single entity, and as long as we are free to elect different people, different goals and ideals will pop up. The best analogy to suit your claims would be that some cops supported the guy as a CI, then some realised he was breaking the rules, then some let him break the rules, then one decided to put out a warrant for his arrest.
A decent analogy, but a better one would be that one precinct of cops let him get away with murder, then the same precinct of cops (though some of the cops weren't the same) wanted him busted for those crimes after they changed their minds about him.

Originally posted by Troll
Saying "We only became "retroactively horrified."" would mean that no one was bothered by the man and his actions prior or that there was a change of heart among those in charge. America tends to have changes in policies as we change from within and withing our leadership..
I actually remember the gassing of Kurds, and I was outraged. Had we attacked Saddam then, I would have probably supported it. But it scarcely made more than a couple of news cycles. I certainly don't recall a major outcry by Republicans to have him removed, nor do I recall anyone talking much about his atrocities or his WMDs until the Shrub told us to start talking about them. Suddenly, all these people who seemed that they couldn't care less about the Iraqi people are anxious to free them from the yoke of oppression (even though they seem less concerned about other dictators in the world.) These crocodile tears shed for the Iraqis by the war-supporters seems very much like a conscience of convenience (if I may coin the term) to me.

[Skeptic]

I see tricky's point: it would have been morally better if the USA were horrified by Saddam earlier. Quite true, but what's the alternative? Leave him in power indefinitely because he wasn't removed from power immediatelly? Is there a moral rule that says that unless you get rid of a tyrant within X years you must let him continue to rule for the rest of his life?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I see tricky's point: it would have been morally better if the USA were horrified by Saddam earlier. Quite true, but what's the alternative? Leave him in power indefinitely because he wasn't removed from power immediately? Is there a moral rule that says that unless you get rid of a tyrant within X years you must let him continue to rule for the rest of his life?
For all the analogies about the "police" we must remember that this is still an international situation. An invasion was not justified for things that Saddam did so long ago. If he had cleaned up his act (and all evidence shows that he had, to a large extent), then suddenly deciding to become outraged is not only hypocritical, but damaging to the US. We missed our window of opportunity there, and we can't go back and open it with a crowbar.