30,000 dead Iraqi civilians...?

[King of the Americas]

We went to War with 2 countires because 3,000 Americans died in an unprovoked attack upon our homeland.

We kill "30,000 Iraqi civilians" and expect to be greeted at liberators!?!?

The 9-11 families STILL carry weight in their political statements and movement. How much weight do the extended families of those 30,000 Iraqis carry, within Iraq??? Given that we are still there AFTER the threat against us has been eliminated, AND the abuses at Abu Girab, what are the chances of the U.S. winning the hearts and minds of Iraq???

I was shocked to hear the President say so candidlly he was aware of that many civilian deaths. I was further shocked that someone didn't follow-up that answer with something like what I just said. I guess the whole group was a little shell-shocked by the open admittion.

Here's a link to a CNN story covering the event: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/12/bush.iraq/?section=cnn_topstories

There is also a link therein to the full transcript of the speech he gave before opening himself up to questions.

I had 'heard' that some 30-40,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, but I hadn't heard the Pentagon or anyone in the Bush Administration admit or deny this.

Moreover, I 'heard' that we imprisoned another 20,000 or so, of which we have released some 75% after the Abu Girab incidents.

I am an AMERICAN who has little to no confidence in this President, or his Administration's ability to execute this War. I can't imagine what the average Iraqi thinks about our military, in their country...

[The Central Scrutinizer]

We kill "30,000 Iraqi civilians" and expect to be greeted at liberators!?!?


Death by suicide bombers and car bombs is included in that figure. Do you think we are setting off car bombs?

[ImaginalDisc]

If you heard of 30,000 Iraqi civilian death, here's a site dedicated to tracking them. They have a write up on their counting methods.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr12.php

"Who provided the information?
Mortuary officials and medics were the most frequently cited witnesses.
Three press agencies provided over one third of the reports used.
Iraqi journalists are increasingly central to the reporting work.

" "Speaking today at the launch of the report in London, Professor John Sloboda, FBA, one of the report's authors said: "The ever-mounting Iraqi death toll is the forgotten cost of the decision to go to war in Iraq. On average, 34 ordinary Iraqis have met violent deaths every day since the invasion of March 2003. Our data show that no sector of Iraqi society has escaped. We sincerely hope that this research will help to inform decision-makers around the world about the real needs of the Iraqi people as they struggle to rebuild their country. It remains a matter of the gravest concern that, nearly two and half years on, neither the US nor the UK governments have begun to systematically measure the impact of their actions in terms of human lives destroyed." "

Also, their data base is fuly accessible, showing dates, times, locations, and a summary of the incident, and in many cases, has the names of the people killed.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

[King of the Americas]

...I 'think' those deaths were a result of the initial incursion- that "Shock & Awe" period followed by the initial Marine assault.

I'll do some more research for evidence to back up that claim.

[ImaginalDisc]

Death by suicide bombers and car bombs is included in that figure. Do you think we are setting off car bombs?

From the site I posted a moment ago:

"Who did the killing?
US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period."

[Ziggurat]

We kill "30,000 Iraqi civilians" and expect to be greeted at liberators!?!?


No, around 30,000 Iraqis, civilians AND combatants, have died because of the conflict. So two distinctions are wrong in your claim: that number includes combatants, and it includes people killed by the terrorists. Get your facts straight before you come here for debate.

[shemp]

...I 'think' those deaths were a result of the initial incursion- that "Shock & Awe" period followed by the initial Marine assault.

I'll do some more research for evidence to back up that claim.

Yeah, that's it, they were so shocked and awed they died of heart failure!

[RandFan]

We kill "30,000 Iraqi civilians" and expect to be greeted at liberators!?!? This is the problem when you view the events with tunnel vision. The Iraqis aren't stupid. They know that insurgents are targeting innocent Iraqis. They know that our soldiers are dying along side of theirs. Is our presence breeding resentment and hate among a number of Iraqis? Certainly, no question. Do a number of Iraqis blame us for the death and instability? Yes, but there was death and instability before and no hope. The Iraqis also know that we have given them the right to vote and they are showing up to vote so there is demonstrably understanding on the part of many Iraqis that this process has purpose and there is hope.

[The Don]

In yesterday's Independent there was an article about an Iraqi family who feel that things are much worse under the allies, that crime is rife and that they see no end to it.

Whether this is a representative view, I don't know http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article332816.ece

Selected quotes from the article

This time last year there were still the kidnappings and the robberies, the gunfights and the suicide bombings, but Nadia and her husband, Mohammed, still had hope. After a couple of years of this, they were convinced that things would get better in Iraq.

But the flickering optimism has been all but extinguished for the al-Hayalis and their friends and relations


Nadia was initially in favour of the war. "I thought that whatever the excuses given for the war it would be good to have freedom for people to express themselves," she said.

"Even when things started to go wrong I thought they would turn around. But now I feel we have gained nothing except endless deaths and destruction."

[Manny]

Whether this is a representative view, I don't know Recent poll of Iraqis. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4511688.stm)

[King of the Americas]

...anytime I want to be 'set straight', I know that any half-truth or whole lie I have been subjected to, it will soon be anulled by facts and well done research, by simply posting them HERE.

That said, my original assertion was that we went to War with 2 countries after ONLY 3,000 of our citizens died. According to the provided research (Thank You ImaginalDisc), we have in fact killed about 10,000 innocent Iraqis in our doings. Half of America is still pissed about 9-11, and willing to continue to wage War. How would YOU feel being an Iraqi who's family was killed by U.S. bullets or bombs, knowing that they are still in your country continuing to shoot and bomb your nation?

War is ugly. People, oftentimes civilians, die during War. While I understand that we don't 'target' civilians, when we kill them there is a price to pay.

In our trying to neutralize Saddam & his WMD's, we may have made this War unwinable. We are there to win hearts and minds, Saddam is in jail, his Army disbanded, and the WMD's found to be non-existant. In Congressman Murtha's words, "I am not sure what else we can accomplish militarily."

[RandFan]

Recent poll of Iraqis. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4511688.stm) Thanks manny. I did not know that.

[RandFan]

How would YOU feel being an Iraqi who's family was killed by U.S. bullets or bombs, knowing that they are still in your country continuing to shoot and bomb your nation? It depends. If I believed that there was hope where there was none before I would be willing to give the process a chance. If soldiers barged into my home and killed my son, for whatever reason, I would likely forever hate them. There are many things that are happening in Iraq that will no doubt breed hatred and resentment from the Iraqis towards the US. What is happening to innocent Iraqis is truly tragic.

The question is not without merit.

[Matabiri]

If you heard of 30,000 Iraqi civilian death, here's a site dedicated to tracking them. They have a write up on their counting methods.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr12.php

IBC are also clear that their figure is an underestimate:
Still, your "maximum" count seems very low to me. Surely there must be many, many more civilian deaths than you've published.

We are not a news organization ourselves and like everyone else can only base our information on what has been reported so far. What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war.
(From "Quick FAQs")

Also: Thanks, Manny, I hadn't seen that.

[ImaginalDisc]

Recent poll of Iraqis. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4511688.stm)

From the full results of that poll, here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/12_12_05_iraq_data.pdf

"Q4 Now, thinking about how things are going, not for your personnaly, but for Iraq as a whole, how would you say things are going in our country overall these days? Are they very good, quite good, quite bad, or very bad?"

44.4% said very good or quite good, 52.5% said quite bad or very bad.

"Q6 From today's perspective, and all things considered, was it absolutely right, somewhat right, somewhat wrong or absolutely wrong that US-Lead coalition forces invaded Iraq in Spring 2003"

46.2% said absolutely right, or somewhat right, 50.3% said somewhat wrong or absolutely wrong, with 331.%, the majority, saying "absolutely wrong"


Since I can't copy paste text from the document, I'll summarize.

It seems that the majority of Iraqis feel that they are personnaly better off since the war, and that the majority of Iraqis feel that the war was wrong. the majority feel relatively secure physically, the majority have trouble finding jobs, and the majority credit the Iraqi people and government with the rebuilding of Iraq. The overwhelming majority say they have no confidence in the US lead forces. The majority think that the US lead forces have done a bad job in Iraq, and strongly oppose US lead forces remaining in Iraq. The majority feel that terrorists are the biggest threat to their security. In avoiding things to remain secure, such as markets, keeping children home from school, etc, the thing Iraqis avoid most often to remain secure is US coallition forces. Those Iraqis who think the security situation has improved credit the police most often, and those who think it has deterioratated blame Us lead forces most often.

How exactly can the Bush administration use this survey to claim that the Invasion was good?

[King of the Americas]

I think if AMERICANS can so easily make a case for Iraqis being pissed about what we have done there, it would be all the more easy for Iraqis to do so to other Iraqis.

I am a world away from the violence, but even I can see that people get upset when you kill their famly memebers, regardless of your claims to the rightousness of your warring actions. Like I said intitially, we went to War with 2 countries after ONLY 3,000 of our citizens died.

Our military is directly responsible for the deaths of at least 3 times that many Iraqis. How much 'good' and rebuilding would Osama have to do for the U.S. for us to forgive him, and accept HIM as a force for good???

[rikzilla]

The only completely unbiased survey that makes any difference is the one that the Iraqi people are engaging in now. It's called voter turnout. No matter how they vote; by merely participating in the process; they are saying a loud yes to democracy.

So logically speaking; without the "wrong" war and the presence of US troops that they have "no confidence" in the democracy that they all so obviously relish in such large numbers would be impossible.

Obviously the people of Iraq are conflicted. They want democracy; but they don't like being occupied. Since the turnout is projected to be 70-80% in this election I'd say that Iraqis are showing us what is most important in their lives. The democracy. I imagine that once they have the stable elected government they will; through their representatives; seek to limit the US presence as much as is practical. That's when we leave...not before.

-z

[rikzilla]

I think if AMERICANS can so easily make a case for Iraqis being pissed about what we have done there, it would be all the more easy for Iraqis to do so to other Iraqis.

I am a world away from the violence, but even I can see that people get upset when you kill their famly memebers, regardless of your claims to the rightousness of your warring actions. Like I said intitially, we went to War with 2 countries after ONLY 3,000 of our citizens died.

Our military is directly responsible for the deaths of at least 3 times that many Iraqis. How much 'good' and rebuilding would Osama have to do for the U.S. for us to forgive him, and accept HIM as a force for good???

"ONLY" 3,000?

What would your magic number be? How many dead Americans would you need to see in order to do something about the problem? It's not about math you know; it's about the danger posed by a state sponsor of international terrorist organizations. Tit-for-tat is vengence...not defense policy.

-z

[King of the Americas]

...it is worth saying again:

Freedom isn't as gift to be given. It is something YOU have to find it within YOURSELF a need or desire for, and then YOU have to fight for it. If YOU weren't willing to stand up for it, nor fight for, you will not long have it.

WE are a Democracy, because WE decided that we wanted it. No one came in and told us we needed to be Free, nor was our Freedom handed to us on a silver platter.

I am of the opinion that if you want and desperately desire Freedom & Democracy, then it is up to YOU to initiate the forward motion toward that endeavor. Once YOU have declared and actually moved toward a Free state, THEN we'll help you, but I repeat, it is NOT our job to free other people if they have made no action inn that direction.

We went to Iraq, because their leader posed a threat to us. NOW, we are saying that we need to stay to keep the Iraqis free. Next we'll hear that we need to be a change of force for the entire Middle East...wait, that was weeks ago already.

[fishbob]

The only completely unbiased survey that makes any difference is the one that the Iraqi people are engaging in now. It's called voter turnout. No matter how they vote; by merely participating in the process; they are saying a loud yes to democracy.

So logically speaking; without the "wrong" war and the presence of US troops that they have "no confidence" in the democracy that they all so obviously relish in such large numbers would be impossible.

Obviously the people of Iraq are conflicted. They want democracy; but they don't like being occupied. Since the turnout is projected to be 70-80% in this election I'd say that Iraqis are showing us what is most important in their lives. The democracy. I imagine that once they have the stable elected government they will; through their representatives; seek to limit the US presence as much as is practical. That's when we leave...not before.

-zI agree with your 3rd paragraph, but the 1st one is an unsupported assertion. The Iraqis are not voting on whether they are better off since the war or whether the war was wrong or not or whether they feel secure or what they think about the job that the US lead forces have done in Iraq or whether the US lead forces should remain in Iraq.

Iraqi voter turnout is most likely a 'yes to democracy' but is must be qualified as a lesser of two evils sort of 'yes to democracy'. An either/or choice between being blown to hell by suicide bombers vs electing their own leadership.

[King of the Americas]

You missed the point.

IF 3,000 was enough for us to invade 2 countries, how much justification have we provided Iraqi insurgents by killing 3 times that many???

We were 'attacked' on 9-11. As a result of that attack, I favored going to War with those who were responsible for those American deaths. Regardless of ths Administration's attempts to link Saddam to 9-11, we were NOT justified in killng ANY Iraqis.

Because of the U.S.'s 'mistakes' thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead. I am not sure ANY amount of good or rebuilding is going to make up for that...

[RandFan]

Because of the U.S.'s 'mistakes' thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead. I am not sure ANY amount of good or rebuilding is going to make up for that... Because the U.S. deposed a dictator thousands of Iraqis can now go to the polls to choose their fate.

[ImaginalDisc]

Because the U.S. deposed a dictator thousands of Iraqis can now go to the polls to choose their fate.

Yes. Thousands of Iraqis are also dead because of the U.S. invasion, and tens of thousands are injured. That's all true. Whether or not that's been worth it is open to debate.

[force_redo]

...it is worth saying again:

Freedom isn't as gift to be given. It is something YOU have to find it within YOURSELF a need or desire for, and then YOU have to fight for it. If YOU weren't willing to stand up for it, nor fight for, you will not long have it.


As a german, I can't wholly agree with this. Without the allies abolishing a dictator that WE elected more or less democratically in power and helping us on our feet again, there wouldn't be a germany as I know and (sort of) like it today. (I don't live there anymore, though...)

I'm not saying this situation is comparable to Iraq, as many might think. (Iraq wasn't the agressor that just lost a war) But I cannot fully agree that "Freedom isn't as gift to be given."

I think it can be.

FR

[RandFan]

Yes. Thousands of Iraqis are also dead because of the U.S. invasion, and tens of thousands are injured. That's all true. Whether or not that's been worth it is open to debate. Odd, I thought that was what we were doing here. Can you direct me to the appropriate thread?

[rikzilla]

...it is worth saying again:

Freedom isn't as gift to be given. It is something YOU have to find it within YOURSELF a need or desire for, and then YOU have to fight for it. If YOU weren't willing to stand up for it, nor fight for, you will not long have it.

All peoples if given a choice would choose freedom over slavery. It is axiomatic that this is so. A tyranny offers no such choice to it's people. The tyrant is a form of slave-owner. He holds the nation and it's people as his property/chattel. He can only do so by corruption, coersion, and murder.

Freedom can be won in several ways. The way you stated is certainly not the only way. The people of Italy, Germany, Japan and now Iraq found freedom by losing a war, not fighting one.

WE are a Democracy, because WE decided that we wanted it. No one came in and told us we needed to be Free, nor was our Freedom handed to us on a silver platter.
True...but armed struggle; as honorable as that is; is not the only way to achieve a goal.

I am of the opinion that if you want and desperately desire Freedom & Democracy, then it is up to YOU to initiate the forward motion toward that endeavor. Once YOU have declared and actually moved toward a Free state, THEN we'll help you, but I repeat, it is NOT our job to free other people if they have made no action inn that direction.

A reminder; we sat and watched as democracy movements in Hungary and China were crushed by the brutal application of military forces. We sat by and watched as Tibet was forcibly annexed to China. So your statement is not true...grassroots movement towards democracy has not always been defended by the US, UN, or "The West".

We went to Iraq, because their leader posed a threat to us.
True.

NOW, we are saying that we need to stay to keep the Iraqis free.
Yes...as a consequence of the invasion we have created a governmental vacuum that must be filled by some governing entity. We are using this opportunity to fill that vacuum with a representative constitutional democracy; just like we did in Japan. What would you have us do instead?

Next we'll hear that we need to be a change of force for the entire Middle East...wait, that was weeks ago already.

The fledgling democracy in Iraq is already changing the region. It will continue to be an example to other Arab nations. If we fail there it will be an example of that too. This is why it's so important.

-z

[King of the Americas]

Iraqis could vote before we got there... Saddam may well have been a Dictator, but he did hold elections, even if they WERE complete shams.

Until Iraqis decide for THEMSELVES that Freedom is worth fighting, no amount of U.S. military effort will make them Free...

[RandFan]

Iraqis could vote before we got there... Saddam may well have been a Dictator, but he did hold elections, even if they WERE complete shams. Well now they can hold legitimate elections. Is that better? That was truly a meaningless distinction, KOA.

Until Iraqis decide for THEMSELVES that Freedom is worth fighting, no amount of U.S. military effort will make them Free... Odd since Iraqis are joining the military at great personal risk. It stands to reason that this could very well be so.

[Manny]

Until Iraqis decide for THEMSELVES that Freedom is worth fighting, no amount of U.S. military effort will make them Free...I can't get the statistics from work because of webblockers, but over 3,000 of those Iraqi civilians killed were Iraqi police or military members or recruits killed by terrorists or remnant Ba'athists. More Iraqis have died defending the new Iraq than coalition members.

[American]

I am a world away from the violence,

All you need to know about liberals, right there.

Not that it stops you from speaking volumes on the topic and writing an equal quantity of emotion-based, inconsequential opinions that are read by precisely nobody who is important.

[force_redo]

The people of Italy, Germany, Japan and now Iraq found freedom by losing a war, not fighting one.


True, but I really want to point out a neccesary difference:
Iraq (and Afghanistan) were souvereign countries and not aggressors of a world war who got then attacked to install democracy & freedom

Germany & Japan (And partly Italy) were countries in ashes. The were agressors in a fight they fought for their believes in being better than everybody else (amongst other things)

So, compare these situations in terms of public reception:
1.) In Iraq, Joe Average has a home, a job, a family and someday somebody throws some bombs on his home country and demands a regime change

2.) In Germany Joan Average (a widow) is hungry, poor, her husband dead, the house in ashes and all because of her own dictator who recently killed himself. Now somebody comes along with a plan to help rebuilding her home country

I think this makes clear why these are completely different situations.

ETA: I hope it turns out good for Iraq and Afghanistan, but I think this explains why it isn't a smooth process

FR

[rikzilla]

I agree with your 3rd paragraph, but the 1st one is an unsupported assertion. The Iraqis are not voting on whether they are better off since the war or whether the war was wrong or not or whether they feel secure or what they think about the job that the US lead forces have done in Iraq or whether the US lead forces should remain in Iraq.

Iraqi voter turnout is most likely a 'yes to democracy' but is must be qualified as a lesser of two evils sort of 'yes to democracy'. An either/or choice between being blown to hell by suicide bombers vs electing their own leadership.

You're setting up the false dichtomy. There are several other choices. The easiest of these would be to do nothing. Sit on your hands and watch from the sidelines. A 70 to 80% turnout is a resounding and objective YES to democracy. How can anyone assume otherwise? The voters are coming in huge numbers even though they can be sure that they will be vulnerable to attack for even just participating. Seems to me that if people were not sure they'd be better off; they'd be sitting this dangerous voting business out. It's not a choice between vote or be blown up...it's a choice between freedom or slavery and choosing freedom may well get you blown up but they're doing it anyway.
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Those Iraqi voters can be seen right now on tv...living the very sentiments of Patrick Henry! It is not an unsupported assertion...it's happening right now. Watch closely.

-z

[ImaginalDisc]

All you need to know about liberals, right there.


This is a poor excuse to ignore what someone has to say. It's a genetic fallacy. Try attacking the poster's points, rather than the poster themself. In a democracy, everyone can particpate, not just those who "deserve" to.

[RandFan]

This is a poor excuse to ignore what someone has to say. It's a genetic fallacy. Try attacking the poster's points, rather than the poster themself. In a democracy, everyone can particpate, not just those who "deserve" to. Pay no attention to American. No one else does. For the record BTW, you are correct.

[RandFan]

This is a poor excuse to ignore what someone has to say. It's a genetic fallacy. Try attacking the poster's points, rather than the poster themself. In a democracy, everyone can particpate, not just those who "deserve" to. BTW, today is the first time I've seen you post. Welcome to the forum.

[King of the Americas]

...because WE decided that WE should be.

Armed struggle IS one way to arrive at were we are today. Ghandi led a much more passive struggle against the British to free his nation.

Germany 'chose' Hitler, whom we disposed because he threatened further invasion and expansion of his military might.

Japan suffered our liberating them because they attacked us directly.

Regardless, today Cubans 'choose' to live under a Dictator. Nothing keeps them from seeking freedom except their own lack of initiative.

When the bounds of ANY government become burdensome, it is up to the citizens living under that government to absolve that force, BY force if neccessary. It is NOT the duty of us or any other nation to go about the world freeing people. That said, I have no problem 'helping' people to be free once they have begun the initiative. And indeed, I believe we SHOULD act when stuggling Democracies faulter or are in danger of invasion by an unlike government intent on forcing its will upon it.

We disposed of Saddam, for whatever reasons, but until the Iraqis stand up, no amount of our efforts will sustain their freedom long.

[Jocko]

.
When the bounds of ANY government become burdensome, it is up to the citizens living under that government to absolve that force, BY force if neccessary. It is NOT the duty of us or any other nation to go about the world freeing people. That said, I have no problem 'helping' people to be free once they have begun the initiative. And indeed, I believe we SHOULD act when stuggling Democracies faulter or are in danger of invasion by an unlike government intent on forcing its will upon it.

You're quite an advocate for self-determination, responsibility and accountability... when you're talking about someone else.

As your generous exemption for those who have "begun the intiative," what would you call the Kurd and Shia uprisings back in '91-'92?

We disposed of Saddam, for whatever reasons, but until the Iraqis stand up, no amount of our efforts will sustain their freedom long.

Upwards of 80% expected voter turnout, and you're still complaining that Iraqis aren't pulling their own weight? Your assessment isn't just wrong, it's insulting to a people with far more guts than you will ever understand.

[Ziggurat]

True, but I really want to point out a neccesary difference:
Iraq (and Afghanistan) were souvereign countries and not aggressors of a world war who got then attacked to install democracy & freedom

What, exactly, do you think the word "sovereign" actually means when you're talking about non-democratic states? Does the word have any significance or value at all? The best I can figure is it means that the dictator/regime in charge gets free reign to violate the rights of the people of that country without any outside interference. Is that really a concept worth protecting? I'm sorry, but I don't see how it is.

So, compare these situations in terms of public reception:
1.) In Iraq, Joe Average has a home, a job, a family and someday somebody throws some bombs on his home country and demands a regime change

No. Joe Average had little reliable work, his home was a slum without electricity or sewage, he lived in constant fear of what the secret police might do to him simply because a neighbor decided to "inform" on him, his brother is missing a leg from the Iran-Iraq war, his cousin disappeared years ago and is probably in a mass grave for committing some unknown offense, and he had to hide his daughters whenever Uday or Qusay come around in case they're feeling frisky.

Let's be honest about this, shall we? Things were NOT okay in Iraq before we got there. Just look at how people vote with their feet: people fled Iraq in large numbers under Saddam, and a lot of them returned after he was toppled, with NO corresponding exodus of refugees after our invasion.

[rikzilla]

True, but I really want to point out a neccesary difference:
Iraq (and Afghanistan) were souvereign countries and not aggressors of a world war who got then attacked to install democracy & freedom

Germany & Japan (And partly Italy) were countries in ashes. The were agressors in a fight they fought for their believes in being better than everybody else (amongst other things)

So, compare these situations in terms of public reception:
1.) In Iraq, Joe Average has a home, a job, a family and someday somebody throws some bombs on his home country and demands a regime change

2.) In Germany Joan Average (a widow) is hungry, poor, her husband dead, the house in ashes and all because of her own dictator who recently killed himself. Now somebody comes along with a plan to help rebuilding her home country

I think this makes clear why these are completely different situations.

ETA: I hope it turns out good for Iraq and Afghanistan, but I think this explains why it isn't a smooth process

FR


Different yes. But I offered them as examples of democracy imposed from without. This was to rebut KOA's assertion that democracy had to spring from within and could not be imposed.

It is almost always true that first must come the brute force...then the change. Even if the brutal force is to bring law, order, justice, and freedom it must first bring death, disorder, injustice, and chaos. When the brute force is employed to enforce a tyranny we get Tiananmen square...the killing fields of Cambodia,...Kosovo,...Rwanda,...the Holocaust...and fertile ground for more of the same if the tyrant remains.

Brutal force used to remove a tyrant and institute democracy is just as deadly and bloody as that used by a tyrant to continue his tyranny. War is really just change writ large. The quality of the change is what informs the quality of the war...not the quality of the intelligence used in the lead up to war. If Iraq becomes a stable democracy and good example to all other Arab nations; the whole WMD justification will become an obscure footnote to history.

-z

[force_redo]

What, exactly, do you think the word "sovereign" actually means when you're talking about non-democratic states? Does the word have any significance or value at all? The best I can figure is it means that the dictator/regime in charge gets free reign to violate the rights of the people of that country without any outside interference.

Amongst other things, you are right. Alas, there are many countries like that in the world.

Is that really a concept worth protecting? I'm sorry, but I don't see how it is.

Did I say it is? I'm sorry, but I don't see how I did.

No. Joe Average had little reliable work, his home was a slum without electricity or sewage, he lived in constant fear of what the secret police might do to him simply because a neighbor decided to "inform" on him, his brother is missing a leg from the Iran-Iraq war, his cousin disappeared years ago and is probably in a mass grave for committing some unknown offense, and he had to hide his daughters whenever Uday or Qusay come around in case they're feeling frisky.

You aren't serious, are you? Are you implying the situation in Iraq was similar to the situation in Germany or Japan after WWII?

Let's be honest about this, shall we?

Yes, please. Let's start with this: Read my post again and recognise that I am well in favour of what's happening in Iraq right now. I wish the best to this country and hope the alliance is successful. I just mention that you shoudn't compare it with the situations after WWII and therefore the whole process will take longer, but will be, hopefully, ultimately succesful.
Was that clear enough now?

FR

[force_redo]

Different yes. But I offered them as examples of democracy imposed from without. This was to rebut KOA's assertion that democracy had to spring from within and could not be imposed.

Completely agree. That's what I meant in my #24

It is almost always true that first must come the brute force...then the change. Even if the brutal force is to bring law, order, justice, and freedom it must first bring death, disorder, injustice, and chaos.

Sadly this seems to be the case. Sometimes it comes from within (civil war/revolution) but since oppression methods change with time, I think we will see this less nowadays. Most of the time at least some help is neccesary from the outside.

If Iraq becomes a stable democracy and good example to all other Arab nations; the whole WMD justification will become an obscure footnote to history.

Let's hope the best.
For the record: I was always against this war. And I would be again under the same circumstances. However, I believe that something good can grow out of something wrong. And that's what I hope for now the milk is spilled.
ETA: In other words: Let's make the best of it.

FR

[Ziggurat]

Did I say it is? I'm sorry, but I don't see how I did.

Fair enough. But then I'm confused as to why you noted Iraq and Afghanistan's sovereignty.

You aren't serious, are you? Are you implying the situation in Iraq was similar to the situation in Germany or Japan after WWII?

Not at all. Yes, the German and Japanes populations had been beaten down by prolonged warfare, and in a sense were more tired and ready for peace. On the flip side, however, the Iraqi regime never had the kind of broad popular support that both Germany and Japan had, but was generally despised to begin with and for very good reason. So yes, it's different from WWII (and there are more differences than I listed), but not every difference makes our job harder or less likely to succeed. The point about WWII is simply that the often-repeated mantra that you can't push democracy from outside by force is untrue, since it has been done. Whether or not it can be done in THIS case is certainly not a trivial question. The fact that something may be possible is not a guarantee of success, just as the risk of possible failure does not necessarily mean the attempt should not be made.

[punchdrunk]

Obviously the people of Iraq are conflicted. They want democracy; but they don't like being occupied. Since the turnout is projected to be 70-80% in this election I'd say that Iraqis are showing us what is most important in their lives. The democracy.

A successful election also means another step towards removing the US occupiers, which is a sentiment I see more often expressed by Iraqis than a desire for democracy. And I am troubled by the thought that some or most Iraqis may vote in a certain way because Allah and a muslim cleric told them to, and not because it is what is best for their newly democratic country. What is most important in an Iraqi's life, Allah or democracy? Because it is the fundamental question, and one that will be put to test very soon by those opposing factions (Baathists and Muslim extremists) in Iraq.

Why have the various factions opposing the US in Iraq taken part in the democratic process and laid down arms during the elections? Because they want a democracy in Iraq? No, Baathists will have little power in a new Iraq, and the extremists wish to turn the country into a theocracy. They want the occupiers out, because getting them out gives them some capability to change the fate of Iraq to their own goals, and they know the occupiers won't leave until a "stable democracy" is in place. Moreover, these factions will split once the occupiers leave - Baathist' and muslim extremists' goals are entirely different outside of resisting the occupation - which will put even more pressure on the new democracy.

Once the Iraqis' wish is granted - the occupiers leave their country - what comes about in the subsequent vacuum will be crucial. With the usual Israeli/US crap in combination with appeals to Allah, will extremists sway the Iraqi voters to give up some or all of their democracy? I hope not, but I am worried.

Just my 2 cents to be added to the overflowing JREF Politics piggy jar....

[force_redo]

Fair enough. But then I'm confused as to why you noted Iraq and Afghanistan's sovereignty.
[QUOTE]
To put it in a stupid (yet funny) analogy:
If you help up an elderly lady who fell down because of her own stupidity, she will be greatful and thank you for your help.
If you hit one over the head and then help her up, she will...?

(I'm just trying to explain, why the response to the undertaking to implement a democracy in Iraq is errrm... mixed)
[QUOTE]
Not at all. Yes, the German and Japanes populations had been beaten down by prolonged warfare, and in a sense were more tired and ready for peace.

Let me spice that up a little: They tried to take on the world. Not some minorities in their backyard, not a small neighbour country. And after they luckily didn't succeed, it's not only that they lost everything, but at the same time the population recognised that it was complete fanatic madness. And after that, yes, you do appreciate help. It's a matter of public opinion.

So yes, it's different from WWII (and there are more differences than I listed), but not every difference makes our job harder or less likely to succeed.

Hopefully not less likely, but I'd say definately harder. There're quite some bombs going off there, not planted by terrorists, but by "normal" resistance that you always have when a country is occupied. Always - except from "when you just lost a World War that you started. See my point?

The point about WWII is simply that the often-repeated mantra that you can't push democracy from outside by force is untrue, since it has been done.

Yes, that's exactly what I said in my #24. The more I wondered how you missed that in your interpretation of my writings.

FR

[Ziggurat]

Hopefully not less likely, but I'd say definately harder. There're quite some bombs going off there, not planted by terrorists, but by "normal" resistance that you always have when a country is occupied.

You hear about how those "normal" resistance fighters recently threatened Al Quaeda if they attacked any polling stations? "Legitimate" resistance cannot maintain its claims to legitimacy as democracy takes hold, and a lot of them recognize that.

The prevalence of bombings and IED's isn't simply the result of "normal" resistance, though, it's largely due to the convergence of three rather significant factors that are somewhat peculiar to Iraq. The first and most important is the enormous number of munitions lying around the country to begin with. I don't think most people really understand how awash in explosives Iraq really was. The country had more conventional munitions that the American military had - we're talk as much as one million tons of explosives. There's never BEEN a situation where so much ordinance existed in a defeated country, and huge amounts of that were hidden away precisely to arm an insurgency (that's what a few months of delay at the UN can buy you). The second factor is the Ba'athist regime elements who escaped with billions of dollars that they're now using to fund the insurgency. This cash is used to pay ordinary criminals to plant those abundant explosives. And the third factor is the criminals themselves: Saddam freed all the ordinary criminals from prison just prior to the invasion, and many of those same criminals are the ones forming the gangs who plant explosives for profit. These factors make the insurgency particularly deadly in terms of its ability to kill people, and raise the cost of our operations, but none of it actually gains the insurgency popular support or in any way precludes the adoption of democracy.

[epepke]

...because WE decided that WE should be.

Armed struggle IS one way to arrive at were we are today. Ghandi led a much more passive struggle against the British to free his nation.

Germany 'chose' Hitler, whom we disposed because he threatened further invasion and expansion of his military might.

Japan suffered our liberating them because they attacked us directly.

Regardless, today Cubans 'choose' to live under a Dictator. Nothing keeps them from seeking freedom except their own lack of initiative.

OK, that's enough. Basta ya.

I live in a state that is largely populated by Cubans who did show their initiative and get out of Cuba. My old childhood neighborhood is mostly Cuban now. There are a lot of people who live there who came over on the Mariel boatlifts. They're good, honest, hard-working people, and they have direct personal experience with what Cuba is like. Not some planned tourist agenda for an academic, real experience. They say that Cuba is like mediastinal cancer. It's incurable, and you know that it will strangle your heart.

Yet everything that I hear from the idiot left, between bouts of smoking dope and masturbating to Noam Chomsky books, is that they're all just a bunch of retarded conservatives, and probably Spics to boot.

You know how you can tell a really good Cuban restaurant in Florida? They have a picture of Kennedy on the wall.

[King of the Americas]

Sir, fleeing communism, and taking a stand to fight against it are two very different things.

I live in America, and would LIKE it if Cannibas were legal. In fact, I have written many a letter to my Senators & Congressmen urging change in this direction. I have also written to the National Drug Control Offices questioning current reasoning. I am doing what I can, to no affect, to change the current laws regarding the illegality of Marijuana. At present I may very well be arrested and jailed for my use and possession of this substance. And that is a risk I take. If I am jailed, I'd consider myself a political prisoner.

Your suggesting that moving to Amsterdam and smoking it up THERE, beyond the reaches of U.S. justice is taking initiative to change the system???

Cubans live under a Communistic Dictatorship because they choose to. They could, if they were so inclined, revolt either passively or aggressively. Indeed they may face prison or worse, but the life they have now is the one they CHOOSE to keep living. Like it or not, 'their' fear and lack of initiative is what keeps them down...

Freedom isn't free, and the tree of liberty needs nurishment from the blood of patriots.

[Marc L]

From the site I posted a moment ago:

"Who did the killing?
US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period."

I realize you got this off the website, but where, exactly, did they get their information from? I mean, more specifically than, '3 press agencies mortuary officials.'

Marc

[schplurg]

eta: oops wrong button

[rikzilla]

Cubans live under a Communistic Dictatorship because they choose to. They could, if they were so inclined, revolt either passively or aggressively. Indeed they may face prison or worse, but the life they have now is the one they CHOOSE to keep living. Like it or not, 'their' fear and lack of initiative is what keeps them down...

Freedom isn't free, and the tree of liberty needs nurishment from the blood of patriots.


Eh? They choose to? Can you please tell me when that election was held? I'd love to see the result.

In a tyranny the people are not free to make any choice which the tyrant disagrees with. If they are not free to begin with...how can they "choose"??

Freedom is; as Sharansky says; an axiom. Given a real choice between freedom and slavery people will always choose freedom. Tyranny is a form of mass slavery.

-z

[Manny]

Cubans live under a Communistic Dictatorship because they choose to. They could, if they were so inclined, revolt either passively or aggressively.You appear to be unaware that there has been something of a shift since 1776 in the amount of deadly force available to nation-states and in the balance of such force which is available to such states and their citizenry. Please be advised that such a shift did in fact occur in such a way to increase the coercive power of the nation-state, particularly if its leader is willing to use such force.

[Mark]

You appear to be unaware that there has been something of a shift since 1776 in the amount of deadly force available to nation-states and in the balance of such force which is available to such states and their citizenry. Please be advised that such a shift did in fact occur in such a way to increase the coercive power of the nation-state, particularly if its leader is willing to use such force.

You mean all our guns wouldn't help us overthrow the U.S. Government and Army if we wanted to? Yikes. Don't tell that to the N.R.A. They might get twitchy.

[King of the Americas]

...You may live free, of you so choose. Death may very well be part of that freedom, but no one can force you to live under a tyrant.

An armed struggle against your oppresser is but ONE way to free yourself from those bounds, passive resistance is another.

Here in America, if you don't like the tyranny of the government in place, nothing stops you from 'attempting' to overthrow said government. During that process you are a truly free citizen, able to do whatever you'd like. Now you may very well NOT succeed in your attempted coup, and you may very well be jailed or even put to death for your treasonous behavior. That said, you are still 'free' to to pursue whatever course of action you'd like. Free will still exists, and may be exercised whenever you so choose.

Those living in Cuba STILL have free will, and IF they chose, they could attempt to overthrow Castro. They may or may NOT succeed, but nothing keeps them from living free except their own lack of initiative.

Regardless of the possible force to be used against them, Cubans CHOOSE to live under their Dictator.

Relatively speaking, look at the amount of force our founding fathers faced, but they still CHOSE to rebel.

Again, freedom isn't free, and the tree of liberty requires the nurishment of patriots from time to time, and oftentimes won't see life without a huge initial dose. Although, I think Ghandi proved otherwise. Were the people of Cuba to choose that path, en masse, I think there is very little Castro could do to stop the process...

[rikzilla]

...You may live free, of you so choose. Death may very well be part of that freedom, but no one can force you to live under a tyrant.

An armed struggle against your oppresser is but ONE way to free yourself from those bounds, passive resistance is another.

Here in America, if you don't like the tyranny of the government in place, nothing stops you from 'attempting' to overthrow said government. During that process you are a truly free citizen, able to do whatever you'd like. Now you may very well NOT succeed in your attempted coup, and you may very well be jailed or even put to death for your treasonous behavior. That said, you are still 'free' to to pursue whatever course of action you'd like. Free will still exists, and may be exercised whenever you so choose.

Those living in Cuba STILL have free will, and IF they chose, they could attempt to overthrow Castro. They may or may NOT succeed, but nothing keeps them from living free except their own lack of initiative.

Regardless of the possible force to be used against them, Cubans CHOOSE to live under their Dictator.

Relatively speaking, look at the amount of force our founding fathers faced, but they still CHOSE to rebel.

Again, freedom isn't free, and the tree of liberty requires the nurishment of patriots from time to time, and oftentimes won't see life without a huge initial dose. Although, I think Ghandi proved otherwise. Were the people of Cuba to choose that path, en masse, I think there is very little Castro could do to stop the process...

By your logic the slaves of the old south would still be picking cotton and singing the blues. And you'd be going on about how they like it since they chose it.

[King of the Americas]

...would have eventually died, even without the Union's orders to disolve the practice.

Even in the face of the violence of a tormenting slave master, 'some' slaves sought freedom through the "Underground Railroad" knowing full well that they would face a harsh punishment for their behavior.

Free will is paramount, and regardless of the rules and insititutions in place, men CAN choose a life of Freedom if and when the initiative within them arises.

[luchog]

...would have eventually died, even without the Union's orders to disolve the practice.
True, but it would likely have been just as violent, if not moreso. The revolts of Prosser, Vesey, and Turner resulted in stricter laws and practices regarding run-aways, educating slaves, and uprisings of any sort. A prolonged civil war was inevitable.