Time to kick Iran

[Darth Rotor]

Haliburton could have done very well without a war. Bush could have written any contract he wanted with Saddam and Saddam would have happily done so. Bush just needed to announce to the world that he had persuaded Saddam to comply and everyone would have been rich and happy.
That's the part that called for some clever horse trading. I think Saddam was approached with that plan in mind, and he blew the deal by asking, and not negotiating around, too great a percentage on each well pumping.

What a greedy bastidge, eh? He blew a chance for whirled pease in the Persian Gulf. Of course, given his mergers and acquisitions methods regarding Kuwait, one probably could have bet the over on him driving a greedy bargain.

DR

[Matteo Martini]

Not a clue dude. When I said the video was demonstrably shallow and racists it sure has hell wasn't about the guy taking the video. That doesn't make any sense.


OK.
If you criticize Mr. A for being shallow and racists I 100% agree with you


This is just silly and dumb. No.


So, it is OK NOT to rule out the use of nukes?


Please make up your mind.

What can I reply to this?

[Matteo Martini]

It's called life. It happens.


You are so light-minded when it comes to tens of thousands of deaths of NON- American people, uh?
" It's called life. It happens. "
You cynic..


I a black and white world, sure.


OK
You are speaking like Osama bin Laden, you just do not realize it.


Yes, but you only care now.


This is a lie.
I do not call you " liar ", but this is a gross lie.


Your postion is clear. People dying under Saddam will not raise your ire.

Another lie.


America trying to help people and failing will earn your contempt and animosity. It's not a difficult thing to understand.

Communists wanted to create the perfect world, and caused 20 million people to die.
Are you a Communist?

[Matteo Martini]

But at no point have I ever seen you refer to civilian deaths in the pre-invasion time frame, or ever suggest that there would continue to be deaths even without an invasion.


But, would there have been more or less deaths?
Another point, of these deaths, who would have been responsible?


First of all, the term 'co-responsible' in the above sentence is important. In my opinion, the U.S. would prefer a peaceful, democratic Iraq. It is the insurgents who are causing the bulk of the problems at this point in time.


That is a good point.
But, I beg you to notice that, many times, having good intentions is not a good excuse for creating a mess, especially when the mess means tens of thousands of deaths.


Well, lets see...

There have been approximately 70,000 deaths in Iraq in the 4 years/4 months since the invasion (according to the Iraq body count web site). That works out to a little over 16,000 per year.

In the 24 years that Saddam was in power, the number of estimated deaths has ranged anywhere from 500,000 to 1 million (depending on how you attribute deaths due to the war with Iran, premature deaths due to the misuse of oil-for-food money, plus the various genocides.) That works out to between 20,000 and 40,000 deaths per year.

Personally, I'd rather see no deaths, but given a choice I'd rather see 16,000 deaths than 20,000 or 40,000. Oh, and I should add... under Saddam situations were unlikely to improve (as his sons would likely take over his leadership and were just as brutal as he was). At least with the current situation, there is a chance for the situation to improve. (And had Bush not screwed up his handling of Iraq post-invasion, the situation might even be better.)

Your numbers are quite dubious.
What you are referring to are the number of civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
The number of the deaths, caused directly or indirectly, by the invasion are probably in the range of the hundreds of thousands.

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
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/#position

Moreover, you forget that Saddam' s actions could have been diverted without taking him out of power, just with local attacks to his forces, more or less like George father did.


And just how exactly do you propose they could have done that?

Sanctions? They weren't working too well (given Iraq's use of money to fund the military rather than buy food/medicine, not to mention illegal oil sales) They were causing hardship for the Iraqi people and likely adding to the premature deaths.

No.
I was talking about:
1) attacking Iraqi' s forces, at local level;
2) if Saddam attacks the Kurds, bomb his forces by air;
3) target potential military facilities of Saddam;
4) ..


So, let me make this 100% clear...

You are basically saying that you had no moral objection to the genocide in Serbia, because the U.N. did not approve any action to correct the situation. Is that what you're saying? (And if the U.N. does not act on the situation, then it is not worthy of action.)

No.
I say that the US and Europe should have worked within an international consensus before takling any military measure
If the US want to go alone, and they fail, they will have to take the blame and they will become guilty of what happens because of their actions.

[RandFan]

So, it is OK NOT to rule out the use of nukes? For those that don't have them? It's ok.
For those that want to get rid of them? It's ok.
For those that have them and plan to keep them? Uh... Let me put it this way, at one point in my life I ruled out eating cottage cheese. When I did that I got rid of my cottage cheese and stopped buying the stuff. Is that a difficult concept to understand? What's the purpose of having something you refuse to ever use?

[RandFan]

You are so light-minded when it comes to tens of thousands of deaths of NON- American people, uh? No, I'm not. I'm honest and realistic. I care very much for the people suffering and dying all over the world. I don't single out a country to vent my frustration on, as many here do.

You are speaking like Osama bin Laden, you just do not realize it. Osama, like you, sees the world in a black and white way. Americans are bad. I don't see ANY country that way. I don't see ANY group of people that way.

I do not call you " liar ", but this is a gross lie.Really? What forums have you discussed the suffering of other people? When did you speak out against Saddam?

Another lie.Sure Mateo, you regularly bemoan the suffering of people in Darfur, right? You are currently speaking out against North Korea, right? You give a damn about those who are being killed all around the world but you spend most if not all of your time here criticizing America. Forgive me if I'm skeptical as to your heartfelt concern for anyone suffering in an area not affected by America. I can only judge you on your actions.

Communists wanted to create the perfect world, and caused 20 million people to die.
Are you a Communist?Well this would be a fallacy but let's skip that and deal just with the first proposition. I think the number is much higher but the point is that Stalin and Pol Pot intentionally killed or caused the death of citizens. America does not want people to die. Our intentions were not to kill citizens.

AMERICANS BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THOSE WHO HAVE DIED AS A RESULT OF THIS WAR! I started a thread to publicly apologize for my support of this war.

That being said, it is only intellectually honest to put the event in proper context. Comparing Iraq to Stalin's purges and Pol Pot's killing fields is intellectually dishonest. You should be careful who you call a liar.

[Oliver]

America does not want people to die. Our intentions were not to kill citizens.


According to the CIA history, your sentence doesn't make much sense. For Americas interests, the CIA never cared much about lives or Dictators as long there is an advantage in it:

The Secrets of the CIA (http://video.google.com/videosearch?num=10&so=0&hl=en&q=The+Secrets+of+the+CIA+duration%3Along&start=0) (SkyTwo, UK)
-8562860981340825213

[RandFan]

According to the CIA history, your sentence doesn't make much sense. I hate to break the news to you Oliver but the CIA is not America. Much has been done without our knowledge. Americans really don't want to kill innocent people and I'm disapointed that you so easily accept that.

In any event, I'm not sure just how many innocent people the CIA intentionally targeted.

[Oliver]

I hate to break the news to you Oliver but the CIA is not America. Much has been done without our knowledge. Americans really don't want to kill innocent people and I'm disapointed that you so easily accept that.

In any event, I'm not sure just how many innocent people the CIA intentionally targeted.


Since the President and the Congressional Members of the National Security Council are your elected representatives - and they know about it: Yes, they are America. Now since these things are known today, why didn't someone reformed this issue if they're not acting in name of the citizens? (And I know it isn't in their name)

[Matteo Martini]

For those that don't have them? It's ok.


Iran does not have them, so, you agree with me that Bush was an ass, when he did not rule out using nukes against Iran.

[Matteo Martini]

Osama, like you, sees the world in a black and white way. Americans are bad. I don't see ANY country that way. I don't see ANY group of people that way.


Again.
Another lie.
I never said that Americans are bad.


Really? What forums have you discussed the suffering of other people? When did you speak out against Saddam?


You are, like some opther people here, involved in the phishicatric problem of the two alternatives.
For the 100th time, why on Earth if I did not speak against Saddam, should you consider that I am in favour on him.
Why????????????????????????????????


Sure Mateo, you regularly bemoan the suffering of people in Darfur, right? You are currently speaking out against North Korea, right? You give a damn about those who are being killed all around the world but you spend most if not all of your time here criticizing America.

1) my name is not " Mateo "
2) you are completely .....
You are saying a gross, gross lie about " you give a damn about those who are being killed all around the world "
I do not know why I am keeping on replying to you..


Forgive me if I'm skeptical as to your heartfelt concern for anyone suffering in an area not affected by America. I can only judge you on your actions.


My actions??
Which actions??


Well this would be a fallacy but let's skip that and deal just with the first proposition. I think the number is much higher but the point is that Stalin and Pol Pot intentionally killed or caused the death of citizens. America does not want people to die. Our intentions were not to kill citizens.


I am not sure if the number is higher or lower.
I was stressing the point, that many times, the worst tragedies are caused by the best intentions.
But, you did not get it.
As always..


AMERICANS BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THOSE WHO HAVE DIED AS A RESULT OF THIS WAR!

Then, we partially agree.
It is not complete responsibility, it is partial responsibility, as American soldiers do not kill Iraqi civilians ( unless some exceptional cases ), and they have provided regular elections for the Iraqi people.


That being said, it is only intellectually honest to put the event in proper context. Comparing Iraq to Stalin's purges and Pol Pot's killing fields is intellectually dishonest. You should be careful who you call a liar.

I completely agree that " comparing Iraq to Stalin's purges and Pol Pot's killing fields is intellectually dishonest ", as I have never compared Iraq to Stalin's purges and Pol Pot's killing fields
And, I do not think I called you a liar.

[Darth Rotor]

Since the President and the Congressional Members of the National Security Council are your elected representatives - and they know about it: Yes, they are America. Now since these things are known today, why didn't someone reformed this issue if they're not acting in name of the citizens? (And I know it isn't in their name)
In the interests of Putting the E into JREF, the only two elected representatives on the NSC are the Pres and the Vice Pres. The rest are appointed cabinet officers or special assistants to the President, or senior State and Military staff, subject to the usual Congressional advice and consent processes in some cases.

The NSC is a function of the Executive Branch. There are no seats on this council for the Congress. The Congress has its own committees for Security and Defense matters.
The National Security Council is chaired by the President.

Its regular attendees (both statutory and non-statutory) are the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the statutory military advisor to the Council, and the Director of National Intelligence is the intelligence advisor.

The Chief of Staff to the President, Counsel to the President, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy are invited to attend any NSC meeting.

The Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget are invited to attend meetings pertaining to their responsibilities.

The heads of other executive departments and agencies, as well as other senior officials, are invited to attend meetings of the NSC when appropriate.

National Security Council's Function

The National Security Council is the President's principal forum for considering national security and foreign policy matters with his senior national security advisors and cabinet officials.

Since its inception under President Truman, the function of the Council has been to advise and assist the President on national security and foreign policies. The Council also serves as the President's principal arm for coordinating these policies among various government agencies.
FYI

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/

DR

[Segnosaur]

That is a good point.
But, I beg you to notice that, many times, having good intentions is not a good excuse for creating a mess, especially when the mess means tens of thousands of deaths.

So, in other words, what you're saying is that any attrocity can be ignored just in case interverntion might make it worse.

By your logic, if you saw a man raping a woman, you'd ignore it, because getting involved in stopping the assault, you COULD injure the assailant.


Your numbers are quite dubious.
What you are referring to are the number of civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
The number of the deaths, caused directly or indirectly, by the invasion are probably in the range of the hundreds of thousands.

Your claim of 'hundreds of thousands' has absolutely no backing.

During open conflict, I'm sure there are a lot of uncounted deaths. But we're not dealing with open war now, and we haven't been for years. There is ample time and opporutity to cound the victims of terrorist attacks.


Moreover, you forget that Saddam' s actions could have been diverted without taking him out of power, just with local attacks to his forces, more or less like George father did.

Under "George's father" (and Clinton), we saw:
- Repression/execution of the Marsh Arabs
- Continued starvation of the population
- Lack of political and personal freedoms



No.
I was talking about:
1) attacking Iraqi' s forces, at local level;
2) if Saddam attacks the Kurds, bomb his forces by air;
3) target potential military facilities of Saddam;
4) ..

So you have no problem with military action, but you like to pretend that such actions can be done magically so that nobody gets hurt. And you have no problem interfering with Iraq's sovereignty, as long as the leader stays in charge.

Tell me, what were you going to do about the military forces stationed near civilian infrastrctures? You going to risk bombing them and thus causing civilian casulties? What are you going to do about Saddam's secret police? What are you going to do about people not receiving food/medicine because money from oil sales is diverted to the military? You going to send in ground forces to ensure supplies get to the people who need them?

And more importantly, what are you going to do if the U.N. disagrees with your plan for "attacking Iraq's forces at the local level"? You going to say "Ok, I guess he an keep killing his own people".

No.
I say that the US and Europe should have worked within an international consensus before takling any military measure

Again, another non-answer from you.

I possed the situation (wish I could say it was hypothetical, but its not), where a country is engaging in genocide or similar attrocities, and attempts to work within the U.N. (your supposed measure of 'international consensus') has failed. By your logic, you have no moral objection to such attrocities continuing because the U.N. did not approve of action.

Simply saying "work on a diplomatic solution" is no anwer, since we have plenty of cases where the U.N. has failed to solve conflicts.

[Oliver]

In the interests of Putting the E into JREF, the only two elected representatives on the NSC are the Pres and the Vice Pres. The rest are appointed cabinet officers or special assistants to the President, or senior State and Military staff, subject to the usual Congressional advice and consent processes in some cases.

The NSC is a function of the Executive Branch. There are no seats on this council for the Congress. The Congress has its own committees for Security and Defense matters.

FYI

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/

DR


So what? Isn't the President an elected representative of the American people? Of course he is - you're making my point here.

@Matteo Martini: What do you think about this? :

Threatening Petroeuro? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89642) http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89642)
Oliver (Today)

(Read my first and last message in this thread)

[Matteo Martini]

So, in other words, what you're saying is that any attrocity can be ignored just in case interverntion might make it worse.

By your logic, if you saw a man raping a woman, you'd ignore it, because getting involved in stopping the assault, you COULD injure the assailant.



By your logic, if you saw a man raping a woman, you'd ignore it, because getting involved in stopping the assault, you COULD kill the victim.



Your claim of 'hundreds of thousands' has absolutely no backing.

During open conflict, I'm sure there are a lot of uncounted deaths. But we're not dealing with open war now, and we haven't been for years. There is ample time and opporutity to cound the victims of terrorist attacks.


Debatable.
Study: War blamed for 655,000 Iraqi deaths
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/


Under "George's father" (and Clinton), we saw:
- Repression/execution of the Marsh Arabs
- Continued starvation of the population
- Lack of political and personal freedoms


Under George W. ,the situation has greatly improved.


So you have no problem with military action, but you like to pretend that such actions can be done magically so that nobody gets hurt. And you have no problem interfering with Iraq's sovereignty, as long as the leader stays in charge.


I never said such a thing.
Please, re-read and quyote where I wrote " you like to pretend that such actions can be done magically so that nobody gets hurt "


Tell me, what were you going to do about the military forces stationed near civilian infrastrctures? You going to risk bombing them and thus causing civilian casulties? What are you going to do about Saddam's secret police? What are you going to do about people not receiving food/medicine because money from oil sales is diverted to the military? You going to send in ground forces to ensure supplies get to the people who need them?


The best solution should be found for any circumstance


And more importantly, what are you going to do if the U.N. disagrees with your plan for "attacking Iraq's forces at the local level"? You going to say "Ok, I guess he an keep killing his own people".


Why the UN should be staying on Saddam' s side

Again, another non-answer from you.

I possed the situation (wish I could say it was hypothetical, but its not), where a country is engaging in genocide or similar attrocities, and attempts to work within the U.N. (your supposed measure of 'international consensus') has failed. By your logic, you have no moral objection to such attrocities continuing because the U.N. did not approve of action.

Why attempts to work within the UN should fail if US and Europe push hard enough?

[Darth Rotor]

Again.
Another lie.
I never said that Americans are bad.
I don't think RandFan is lying, he is responding to the words you have written, and the world view that those words infer.
For the 100th time, why on Earth if I did not speak against Saddam, should you consider that I am in favour on him.
Why?
The question is raised due to the slant on some of your comments. I accept that you are and were no big fan of Saddam, but are also not a fan of how America has dealt with Iraq.
You are saying a gross, gross lie about " you give a damn about those who are being killed all around the world " I do not know why I am keeping on replying to you.
The replies, or lack of them, are within your power to control.
My actions?? Which actions??
I think he is referring to the words written and points made in your posts, which in the frame of reference of a forum discussion are "actions."
I am not sure if the number is higher or lower. I was stressing the point, that many times, the worst tragedies are caused by the best intentions.
But, you did not get it.
I think RF gets it, and you will find that most people would agree with you on the problem of outcomes not always fitting intentions of a policy or action.
It is not complete responsibility, it is partial responsibility, as American soldiers do not kill Iraqi civilians ( unless some exceptional cases ), and they have provided regular elections for the Iraqi people.
Indeed, with the unfortunate problem of outcomes not always matching intentions in a dynamic environment. :(
I completely agree that " comparing Iraq to Stalin's purges and Pol Pot's killing fields is intellectually dishonest ", as I have never compared Iraq to Stalin's purges and Pol Pot's killing fields And, I do not think I called you a liar.
But you just did, see above. :confused:

DR

[Darth Rotor]

So what? Isn't the President an elected representative of the American people? Of course he is - you're making my point here.
I was correcting your claim in your post that Congressional members were part of the NSC. That is all.

To elaborate, the US Congress and the US Executive Branch frequently clash over how the executive uses its agencies, to include the CIA, to implement US policy. The CIA was massively reformed in the 1970's due to a long process of Congressional hearings and oversight, and again under President Clinton's administration in response to concerns by the elected representatives of the people, the Congress, who were in disagreement with another elected rep of the people, the President/Executive Branch.

That is part of how our system is set up, under the idea of checks and balances. Some people call it "Democracy in action."

DR

[Segnosaur]

By your logic, if you saw a man raping a woman, you'd ignore it, because getting involved in stopping the assault, you COULD kill the victim.

Actually, no, I would get involved. you are the one that

Debatable.
Study: War blamed for 655,000 Iraqi deaths
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/

Ah yes, the casualty estimate from the Lancet article. You should know that that particular article had many significant flaws:
- If you read the article, they only asked a small fraction of the people for death certificates.
- If I remember correctly, that particular survey used clustering in their sample taking, and the number of clusters was very small (47). What this means is that their surveys often distort results (especially in a place like Iraq, where conflicts will not be uniformly spread.) Other organizations had also used clustered samples, but they tend to use many more clusters (more than 3 times the number.)

A similar study was done several years back by the same team, and it was found that their estimates were 4 to 5 times higher than similar studies done by the U.N., but which used larger numbers of clusters.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108



Tell me, what were you going to do about the military forces stationed near civilian infrastrctures? You going to risk bombing them and thus causing civilian casulties? What are you going to do about Saddam's secret police? What are you going to do about people not receiving food/medicine because money from oil sales is diverted to the military? You going to send in ground forces to ensure supplies get to the people who need them

The best solution should be found for any circumstance

So, in other words, you havent thought things through enough to actually come up with a coherent strategy for dealing with that stuff. Easier for you to say "A way will magically be found" than to say "I have no idea. Guess those people under Saddam or in Kosovo deserved to die."


Why the UN should be staying on Saddam' s side

Well, lets see... Russia was a major arms supplier to Iraq. Other european countries were beneficiaries under the oil-for-food scandals. Of course, there is also an anti-American bias in many countries (partially deserved, partially not) which may prevent some of them from supporting the U.S. even when it is acting in a 'good' manor.

Or perhaps the U.S. did not make its case for invasion as well as it should. I do believe that Bush made a big mistake by putting more emphasis on WMD and less on links to terrorism and human rights violations. However, if a country truly cared about human rights, they might be willing to say "I don't think the U.S. is right about WMD, but we should go along anyways because Saddam commits genocide".


Why attempts to work within the UN should fail if US and Europe push hard enough?
Because regardless of how hard the U.S. and/or Europe pushes, there is no guarantee that other countries will follow along (especially with China and Russia holding vetos.)

So, once again... I possed the situation (wish I could say it was hypothetical, but its not), where a country is engaging in genocide or similar attrocities, and attempts to work within the U.N. (your supposed measure of 'international consensus') has failed. By your logic, you have no moral objection to such attrocities continuing because the U.N. did not approve of action.

[Darth Rotor]

So, once again... I possed the situation (wish I could say it was hypothetical, but its not), where a country is engaging in genocide or similar attrocities, and attempts to work within the U.N. (your supposed measure of 'international consensus') has failed. By your logic, you have no moral objection to such attrocities continuing because the U.N. did not approve of action.
On the bright side, all those dead from the UN condoned (by inaction) atrocities can't contribute to Human Caused Global Warming. :p

"Always with the negative waves, Moriarty. Think beautiful thoughts."

DR

[BeAChooser]

Debatable.
Study: War blamed for 655,000 Iraqi deaths
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/

There is absolutely NO physical evidence to support the claim of 655,000 dead at that time in the war. The study was organized and run by a small group of researchers who from the start admitted they were against the war and disliked Bush (one even ran as a democRAT for Congress in the last election and another supported his campaign), who hired a bunch of Iraqis to do the legwork in Iraq who the researchers acknowledge "hated" Americans, and who published their reports in a medical journal (the Lancet) of another country whose editors admitted they wanted to influence our election against the war. In order to do that, the editors of the Lancet rushed the peer review process of the first report and allowed their website to claim the report found that 100,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS were killed (when the report said no such thing). All the anti-war wooriors picked up that 100,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS dead claim and regurgitated it ad-nauseum.

Here are some more criticisms that the researchers, liberal media and anti-war movement members simply ignored about that study:

*********************

1. The 655,000 estimate is many, many times larger than any other estimate out there (and there are about half a dozen others). Those other estimates were more like 50,000 (or less) at the time the John Hopkins study was published. Are they all wrong and only John Hopkins right? Even various anti-war groups such as Human Rights Watch and IraqBodyCount have indicated the John Hopkins' figures are outlandish.

2. The report and the peer reviewer of the report (the Lancet) ignored a major discrepancy between the pre-war mortality estimate derived by the John Hopkins team and the estimates derived by other organizations such as the UN and WHO. The UN and WHO, in larger studies, came up with rates between 7-8 per 1000 per year compared to the John Hopkins' rate of 5-5.5 per 1000 per year. And these larger rates were estimates that the Lancet had previously endorsed as accurate. This pre-war mortality number is one of the key numbers used in determining excess deaths. If it were as high as the UN and WHO found, then the number of excess deaths would be far less, perhaps a tenth as much. Why
didn't the researchers resolve the discrepancy?

3. A contemporary UN Development Program study, http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/PDF/Analytical%20Report%20-%20English.pdf , states that there were 24,000 war-related deaths (18,000-29,000, with a 95% confidence level) during the time covered by the Hopkins report. This is approximately one-fourth the number of excess deaths that Les Roberts' 2004 John Hopkins study found. And the UN used similar techniques - clusters, etc. - but with a much larger data set than John Hopkins. Dr Jon Pedersen, who headed that study, is quoted in both the NYTimes and WaPO saying the Lancet numbers are "high, and probably way too high. I would accept something in the vicinity of 100,000 but 600,000 is too much." Here is more onwhat Dr Pedersen thinks about the John Hopkins work: http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2006/11/26/conversation-with-jon-pedersen-on-iraq-mortality-studies/.

4. According to the second John Hopkins report, 87 percent of those who claimed deaths were asked to prove it by providing death certificates. According to the researchers, they just forgot to ask the other 13 percent. And of those 87 percent, 92 percent (501 out of 545) were able to provide death certificates. Therefore, if the study is statistically valid, there should be death certificates available for about 92 percent of the total 655,000 estimated dead. But investigations by media sources that are not friendly to the Bush administration or the war have not found evidence of anywhere near that number. The Los Angeles Times, for example, in a comprehensive investigation found less than 50,000 certificates. Let me repeat what one of the authors of the LATimes story, Borzou Daragahi, said in an interview with PBS (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec06/iraq_10-11.html): "the Los Angeles Times thinks these numbers are too large, depending on the extensive research we've done. Earlier this year, around June, the report was published at least in June, but the reporting was done over weeks earlier. We went to morgues, cemeteries, hospitals, health officials, and we gathered as many statistics as we could on the actual dead bodies, and the number we came up with around June was about at least 50,000. And that kind of jibed with some of the news report that were out there, the accumulation of news reports, in terms of the numbers kill. The U.N. says that there's about 3,000 a month being killed; that also fits in with our numbers and with morgue numbers. This number of 600,000 or more killed since the beginning of the war, it's way off our charts." So in order to take the Johns Hopkins' results seriously, you have to believe that the Iraqi government recorded deaths occurring since the invasion with an accuracy of 92 percent, but then suppressed the bulk of those deaths when releasing official figures, with no one blowing the whistle. And you have to believe that all those dead bodies went unnoticed by the mainstream media and everyone else trying to keep track of the war casualties. Alternatively, you have to believe that the Iraqi government only issues death certificates for a small percentage of deaths, but this random sample happened to get 92 percent by pure chance. Or you have to believe that doctors issued death certificates without telling any authorities when so far NOT ONE Iraqi doctor has come forward to say he did that. Every one of those possibilities is ridiculous.

5. When media interviewers of the lead researchers completely misrepresented the results (for example, calling all the dead "civilians"), those researchers (one being Les Robert) made no effort to correct those falsehoods. And they went on to lie, both directly and by omission, about the methodology they used. This is indisputable. For example, here is what another of the John Hopkins researchers, Richard Garfield, told an interviewer: "First of all, very few people refused or were unable to take part in the sample, to our surprise most people had death certificates and we were able to confirm most of the deaths we investigated." That is a LIE since the first study (which is what he was talking about) indicates they confirmed only 7% of the deaths. Les Roberts did the exact same thing in another interview. And so did Burnham, the second studies lead author.

6. In the Garfield interview mentioned above, he stated "And here you see that deaths recorded in the Baghdad morgue were, for a long period, around 200 per month." Let me repeat that figure ... 200 A MONTH, in one of the most populated and most violent regions in the country during the time in question. And now Les Roberts and Burnham are asking us to believe that 15,000 (on average) were dying each month in the country since the war began. How could Garfield not have questions about this new estimate given his previous statement?

7. Richard Garfield is another of those who advocated mortality statistics before the war that are widely divergent from those derived using the Les Roberts/John Hopkins interviews. In fact, Richard Garfield said the most probable number of deaths of under-five children from August 1991 to June 2002 would be about 400,000. His *expert* opinion was that the rate in 2002 would was 9-10 percent. That is compared to the Les Robert's estimate of 2.9 percent. So why didn't Roberts or Garfield or Burnham address this disparity in the latest report? And note that the Lancet blessed and championed the conclusions of Garfield back in 2002. So why did they ignore the discrepancy during their peer reviews?

8. There is NO physical evidence whatsoever to support the claim that 655,000 Iraqis died from the beginning of the war to mid 2006. There are no killing fields filled with bodies or mass graves. There are no photos of these mountains of bodies. There are no videos of this slaughter or the funerals afterwords. There are no reporters, of ANY nationality, saying they saw these bodies or the slaughter. There are no US or foreign soldiers providing evidence of such a slaughter. There are no contractors or folks from any third party providing evidence of this. There is NO physical evidence. And how can that be in a country which has according to the researchers has seen 2.5 percent of its population killed (a percentage greater than the percentage of Germany's and Japan's population killed in World War 2 where there was plenty of physical evidence that such a slaughter had occurred).

9. Dahr Jamail is a viralently anti-American *journalist*. He has close ties to the insurgents and arabs. But look on his website (http://dahrjamailiraq.com/) for any indication that 500, much less 100 Iraqis were dying every single day on average back in 2003 and 2004 (which was during the period covered by not only the second but the first John Hopkins study) when he first started reporting from Iraq. You won't find any indication. Why not? He had access. They had cameras. Why not?

10. The last two years are arguably the most violent period since the invasion. Yet even the Iraqis reported the number killed in 2006 was on the order of 16,000 ... an average of 45 a day. That certainly stands in sharp constrast to the John Hopkins researchers (and their proponents) who claim that more than 500 a day have died every day on average since the invasion began. There are no news accounts of 500 dying in a day. How can this possibly be?

11. But the discrepancy is even worse than that. As noted in this source (http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2006_10_08_archive.html#116069912405842066 ), "The claim is 654,965 excess deaths caused by the war from March 2003 through July 2006. That's 40 months, or 1200 days, so an average of 546 deaths per day. To get an average of 546 deaths per day means that there must have been either many hundreds of days with 1000 or more deaths per day (example: 200 days with 1000 deaths = 200,000 dead leaves 1000 days with an average of 450 deaths), or tens of days with at least 10,000 or more deaths per day (example: 20 days with 10,000 deaths = 200,000 dead leaves 1180 days with an average of 381 deaths). So, where are the news accounts of tens of days with 10,000 or more deaths?" Yes ... where are the news accounts of the many days that should have seen more than a 1000 or even 10,000 deaths? They just don't exist and it's not because reporters weren't in Iraq or had no interest in showing such slaughter. You know the reason.

12. The number of dead the John Hopkins methodology gives in Fallujah is so staggering that even the John Hopkins researchers had to discard the data point. Yet in interviews, Les Roberts has responded as if the Fallujah data was accurate. For example, in an interview with Socialist Workers Online (note who he uses to get his message out), when asked why two thirds of all violent deaths were concentrated in this city, Les Roberts didn't respond "the data was wrong or atypical in Fallujah" as it states in his report. No, instead he answered the question as if he thought the data point was representative of what happened in Fallujah as a whole. He said "we think that our findings, if anything, underestimated the number of deaths because of the number of empty and destroyed houses." If true, then why didn't they stick to their guns and keep the Fallujah data point?

13. John Hopkins claims "We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654,965 (392,979 - 942,636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2.5% of the population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601,027 (426,369 - 793,663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gun fire." But as already mentioned, during World War II, the Allied air forces carpet bombed German cities, using high explosives and incendiaries, and according to The United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report killed an estimated 305,000. So are we to believe that with gun fire (primarily) rather than bombs, twice as many Iraqis have been killed in the last 3 years as died in all Germany during WW2 due to strategic bombing of cities (which completely flattened cities)? Likewise, Japan had about 2 million citizens killed (about 2.7 percent of their population), both military and civilian. Many Japanese cities were firebombed during that war (for example, Tokyo had 100,000 people killed in just one raid). Two cities were attacked with nuclear weapons. And yet Les Roberts, Burnham and his crew want us to believe that just as large a percentage have died in Iraq ... where the Coalition has gone out of its way to avoid civilian deaths?

****************

Here's what IraqBodyCounts (not by any stretch of the imagination a pro-war or pro-Bush group) had to say about the John Hopkins' study:

****************

From http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php

A new study has been released by the Lancet medical journal estimating over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. The Iraqi mortality estimates published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things, that:

1. On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms;

2. Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;

3. Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq;

4. Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued;

5. The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja.

And this:

If these assertions are true, they further imply:

* incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began;

* bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis;

* the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas;

* an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year.

In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition, totals of the magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy.

************

If you want to believe nonsense, no one can stop you. But that's what wooriors do.

[Matteo Martini]

@Matteo Martini: What do you think about this? :

Threatening Petroeuro? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89642) http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89642)
Oliver (Today)

(Read my first and last message in this thread)

OK

Reading now, I will reply to you there

[Matteo Martini]

There is absolutely NO physical evidence to support the claim of 655,000 dead at that time in the war.

This is why I wrote " Debatable ", in first place.

[Matteo Martini]

On the bright side, all those dead from the UN condoned (by inaction) atrocities can't contribute to Human Caused Global Warming. :p

"Always with the negative waves, Moriarty. Think beautiful thoughts."

DR

Darth, the more I know you, the more I dislike you..

( did I break any rule? )

[Matteo Martini]

I don't think RandFan is lying, he is responding to the words you have written, and the world view that those words infer.


Please. RandFan is an adult and intellingent person.
Let him defend his own positions by himself, would you??

[Matteo Martini]

Actually, no, I would get involved. you are the one that


Yes,
I would NOT get involved, if I know I would probably do worse ( to the victim )


Ah yes, the casualty estimate from the Lancet article. You should know that that particular article had many significant flaws:
- If you read the article, they only asked a small fraction of the people for death certificates.
- If I remember correctly, that particular survey used clustering in their sample taking, and the number of clusters was very small (47). What this means is that their surveys often distort results (especially in a place like Iraq, where conflicts will not be uniformly spread.) Other organizations had also used clustered samples, but they tend to use many more clusters (more than 3 times the number.)

A similar study was done several years back by the same team, and it was found that their estimates were 4 to 5 times higher than similar studies done by the U.N., but which used larger numbers of clusters.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108

Not many people seem to understand the meaning of the word " debatable ", here..



So, in other words, you havent thought things through enough to actually come up with a coherent strategy for dealing with that stuff. Easier for you to say "A way will magically be found" than to say "I have no idea. Guess those people under Saddam or in Kosovo deserved to die."


Not even in the wildest dreams of the wildest dreamer, there is a solution good for all the situations..


Well, lets see... Russia was a major arms supplier to Iraq.

The second after the US?


Other european countries were beneficiaries under the oil-for-food scandals.


Do I have to give you the list of the scandals in which the US were involved?
Do you have time to read them all?
Be prepared..


Of course, there is also an anti-American bias in many countries (partially deserved, partially not) which may prevent some of them from supporting the U.S. even when it is acting in a 'good' manor.


When this bias prevented some of them from supporting the U.S. even when it is acting in a 'good' manor??


Or perhaps the U.S. did not make its case for invasion as well as it should. I do believe that Bush made a big mistake by putting more emphasis on WMD and less on links to terrorism and human rights violations.

You do not seem to understand the point that the problem of " human rights violations " is, according to many, worse now than before.


However, if a country truly cared about human rights, they might be willing to say "I don't think the U.S. is right about WMD, but we should go along anyways because Saddam commits genocide".

Nope.
No way.
As I said, you do not seem to understand the point that the problem of " human rights violations " is, according to many, worse now than before.


Because regardless of how hard the U.S. and/or Europe pushes, there is no guarantee that other countries will follow along (especially with China and Russia holding vetos.)


This is why dimplomacy is needed..
BTW, why Russia should be stay in the side of the bad people, by default and the US should be stay in the side of the good people, by default??


So, once again... I possed the situation (wish I could say it was hypothetical, but its not), where a country is engaging in genocide or similar attrocities, and attempts to work within the U.N. (your supposed measure of 'international consensus') has failed. By your logic, you have no moral objection to such attrocities continuing because the U.N. did not approve of action.

No, if the US moved along alone, they should take the blame of what they do.

[RandFan]

I never said that Americans are bad. You are just highly critical of America and seemingly without ever showing any balance or fairness to America.

I did not speak against Saddam, should you consider that I am in favour on him. You miss my point. I note that you are only concerned with America. America is not the only nation that is involved in a war. Yet America is YOUR choice for critisism.

Look, I don't mind critisism. I critisize America myself. I only tire of those who can only find wrong with America.

My actions??
Which actions??You spend a lot of time critisising America. How much time do you spend discussion the the genocide in Darfur? How much time do you spend discussing the human rights violations of North Korea?

It's realy simple Matteo. What you do demonstrates what you think.

If you would come to the defense of America when Oliver says something demonstrably wrong like AUP, Darat, Tricky and many, many others who are very critical of the American president and/or were involved in other problems around the world I could believe you were objective in your critisism.

What you choose to respond to and how you choose to respond speaks volumes.

Then, we partially agree.
It is not complete responsibility, it is partial responsibility, as American soldiers do not kill Iraqi civilians ( unless some exceptional cases ), and they have provided regular elections for the Iraqi people. I wish that this attitude would come through a bit more often.

[Segnosaur]

Yes,
I would NOT get involved, if I know I would probably do worse ( to the victim )

No, given the fact that you seem to be willing to defer your morality to others, you'd likely allow a rape to continue, even if the chance of harm to the victim was minimal.

Ah yes, the casualty estimate from the Lancet article. You should know that that particular article had many significant flaws
Not many people seem to understand the meaning of the word " debatable ", here..

Well, given the fact that your side of the 'debate' has been shown to be based on faulty or non-existant evidence is rather significant. And since you seem to be basing at least part of your criticism of the U.S. actions on how much worse the situation is now than before the invasion, this particular flaw in your argument kind of debunks your entire arguments.
So, in other words, you havent thought things through enough to actually come up with a coherent strategy for dealing with that stuff.
Not even in the wildest dreams of the wildest dreamer, there is a solution good for all the situations..

All those situations were things that were happening in Iraq prior to the invasion. If you are claiming that there is no solution to those situations, then WHY are you claiming that Saddam's actions could have been prevented without invasion?

YOU made the claim that Saddam could have been stopped without invasion. YOU should be able to explain how he could have been stopped.

(on Russia supporting Iraq because it was an arms supplier)
The second after the US?

Actually, no... In the years that Saddam was president of Iraq, Russia and the other soviet block companies sold Iraq almost 70% of it's conventional arms. France and China were also significant suppliers. The U.S. supplied about 1% of its arms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq

Do I have to give you the list of the scandals in which the US were involved?

I never claimed the U.S. wasn't involved in scandals. What I SAID was that some countries (like France) might be willing to support Iraq at the U.N. because of one specific scandal (oil for food) .

When this bias prevented some of them from supporting the U.S. even when it is acting in a 'good' manor??

Yes that will happen. People don't always consider their opinions rationally. (Consider the number of people in the middle east who don't think that bin Laden was behind 9/11 as an example.)


You do not seem to understand the point that the problem of " human rights violations " is, according to many, worse now than before.

Well, lets see... Now that Saddam has gone, we have:
- Fewer premature deaths (since your claims of more deaths was based on a study that was flawed)
- Actual elections (not that the elections were perfect, but they were better than Saddam and his 100% support votes)
- Greater freedom of speech (with new newspapers opening up post-Saddam)
- Improved economic conditions and a growing economy (although security remains a problem, their economy is still growing). And this includes areas like small businesses and construction, not just the oil industry

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16241340/site/newsweek/


Nope.
No way.
As I said, you do not seem to understand the point that the problem of " human rights violations " is, according to many, worse now than before.

The "many" people who claim that human rights violations are worse now than before Saddam was removed are not dealing with the facts.


This is why dimplomacy is needed..

Except for the sad fact that diplomacy does not always work. Need a list of cases where diplomacy has failed?

BTW, why Russia should be stay in the side of the bad people, by default and the US should be stay in the side of the good people, by default??

I never claimed that Russia was always on the side of bad and the U.S. was always on the side of good. The U.S. has definitely done some bad things in the past. I'm referring to the current situation and hypothetical future situations. If, in the future, the U.S. tries to support a brutal dictator while Russia works on installing a democratic government, then I'll criticize the U.S.



No, if the US moved along alone, they should take the blame of what they do.
Once again... to make things clear... You are willing to allow genocide to occur if the U.N. is unwilling to take action. Forget 'blame'. A simple yes or no... You find it morally acceptable to allow genocide to occur.

[Segnosaur]

For the 100th time, why on Earth if I did not speak against Saddam, should you consider that I am in favour on him.
Why????????????????????????????????


You know, the cynic in me finds something very ironic in that statement.

Over and over again, you use the bogus argument that since the U.S. hasn't spoken out to say they won't use nuclear weapons against Iran, that somehow means they support the use of nukes there. Somehow, silence in that case indicates support.

Now here you are, on the other side of the fence, and you're complaining that your 'silence' is being misinterpreted.

[Matteo Martini]

You are just highly critical of America and seemingly without ever showing any balance or fairness to America.

You miss my point. I note that you are only concerned with America. America is not the only nation that is involved in a war. Yet America is YOUR choice for critisism.

Look, I don't mind critisism. I critisize America myself. I only tire of those who can only find wrong with America.


Did I only find wrong with America?
Uh??


You spend a lot of time critisising America. How much time do you spend discussion the the genocide in Darfur? How much time do you spend discussing the human rights violations of North Korea?

Can I spend my time as I wish?


It's realy simple Matteo. What you do demonstrates what you think.

If you would come to the defense of America when Oliver says something demonstrably wrong like AUP, Darat, Tricky and many, many others who are very critical of the American president and/or were involved in other problems around the world I could believe you were objective in your critisism.


I can take the blame for what I say, I can not thake the blame for what other people say..


What you choose to respond to and how you choose to respond speaks volumes.

I can not understand..
Am I not free to choose what to respond to?


I wish that this attitude would come through a bit more often.

Come on..
We are just talking..

[Matteo Martini]

You know, the cynic in me finds something very ironic in that statement.

Over and over again, you use the bogus argument that since the U.S. hasn't spoken out to say they won't use nuclear weapons against Iran, that somehow means they support the use of nukes there. Somehow, silence in that case indicates support.

" We do not rule out any options ".
This is not silence..

[Matteo Martini]

No, given the fact that you seem to be willing to defer your morality to others, you'd likely allow a rape to continue, even if the chance of harm to the victim was minimal.

I never said that " I'd likely allow a rape to continue, even if the chance of harm to the victim was minimal."


Well, given the fact that your side of the 'debate' has been shown to be based on faulty or non-existant evidence is rather significant. And since you seem to be basing at least part of your criticism of the U.S. actions on how much worse the situation is now than before the invasion, this particular flaw in your argument kind of debunks your entire arguments.


I do not get the meaning of this complicated argument
By the way, other researches show that direct and indirect victims of the war may be in the range of the hundreds of thousands..


All those situations were things that were happening in Iraq prior to the invasion. If you are claiming that there is no solution to those situations, then WHY are you claiming that Saddam's actions could have been prevented without invasion?


Not completely prevented, maybe, but largely contained, yes.


YOU made the claim that Saddam could have been stopped without invasion. YOU should be able to explain how he could have been stopped.


I already did.
Bomb selected targets.
If he attacks the Kurds, bomb his forces.
Bomb his palace.
Etcetera..


Actually, no... In the years that Saddam was president of Iraq, Russia and the other soviet block companies sold Iraq almost 70% of it's conventional arms. France and China were also significant suppliers. The U.S. supplied about 1% of its arms.


I admit to having been taken aback by this link.
Only 1%?
If this is true, I maybe have been completely wrong on this point.
I need to look upon it more

U.S. support for Iraq
After the Iranian Revolution, enmity between Iran and the U.S. ran high. Realpolitikers in Washington concluded that Saddam was the "lesser of the two evils", support for Iraq gradually became the order of the day.

"In June, 1982, President Reagan decided that the United States could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran. President Reagan decided that the United States would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran. President Reagan formalized this policy by issuing a National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") to this effect in June, 1982," said the "Teicher Affidavit," submitted on 31 January 1995 by former NSC official Howard Teicher to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida.[3]

According to retired Colonel Walter Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose." He claimed that the Defense Intelligence Agency "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival"[4], however, despite this allegation, Reagan’s administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports affirming the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians.[5][6][7]


[edit] Parties involved
Much of what Iraq received from the US, however, were not arms per se, but so-called dual-use technology— mainframe computers, armored ambulances, helicopters, chemicals, and the like, with potential civilian uses as well as military applications. It is now known that a vast network of companies, based in the U.S. and elsewhere, fed Iraq's warring capabilities right up until August 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait. [8]

The "Iraq-gate" scandal revealed that an Atlanta branch of Italy's largest bank, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, relying partially on U.S. taxpayer-guaranteed loans, funneled US$ 5 billion to Iraq from 1985 to 1989. In August 1989, when FBI agents finally raided the Atlanta branch of BNL, the branch manager, Christopher Drogoul, was charged with making unauthorized, clandestine, and illegal loans to Iraq—some of which, according to his indictment, were used to purchase arms and weapons technology.

Beginning in September, 1989, the Financial Times laid out the first charges that BNL, relying heavily on U.S. government-guaranteed loans, was funding Iraqi chemical and nuclear weapons work. For the next two and a half years, the Financial Times provided the only continuous newspaper reportage (over 300 articles) on the subject. Among the companies shipping militarily useful technology to Iraq under the eye of the U.S. government, according to the Financial Times, were Hewlett-Packard, Tektronix, and Matrix Churchill, through its Ohio branch. [9]

Even before the Persian Gulf War started in 1990, the Intelligencer Journal of Pennsylvania in a string of articles reported: "If U.S. and Iraqi troops engage in combat in the Persian Gulf, weapons technology developed in Lancaster and indirectly sold to Iraq will probably be used against U.S. forces ... And aiding in this ... technology transfer was the Iraqi-owned, British-based precision tooling firm Matrix Churchill, whose U.S. operations in Ohio were recently linked to a sophisticated Iraqi weapons procurement network."[10]

Aside from the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and ABC's Ted Koppel, the Iraq-gate story never picked up much steam, even though The U.S. Congress became involved with the scandal. [11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war#U.S._support_for_Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq


I never claimed the U.S. wasn't involved in scandals. What I SAID was that some countries (like France) might be willing to support Iraq at the U.N. because of one specific scandal (oil for food) .


Maybe.
I never praised France.
I do not know enough..


Yes that will happen. People don't always consider their opinions rationally. (Consider the number of people in the middle east who don't think that bin Laden was behind 9/11 as an example.)


Absolutely.
And, you do not consider the number of peoplke in the US who think that terror was the only reason the US went to war


Well, lets see... Now that Saddam has gone, we have:
- Fewer premature deaths (since your claims of more deaths was based on a study that was flawed)
- Actual elections (not that the elections were perfect, but they were better than Saddam and his 100% support votes)
- Greater freedom of speech (with new newspapers opening up post-Saddam)
- Improved economic conditions and a growing economy (although security remains a problem, their economy is still growing). And this includes areas like small businesses and construction, not just the oil industry

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16241340/site/newsweek/


You forgot to mention:
- Less deaths by terrorist attacks


The "many" people who claim that human rights violations are worse now than before Saddam was removed are not dealing with the facts.


Do we agree that being killed by a suicide bomber can be somehow considered as a breach in the human rights?


Except for the sad fact that diplomacy does not always work. Need a list of cases where diplomacy has failed?


I still do not see why the US attacked Iraq, instead of engaging in a diplomatic work in order to isolate them.


I never claimed that Russia was always on the side of bad and the U.S. was always on the side of good. The U.S. has definitely done some bad things in the past. I'm referring to the current situation and hypothetical future situations. If, in the future, the U.S. tries to support a brutal dictator while Russia works on installing a democratic government, then I'll criticize the U.S.


You Americans ( and this is the problem ) do not see the point that, sometimes, even a brutal dictator can maybe be better or equal than a democracy, as in the case of Iraq


Once again... to make things clear... You are willing to allow genocide to occur if the U.N. is unwilling to take action. Forget 'blame'. A simple yes or no... You find it morally acceptable to allow genocide to occur.

This is not a yes or no reply.
If the US did go to Rwanda, without UN consensus, and managed to stop violence, I would praise them for what they did.
But, they did not go.

[Segnosaur]

I never said that " I'd likely allow a rape to continue, even if the chance of harm to the victim was minimal."

In a way you did.

Because you're criticizing the U.S. for going into Iraq which would have had the side effect of stopping oppression of Iraqi people (in effect "stopping the rape").


I do not get the meaning of this complicated argument

Let me try to explain it in simpler terms:
- You are arguing that the U.S. was wrong to go into Iraq partly because, according to your information, the number of deaths caused now was greater than the number of deaths that were happening when Saddam was in power.
- I showed that your source of information (that there were more deaths now than before) was flawed... bad statistical methods used by people who had a history of overinflating the statistics, and who had a known bias against the U.S. Statistics that even other groups opposed to the U.S. invasion recognize were flawed.

So, IF you say "the U.S. was wrong" because of the number of deaths, and its shown that your estimate of the number of deaths is wrong,then your conclusion ("U.S.=wrong") is similarly flawed.

By the way, other researches show that direct and indirect victims of the war may be in the range of the hundreds of thousands..

Please post a reference to this claim.

YOU made the claim that Saddam could have been stopped without invasion. YOU should be able to explain how he could have been stopped.

I already did.
Bomb selected targets.
If he attacks the Kurds, bomb his forces.
Bomb his palace.
Etcetera..

But I pointed out several flaws with your 'plan'.... for example, his positioning of military targets near civilian infrastructure. Until you can explain how you would handle those details, you haven't explained how Saddam could have been contained.


Actually, no... In the years that Saddam was president of Iraq, Russia and the other soviet block companies sold Iraq almost 70% of it's conventional arms. France and China were also significant suppliers. The U.S. supplied about 1% of its arms.
I admit to having been taken aback by this link.
Only 1%?
If this is true, I maybe have been completely wrong on this point.
I need to look upon it more

U.S. support for Iraq
(info about U.S. supporting Iraq deleted for length)


Hey, I never denied that the U.S. gave some support to Iraq in the past.

Of course, I could point out that part of that may have been the U.S. trying to prevent an expansion of Iranian influence post revolution. I could have also pointed out that past support for dictators does not mean that all future actions must be seen as 'wrong' somehow.

I could also point out that other countries were quite involved in supplying chemical, nuclear and biological arms to Iraq. For example, Germany seemed to be a major supplier (even bigger than the U.S.) of chemical arms, and it was Germany who was one of the most vocal opponents of the invasion. Conflict of interest there?

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jcbw/jcbw030417_1_n.shtml

The problem is there is a preception that Iraq was some sort of longstanding U.S. lapdog which is not based in reality.


Maybe.
I never praised France.
I do not know enough..

You may have never praised France, but you had been arguing that the U.S. was wrong to invade Iraq without U.N. support. You also questioned why a country would support a brutal dictator. What I've done is pointed out a reason why the U.N. might ignore serious issues (such as genocide) even if its not morally right to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme#Criminal_investigation_in_France


Do we agree that being killed by a suicide bomber can be somehow considered as a breach in the human rights?

Getting killed by a suicide bomber is wrong. Getting killed by the government of a dictator like Sadam is wrong. Dead is dead.

If the number of people killed by the bombers is smaller than the number killed by the government (for example, of Sadam)


I still do not see why the US attacked Iraq, instead of engaging in a diplomatic work in order to isolate them.

Because they had already tried over a decade to 'isolate' him, and their actions were partly ineffective and resulted in hardships to the Iraqi people.

Sadly, magical solutions don't exists.


You Americans ( and this is the problem ) do not see the point that, sometimes, even a brutal dictator can maybe be better or equal than a democracy, as in the case of Iraq

First of all, I'm not an American. I'm a Canadian.

Secondly, you still have to show that things are worse under the current democracy than they were under Saddam. We know that there are fewer deaths now than under the genocides of Saddam. We know that there have been strong economic expansion, more free speech, and actual elections in Iraq. What was better under Saddam?

Once again... to make things clear... You are willing to allow genocide to occur if the U.N. is unwilling to take action. Forget 'blame'. A simple yes or no... You find it morally acceptable to allow genocide to occur.

This is not a yes or no reply.
If the US did go to Rwanda, without UN consensus, and managed to stop violence, I would praise them for what they did.
But, they did not go.
So why would the U.S. be considered morally right to go into Rwanda to stop killings there, but was morally wrong to take action in Iraq to stop a genocidal dictator?

[Darth Rotor]

Darth, the more I know you, the more I dislike you..

( did I break any rule? )
I guess you have never heard of a "sense of humor" nor a "sick joke."

Too bad. You missed one.

DR

[Matteo Martini]

In a way you did.


I did not


Because you're criticizing the U.S. for going into Iraq which would have had the side effect of stopping oppression of Iraqi people (in effect "stopping the rape").


Ridiculous


Let me try to explain it in simpler terms:
- You are arguing that the U.S. was wrong to go into Iraq partly because, according to your information, the number of deaths caused now was greater than the number of deaths that were happening when Saddam was in power.
- I showed that your source of information (that there were more deaths now than before) was flawed... bad statistical methods used by people who had a history of overinflating the statistics, and who had a known bias against the U.S. Statistics that even other groups opposed to the U.S. invasion recognize were flawed.

So, IF you say "the U.S. was wrong" because of the number of deaths, and its shown that your estimate of the number of deaths is wrong,then your conclusion ("U.S.=wrong") is similarly flawed.


No. The conclkusion is right, even if the number 655000 is inaccurate



Please post a reference to this claim.

Boring..
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-08.htm
100,000 Excess Iraqi Deaths Since War - Study
And, that was 2004..


But I pointed out several flaws with your 'plan'.... for example, his positioning of military targets near civilian infrastructure. Until you can explain how you would handle those details, you haven't explained how Saddam could have been contained.


Even bombing targets near civilian infostructures would not have made 100000 deaths.
Or 655000
Or 10000
Or 2000


Hey, I never denied that the U.S. gave some support to Iraq in the past.

Of course, I could point out that part of that may have been the U.S. trying to prevent an expansion of Iranian influence post revolution. I could have also pointed out that past support for dictators does not mean that all future actions must be seen as 'wrong' somehow.

I could also point out that other countries were quite involved in supplying chemical, nuclear and biological arms to Iraq. For example, Germany seemed to be a major supplier (even bigger than the U.S.) of chemical arms, and it was Germany who was one of the most vocal opponents of the invasion. Conflict of interest there?


Two bads do not make one good



http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jcbw/jcbw030417_1_n.shtml


At least, they did not participate in the invasion..


Getting killed by a suicide bomber is wrong. Getting killed by the government of a dictator like Sadam is wrong. Dead is dead.

If the number of people killed by the bombers is smaller than the number killed by the government (for example, of Sadam)



??
Evidence?


Because they had already tried over a decade to 'isolate' him, and their actions were partly ineffective and resulted in hardships to the Iraqi people.

Sadly, magical solutions don't exists.


I do not think so, because, a decade before the first invasion of Iraq, the US were helping Iraq.


First of all, I'm not an American. I'm a Canadian.

American is the sense of living in North America.


Secondly, you still have to show that things are worse under the current democracy than they were under Saddam. We know that there are fewer deaths now than under the genocides of Saddam. We know that there have been strong economic expansion, more free speech, and actual elections in Iraq. What was better under Saddam?


Just one short reply.
Yes


So why would the U.S. be considered morally right to go into Rwanda to stop killings there, but was morally wrong to take action in Iraq to stop a genocidal dictator?

As in Rwanda the situation was much worse than in Iraq under Saddam.
And, in Rwanda there was no oil.

[Darth Rotor]

As in Rwanda the situation was much worse than in Iraq under Saddam.
And, in Rwanda there was no oil.
It was different than the Saddam Iraq situation. Using it as a comparison for body count purposes is not the best comparison, particularly as in Burundi and Rwanda were various allies of the parties in Rwanda who could cross the border and participate in the civil war, whereas Saddam's Iraq was not that chaotic a place. Like him or not, there was at least a bit of law and order in his country.

A bit more importantly in Rwanda than "no oil" was, considering arguments for intervention and practical limits, the issue of "no coast line" and "no harbor" and "spare to no infrastructure" and undeveloped transport lines."

Look at the map. Look at where Rwanda is. Then, consider trying to support a multi thousand troop UN force out of a small airport that can barely handle one 747 per day. More importantly, you have to consider how well positioned within the neighboring nations are fuel depots and rail lines. In 1994, there were not highways like the Autostrade to rely on for big convoys of trucks. With low logistics base, you can't support a large intervention by any group, be it US forces, UN forces, or whoever. There is a physical limit to how large a force you can interpose on that nation without a significant time taken to grow temporary bases, much less permanent bases.

Here is one of the problems air resupply to early relief efforts had. Planes had to keep a certain fuel reserve, which limited how soon they could come down and deliver supplies, and how much they could carry, due to how small the fuel dumps were at the Kigali airport when trying to refuel or support the massive airplanes being flown into the country. Antonovs and C-5's could drink them dry, so all planes had to carry enough fuel to get in and then get out to another airport. I'll leave the MOG discussion out, as military air logistics bores people.

Similar problems in Uganda and Burundi, in terms of staging fuel, available facilities, and volume of deliveries of petrol.

That is but one of dozens of obstacles to a rapid intervention. (political will is another matter.) The intervention that eventually came into place took time, as support bases slowly built up, and as the actual fighting subsided after Kagame's successful counteroffensive.

DR

[Segnosaur]

In a way you did.

Because you're criticizing the U.S. for going into Iraq which would have had the side effect of stopping oppression of Iraqi people (in effect "stopping the rape").
I did not

Ridiculous

Why is it rediculous? I pointed out Saddam's oppression of Iraq's people. (Same as a woman getting raped). I said that it was morally right to consider an intervention in Iraq even if success were not guaranteed (much the same way that I might consider stopping a rape). YOU said that such intervention was wrong if not sanctioned by the U.N. regardless of how bad the genocide was (much the way someone would ignore a rape).


No. The conclkusion is right, even if the number 655000 is inaccurate

The number 655,000 is not only inaccurate, it is completely worthless.

If you are going to claim there are more deaths in Iraq per year now than when Saddam is in power, you have to post information which is reasonable/rational. We're not talking numbers that are out by just a few percentage points, we're talking numbers that may be at least 4 or 5 times higher than they really are.


Please post a reference to this claim. (that other researchers found hundreds of thousands of deaths)
Boring..
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-08.htm
100,000 Excess Iraqi Deaths Since War - Study
And, that was 2004..

Ummm... do you ever actually pay any attention to details of stuff anyone posts?

First of all, your 2004 study was done by the exact same people who did the 2006 study, and contained the exact same flaws.. done by people who had a bias against the Bush administration, using the same flawed statistical methods (few clusters, lack of death certificates).

Secondly, that study has already been referenced AND DEBUNKED by myself and BeAChooser. (See for example my posting on 9th August 2007, 07:59 PM, or BeAChooser's posting on 10th August 2007 at 12:17 AM.)


Even bombing targets near civilian infostructures would not have made 100000 deaths.
Or 655000
Or 10000
Or 2000

So, your solution is 'Ignore the problem'? And if Saddam places a military target in the middle of an orphanage and hundreds of orphans die, that's no problem? And if the U.N. decides that such actions are not allowed, you going to allow the U.S. to continue bombing those targets unilaterally?


Two bads do not make one good

I never said they did.

What I DID say was that past bad acts (such as support for Saddam in the 80s) should not necessarily mean that future actions (e.g. the removal of Saddam) were somehow wrong.


At least, they did not participate in the invasion..

You're missing the point...

You are claiming that the U.S. was wrong because they did not get U.N. support for the invasion. A lot of the reason they failed to get U.N. support is because countries like Germany who had a possible bias in keeping Saddam in power were speaking out against them.



If the number of people killed by the bombers is smaller than the number killed by the government (for example, of Sadam)
??
Evidence?

Already presented on my post from 8th August 2007, 03:54 PM.

The number of deaths in Iraq has dropped from 20000-40000/year on average (while Saddam was oppressing his people) to 16000 today (due mostly to insurgent activity). The only reason why you seem to think there are MORE is because you are believing in one study done by people who were biased and using a flawed methodology (one that's rejected by even most anti-war groups).

I do not think so, because, a decade before the first invasion of Iraq, the US were helping Iraq.

What exactly is your point?

Are you referring to the time before the first gulf war? If so, its pretty irrelevant, because at the time the U.S. wasn't trying to 'contain' Saddam. We do, however have about a decade of experience AFTER the first gulf war when they were TRYING to stop (or at least limit) Saddam's oppression.


American is the sense of living in North America.

I could point out how the Canadian government did not get involved in the Iraqi invasion. I could also point out how, by your definition, people in Brazil, argentina, etc. coudl also be classified as "American" because they are from South America.

But I guess the main question is... who cares? Why exactly are you singling out "Americans"? Isn't it a stereotype and extremely arrogant to assume that only non-"Americans" can understand anything?

Secondly, you still have to show that things are worse under the current democracy than they were under Saddam. We know that there are fewer deaths now than under the genocides of Saddam. We know that there have been strong economic expansion, more free speech, and actual elections in Iraq. What was better under Saddam?
Just one short reply.
Yes

So, what you're saying is that the people who are alive today who might have been killed under Saddam do not deserve to live, the people who have more money do not deserve the extra income, and the people who publish newspapers do not deserve the right to free speech.

As in Rwanda the situation was much worse than in Iraq under Saddam.

So, by your argument, its not morally right to stop one 'bad' person if there was a 'worse' person around. So stopping a genocidal dictator who kills 500,000 people is wrong if there is a dictator who's killing 600,000.

By your logic, every country should immediately stop arresting or investigating any thefts or assaults, since there are clearly more serious crimes around.

And, in Rwanda there was no oil.
Ah, back to the old tired "no blood for oil" argument.

So tell me, if you think the U.S. invaded Iraq because of the oil, then I have to ask why? If the U.S. wanted oil, they could have just made a deal with Saddam... ("Sell US the oil and we'll get those sanctions lifted"). After all, we know they had no problem making deals with dictators before.

So what you're saying is that the U.S. must turn a blind eye to all genocides that happen in other countries if that country has significant natural resources, even if the U.S. wouldn't financially benefit from the invasion.

[Elizabeth I]

Even bombing targets near civilian infostructures would not have made 100000 deaths.
Or 655000
Or 10000
Or 2000

Well, Segnosaur alluded to this, but how are you going to avoid civilian deaths when bombing "near civilian infrastructures"? If the area near a bridge is bombed, the people on that bridge are going to be killed or injured.

If the area near a water treatment plant is bombed, workers at the plant, people driving or walking by on the street, and people who live close to it are going to be killed or injured.

If the area near a city hall is bombed, city employees, people going to the city hall to do business, people walking or driving by on the street, and people who live close to it are going to be killed or injured.

It is also my impression that the U.S. has been pretty careful not to bomb indiscriminately. There has been no carpet-bombing, has there?

Please note that this is not to imply any approval or disapproval of U.S. action in Iraq, just to point out what seems to be an illogical stance on your part ("avoid civilian deaths by precision-bombing military installations near civilian structures.")

I do not think so, because, a decade before the first invasion of Iraq, the US were helping Iraq.

And, given the result, we were wrong. So because we made a mistake, we should just let it stand?

American in the sense of living in North America.

You will win yourself no friends in Mexico or Canada with that assumption.

[BeAChooser]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-08.htm
100,000 Excess Iraqi Deaths Since War - Study
And, that was 2004..

This was total garbage brought to you by the same folks at John Hopkins who later put out the 655,000 garbage. In my previous post to you, I noted some of the flaws in that 100,000 study. Didn't you bother to read it? Why do you persist in this woo from woosearchers?

[Matteo Martini]

It was different than the Saddam Iraq situation. Using it as a comparison for body count purposes is not the best comparison, particularly as in Burundi and Rwanda were various allies of the parties in Rwanda who could cross the border and participate in the civil war, whereas Saddam's Iraq was not that chaotic a place. Like him or not, there was at least a bit of law and order in his country.


So, atacking Iraq was a double mistake..


A bit more importantly in Rwanda than "no oil" was, considering arguments for intervention and practical limits, the issue of "no coast line" and "no harbor" and "spare to no infrastructure" and undeveloped transport lines."

Look at the map. Look at where Rwanda is. Then, consider trying to support a multi thousand troop UN force out of a small airport that can barely handle one 747 per day. More importantly, you have to consider how well positioned within the neighboring nations are fuel depots and rail lines. In 1994, there were not highways like the Autostrade to rely on for big convoys of trucks. With low logistics base, you can't support a large intervention by any group, be it US forces, UN forces, or whoever. There is a physical limit to how large a force you can interpose on that nation without a significant time taken to grow temporary bases, much less permanent bases.

Here is one of the problems air resupply to early relief efforts had. Planes had to keep a certain fuel reserve, which limited how soon they could come down and deliver supplies, and how much they could carry, due to how small the fuel dumps were at the Kigali airport when trying to refuel or support the massive airplanes being flown into the country. Antonovs and C-5's could drink them dry, so all planes had to carry enough fuel to get in and then get out to another airport. I'll leave the MOG discussion out, as military air logistics bores people.

Similar problems in Uganda and Burundi, in terms of staging fuel, available facilities, and volume of deliveries of petrol.

That is but one of dozens of obstacles to a rapid intervention. (political will is another matter.) The intervention that eventually came into place took time, as support bases slowly built up, and as the actual fighting subsided after Kagame's successful counteroffensive.

DR

I see..
You only attack countries, which have reliable transportation, and good infrastructure..
LOL!!
I am laughing out loud..

[Matteo Martini]

Why is it rediculous? I pointed out Saddam's oppression of Iraq's people. (Same as a woman getting raped). I said that it was morally right to consider an intervention in Iraq even if success were not guaranteed (much the same way that I might consider stopping a rape). YOU said that such intervention was wrong if not sanctioned by the U.N. regardless of how bad the genocide was (much the way someone would ignore a rape).


I said that you should not intervene ( in the rape, on in Iraq ), if there was a high risk to make things worse for the victim.
As has happened.
Do you get it?


The number 655,000 is not only inaccurate, it is completely worthless.

If you are going to claim there are more deaths in Iraq per year now than when Saddam is in power, you have to post information which is reasonable/rational. We're not talking numbers that are out by just a few percentage points, we're talking numbers that may be at least 4 or 5 times higher than they really are.


I have posted enough numbers..
BTW, that 655000 number was posted in the Washington Post, not in the Gazette of the Scouts of Minneapolis..


Ummm... do you ever actually pay any attention to details of stuff anyone posts?

First of all, your 2004 study was done by the exact same people who did the 2006 study, and contained the exact same flaws.. done by people who had a bias against the Bush administration, using the same flawed statistical methods (few clusters, lack of death certificates).

Secondly, that study has already been referenced AND DEBUNKED by myself and BeAChooser. (See for example my posting on 9th August 2007, 07:59 PM, or BeAChooser's posting on 10th August 2007 at 12:17 AM.)


Ah!
You and Beachoser debuncked it?


So, your solution is 'Ignore the problem'? And if Saddam places a military target in the middle of an orphanage and hundreds of orphans die, that's no problem? And if the U.N. decides that such actions are not allowed, you going to allow the U.S. to continue bombing those targets unilaterally?


Every case should be handled saperately.
Were all military targets placed close to orphanages?


I never said they did.

What I DID say was that past bad acts (such as support for Saddam in the 80s) should not necessarily mean that future actions (e.g. the removal of Saddam) were somehow wrong.


Agreed.
Glad that you consider " support for Saddam in the 80s " as a bad act


You're missing the point...

You are claiming that the U.S. was wrong because they did not get U.N. support for the invasion. A lot of the reason they failed to get U.N. support is because countries like Germany who had a possible bias in keeping Saddam in power were speaking out against them.


And, Germany was right and US was wrong, on Iraq invasion..


Already presented on my post from 8th August 2007, 03:54 PM.

The number of deaths in Iraq has dropped from 20000-40000/year on average (while Saddam was oppressing his people) to 16000 today (due mostly to insurgent activity). The only reason why you seem to think there are MORE is because you are believing in one study done by people who were biased and using a flawed methodology (one that's rejected by even most anti-war groups).

Do you have any evidence of the 20000-40000/year number?
Do you have any evidence that that number could not be reduced without taking off Saddam?


What exactly is your point?

Are you referring to the time before the first gulf war? If so, its pretty irrelevant, because at the time the U.S. wasn't trying to 'contain' Saddam. We do, however have about a decade of experience AFTER the first gulf war when they were TRYING to stop (or at least limit) Saddam's oppression.


You said that the US were trying to isolate Saddam for more than a decade..
If it was " more than a decade before the first invasion ", I find it quite unlikely


I could point out how the Canadian government did not get involved in the Iraqi invasion. I could also point out how, by your definition, people in Brazil, argentina, etc. coudl also be classified as "American" because they are from South America.

Did the Canadians got involved with the invasion?


But I guess the main question is... who cares? Why exactly are you singling out "Americans"? Isn't it a stereotype and extremely arrogant to assume that only non-"Americans" can understand anything?


We are getting off track.
Let` s drop it..


So, what you're saying is that the people who are alive today who might have been killed under Saddam do not deserve to live, the people who have more money do not deserve the extra income, and the people who publish newspapers do not deserve the right to free speech.

So, by your argument, its not morally right to stop one 'bad' person if there was a 'worse' person around. So stopping a genocidal dictator who kills 500,000 people is wrong if there is a dictator who's killing 600,000.


I think it is impossible to make such exact comparisons..


By your logic, every country should immediately stop arresting or investigating any thefts or assaults, since there are clearly more serious crimes around.

Yawn..

Ah, back to the old tired "no blood for oil" argument.

So tell me, if you think the U.S. invaded Iraq because of the oil, then I have to ask why? If the U.S. wanted oil, they could have just made a deal with Saddam... ("Sell US the oil and we'll get those sanctions lifted"). After all, we know they had no problem making deals with dictators before.
.

Already replied on this

So what you're saying is that the U.S. must turn a blind eye to all genocides that happen in other countries if that country has significant natural resources, even if the U.S. wouldn't financially benefit from the invasion.

No, I was saying that the US should invade countries even if that country has NOT significant natural resources
Just kidding..
But, not so much

[Matteo Martini]

Well, Segnosaur alluded to this, but how are you going to avoid civilian deaths when bombing "near civilian infrastructures"? If the area near a bridge is bombed, the people on that bridge are going to be killed or injured.

If the area near a water treatment plant is bombed, workers at the plant, people driving or walking by on the street, and people who live close to it are going to be killed or injured.

If the area near a city hall is bombed, city employees, people going to the city hall to do business, people walking or driving by on the street, and people who live close to it are going to be killed or injured.


Wow..
Saddam` s engineers should have been particularly skilled to place every single military installation right close to hospitals, orphanages, schools, kid` s kindergardens..


It is also my impression that the U.S. has been pretty careful not to bomb indiscriminately. There has been no carpet-bombing, has there?


Good.
Why did you invade Iraq, then?


Please note that this is not to imply any approval or disapproval of U.S. action in Iraq, just to point out what seems to be an illogical stance on your part ("avoid civilian deaths by precision-bombing military installations near civilian structures.")


Try, as much as possible, to "avoid civilian deaths by precision-bombing military installations near civilian structures"


And, given the result, we were wrong. So because we made a mistake, we should just let it stand?

Excellent.
Recognizing to be wrong, is the first step.
Now..
Why were you wrong?


You will win yourself no friends in Mexico or Canada with that assumption.

Yes, they do not like to be compared to " Estadunidenses "..

[Matteo Martini]

This was total garbage brought to you by the same folks at John Hopkins who later put out the 655,000 garbage. In my previous post to you, I noted some of the flaws in that 100,000 study. Didn't you bother to read it? Why do you persist in this woo from woosearchers?

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq
Min Max
69284 75723

Considering..

We put accuracy above speed and do not update the data base until we have located and cross-checked two or more independent approved news sources for the same incident (for more details see our Methodology). If you want to submit news stories that could help us confirm an incident involving civilian deaths please email news item weblinks to news@iraqbodycount.org (the more specific and detailed, the better).

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

I think that the number of 100000 deaths, could well be an under-estimate..

[Elizabeth I]

Wow..
Saddam` s engineers should have been particularly skilled to place every single military installation right close to hospitals, orphanages, schools, kid` s kindergardens..

A. In many cases, Saddam did take care to place strategic targets near civilian infrastructure. It doesn't take any particular skill, just callous indifference to the well-being of others. Why do you have such a hard time grasping that? You have no problem implying that I and several others are cold-hearted racist plutocrats who cheer at the thought of the impending execution of a poor neglected black man who never had a chance, but don't seem to be able to get your head around the thought that Saddam Hussein was NOT a nice man.

B. A great deal of the killing that's going on right now is due to insurgents, not military action. That has repeatedly been pointed out to you but you seem to choose to ignore it.

C. YOU are the one quoting near-millions of civilian dead from U.S. action, not me. So if we are not firing at military targets, do you think we are just merrily tooling around the country loosing off our M-16's? "Oooh, look, Billy Joe - kids! 10 points for every one you can pick off."

"The hell with that. I'm gonna git in my humvee and go run down grandmothers."

Admit it, Matteo, you think the military (quite possibly ANY military, but definitely the U.S. military) are criminals.

Try, as much as possible, to "avoid civilian deaths by precision-bombing military installations near civilian structures"

I believe, as a general rule, that IS what we do.

Excellent.
Recognizing to be wrong, is the first step.
Now..
Why were you wrong?

You misunderstand. I meant that we were wrong to back Saddam Hussein in the first place.

Yes, they do not like to be compared to " Estadunidenses "..

So you called a Canadian an American, then when he (she?) pointed out your error, you said, "I meant American as in living in North America." Now you say they DON'T like to be compared to "estadounidenses." So why did you (a) do it in the first place and (b) stick to it in the second place?


Finally, and to clarify my position, I think the Iraq war was mistaken, misguided, and incompetently managed. Long before the first shot was fired I figured we would wind up fighting a guerilla force just like we are right now. That is not the fault of the troops on the ground. It IS the fault of the politicians and, in some cases and to some extent, the senior officers.

However, having gotten in and messed the place up, we have an obligation to not just say, "Oh, well" and go home. AND I will not let you slam the hard-working dedicated men and women who are putting themselves in harm's way every day. People like you sneer at soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen (and women) until you need them to protect you. Then you graciously allow them to go get killed until such time as you don't need them any more, at which point you go back to sneering at them.

[Matteo Martini]

Admit it, Matteo, you think the military (quite possibly ANY military, but definitely the U.S. military) are criminals.


Do I really have to reply to this??

[Matteo Martini]

So you called a Canadian an American, then when he (she?) pointed out your error, you said, "I meant American as in living in North America." Now you say they DON'T like to be compared to "estadounidenses." So why did you (a) do it in the first place and (b) stick to it in the second place?


No, is that I did not want to admit I was wrong..

[Segnosaur]

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq
Min Max
69284 75723

Considering..

We put accuracy above speed and do not update the data base until we have located and cross-checked two or more independent approved news sources for the same incident (for more details see our Methodology). If you want to submit news stories that could help us confirm an incident involving civilian deaths please email news item weblinks to news@iraqbodycount.org (the more specific and detailed, the better).

Still, your "maximum" count seems very low to me. Surely there must be many, many more civilian deaths than you've published.

The fact that it "seems" low to you doesn't necessarily mean that it is low.

If you go back and look at some of the references that were published by myself and BeAChooser, you'll see references to surveys done by the United Nations that validate the stats from Iraqi Body Count.


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

I think that the number of 100000 deaths, could well be an under-estimate..

First of all, if it were open war, then relying on news reports to determine number of deaths would lead to an underestimate. However, we're not dealing with an open war here... Iraq is a society where terrorist and military activies can be reported on freely, and there is more than enough time to verify facts.

Secondly, while verifying facts can cause some deaths to go unreported, it also ensures that there are no 'false' reports either. Remember when the Israeli army went into Jenin? There were initial claims of 'thousands' of civilian deaths. End result? Less than 60. Many of them terrorists.

The fact that you cling to the number of deaths reported by the John Hoskins team despite being contradicted by every other source suggests your willingness to go out of your way to find fault with U.S. actions regarless of how shoddy the evidence.

[Segnosaur]

I said that you should not intervene ( in the rape, on in Iraq ), if there was a high risk to make things worse for the victim.
As has happened.
Do you get it?

Yes, I get it... you're the type of person who would allow the rape to continue.


I have posted enough numbers..

Posting numbers is pointless if they come from a non-reputable source.

BTW, that 655000 number was posted in the Washington Post, not in the Gazette of the Scouts of Minneapolis..

Yes, that number was repoted in the Post. Sure it was also published in a hundred other newspapers and TV stations as well. But the fact is, it initially came from one source (i.e. the newspapers were not doing their own studies).

This would not be the first time that some news organization regurgitated information based on science or math without fully comprehending it or doing any sort of background checks.

Secondly, that study has already been referenced AND DEBUNKED by myself and BeAChooser. (See for example my posting on 9th August 2007, 07:59 PM, or BeAChooser's posting on 10th August 2007 at 12:17 AM.)
Ah!
You and Beachoser debuncked it?

Yes we did, by pointing out several flaws with the study, and by referring to other studies which provided contradictory data.

When you first made your claim that there were studies by "other researchers" validating the 655,000 number of dead, you were ignoring the fact that we already dealt with those other studies.


Every case should be handled saperately.

But you haven't even done anything to handle cases that we've specifically pointed out. If you can't handle the cases that we've stated explicitly, then how do you expect to be handle every other case?

Were all military targets placed close to orphanages?

No, some were placed next to power plants. For example, consider this exprience of one of the human shields sent to Iraqi:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/02/wshiel202.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/02/ixnewstop.html

Godfrey Meynell, 68, told the two Iraqi factory workers standing before him. His white hair was, as always, unbrushed; his navy windcheater zipped up to the chin. "This power plant is next to a bridge, surrounded by Republican Guard," he continued.


Agreed.
Glad that you consider " support for Saddam in the 80s " as a bad act

Actually, whether support for Saddam was trully a 'bad act' is debatable. Iran was (at the time) considered a greater threat. Its possible that they should have stayed out of the situation, or supported Iraq, but not given as much aid.

And, Germany was right and US was wrong, on Iraq invasion..

No, Germany took an action that you agreed with. That is not necessarly the same as being 'right'.


Do you have any evidence of the 20000-40000/year number?

The estimates of 20,000 to 40,000 are based on an estimate of 500,000 to 1 million deaths caused under Saddam's regime. Some examples include:
-50-100,000 Kurds killed in 1988
- 80-230,000 Kurds and Shia killed in 1991
- Other mass graves have been found that date to times other than 1988 and 1991, indicating such killings were not restricted to those time periods
- Possibly another 30-60,000 "Marsh Arabs" killed
- Between 200,000 and 800,000 Iranians killed in the Iran/Iraq war. (Now, it depends on how much responsibility you assign to Iraq in the conflict; however, it should be noted that Iraq DID initiate hostilities.)
- Various estimates of the number of deaths due to sanctions (which were brought into place to prevent Saddam from causing problems) that range everywhere from thousands to a million. Personally, I think the 100,000 was the most credible. (Now, you may try to argue that those deaths were not Saddam's fault; however, similar sanctions in other countries did not lead to the same number of casulties; PLUS Saddam could have ended the hardship by cooperating with inspections, etc.)
- Not only have people been killed, but there have been many displacements... for example,most remaining Marsh Arabs have been displaced

If you assume the maximum for all of these (and assume that Saddam was fully responsible for the Iran/Iraq war), his death count is around 1.3 million. If you are a bit more conservative (for example, assuming Saddam was only half responsible for the Iran Iraq war and you pick the lower estimate20+5, and only half responsible for deaths due to sanctions) then the number killed ends up being from 300,000 to 540,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraq
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580640_2/Iran-Iraq_War.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2807821.stm


Do you have any evidence that that number could not be reduced without taking off Saddam?

Yes... we have a decade of experience in Iraq, where military targets were bombed regularly, the U.N. regularly interveigned in Iraq's soverignty, yet human rights abuses continued.

Perhaps you could be a bit more convincing if you actually came up with a plan that looks like it would work, rather than using the magical "There must be a better way" argument.

You said that the US were trying to isolate Saddam for more than a decade..
If it was " more than a decade before the first invasion ", I find it quite unlikely

By 'first invasion', are you referring to the Gulf war of 1991? Because that's not the time frame I was referring to. (After all, that wasn't exactly an "invasion")

I was referring to the time period after 1991, when the U.S. was trying to limit Saddam's power through sanctions and low-level military campaigns, only to see human rights abuses continue.


Did the Canadians got involved with the invasion?

Nope, Canada did not participate in the invasion of Iraq. Thus, any assumption that Canadians automatically harbour the same "imperialistic" mentality as the U.S. is flawed.




So, what you're saying is that the people who are alive today who might have been killed under Saddam do not deserve to live, the people who have more money do not deserve the extra income, and the people who publish newspapers do not deserve the right to free speech.

So, by your argument, its not morally right to stop one 'bad' person if there was a 'worse' person around. So stopping a genocidal dictator who kills 500,000 people is wrong if there is a dictator who's killing 600,000.

I think it is impossible to make such exact comparisons..

But you're the one that said intervention in one case is somehow justified and intervention in another case is not. So where do you draw the line? 1 million dead? 2 million?


So tell me, if you think the U.S. invaded Iraq because of the oil, then I have to ask why? If the U.S. wanted oil, they could have just made a deal with Saddam...
Already replied on this

Sorry, but I do not recall you specifically addressing the possibility that the U.S. could have dealt with Saddam directly if Oil was the main reason for invasion.

Please indicate where and when you addressed the issue.

[Darth Rotor]

So, atacking Iraq was a double mistake.
Why double? It may have been enough to be a strategic mistake.
I see..
You only attack countries, which have reliable transportation, and good infrastructure..
LOL!!
I am laughing out loud..
Way to show your base ignorance.

Putting together a massive aid package, or an assistance program is a lot like putting together a large combat operation, in terms of logistic support, with the signal difference being that you don't go in shooting, you go in with truckloads of supplies and support. Leave the ammo at home, most everything else shows up, and it needs petrol.

Sending a peace enforcing team (who may have to back down a warring faction with force, see the British in Gorazde for an example) into a country at war requires all the logistic support to sustain them in their mission, or their mission will fail. Intervention into Rwanda to prevent or stop the civil war would have been A Peace Enforcement Operation which is, from a logistic and preparation perspective, a low grade combat operation. The troops have to be prepared to fight if the faction does not back down as asked/required.

The American military is sent on humanitarian missions every year, for the simple reason that they are trained, equipped, and organized to do big and difficult operations. See the Indonesian Tsunami relief for one example, and a bunch of NEO tasks in Western Africa -- Liberia, Congo, Sierra Leone -- in the 1990's for others. (Google MOOTW and look around.) NEO means Non-combatant Evacuation Operations. The people in it have to be able, at the drop of a hat, switch from a matter of transporting people, to fighting to defend their ability to do so, all to get people out of a war zone.

A few years ago, the US Military ran a relief operation in Pakistan after the big earthquake. Send the troops. When you send them in to do a job, you have to support them, or they can't do their job, even when no shooting is involved.

So, the inability to support a humanitarian mission, along the scope of supporting a million refugees, had a logistics requirement that had to be grown from the ground up.

That is reality, and the reality of logistics, which the standard novice, you, has no grasp of.

DR

[Ion]

Why do you speak about Bush, when my questiuon was about Mr. A?

So, you think that Mr. A does, in fact, augure for criminal behaviour?
Because it's a matter of putting things in perspective by priorities.

One -like Iran's President Ahmadinejad- speaks of doing criminal acts.
And Republican Tancredi is in the same class with Ahmadinejad when he speaks about bombing the Mecca.

Another one, Bush, is doing criminal acts.

Priorities in who to stop first.

[Matteo Martini]

The fact that it "seems" low to you doesn't necessarily mean that it is low.

If you go back and look at some of the references that were published by myself and BeAChooser, you'll see references to surveys done by the United Nations that validate the stats from Iraqi Body Count.


Ah..
The problem of dealing with people with low IQs..

The sentence

Still, your "maximum" count seems very low to me. Surely there must be many, many more civilian deaths than you've published.

was not written by me, it is in the site of iraqbodycount!!


First of all, if it were open war, then relying on news reports to determine number of deaths would lead to an underestimate. However, we're not dealing with an open war here... Iraq is a society where terrorist and military activies can be reported on freely, and there is more than enough time to verify facts.


The guys at iraqbodycount do not know that.
Please, tell them..


Secondly, while verifying facts can cause some deaths to go unreported, it also ensures that there are no 'false' reports either. Remember when the Israeli army went into Jenin? There were initial claims of 'thousands' of civilian deaths. End result? Less than 60. Many of them terrorists.


I tend to agree.
I do not know why those communist sources such as the Washington Post, wrote today about 175 deaths in Iraq, in one day..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401067.html?hpid=topnews
Ah!!
We need to correct some serious misinformation here, we are probably dealing with just one or two wounded terrorists..


The fact that you cling to the number of deaths reported by the John Hoskins team despite being contradicted by every other source suggests your willingness to go out of your way to find fault with U.S. actions regarless of how shoddy the evidence.

The evidence, by definition, can not be " shoddy ".
If it is shoddy, it is not evidence.

[Matteo Martini]

Because it's a matter of putting things in perspective by priorities.

One -like Iran's President Ahmadinejad- speaks of doing criminal acts.
And Republican Tancredi is in the same class with Ahmadinejad when he speaks about bombing the Mecca.

Another one, Bush, is doing criminal acts.

Priorities in who to stop first.

Wait one sec..

First of all, what about Saddam..

He did do criminal acts, did not he?

Secondly, you seem to forget that, George W. ( or Olmert ), could order the total desctruction of Iran tomorrow morning.
They are not doing that.
How can be sure that, Mr. A, if he gets a nuke, would not bomb Israel or the US?

Third, you say that Mr. A is not a criminal, but, please, look at the human rights situation in Iran..

[Matteo Martini]

Yes, I get it... you're the type of person who would allow the rape to continue.


Only if I am the guy who is raping her..



Posting numbers is pointless if they come from a non-reputable source.

I agree with you.
The Washington Post is just a bunch of Communists..


Yes, that number was repoted in the Post. Sure it was also published in a hundred other newspapers and TV stations as well. But the fact is, it initially came from one source (i.e. the newspapers were not doing their own studies).


But, before publishing them, they validate them, uh?
Second, you have the site www.iraqbodycount.com which, as I say, validates the hypotesis of 100000+ deaths..


This would not be the first time that some news organization regurgitated information based on science or math without fully comprehending it or doing any sort of background checks.

They probably did not ask you first, that is why..


Yes we did, by pointing out several flaws with the study, and by referring to other studies which provided contradictory data.


But, your conclusions were not posted in the Post, or in any other newspaper.
Can not see why..
Why?


When you first made your claim that there were studies by "other researchers" validating the 655,000 number of dead, you were ignoring the fact that we already dealt with those other studies.


www.iraqbodycount.org


But you haven't even done anything to handle cases that we've specifically pointed out. If you can't handle the cases that we've stated explicitly, then how do you expect to be handle every other case?

You can not expect to have a strategy before knowing exactly what the problem is. To whom an I speaking to?


No, some were placed next to power plants.

What about the others?


Actually, whether support for Saddam was trully a 'bad act' is debatable. Iran was (at the time) considered a greater threat. Its possible that they should have stayed out of the situation, or supported Iraq, but not given as much aid.


Now I see why so many Iranians are on the of Mr. A..


No, Germany took an action that you agreed with. That is not necessarly the same as being 'right'.

More right than the US?


The estimates of 20,000 to 40,000 are based on an estimate of 500,000 to 1 million deaths caused under Saddam's regime. Some examples include:
-50-100,000 Kurds killed in 1988
- 80-230,000 Kurds and Shia killed in 1991
- Other mass graves have been found that date to times other than 1988 and 1991, indicating such killings were not restricted to those time periods
- Possibly another 30-60,000 "Marsh Arabs" killed
- Between 200,000 and 800,000 Iranians killed in the Iran/Iraq war. (Now, it depends on how much responsibility you assign to Iraq in the conflict; however, it should be noted that Iraq DID initiate hostilities.)

With the help of the US..


- Various estimates of the number of deaths due to sanctions (which were brought into place to prevent Saddam from causing problems) that range everywhere from thousands to a million. Personally, I think the 100,000 was the most credible. (Now, you may try to argue that those deaths were not Saddam's fault; however, similar sanctions in other countries did not lead to the same number of casulties; PLUS Saddam could have ended the hardship by cooperating with inspections, etc.)
- Not only have people been killed, but there have been many displacements... for example,most remaining Marsh Arabs have been displaced


The most parts of the deaths above could have been avoided if some nations ( US included ) did not sell any gun to Saddam.
But, you are too ideologically involved, to realize this..


If you assume the maximum for all of these (and assume that Saddam was fully responsible for the Iran/Iraq war), his death count is around 1.3 million. If you are a bit more conservative (for example, assuming Saddam was only half responsible for the Iran Iraq war and you pick the lower estimate20+5, and only half responsible for deaths due to sanctions) then the number killed ends up being from 300,000 to 540,000.


See above


Yes... we have a decade of experience in Iraq, where military targets were bombed regularly, the U.N. regularly interveigned in Iraq's soverignty, yet human rights abuses continued.


Fortunately, now, since soon after the invasion, the human right situation has greatly improved..


Perhaps you could be a bit more convincing if you actually came up with a plan that looks like it would work, rather than using the magical "There must be a better way" argument.


I have already written of various ways to deal with the problem.


By 'first invasion', are you referring to the Gulf war of 1991?

Yes


Because that's not the time frame I was referring to.
(After all, that wasn't exactly an "invasion")

I was referring to the time period after 1991, when the U.S. was trying to limit Saddam's power through sanctions and low-level military campaigns, only to see human rights abuses continue.


I do not think there has been over one million deaths after 1991


Nope, Canada did not participate in the invasion of Iraq. Thus, any assumption that Canadians automatically harbour the same "imperialistic" mentality as the U.S. is flawed.

That was my point


But you're the one that said intervention in one case is somehow justified and intervention in another case is not. So where do you draw the line? 1 million dead? 2 million?

No.
Could the case be handled in a better way?
Was the invasion of Iraq really necessary?
Why the US invaded Iran and not Rwanda?
Was the invasion of Rwanda necessary?




Sorry, but I do not recall you specifically addressing the possibility that the U.S. could have dealt with Saddam directly if Oil was the main reason for invasion.

Please indicate where and when you addressed the issue.

No time to do search.
Anyway, I do not think the issue is very important.

[Matteo Martini]

Why double? It may have been enough to be a strategic mistake.

Way to show your base ignorance.

Putting together a massive aid package,

[..]

That is reality, and the reality of logistics, which the standard novice, you, has no grasp of.

DR

You know quite a lot, and you know nothing..
I will never believe that the intervention in Rwanda was held back for logistic problems.
That is an excuse.

[BeAChooser]

BTW, that 655000 number was posted in the Washington Post


That still doesn't make it correct, for all the reasons I noted and that you simply ignored.

And don't think that readers didn't notice you ignoring those reasons.:D

[BeAChooser]

Second, you have the site www.iraqbodycount.com which, as I say, validates the hypotesis of 100000+ deaths..

This is misleading. When papers published the John Hopkins report claiming 100,000 deaths, IBC was claiming far fewer. And I posted what IBC wrote regarding John Hopkin's 655,000 death claim. They don't AT ALL validate what you've been claiming.

[Matteo Martini]

That still doesn't make it correct, for all the reasons I noted and that you simply ignored.

And don't think that readers didn't notice you ignoring those reasons.:D

This is all the evidence we have:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003

The Iraq Body Count (IBC) project's figure of 69,045 to 75,495 civilian deaths reported in English-language media (including Arabic media translated into English) up to 12 August 2007 includes civilian deaths due to coalition and insurgent military action, sectarian violence and increased criminal violence. The IBC says the figure likely underestimates because: "It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media."[2]
The Lancet study's figure of 654,965 excess deaths is based on surveys and sampling methods, and includes those due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poorer healthcare, etc.. 601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval) were due to violence. 31% of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% to others, 46% unknown. The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56%), car bomb (13%), other explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13%), accident (2%), unknown (2%).[3]

The United Nations reported that 34,452 violent deaths occurred in 2006, based on data from morgues, hospitals, and municipal authorities across Iraq.[4] For comparison, the IBC reports approximately 24,500 civilian deaths in 2006.[5] The Lancet study's excess mortality rate figure of 14.2 deaths/1000/year as of June 2006 corresponds to approximately 370,000 deaths in 2006.[6]

A figure of 100,000 to 150,000 was estimated by Iraq's Health Minister Ali al-Shemari in a November 2006 press conference, based on extrapolating the recent 2006 rate of 100 deaths per day recorded in hospitals and morgues backward to March 2003. War-related deaths (civilian and non-civilian), and deaths from criminal gangs.[7][8]

"At least 50,000 Iraqis have died violently"—as of June 2006. "Many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths. ... The [Los Angeles] Times attempted to reach a comprehensive figure by obtaining statistics from the Baghdad morgue and the Health Ministry and checking those numbers against a sampling of local health departments for possible undercounts."[9]

Please, read all, and tell me where you can read that the total number of daeths can be lower than 100000

[Matteo Martini]

This is misleading. When papers published the John Hopkins report claiming 100,000 deaths, IBC was claiming far fewer. And I posted what IBC wrote regarding John Hopkin's 655,000 death claim. They don't AT ALL validate what you've been claiming.

You did not read what I wrote, and I am getting tired..

[BeAChooser]

The Lancet study's figure of 654,965 excess deaths is based on surveys and sampling methods

First of all, it isn't the Lancet's study. The Lancet only published the study (curious how the authors had to go to another country to get it published).

Second, that study is flawed for all the reasons that have been pointed out (and more). That you won't even discuss those reasons suggests you don't really care about the validity of the methods. You just like the result.

A figure of 100,000 to 150,000 was estimated by Iraq's Health Minister Ali al-Shemari in a November 2006

That was more than TWO YEARS after the original John Hopkins study claiming 100,000 excess deaths. And even then, estimates are dime a dozen. Did the health minister actually provide anything to back up his estimate? No.

But here's some evidence (that you ignored) that the John Hopkins study is bogus. According to the second John Hopkins report, 87 percent of those who claimed deaths were asked to prove it by providing death certificates. According to the researchers, they just forgot to ask the other 13 percent. And of those 87 percent, 92 percent (501 out of 545) were able to provide death certificates. Therefore, if the study is statistically valid, there should be death certificates available for about 92 percent of the total 655,000 estimated dead. But investigations by media sources that are not friendly to the Bush administration or the war did not find evidence of anywhere near that number. The Los Angeles Times, for example, in a comprehensive investigation found less than 50,000 certificates. Let me repeat what one of the authors of the LATimes story, Borzou Daragahi, said in an interview with PBS "the Los Angeles Times thinks these numbers are too large, depending on the extensive research we've done. Earlier this year, around June, the report was published at least in June, but the reporting was done over weeks earlier. We went to morgues, cemeteries, hospitals, health officials, and we gathered as many statistics as we could on the actual dead bodies, and the number we came up with around June was about at least 50,000. And that kind of jibed with some of the news report that were out there, the accumulation of news reports, in terms of the numbers kill. The U.N. says that there's about 3,000 a month being killed; that also fits in with our numbers and with morgue numbers. This number of 600,000 or more killed since the beginning of the war, it's way off our charts." So in order to take the Johns Hopkins' results seriously, you have to believe that the Iraqi government recorded deaths occurring since the invasion with an accuracy of 92 percent, but then suppressed the bulk of those deaths when releasing official figures, with no one blowing the whistle. And you have to believe that all those dead bodies went unnoticed by the mainstream media and everyone else trying to keep track of the war casualties. Alternatively, you have to believe that the Iraqi government only issues death certificates for a small percentage of deaths, but this random sample happened to score 92 percent by pure chance. Or you have to believe that doctors issued death certificates without telling any authorities when so far NOT ONE Iraqi doctor has come forward to say he did that. Every one of those possibilities is ridiculous. So why do you insist on spreading this woo? Because you don't care about the truth?

[BeAChooser]

You did not read what I wrote, and I am getting tired..

I read what you wrote. This started when you first cited the 655,000 death study and then when didn't fly threw out this:


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-08.htm
100,000 Excess Iraqi Deaths Since War - Study
And, that was 2004..


You weren't talking about 100,000 NOW, you were claiming 100,000 back in 2004.

[Oliver]

Jesus, what is the Argument here? That it's outrageous to kill 3000 people but fine to kill ABOUT XXX,XXX citizens???

My point simply is that in case if Iraq - every casualty as a result of the WMD-Propaganda, is manslaughter and should be prosecuted this way - instead whining about Gonzales, White House Prostitute-Affairs or Libby.

[Segnosaur]

Jesus, what is the Argument here? That it's outrageous to kill 3000 people but fine to kill ABOUT XXX,XXX citizens???

My point simply is that in case if Iraq - every casualty as a result of the WMD-Propaganda, is manslaughter and should be prosecuted this way - instead whining about Gonzales, White House Prostitute-Affairs or Libby.


Nobody said it was "fine" to kill XXX,XXX citizens. But if you follow the thread, one of the points that I (and other posters) have said is that you can't just look at the XXX,XXX citizens killed with the assumption that noboyd would have died had the invasion not occured. What you have to do is look at the potential casulties that Saddam would have inflicted on his own people had he remained in power. From the looks of things, that number would appear to be at least equal to (or possibly greater than) the number of deaths that have happened since the invasion.

[Darth Rotor]

You know quite a lot, and you know nothing..
I will never believe that the intervention in Rwanda was held back for logistic problems.
That is an excuse.
Nor did I say it was. A common presumption, post hoc, that an intervention by a Peace Enforcement operation would have prevented the brewing civil war consistently ignores the requirements to sustain such a force. The humanitarian mission that came along after the fighting had for the most part stopped, after Kagame and his faction had won, was on austere footing until the logistic base to support it had time to grow. The refugee support operations in and along the Congo border did not grow up over night, and could not have been set up in the middle of a fight. They had to wait until the fighting stopped.

That was relief, not Peace Enforcement, nor even Peace Keeping. The original UN Peace Keepping Operation was abandoned for a variety of reasons, not just one, though the problem of the logistics was a practical problem facing anyone trying to augment it: to either beef up a force, or sustain one that would be strong enough to get in between the factions and stop/prevent a war that had been brewing for some years.

Another novice mistake, and thanks, Matteo, for trying once again to look at a problem through the lens of a single variable.

If you want to argue that the over riding lack of intervention in Rwanda was a lack of political will/indifference/disbelief that mass slaughter would occur, sure, that was certainly a multinational political problem. That does not change the fact that it is far easier to intervene/help/prevent in nation states that are relatively easier to get to -- see my pointing to the small coastal states in West Africa and the relative ease of aid and NEO operations -- than in remote, hard to get to places, like Rwanda. The problem of timely action is a combination of a political decision, and the sheer physical problem of getting people and things, the right people and things, into a conflict zone and sustaining the operation.

DR

[Segnosaur]

Posting numbers is pointless if they come from a non-reputable source.
[quote]
I agree with you.
The Washington Post is just a bunch of Communists..
[quote]
Yes, that number was repoted in the Post. Sure it was also published in a hundred other newspapers and TV stations as well. But the fact is, it initially came from one source (i.e. the newspapers were not doing their own studies).


But, before publishing them, they validate them, uh?

No, they do not.

Second, you have the site www.iraqbodycount.com which, as I say, validates the hypotesis of 100000+ deaths..

Uhhh.. no. I think you're getting a little confused over dates and numbers...

Just to give you a time line...

- John Hoskins did a study (published in lancet) in 2004 that claimed 100,000 deaths. At that time, Iraq body count did not 'validate' that number; they actually had a number that was quite a bit lower (can't remember the exact figure, but it was in the 20-30k range). Furthermore, the number of 100,000 was contradicted by similar studies done by the U.N.
- Claiming that the current number listed in Iraq body count validates the 2004 estimate of 100,000 is wrong becase they are taken from different time periods
- The more recent survey (from 2006) from John Hoskins uses the same flawed methodology as their first survey to reach the count of 655,000. It is THAT number that you have to compare Iraq body count with.

There are, to my knowledge, no other studies that give values anywhere near the figures given in the John Hoskins/Lancet studies, despite your earlier claims that their figures were verified by "other researchers".


Yes we did, by pointing out several flaws with the study, and by referring to other studies which provided contradictory data.

But, your conclusions were not posted in the Post, or in any other newspaper.
Can not see why..
Why?

Because newspapers often get stories involving science and statisics wrong. And because of the old saying "if it bleeds it leads". Sensationalistic stories get more press because they bring in more readers.


You can not expect to have a strategy before knowing exactly what the problem is. To whom an I speaking to?

I told you exactly what the problem is... Iraq is positioning military targets next to civilian targets, so that any 'precision' bombing, regardless of how careful, will result in the deaths of innocents.

Would you accept those deaths as the cost of handling Saddam? (Something tells me that if the U.S. did try such precision bombing, you'd be one of the first ones complaining about the U.S. killing innoncents.) Or would you leave those targets, thus encouraging Saddam to use even more civilian targets as human sheilds?

And since in other threads you seem to think that the invasion required U.N. approval, would you have a similar requirement for such precision attacks? Or would you consider it moralistic for the U.S. to engage in such military actions unilaterally? And if you say that U.N. approval is required, and it fails to act, are you going to accept the continued human rights abuses?

No, some (military targets) were placed next to power plants.
What about the others?

What about the others? Is it not enough that some civilians were used as human shields?

No, Germany took an action that you agreed with. That is not necessarly the same as being 'right'.
More right than the US?

No, they took an action that they felt was politically advantageous. Morality did not enter into this at all.


The estimates of 20,000 to 40,000 are based on an estimate of 500,000 to 1 million deaths caused under Saddam's regime.
With the help of the US..

The most parts of the deaths above could have been avoided if some nations ( US included ) did not sell any gun to Saddam.
But, you are too ideologically involved, to realize this..

Fine.... the U.S. supplied 1% of Iraq's conventional arms, so they should be responsible for 1% of its deaths. Saddam can be responsible for the other 99%.

As for 'other nations' not selling guns to Saddam... remember, most of his conventional arms came from communust countries, countries that the U.S. had abolutely no control over.


Yes... we have a decade of experience in Iraq, where military targets were bombed regularly, the U.N. regularly interveigned in Iraq's soverignty, yet human rights abuses continued.

Fortunately, now, since soon after the invasion, the human right situation has greatly improved..

Actually, it has... there is more free speech, more freedom of religion, more economic freedom in Iraq now than there was under Saddam. And the current death rate, although unfortunate, is not as bad as when Saddam was in power.

So please point to one area where people have less human rights now than under Saddam.

Of course, it is getting off topic... your original claim was that Saddam's abuses could have been stopped by precision military actions. I've already pointed out that a decade of such action did not stop such abuses. All you are trying to do is cloud the issue and avoid the fact that I've debunked your claim.

Perhaps you could be a bit more convincing if you actually came up with a plan that looks like it would work, rather than using the magical "There must be a better way" argument.
I have already written of various ways to deal with the problem.

No you haven't... In fact, whenever I pointed out specific problems with your 'plan', you've only argued that you "can't know strategy".


I do not think there has been over one million deaths after 1991

I never claimed there were. (There were some claims that that many people died due to sanctions, but I don't necessarily accept them.) But there were 10s of thousands of deaths, in large part due to direct killings. Those deaths were not stopped by continued U.S. and British attempts at stopping Saddam's abuses through low level military action like you were proposing..

But you're the one that said intervention in one case is somehow justified and intervention in another case is not. So where do you draw the line? 1 million dead? 2 million?
No.

No what? What type of answer is that?

I was not asking a 'yes/no' question... You brought up the issue of Rwanda and suggested that it was more worthy of intervention. You even mentioned the number of people killed. So, where is your justification? How do you measure when a case of human rights abuses is worthy of intervention and when a case is not?


Could the case be handled in a better way?

Maybe it could have, maybe it could not. If there was a better way, then I'd actually like to see an actual plan, not just the empty ideas that you put forward, where you avoid any hard questions.

Was the invasion of Iraq really necessary?
Why the US invaded Iran and not Rwanda?
Was the invasion of Rwanda necessary?


Sorry, but I do not recall you specifically addressing the possibility that the U.S. could have dealt with Saddam directly if Oil was the main reason for invasion.
No time to do search.
Anyway, I do not think the issue is very important.

By that, I assume you mean "I was wrong... I never did address that issue, now I want to hide the fact that I was wrong".

[Darth Rotor]

Jesus, what is the Argument here? That it's outrageous to kill 3000 people but fine to kill ABOUT XXX,XXX citizens???

My point simply is that in case if Iraq - every casualty as a result of the WMD-Propaganda, is manslaughter and should be prosecuted this way - instead whining about Gonzales, White House Prostitute-Affairs or Libby.

Oliver, you are welcome to pursue, find, and arrest each and every suicide bomber who blows up tens, at times over a hundred, of Iraqis with a tragically maddening frequency since August 2003.

I await your results.

Oh, wait. You can't. The suicide bombers are dead.

Next?

Oliver, you are welcome to arrest and charge the various Sunni and Shia militia members who kill one another, and have beendoing so over the past four years.

For manslaughter.

Let me know how you do.

I think you might want to grasp the concept of agency before you go any further.

If I am the mayor of Paris, France, and I cannot afford to keep a force of (let us say for an example) 7,000 police , but can only afford 6000, I have to lay off 1000. That does not make me an accessory to any murder that happens by a killer after those 1000 are laid off, no matter how loudly my political opponents yell that my laying off those 1000 police was the cause of the murder.

The culpable party is the murderer, not the mayor.

Got it?

DR

[Oliver]

Got it?

DR


Of course I got it - but your examples don't make sense.
I will gladly explain it to you in the "What is this war about anyway" thread if you wish to (see Rule11). :)

[Darth Rotor]

Of course I got it - but your examples don't make sense.
Then you didn't get it.
I will gladly explain it to you in the "What is this war about anyway" thread if you wish to (see Rule11). :)
Riiiiiiiiiiight. I've got your rule 11 right here, pal. I also will send you a bill for breaking my irony meter. :p

In your post, the one I responded to with the observation on agency, you brought up, in a thread entitled Time To Kick Iran:
My point simply is that in case if Iraq - every casualty as a result of the WMD-Propaganda, is manslaughter and should be prosecuted this way - instead whining about Gonzales, White House Prostitute-Affairs or Libby.
Please go back to forum management and read what Darat wrote to you about the difference between OT and drift within a (15 page) thread.

The meaning of OT is lost on you, unless perhaps that for you, it means either Oliver Twit or Oliver, Troll.

DR

[Ion]

Wait one sec..

First of all, what about Saddam..

He did do criminal acts, did not he?

Secondly, you seem to forget that, George W. ( or Olmert ), could order the total desctruction of Iran tomorrow morning.
They are not doing that.
How can be sure that, Mr. A, if he gets a nuke, would not bomb Israel or the US?

Third, you say that Mr. A is not a criminal, but, please, look at the human rights situation in Iran..
There is a difference between these and Bush.

Saddam, Ahmadinejad and others can be contained.

U.N. did that to Saddam after 1992, and is doing it to Ahmadinejad now.

Bush cannot be contained.

Republican Tancredo -of the bombing the Mecca fame- if in power in U.S., cannot be contained.

More force needs to be applied by U.N. against Bush, Tancredo.

[Darth Rotor]

Bush cannot be contained.
That was truer when both houses of Congress was GOP that it is now. See also, Rove is jumping ship.
Republican Tancredo -of the bombing the Mecca fame- if in power in U.S., cannot be contained.
Yes, he can be, if the Congress is in the other party. That puts a brake on some of his freedom of action.
More force needs to be applied by U.N. against Bush, Tancredo.
The problem with that idea is that the UN, and specifically the UNSC, as the UN's sole force applying element, has an American vote and veto, which effectively renders "UN Force" application to the US moot, regardless of who is president.

What might work as "force applying" to any US president, be it Bush, Tancredo, Obama, whoever, is the emergence of another superpower with both the economy and the will to act as a rival the way the USSR was a rival.

Two choices in the near future: the EU and Russia form a bloc, or China stands up.

Until then, no force applying body is available.

On a different note, Tancredo is no threat to become president, don't worry about him.

DR

[Ion]

I agree with this:
That was truer when both houses of Congress was GOP that it is now. See also, Rove is jumping ship.

Yes, he can be, if the Congress is in the other party. That puts a brake on some of his freedom of action.

The problem with that idea is that the UN, and specifically the UNSC, as the UN's sole force applying element, has an American vote and veto, which effectively renders "UN Force" application to the US moot, regardless of who is president.

What might work as "force applying" to any US president, be it Bush, Tancredo, Obama, whoever, is the emergence of another superpower with both the economy and the will to act as a rival the way the USSR was a rival.

Two choices in the near future: the EU and Russia form a bloc, or China stands up.

Until then, no force applying body is available.

On a different note, Tancredo is no threat to become president, don't worry about him.

DR
with some amendments.

They are:

.) Bush is being contained by Congress, too late for thousands who died;

.) I believe in the importance of U.N. to reign above any superpower;
there was such a speech in 2003 by the Prime Minister of Sweden.

[BeAChooser]

What might work as "force applying" to any US president, be it Bush, Tancredo, Obama, whoever, is the emergence of another superpower with both the economy and the will to act as a rival the way the USSR was a rival.

I hope you don't think that would be a good thing since the USSR did not act very nice ... even to its own people.

[WildCat]

Actually, whether support for Saddam was trully a 'bad act' is debatable. Iran was (at the time) considered a greater threat. Its possible that they should have stayed out of the situation, or supported Iraq, but not given as much aid.
There was very little aid given to Saddam by the US. The USSR and France provided the lions share of his military hardware.

[BeAChooser]

I believe in the importance of U.N. to reign above any superpower;
there was such a speech in 2003 by the Prime Minister of Sweden.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasPKilgannon/2006/05/18/the_un_fails_again

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTBjMjRhMjY2ZTVlODkyYmNkY2U1YzdlYWQwYjg5NTY=

http://www.ccd21.org/news/ditching_dictators.htm

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110007554

[Matteo Martini]

No, they do not.


They do.
That is how journalism works


Uhhh.. no. I think you're getting a little confused over dates and numbers...

Just to give you a time line...

- John Hoskins did a study (published in lancet) in 2004 that claimed 100,000 deaths. At that time, Iraq body count did not 'validate' that number; they actually had a number that was quite a bit lower (can't remember the exact figure, but it was in the 20-30k range). Furthermore, the number of 100,000 was contradicted by similar studies done by the U.N.
- Claiming that the current number listed in Iraq body count validates the 2004 estimate of 100,000 is wrong becase they are taken from different time periods
- The more recent survey (from 2006) from John Hoskins uses the same flawed methodology as their first survey to reach the count of 655,000. It is THAT number that you have to compare Iraq body count with.

There are, to my knowledge, no other studies that give values anywhere near the figures given in the John Hoskins/Lancet studies, despite your earlier claims that their figures were verified by "other researchers".


Do we agree that the total number of victims in Iraq, after 2003, is probably over 100 thousands


Because newspapers often get stories involving science and statisics wrong. And because of the old saying "if it bleeds it leads". Sensationalistic stories get more press because they bring in more readers.

No comment


I told you exactly what the problem is... Iraq is positioning military targets next to civilian targets, so that any 'precision' bombing, regardless of how careful, will result in the deaths of innocents.

Less than 100000


Would you accept those deaths as the cost of handling Saddam? (Something tells me that if the U.S. did try such precision bombing, you'd be one of the first ones complaining about the U.S. killing innoncents.)

You know what I think before I do


Or would you leave those targets, thus encouraging Saddam to use even more civilian targets as human sheilds?

And since in other threads you seem to think that the invasion required U.N. approval, would you have a similar requirement for such precision attacks? Or would you consider it moralistic for the U.S. to engage in such military actions unilaterally? And if you say that U.N. approval is required, and it fails to act, are you going to accept the continued human rights abuses?

You are enlarging the topic unneccesarily


No, they took an action that they felt was politically advantageous. Morality did not enter into this at all.

How do you know?
Racism against Germany?


Fine.... the U.S. supplied 1% of Iraq's conventional arms, so they should be responsible for 1% of its deaths. Saddam can be responsible for the other 99%.

It still puzzles me.
I have posted a quote, from a reliable source, that some USD 5 Billions were
conveyed to Saddam, by the American branch of an Italian Bank ( Banca Nazionale del Lavoro ).


As for 'other nations' not selling guns to Saddam... remember, most of his conventional arms came from communust countries, countries that the U.S. had abolutely no control over.


In this very point, I agree that you have taken me aback, and I am studying to understand more of it


Actually, it has... there is more free speech, more freedom of religion, more economic freedom in Iraq now than there was under Saddam. And the current death rate, although unfortunate, is not as bad as when Saddam was in power.


Many people and organizations are not of the same opinion


So please point to one area where people have less human rights now than under Saddam.


All the areas where suicide bombers operate..


Of course, it is getting off topic... your original claim was that Saddam's abuses could have been stopped by precision military actions. I've already pointed out that a decade of such action did not stop such abuses. All you are trying to do is cloud the issue and avoid the fact that I've debunked your claim.

They did not stop them, but they have, somehow, contained them?
Basically, I think the US could have stopped almost all Saddam actions, without taking him out of power.
Do you agree?


No you haven't... In fact, whenever I pointed out specific problems with your 'plan', you've only argued that you "can't know strategy".


My "can't know strategy" is probably better than Bush` s " I know how " strategy


I never claimed there were. (There were some claims that that many people died due to sanctions, but I don't necessarily accept them.) But there were 10s of thousands of deaths, in large part due to direct killings. Those deaths were not stopped by continued U.S. and British attempts at stopping Saddam's abuses through low level military action like you were proposing..


Let` s see..
10s of thousands of deaths in a decade from 1991 to 2003.
And, at least 75000 deaths, only from 2003 to 2007



No what? What type of answer is that?

I was not asking a 'yes/no' question... You brought up the issue of Rwanda and suggested that it was more worthy of intervention. You even mentioned the number of people killed. So, where is your justification? How do you measure when a case of human rights abuses is worthy of intervention and when a case is not?


My reply was not just " no ".
You did not quote it all..


Maybe it could have, maybe it could not. If there was a better way, then I'd actually like to see an actual plan, not just the empty ideas that you put forward, where you avoid any hard questions.


Yes, Prof. Matteo Martini, head consultant from the John Hopkins University, now elaborates, alone, a plan for the U.S. military..
In his spare time..
I just gave you an idea, containing Saddam without taking him out of power


By that, I assume you mean "I was wrong... I never did address that issue, now I want to hide the fact that I was wrong".

No, I am busy, not wrong..

[Matteo Martini]

There is a difference between these and Bush.

Saddam, Ahmadinejad and others can be contained.

By who?
Putin?
Shinzo Abe?
Kofi Annan?


U.N. did that to Saddam after 1992, and is doing it to Ahmadinejad now.


The UN started the total disctruction of Iraq and Iran?
In which planet are you living?


Bush cannot be contained.

Republican Tancredo -of the bombing the Mecca fame- if in power in U.S., cannot be contained.

More force needs to be applied by U.N. against Bush, Tancredo.

Tancredo is Mr. Nobody.
He has no power.
Bush, so far, has attacked Iraq, but with the aim of changing it into a democracy.
It was not a war of occupation, Hitler` s style..

[Matteo Martini]

There was very little aid given to Saddam by the US. The USSR and France provided the lions share of his military hardware.

Mm..
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/nsa/publications/iraqgate/iraqgate.html

[Matteo Martini]

Secretary of State James Baker personally intervened to promote strong ties with Baghdad. A briefing paper prepared for a March 1989 meeting between Baker and Iraqi Foreign Ministry Under Secretary Nizar Hamdoon discussed Iraq’s active involvement in chemical and biological warfare and missile programs, and recommended stressing the sensitivity of Iraq’s chemical weapons use for U.S.-Iraq relations.9 Hamdoom and Baker discussed Iraq’s wish for medium-term Eximbank export credit guarantees, and Baker assured him that he would take a personal interest in the question. (The State Department later warned Baker that moving forward with the credits would be problematic, given strong congressional opposition to Iraq’s recent chemical weapons use.)10 In June, Baker wrote to Secretary of Agriculture Clayton Yeutter to ask him to increase the size of the CCC’s GSM-102 program by $1 billion, to solve a problem "that has consequences for both U.S. foreign policy and agricultural exports."11 Soon thereafter, the Agriculture Department informed the National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Policies (NAC), an interagency group responsible for approving economic programs involving foreign countries, that Agriculture planned to offer Iraq $1 billion in export credit guarantees for FY 1990.

http://foi.missouri.edu/evolvingissues/iraqgate.html

[Matteo Martini]

If you want to argue that the over riding lack of intervention in Rwanda was a lack of political will/indifference/disbelief that mass slaughter would occur, sure, that was certainly a multinational political problem. That does not change the fact that it is far easier to intervene/help/prevent in nation states that are relatively easier to get to -- see my pointing to the small coastal states in West Africa and the relative ease of aid and NEO operations -- than in remote, hard to get to places, like Rwanda. The problem of timely action is a combination of a political decision, and the sheer physical problem of getting people and things, the right people and things, into a conflict zone and sustaining the operation.


No, Darth, I do not swallow this.
The Tutsi, were not armed at all, they could have stopped very easily.
Basically, the US could have at least, tried to contained them, but they did nothing, exactly like France, the UK, Germany, Russia, etc.

[dudalb]

Anybody who think the Aytalloahs ruling Iran getting their hands on nukes is somehow a good thing is,frankly,a fool.

[dudalb]

I believe in the importance of U.N. to reign above any superpower;

Don't Hold Your Breath.
I don't think any nation wants to give the UN That kind of power.

[Oliver]

Breaking news:


U.S. to move on Iran’s Revolutionary Guard

Administration will designate group as ‘global terrorist’

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20269253/





I apologize if this qualifies for a new thread but my guess is it's still in topic.

[Elizabeth I]

They do.
That is how journalism works

That's how journalism is supposed to work. However, see:

Stephen Glass: an American reporter for The New Republic who was fired for basing his articles on fake quotes, sources and events. The story of Glass's downfall is told in the 2003 film Shattered Glass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Glass

Jayson Blair: American former New York Times reporter who was forced to resign from the newspaper in May 2003, after he was caught plagiarizing and fabricating elements of his stories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair

Janet Cooke: a reporter for the Washington Post during the early 1980s. In 1980 her story, "Jimmy's World", about an 8-year old heroin addict, [4] sparked a frenzied, but unsuccessful, two-week scouring of Washington, D.C. at the behest of then-Mayor Marion Barry, in search of child addicts. The day after Cooke's article won a 1981 Pulitzer Prize for journalism, her editors confronted her about discrepancies in her resume brought to their attention by The Toledo Blade, where she once worked. Cooke falsely claimed that that she attended Vassar College. Cooke confessed that "Jimmy" was a fabrication, resigned and the Post returned the prize. [5]

In fact, just go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_scandals,
then come back and talk about the shining accuracy of journalism.

[Matteo Martini]

That's how journalism is supposed to work. However, see:

Stephen Glass: an American reporter for The New Republic who was fired for basing his articles on fake quotes, sources and events. The story of Glass's downfall is told in the 2003 film Shattered Glass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Glass

Jayson Blair: American former New York Times reporter who was forced to resign from the newspaper in May 2003, after he was caught plagiarizing and fabricating elements of his stories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair

Janet Cooke: a reporter for the Washington Post during the early 1980s. In 1980 her story, "Jimmy's World", about an 8-year old heroin addict, [4] sparked a frenzied, but unsuccessful, two-week scouring of Washington, D.C. at the behest of then-Mayor Marion Barry, in search of child addicts. The day after Cooke's article won a 1981 Pulitzer Prize for journalism, her editors confronted her about discrepancies in her resume brought to their attention by The Toledo Blade, where she once worked. Cooke falsely claimed that that she attended Vassar College. Cooke confessed that "Jimmy" was a fabrication, resigned and the Post returned the prize. [5]

In fact, just go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_scandals,
then come back and talk about the shining accuracy of journalism.

Liz,
do you have ANY evidence that the Post did not check that particular report, before publishing it?
General stories about wrong journalism are not relevant..

[WildCat]

Mm..
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/nsa/publications/iraqgate/iraqgate.html
How does that refute what I said? During the Iraq/Iran war, the USSR provided 69% of Iraqs weapons, France 13%, and China 12%. The US total was less than 1%.

[Darth Rotor]

I hope you don't think that would be a good thing since the USSR did not act very nice ... even to its own people.
No, I don't, but it's been coming for the last two decades in the form of China. The EU-Russia Axis was a stretch.

China's arrival is a matter of when, not if, and no, I am not too pleased at the thought of Cold War II, in another mutation of Cold War I.

Me not being pleased isn't going to stop its arrival. China is on China's side, and is going to play the 800 pound gorilla for all she is worth.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

No, Darth, I do not swallow this.
The Tutsi, were not armed at all, they could have stopped very easily.
Basically, the US could have at least, tried to contained them, but they did nothing, exactly like France, the UK, Germany, Russia, etc.
If the Tutsi's were "not armed at all" how did Paul Kagame lead the Tutsi's to a military victory over the Hutu and put a stop to the fighting?

Can you answer me that?

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Breaking news:




I apologize if this qualifies for a new thread but my guess is it's still in topic.
I'd say it is more on topic than most of this thread. ;)

It's also a weird way to engage Iran in dialogue. First, a few rounds of tentative talks, next

"Oh, part of your government/armed forces is a terrorist organization."

Iran's response:

"OK, your ATF is a terrorist organization. So is your DEA. Oh, and your Green Beret's as well."

I see this conversation going nowhere.

I am starting to see this as the information war set up for attacks in Iran. It fits the pattern.

Jesus wept.

DR

[Segnosaur]

(on news sources printing information on the John Hoskins studies without verification
They do.
That is how journalism works

That is how journalism should work, but we have plenty of examples showing how items get published without proper verification.


Do we agree that the total number of victims in Iraq, after 2003, is probably over 100 thousands

No, we do not. Iraqi body count puts the number at around 70,000. In the past, their numbers were validated by studies done by the U.N. Therefore, their counts are most likely the correct ones.

Can we agree that the John Hoskin's studies were flawed and their estimates were wildly exagerated?

I told you exactly what the problem is... Iraq is positioning military targets next to civilian targets, so that any 'precision' bombing, regardless of how careful, will result in the deaths of innocents.

Would you accept those deaths as the cost of handling Saddam? (Something tells me that if the U.S. did try such precision bombing, you'd be one of the first ones complaining about the U.S. killing innoncents.)

You know what I think before I do

Well, why don't you verify... would you accept deaths of innocents used as 'human shields' as the cost of containing Saddam.

Or would you leave those targets, thus encouraging Saddam to use even more civilian targets as human sheilds?

And since in other threads you seem to think that the invasion required U.N. approval, would you have a similar requirement for such precision attacks? Or would you consider it moralistic for the U.S. to engage in such military actions unilaterally? And if you say that U.N. approval is required, and it fails to act, are you going to accept the continued human rights abuses?
You are enlarging the topic unneccesarily

Actually, my questions are quite necessary.

You claimed it would be possible to contain Saddam's abuses through low-level military action. To do so brings up many issues... who would authorize such actions, what the rules of engagement are. Given the fact that you've criticized the U.S. for actions not sanctioned by the U.N., how other actions are authorized becomes critical.

So, once again... answer the question, or accept that your claim is nothing but hot air... Is it moralistic for the U.S. to engage in such military actions unilaterally, and if you say U.N. approval is required, are you going to accept continued human rights abuses.


No, they took an action that they felt was politically advantageous. Morality did not enter into this at all.
How do you know?
Racism against Germany?

An idiotic statement that I probably shouldn't respond to.

I've already pointed out Germany's heavy involvement in Iraq's WMD programs. (Even greater than that of the U.S.) And if Germany was so moralistic, how come they weren't pushing for the same type of military action that you claim would work?

The U.S. certainly isn't innocent. Many of its actions in the past have been motivated by self interest. But to claim that Germany somehow acted above that shows a lack of understaning of world politics.


It still puzzles me.
I have posted a quote, from a reliable source, that some USD 5 Billions were
conveyed to Saddam, by the American branch of an Italian Bank ( Banca Nazionale del Lavoro ).

Hey, I have never denied that the U.S. was allies with Saddam. They did give him financial aid. They also (if I remember correctly) gave him intelligence information in the Iran/Iraq war. And they did sell weapons (although far less than other countries.)

But the amount of support given to Iraq pales in comparison to the amount of support given to Iraq from other countries in the world.

As for 'other nations' not selling guns to Saddam... remember, most of his conventional arms came from communust countries, countries that the U.S. had abolutely no control over.
In this very point, I agree that you have taken me aback, and I am studying to understand more of it

Not sure what you really need to 'understand'. The figures are pretty clear... Russia, France and China sold Iraq most of its conventional arms. The amount sold by the U.S. was less than 1%. Look at the makeup of Iraq's army under Saddam... The infrantry used AK47s, the military used Soviet-made tanks, and the air force flew MiGs.

Therefore, blaming the U.S. for Iraq's military buildup and supression of the Iraqi people is ignoring the facts... other countries played a much greater role in the supression.

Actually, it has... there is more free speech, more freedom of religion, more economic freedom in Iraq now than there was under Saddam. And the current death rate, although unfortunate, is not as bad as when Saddam was in power.

Many people and organizations are not of the same opinion

Please point out those organizations, and please point out what freedoms they think are worse now than when Saddam was in power. If such an opinion is so common, you should have no problem providing references.

So please point to one area where people have less human rights now than under Saddam.
All the areas where suicide bombers operate..

As opposed to the Kurdish areas, or the areas of Southern Iraq where Saddam was engaged in mass killings. Are you saying those people's lives were somehow less worth living?


They did not stop them, but they have, somehow, contained them?
Basically, I think the US could have stopped almost all Saddam actions, without taking him out of power.
Do you agree?

No. Because the cost of 'stopping' him would have required:
- military operations that would have proven to be politically unpopular had they used enough force to actually make a difference militarily
- Continued sanctions, that would have further harmed the Iraqi people (leading to starvation and problems in medical care)
Those factors would have meant a failure in any attempt to 'contain' Saddam's abuses.


I never claimed there were. (There were some claims that that many people died due to sanctions, but I don't necessarily accept them.) But there were 10s of thousands of deaths, in large part due to direct killings. Those deaths were not stopped by continued U.S. and British attempts at stopping Saddam's abuses through low level military action like you were proposing..

Let` s see..
10s of thousands of deaths in a decade from 1991 to 2003.
And, at least 75000 deaths, only from 2003 to 2007

You are grasping at straws here.

I said '10s of thousands' because coming up with an exact number killed is difficult. The number was well over 100,000 though (As witnessed by the post-gulf war 1 slaughters and the numbers estimated killed prematurely through sanctions.



When asked what type of body count is necessary to justify military action
No what? What type of answer is that?

I was not asking a 'yes/no' question... You brought up the issue of Rwanda and suggested that it was more worthy of intervention. You even mentioned the number of people killed. So, where is your justification? How do you measure when a case of human rights abuses is worthy of intervention and when a case is not?

My reply was not just " no ".
You did not quote it all..

Your right, you didn't just say no... you started to bring up some irrelevant questions about whether the invasion of Iraq was necessary, and whey they didn't invate Rwanda.

But you never answered the question I had actually asked...

If you think that the U.S. was wrong for going into Iraq while they didn't go into Rwanda (even though more were killed there), then what number killed do you think justifies military action?[i]


Yes, Prof. Matteo Martini, head consultant from the John Hopkins University, now elaborates, alone, a plan for the U.S. military..
In his spare time..
I just gave you an idea, containing Saddam without taking him out of power

And I gave a whole list of problems with your 'idea' of containing Saddam without taking him out of power. Either deal with the problems I pointed out earlier, or admit that your ideas of containment were not properly thought out and consist mostly of hot air.


[i](On the claim that Iraq's invasion was prompted by oil, and the counter-argment that if the U.S. wanted Iraq's oil they could have just dealt with Saddam. Matteo claimed that he had dealt with the issue before, but provided no references
By that, I assume you mean "I was wrong... I never did address that issue, now I want to hide the fact that I was wrong".
No, I am busy, not wrong..

Well, you're not too busy to post here...

Remember, skeptics demand proof. You have provided none.

[Matteo Martini]

No, we do not. Iraqi body count puts the number at around 70,000. In the past, their numbers were validated by studies done by the U.N. Therefore, their counts are most likely the correct ones.


I will reply only to this one, as you clearly are in bad faith.
In the site www.iraqbodycount.org there is written that the number of reported deaths, is between 69784 and 76236 ( in this moment ).
Then, in another window of the same site there is written:

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.

( bold is mine )

Therefore, the site www.iraqbodycount.org itself, states that the number of deaths can be significantly higher than 75000 deaths, which means that a prudent estimate of more than 100000 deaths can be done.

This is what I wrote, and what you are unwilling to consider and to reply on, even if I stressed this point many times.

Therefore, I close the discussion here, sorry, as I have no time to lose, if you do not want to consider facts that are not in your scheme of thought.

[Elizabeth I]

Liz,
do you have ANY evidence that the Post did not check that particular report, before publishing it?
General stories about wrong journalism are not relevant..

Nope, but you'll notice that Janet Cook was one of the Post's reporters.

[Matteo Martini]

If the Tutsi's were "not armed at all" how did Paul Kagame lead the Tutsi's to a military victory over the Hutu and put a stop to the fighting?

Can you answer me that?

DR

I do not know, probably, Kagame, with his twenty-two nuclear submarines and his fleet of interceptors attacked the air fleet of Migs that the Hutus had, in the zone of the international airport, close to the nuclear facilities of Rwanda, the place near where the high-tech Silicon Valley of Rwanda is.
Probably, Kagame won because of the superior air force, in their high-tech labs they developed a new kind of strategic bomber, which could not be seen even from the sofisticated radars of the other side..

In other words, you have no idea of the kind of weapons the two sides had

[Matteo Martini]

Nope, but you'll notice that Janet Cook was one of the Post's reporters.

OK
Then I will wait until you have some kind of evidence..

[Segnosaur]

I will reply only to this one, as you clearly are in bad faith.
In the site www.iraqbodycount.org there is written that the number of reported deaths, is between 69784 and 76236 ( in this moment ).
Then, in another window of the same site there is written:
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.

( bold is mine )

Therefore, the site www.iraqbodycount.org itself, states that the number of deaths can be significantly higher than 75000 deaths, which means that a prudent estimate of more than 100000 deaths can be done.

This is what I wrote, and what you are unwilling to consider and to reply on, even if I stressed this point many times.

First of all, I already DID reply on that particular point. If you look at this posting, that was made in this exact thread I address this particular statement by Iraq body count... http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2866833&postcount=546

So, your claim that I am 'unwilling to consider and reply on' that point is either a lie, or a demonstration of your ignorance.

Secondly, even if we assume that the count is close to 100,000, that raises the annual death toll over the 4.5 years from 16,000 to 22,000. But guess what? The annual death toll when Saddam was in power was between 20,000 and 40,000. So even if you use your figures (ones that you haven't really given any backing for) the estimate of the number killed per year is still near the bottom of the estimates of the number killed annually by Saddam.

Let me repeat that last statement... even using your artificially inflated figures, you still get a death toll that is well below the average estimates of those killed by Saddam.


Therefore, I close the discussion here, sorry, as I have no time to lose, if you do not want to consider facts that are not in your scheme of thought.
Very ironic that you would accuse me of not 'considering the facts'. Time and time again, I have posted references giving information to back my claims. (In other words, I have provided facts). Time and time again, you have made statements that either had no backing, or where what evidence you did give was shown to be misinterpreted by you or just plane wrong. And time and time again you have ignored the questions posted of you that demonstrate how faulty your logic and reasoning are.

Well, lets see... in this thread you have:

- Posted (incorrectly) that 'multiple researchers' have validated a figure for 655,000 dead, and for 'proof' you posted a reference to work done by those same researchers (post 536)
- Even after flaws in those statistics were explained to you, you failed to address those flaws in any way while at the same time repeating the same statistics as if there were no problem
- On multiple occasions, brought up information that had been covered previously, and in some cases even claimed that I had ignored the point
- Demonstrated your ignorance of the Iraqi situation when it was brought to your attention that the U.S. supplied almost none of Iraq's arms
- Claimed that you addressed the possibility that, if the U.S. really just wanted Saddam's oil they could have just made a deal with him, even though you did not. (post 540)
- Claimed that Canadians are actually Americans just because the live in "North America" (post 534)
- Deliberately ignored the following questions:
[i]is there ANYTHING that a government can do to its people that you would feel would allow unilateral action? (post 491)
[i]How to handle the rules of engagement and who would authorize force to 'contain' Saddam without overthrowing him
[i]If you think the U.N. needs to authorize such force and they do not, are you satisified seeing genocides happen?
[i]Just what casulty rate is necessary to justify a U.S. action (since you seem to think the U.S. was wrong for going into Iraq but suggested Rwanda was somehow more suitable.)

I do wonder... do you actually consider yourself a competent representative of the left-wing (or anti-war) train of thought? Do you think that making so many posts that are faulty and/or evasive portrays people with your beliefs in a good or bad light?

You claim you have 'no more time to loose'. Perhaps your time would have been better spent posting less drivel, and more time actually doing proper research, and/or actually trying to form coherent thoughts.

[Matteo Martini]

First of all, I already DID reply on that particular point. If you look at this posting, that was made in this exact thread I address this particular statement by Iraq body count... http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2866833&postcount=546

So, your claim that I am 'unwilling to consider and reply on' that point is either a lie, or a demonstration of your ignorance.


You wrote:

The fact that it "seems" low to you doesn't necessarily mean that it is low.
If you go back and look at some of the references that were published by myself and BeAChooser, you'll see references to surveys done by the United Nations that validate the stats from Iraqi Body Count.

I replied:

Ah..
The problem of dealing with people with low IQs..
The sentence
Still, your "maximum" count seems very low to me. Surely there must be many, many more civilian deaths than you've published.
was not written by me, it is in the site of iraqbodycount!!

Do you understand that the 75000 deaths figure does not seem low to me ( Matteo Martini ), but to the site iraqbodycount?
They are also claiming that the total of 75000 deaths is low?
Do you get it?
Please, read carefully this post before replying

[Flo]

First of all, I already DID reply on that particular point. If you look at this posting, that was made in this exact thread I address this particular statement by Iraq body count... http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2866833&postcount=546

So, your claim that I am 'unwilling to consider and reply on' that point is either a lie, or a demonstration of your ignorance.

Secondly, even if we assume that the count is close to 100,000, that raises the annual death toll over the 4.5 years from 16,000 to 22,000. But guess what? The annual death toll when Saddam was in power was between 20,000 and 40,000. So even if you use your figures (ones that you haven't really given any backing for) the estimate of the number killed per year is still near the bottom of the estimates of the number killed annually by Saddam.

Let me repeat that last statement... even using your artificially inflated figures, you still get a death toll that is well below the average estimates of those killed by Saddam.

Sorry to butt in, but those numbers are nothing to be proud or happy about, and certainly don't speak in favor of the American-led intervention ... The Iraqi are still being killed at the same rate as before, only by different people/organisations. Don't misunderstand me, I certainly don't regret Saddam (best thing him and his sons did their whole life was dying), and I certainly don't consider the USA responsible for most of the present deaths. However, I certainly consider the US government and military responsible for not having planned the after-invasion better, which has obviously led to the current mess ...

Keep going ...

[Oliver]

The Iraqi are still being killed at the same rate as before


:faint:

[Matteo Martini]

:faint:

Number can be manipulated, on both sides

[Segnosaur]

Sorry to butt in, but those numbers are nothing to be proud or happy about, and certainly don't speak in favor of the American-led intervention ...

I never said they WERE something to be happy about. But, when someone points to the current death rate as if there were no deaths before, then I take issue.

The Iraqi are still being killed at the same rate as before, only by different people/organisations.

Ok, first of all, they are not necessarily being killed at the "same rate" as before. As I posted earlier, the death rate under Saddam was 20,000-40,000 per year. The calculations I gave had the rate below the 20,000 level. Even using artificially inflated numbers for the current death rate, you'd end up with a figure on the low end of that spectrum (22,000 per year, as opposed to the median figure of 30,000 had Saddam stayed in power.)

Secondly, even if the death rate is the same (its not, its likely lower), there are still benefits:
- With Saddam gone, at least there is a chance, in the future, for actual peace to break out (even if, for example in the worst case, Iraq decides to break into 3 parts.) If Saddam was in power, chances are the ruling of Iraq would have passed to his sons, who likely would have continued his oppression
- There are other elements where people's lives have improved... greater freedom of speech, freedom of religion, economic growth, etc. Even if the death rate was unchanged, I'd rather have the same death rate WITH the extra freedoms than the death rate WITHOUT the freedoms

Don't misunderstand me, I certainly don't regret Saddam (best thing him and his sons did their whole life was dying), and I certainly don't consider the USA responsible for most of the present deaths. However, I certainly consider the US government and military responsible for not having planned the after-invasion better, which has obviously led to the current mess ...


Hey, I agree... the U.S. made far too many blunders, both before the invasion (e.g. putting too much emphasis on WMD and not enough on human rights and terrorism), and after (e.g. failure to accept Rumsfield's resignation over abu Garab, inadequate troop deployments, bad spending practices during the rebuilding, etc.)

I see there being 2 main questions: A) Was the invasion a moral act (based on the expected outcome, regardless of what the actual outcome was), and B) Did it improve the world in the long run. On the question of whether it was a 'moral' act... I believe using military force to stop excessive human rights abuses is valid. (It may not be valid in ALL cases, but in this situation it was justified.) On the question about whether it will impove the world in the long run... for that, I don't think anyone really has the answer (not even myself), and they won't for at least a decade when we see what the long term implications for Iraq and the middle east are.

However, pointing to flawed studies that show overinflated casualty rates and shouting "See? the U.S. is bad" (as Matteo seems so fond of doing) is using bad data to support positions that don't really deal with the important issues.

[Segnosaur]

The problem of dealing with people with low IQs..

Where does someone who thinks Canadians are "American", and doesn't even recognize that 2 quoted surveys that they themselves quoted were done by the same people fit into your idea of 'low IQs'?

The sentence
Still, your "maximum" count seems very low to me. Surely there must be many, many more civilian deaths than you've published.
was not written by me, it is in the site of iraqbodycount!!

Do you understand that the 75000 deaths figure does not seem low to me ( Matteo Martini ), but to the site iraqbodycount?
They are also claiming that the total of 75000 deaths is low?
Do you get it?
Please, read carefully this post before replying
Yes, I recognized that the statement came from the Iraqi body count web site. However, you quoted that web site (in support of your argument), and you used the sentiment (that the death count 'is low') as the basis for your argument that more than 100,000 died.

So, if you quote a web site, and use that quote to support claims you made, it natural to assume that you actually believe what was written, even if you were not the original author of those words.

Edited to add:
You know Mateo, you almost remind me of a 9/11 conspricy believer. They tend to take small comments (like Silverstein's "Pull it") out of context and assign meaning to it which does not belong. You, on the other hand, like to take comments (like the death rate "may" be higher) and use it to support any sort of claims.

[Darth Rotor]

I do not know, probably, Kagame, with his twenty-two nuclear submarines and his fleet of interceptors attacked the air fleet of Migs that the Hutus had, in the zone of the international airport, close to the nuclear facilities of Rwanda, the place near where the high-tech Silicon Valley of Rwanda is.
Probably, Kagame won because of the superior air force, in their high-tech labs they developed a new kind of strategic bomber, which could not be seen even from the sofisticated radars of the other side..

In other words, I don't know anything about the war in Rwanda.
There, I fixed it for you. I don't know if you were trying to be funny, but Rwanda was a rather old fashioned land campaign, mostly, characterized by alot of close in fighting. But I don't suppose you care about facts, just images.

Rwanda is a land locked country, so submarines are a bit out to lunch, don't you think?

DR

[Flo]

I never said they WERE something to be happy about. But, when someone points to the current death rate as if there were no deaths before, then I take issue.

So do I.

Ok, first of all, they are not necessarily being killed at the "same rate" as before. As I posted earlier, the death rate under Saddam was 20,000-40,000 per year. The calculations I gave had the rate below the 20,000 level. Even using artificially inflated numbers for the current death rate, you'd end up with a figure on the low end of that spectrum (22,000 per year, as opposed to the median figure of 30,000 had Saddam stayed in power.)

If you take into account the number of deaths directly due to violence, and those due to the general unrest, lack of security, lack of commodities, I'm pretty confident that we're unfortunately in the same range.

Secondly, even if the death rate is the same (its not, its likely lower), there are still benefits:
- With Saddam gone, at least there is a chance, in the future, for actual peace to break out (even if, for example in the worst case, Iraq decides to break into 3 parts.) If Saddam was in power, chances are the ruling of Iraq would have passed to his sons, who likely would have continued his oppression

Those are not benefits, they're speculations and wishes.

- There are other elements where people's lives have improved... greater freedom of speech, freedom of religion, economic growth, etc.

I'm sorry ? Improved how ? by having bombs detonate in markets almost every day, risking limb and life on the basis of one's confession, lacking reliable basic commodities, seeing all those who can leave the country ? And freedom of speech, religion, and economic growth for whose Iraqi ? Please ...

Even if the death rate was unchanged, I'd rather have the same death rate WITH the extra freedoms than the death rate WITHOUT the freedoms

Easy to say when you're not at risk of losing both, as are Iraqis nowadays ...


Hey, I agree... the U.S. made far too many blunders, both before the invasion (e.g. putting too much emphasis on WMD and not enough on human rights and terrorism), and after (e.g. failure to accept Rumsfield's resignation over abu Garab, inadequate troop deployments, bad spending practices during the rebuilding, etc.)

It's unfortunately worse than that: the whole World was lied to about whatever reasons were for the invasion, those who dared caution the US against it were dismissed at best, the planning looks like it was inexistent past the actual invasion, and Rumsfeld's resignation offer might have looked credible had the AbuGraihb abuses been dealt with more seriousness than just blaming and punishing underlings.

I see there being 2 main questions: A) Was the invasion a moral act (based on the expected outcome, regardless of what the actual outcome was), and B) Did it improve the world in the long run. On the question of whether it was a 'moral' act... I believe using military force to stop excessive human rights abuses is valid. (It may not be valid in ALL cases, but in this situation it was justified.)

Given that 1) the expected outcome has never clearly been stated, 2) the outcome of any situation is always contingent on the means you put into its realisation, and 3) the lies we've all been fed, I beg to disagree.


On the question about whether it will impove the world in the long run... for that, I don't think anyone really has the answer (not even myself), and they won't for at least a decade when we see what the long term implications for Iraq and the middle east are.

I'm a pessimist in those matters.

However, pointing to flawed studies that show overinflated casualty rates and shouting "See? the U.S. is bad" (as Matteo seems so fond of doing) is using bad data to support positions that don't really deal with the important issues.


Agreed.

[Flo]

There, I fixed it for you. I don't know if you were trying to be funny, but Rwanda was a rather old fashioned land campaign, mostly, characterized by alot of close in fighting. But I don't suppose you care about facts, just images.

Rwanda is a land locked country, so submarines are a bit out to lunch, don't you think?

DR


Oh, you know, everything's possible now that Switzerland has won the America Cup for the second time in a row :D

[Darth Rotor]

Oh, you know, everything's possible now that Switzerland has won the America Cup for the second time in a row :D
Well played. :)

DR

[Segnosaur]

If you take into account the number of deaths directly due to violence, and those due to the general unrest, lack of security, lack of commodities, I'm pretty confident that we're unfortunately in the same range.

They may be in the same general range, but based on various estimates I've seen for all the deaths (you can see how I came to those estimates earlier in the thread), the number that were killed by Saddam per year was most likely higher than those currently being killed.

[quote]With Saddam gone, at least there is a chance, in the future, for actual peace to break out. If Saddam was in power, chances are the ruling of Iraq would have passed to his sons, who likely would have continued his oppression

Those are not benefits, they're speculations and wishes.

I never claimed that peace (where human rights are respected) was guaranteed. A lot can go wrong. We can still end up with a dictatorship (or a theocracy). But had they not invaded, Iraq was going to remain a dictatoship, likely long after Saddam had died.

Heck, even if the chance of success is 1%, that's still higher than the 0% that Iraq was going to start being respectful of human rights under Saddam.

There are other elements where people's lives have improved... greater freedom of speech, freedom of religion, economic growth, etc.
I'm sorry ? Improved how ? by having bombs detonate in markets almost every day...

Wait a second... earlier in your post, you yourself said that you agreed that people who ignored deaths prior to the invasion were wrong. But here you are, doing the exact same thing.

I do not like the fact that there are terrorist attacks in Iraq. But I also didn't like Saddam's slaughter of Kurds, Shi'ites and Marsh Arabs. By mentioning only the current terrorist activity, you're ignoring those deaths. As I said before, dead is dead... people killed by Saddam deserve to be mourned just as much as those killed by terrorist attacks.


...lacking reliable basic commodities...

Remember, Iraq was already lacking basic commodities as a result of years of sanctions. Those sanctions were deemed necessary to keep Saddam "in check". Those sanctions could have been lifted sooner, but Saddam chose not to cooperate with the U.N., and when Iraq was allowed to sell oil, much of the profits went to support Saddam's government rather than the people.


And freedom of speech, religion, and economic growth for whose Iraqi ? Please ...

Freedom of speech:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/791014.stm

Since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003 there has been a profound transformation in the Iraqi media scene. Instead of a few, tightly-controlled media outlets, Iraqis now have a choice of hundreds of publications and dozens of radio and TV stations.

(Note: Some problems still exist, mostly related to violent activity, but people DO have more free speech now than under Saddam.)

Freedom of Religion:

The Government also severely restricts or bans outright many Shi’a religious practices...The regime systematically has killed senior Shi’a clerics, desecrated Shi’a mosques and holy sites, interfered with Shi’a religious education, and prevented Shi’a adherents from performing their religious rites.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/13996.htm

On Economic growth:

The Iraqi authorities were successful in promoting macroeconomic stability in 2005, despite the extremely difficult security environment...Economic growth in 2005 is estimated at 2.6 percent, following a rebound of almost 50 percent in 2004. (And keep in mind that this is after years of economic stagnation)

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2005/pr05307.htm


It's unfortunately worse than that: the whole World was lied to about whatever reasons were for the invasion...

Perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't. While I do think the U.S. overemphasized WMD, they were a valid concern. And the U.S. did point out several times prior to the invasion that Saddam was engaging in international terrorism and human rights abuses.


...those who dared caution the US against it were dismissed at best,

There may have been some valid concerns prior to the invasion, but a lot of the voices came from people who used mindless slogans like "No blood for oil". Frankly, people like that deserve to be dismissed.

Look at Matteo... all the mistakes he's made, all the times faults have been exposed in his posts, all the direct challenges he's ignored. Do you really think having people like that on the anti-war side is a benefit? (Not that all the pro-war people were actually thinking rationally, and not that there weren't intelligent people who were against the war; just that the nature of the rhetoric coming from some was an embarasement.)


the planning looks like it was inexistent past the actual invasion, and Rumsfeld's resignation offer might have looked credible had the AbuGraihb abuses been dealt with more seriousness than just blaming and punishing underlings.

I've alrady admitted failures in the post-invasion period, including Abu Garib.

On the question of whether it was a 'moral' act... I believe using military force to stop excessive human rights abuses is valid.

Given that 1) the expected outcome has never clearly been stated, 2) the outcome of any situation is always contingent on the means you put into its realisation, and 3) the lies we've all been fed, I beg to disagree.

Not sure what exactly you mean by 'the expected outcome was never clearly stated'. I thought it was pretty clear... removal of a dictator, dismantalling of his WMD programs, and the installation of a democratic government.

Of course, to me, I'm more interested in whether the actions taken are justified according to what I think are the underlying reasons.

Put it this way, France may have been against the Iraq invasion not because it was a 'bad idea', but because some members of the government were bribed. Does that mean that if you were a citizen of France who opposed the invasion that you were automatically wrong just because your government lied to you about why it opposed the invasion?


On the question about whether it will impove the world in the long run... for that, I don't think anyone really has the answer (not even myself), and they won't for at least a decade when we see what the long term implications for Iraq and the middle east are.
I'm a pessimist in those matters.

Fine, there are reasons to be pessimistic. Heck, I've also pointed out problems with the way the invasion was handled, both before and after. Just don't let your pessimism give you a bias that gives you a distorted view of what's happening.

(I've already seen some of that from you... when, for example, you were told there were more freedoms, and your comment was basically "what freedoms?")

[Ion]

By who?
Putin?
Shinzo Abe?
Kofi Annan?
...
Kofi Annan and U.N..

[Ion]

I know this take on U.N.:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasPKilgannon/2006/05/18/the_un_fails_again

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTBjMjRhMjY2ZTVlODkyYmNkY2U1YzdlYWQwYjg5NTY=

http://www.ccd21.org/news/ditching_dictators.htm

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110007554
The solution is to improve U.N..

Unilateral attack by Bush's U.S. is Fascism, worse than U.N. (like worse than Geneva Convention, worse than U.N. inspections af WMDs in Iraq, worse than U.N.'s human rights including sexual human rights, and more).

The Canadian question when taking a citizenship test is where Canada's allegiance lies first:

.) U.N.?

or

.) U.S.?

The correct answer expected by the Canadian judges of citizenship is:

U.N..

I agree.

Bush and his U.S. are Capitalist thugs.
Two days ago, Bush wanted to place the Iranian Revolutionary army on the terrorist list because it destabilizes the Middle East.
Yeah, right...
Bush the Fascist destabilizator of the Middle East who invades it with U.S. Capitalism, lectures others about destabilizing the Middle East...

[dudalb]

I guess you mean Give the UN absolute power in the world.
No way,baby,no way.

[Ion]

I guess you mean Give the UN absolute power in the world.
...
Yes.

That's what I mean.

No more rogue unilateral states like U.S., Hitler's Germany, U.S.S.R., Iraq, Iran, etc..

[dudalb]

Yes.

That's what I mean.

No more rogue unilateral states like U.S., Hitler's Germany, U.S.S.R., etc..

So you want to abolish all governments and put a Organization That is,BTW,responsible to on one but itself in total control of the world.
If so,you are a fool.

[Ion]

Less idiotic than you starting the war in Iraq.

[dudalb]

I see you talk about Americans as if they were a foreign people,but you live in San Diego.
If you hate the US So much,why the hell do you stay here?

[Ziggurat]

The Canadian question when taking a citizenship test is where Canada's allegiance lies first:

.) U.N.?

or

.) U.S.?

The correct answer expected by the Canadian judges of citizenship is:

U.N..

I agree.

Got a source for this?

[Matteo Martini]

Yes, I recognized that the statement came from the Iraqi body count web site. However, you quoted that web site (in support of your argument), and you used the sentiment (that the death count 'is low') as the basis for your argument that more than 100,000 died.

So, if you quote a web site, and use that quote to support claims you made, it natural to assume that you actually believe what was written, even if you were not the original author of those words.


No, no, you did not get it at first, it is very clear.
This is why youy wrote:
The fact that it "seems" low to you [ Matteo Martini ] doesn't necessarily mean that it is low.
[] parenthesis are mine.

Now you get it.

Anyway, do we agree, now, that, even the site www.iraqbodycount recognizes that the number of civilian deaths is probably over 100000?

Please, do not make me re-write everything from the start.


Edited to add:
You know Mateo, you almost remind me of a 9/11 conspricy believer. They tend to take small comments (like Silverstein's "Pull it") out of context and assign meaning to it which does not belong. You, on the other hand, like to take comments (like the death rate "may" be higher) and use it to support any sort of claims.

My name is Matteo
Matteo
Not Mateo
It is clearly written.
I am Italian, not Spanish!!
Porca puttana vacca, possibile che nessuno riesce a scrivere il mio nome bene, su questo cazzo di sito!!??

[Matteo Martini]

There, I fixed it for you. I don't know if you were trying to be funny, but Rwanda was a rather old fashioned land campaign, mostly, characterized by alot of close in fighting. But I don't suppose you care about facts, just images.

Rwanda is a land locked country, so submarines are a bit out to lunch, don't you think?

DR

Yes, and the military weak America, has no air forces to perform attacks in a land locked country.
Yawn..

[Matteo Martini]

Kofi Annan and U.N..

How well did Kofi Annan contain Iran ( other than Iraq, North Korea, .. ) while he was in office?

[Darth Rotor]

Yes, and the military weak America, has no air forces to perform attacks in a land locked country.
Yawn..
What, you wanted the US to bomb Rwandans to stop the war? Bombing would not have stopped that war, sorry, you really are out to lunch.

Peace enforcement is a Land Operation, not an air raid. It takes a logistics stream to sustain a land force to enforce a peace, a mission that is much harder than peacekeeping, and waaaaaaaay harder than humanitarian aid. You will note that the peacekeepers in place were ineffective in keeping the fragile peace.

Stop with this foolishness, Matteo, you aren't thinking clearly.

DR

[Ion]

How well did Kofi Annan contain Iran ( other than Iraq, North Korea, .. ) while he was in office?
He contained them through I.A.E.A..

When that's not good enough, then U.N. needs improvement.

But the world doesn't need rogue U.S. to mingle in there and unilaterally break havoc.

U.S. is a failure, a Fascist country.

[Ion]

I see you talk about Americans as if they were a foreign people,but you live in San Diego.
If you hate the US So much,why the hell do you stay here?
To conquer and change U.S..

Think 1800 when Europeans were conquering natives.

[Ion]

Got a source for this?
Me.

That's how I was coached by a Canadian judge when I took the Canadian citizenship.

[Ziggurat]

He contained them through I.A.E.A..

You have GOT to be kidding me. Iran has been flouting IAEA rules for years now, and has faced NO real consequences from the UN as a result of that. What has the IAEA done to ensure that Iran's nuclear program cannot be used for military purposes? Oh, that's right: nothing. Rules are meaningless if they can't be enforced, and the IAEA is incapable of enforcing its rules on Iran.

Hell, the IAEA has never uncovered a cladestine military nuclear weapons program in its entire history. And it's not because such programs haven't existed.

[Ziggurat]

Me.

That's how I was coached by a Canadian judge when I took the Canadian citizenship.

And was that actually on the test? Or was that just this one judge passing off his personal political opinions on you? And frankly, I don't find you a very credible source.

[Ziggurat]

To conquer and change U.S..

Think 1800 when Europeans were conquering natives.

Thanks, Ion, I needed a laugh.

[Ion]

And was that actually on the test? Or was that just this one judge passing off his personal political opinions on you? And frankly, I don't find you a very credible source.
That was on the test.

The citizenship judge who gave me the test orally, was surprised that I knew the correct answer.
She arched her brow, then smiled approvingly.

I also have the Canadian brochure for citizehship test at home.
It states allegiance to U.N. first.

[Ion]

You have GOT to be kidding me. Iran has been flouting IAEA rules for years now, and has faced NO real consequences from the UN as a result of that...
So does Israel with an even bigger frequency.

But this means that U.N. -while good- needs improvement.

[Ion]

Thanks, Ion, I needed a laugh.
Well, thanks.

I like people bowing to me nicely.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor
What, you wanted the US to bomb Rwandans to stop the war? Bombing would not have stopped that war, sorry, you really are out to lunch.

You want to tell me, that the mighty U.S. Air Force can not stop guys from fighting each other?
With sticks and swords?
Gee....

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor
What, you wanted the US to bomb Rwandans to stop the war? Bombing would not have stopped that war, sorry, you really are out to lunch.

You want to tell me, that the mighty U.S. Air Force can not stop guys from fighting each other? With sticks and swords?
Gee....[/QUOTE]
Yes. You will tend to find that peacekeeping and peace enforcement take boots on the ground. Where have you been for the past 15 years?

Bombing is very destructive. If you bomb Kigali, how does that stop death squads from wandering around and killing people? It doesn't. Bombing in that case merely adds to the devestation caused by a civil war and inter faction fighting that had been going on for some time.

If you want to see a successful peace keeping operation, note Cyprus and the Sinai. Note: no bombers used.

DR

[Ziggurat]

So does Israel with an even bigger frequency.

But this means that U.N. -while good- needs improvement.

No, actually, Israel doesn't flout IAEA rules, because they (along with Pakistan and India) never agreed to be covered by the rules in the first place. They have no obligations under the non-proliferation treaty because they aren't signatories. But Iran is a signatory, and unless and until it withdraws from the treaty (which it hasn't done, but which North Korea has), it is legally obliged to follow those rules. Does it take a lot of effort to be so consistently wrong, or does it just come naturally?

[Ziggurat]

I also have the Canadian brochure for citizehship test at home.
It states allegiance to U.N. first.

Well it's online too, and I don't find anything about the UN in it at all:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/look/index.asp
I think you're a liar.

[Matteo Martini]

Bombing is very destructive. If you bomb Kigali, how does that stop death squads from wandering around and killing people?

The majority of the killings did not happen in Kigali.

[Ziggurat]

The majority of the killings did not happen in Kigali.

So let's say we've got a tiny village out in the boonies, where Hutus are hacking Tutsis to pieces with machettes. What, exactly, do you propose to bomb? And what, exactly, do you think that would do to discourage further limb-chopping? You're clueless, Matteo.

[Darth Rotor]

The majority of the killings did not happen in Kigali.
Correct. Kigali was one of the few places where bombing targets, in the form of buildings and radio stations the Hutus were using to exercise such command and control of the slaughter as they could, or did.

The rest is as Zig pointed out. Bombing is not a one size fits all tool.

DR

[Matteo Martini]

So let's say we've got a tiny village out in the boonies, where Hutus are hacking Tutsis to pieces with machettes. What, exactly, do you propose to bomb?

Drops some bombs on the head quarters of the Hutus.
On the street used by the Hutus, to attack Tutsi
On the streets used to get refurbishments by the Hutus
etcetera..
[..]

[Matteo Martini]

Bombing is not a one size fits all tool.


Never said that

[Ziggurat]

Drops some bombs on the head quarters of the Hutus.

There was no headquarters.

On the street used by the Hutus, to attack Tutsi

You mean every street? Yeah, THAT's a solution.

On the streets used to get refurbishments by the Hutus

Most of the killing was done with machettes. There were no "refurbishments" required.

[Matteo Martini]

There was no headquarters.


The genocide was organized not spontaneous


You mean every street?

No


Most of the killing was done with machettes. There were no "refurbishments" required.

What about food, shelter, ..

I see that in your opinion the international community could do little, to prevent this genocide.
I see..

[Gurdur]

The genocide was oganized not spontaneous
Actually both. There was a great deal of organization at the beginnning but many spontaneous efforts in the middle and end.
What about food, shelter, ..
What you completely fail to recognise is that to organize bombing to such a degree of precision as to hit the militias, you would need a good deal of observers in every town and almost every street to act as spotters for the bombing.

And if you're going to have that many on the ground, why not simply make it an infantry policing effort in the first place? Far better than air campaigns.

There is little the West could have done to stop the outbreak of the genocide (though France and Belgium have some blame for doing even less than they easily could have); as it is, you can thank Tanzania, for harbouring the Tutsi guerilla/army-in-training, and for helping the Tutsi go back into Rwanda and stop the genocides.

[Matteo Martini]

Actually both. There was a great deal of organization at the beginnning but many spontaneous efforts in the middle and end.

What you completely fail to recognise is that to organize bombing to such a degree of precision as to hit the militias, you would need a good deal of observers in every town and almost every street to act as spotters for the bombing.

And if you're going to have that many on the ground, why not simply make it an infantry policing effort in the first place? Far better than air campaigns.


Both, infantry and air attack.
Infantry may have taken some allies lives too..


There is little the West could have done to stop the outbreak of the genocide (though France and Belgium have some blame for doing even less than they easily could have)

Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah!
You are condoning a genocide, congratulations!!

[Matteo Martini]

What you completely fail to recognise is that to organize bombing to such a degree of precision as to hit the militias, you would need a good deal of observers in every town and almost every street to act as spotters for the bombing.


I do not fail to recognize that.
My point is, that some strategic bombing would have helped the genocide to slow down, at least, let some of the Tutsi escape.
But, what did the West do? Nothing.

[Gurdur]

....Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah!
You are condoning a genocide, congratulations!!


Just how am I supposed to be condoning a genocide?

[Ziggurat]

The genocide was organized not spontaneous

The point at which the US became sufficiently aware of the problem that we even might have done something, the killing had already become self-sustaining. The perpetrators were not going to stop even if we took out any central organization, because the more of their potential victims which survived, the more danger they would be in afterwards. France might have had a chance to step in early enough to decapitate the movement (which they didn't do in no small part because their fear of growing Anglo-American influence in the region led them to side with the perpetrators), but we never did.

No

Then what use is bombing streets? And we don't have any bombs which can make a road impassable to people on foot anyways.

What about food, shelter, ..

In other words, just start bombing people's homes? Try to starve them to death? Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

I see that in your opinion the international community could do little, to prevent this genocide.
I see..

I never said anything of the sort. What I said was that, contrary to your claim, air power could do very little. It takes boots on the ground to stop a genocide. Strangely enough, there were western military boots on the ground early on. Of course, stopping the genocide isn't what they got used for, but we can thank Chirac and Kofi Annan for that.

[Gurdur]

The point at which the US became sufficiently aware of the problem that we even might have done something, the killing had already become self-sustaining.
Correct. I believe Matteo missed that point in my own post to him.
The perpetrators were not going to stop even if we took out any central organization, because the more of their potential victims which survived, the more danger they would be in afterwards.
Correct.
France might have had a chance to step in early enough to decapitate the movement
Might have had. It's very doubtful, but certainly France could have done much more than it did.

Then what use is bombing
Correct.
Of course, stopping the genocide isn't what they got used for, but we can thank Chirac and Kofi Annan for that.
Partly wrong. Blame Chirac, but not Annan. And then thank Nyerere and Ali Hassan Mwinyi, and the Tutsis for not being vindictive, for ending the genocides. Africa at least helped itself there, where the West did not; in fact, the same thing with Idi Amin, and you can thank Nyerere and Ali Hassan Mwinyi for getting rid of Amin too.

BTW, it's genocideS; Tutsis were not the only ones targeted. In fact, moderate Hutus were the first victims, and a third ethnic group in Rwanda were wiped out at 90 % death rate.

[Matteo Martini]

The point at which the US became sufficiently aware of the problem that we even might have done something, the killing had already become self-sustaining.

I see..
The US, in Rwanda like in Iraq, always recognize their mistakes when it is too late


The perpetrators were not going to stop even if we took out any central organization, because the more of their potential victims which survived, the more danger they would be in afterwards. France might have had a chance to step in early enough to decapitate the movement (which they didn't do in no small part because their fear of growing Anglo-American influence in the region led them to side with the perpetrators), but we never did.


You are setting a lot of assumptions, which I do not even want to tackle, as my opinion is that a lot could be done by the US, UK, France, AU, etc.


Then what use is bombing streets? And we don't have any bombs which can make a road impassable to people on foot anyways.


Bombs are used to make road, bridges, any kind of installations impracticable


In other words, just start bombing people's homes? Try to starve them to death? Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?


It has been done many many times in the past.
You bomb the main ways of communications of the enemy, in order to block his actions


I never said anything of the sort. What I said was that, contrary to your claim, air power could do very little. It takes boots on the ground to stop a genocide. Strangely enough, there were western military boots on the ground early on. Of course, stopping the genocide isn't what they got used for, but we can thank Chirac and Kofi Annan for that.

Only Chirac and Kofi Annan?
You are a little bit biased here, uh?
Not Clinton? Not the first army of the World?
Not the country of Faith and Freedom?
Where are the US, when you need them?

[Ziggurat]

I see..
The US, in Rwanda like in Iraq, always recognize their mistakes when it is too late

:rolleyes: It wasn't our mistake until we understood what was happening and didn't act. It's rather unreasonable to expect anyone to do something about an issue they're ignorant of.

You are setting a lot of assumptions, which I do not even want to tackle

Because you can't.

Bombs are used to make road, bridges, any kind of installations impracticable

I assume you mean "impractical". But this still makes no sense. Unless you want to bomb pretty much every road (which you sad you didn't), people would still be able to move around. And since what a person with a machette needs to keep going is exactly the same thing as what everyone else needs (food, water), trying to bomb "installations" which might support him means wiping out civilian infrastructure completely as well. The only way to stop such low-tech mass war from the air when both sides are already occupying the same territory is to kill everyone, but that's not exactly an improvement.

It has been done many many times in the past.
You bomb the main ways of communications of the enemy, in order to block his actions

Once the genocide was underway, it didn't require any further coordination.

Only Chirac and Kofi Annan?

No, especially Chirac and Annan, and you'd know why if you understood anything about the whole sordid affair. The former helped set up the disaster (French policy in Africa has long been disastrous but largely ignored by the world) and helped the perpetrators escape justice afterwards, the latter turned a blind eye to the problem as his underlings in the country warned him of what was about to happen, and prevented UN forces already in the country from doing anything productive. And it was especially galling that he got promoted in the wake of his catastrophic failure to general secretary.

[RandFan]

(French policy in Africa has long been disastrous but largely ignored by the world)

At the risk of appearing to make a To Quoque argument I have to say that this is my biggest complaint. And it's not just French policy BTW. The world, by and large is one great big mess. Much of Africa, North Korea, Much of South America, corruption, mass murder, genocide, hellish conditions, interference of sovereign affairs, invasions, coups, etc. yet most people largely focus on America. As if we are the cause of so much of the world's problems.

Because of its prominence it is only reasonable to expect that America would garner much attention. However, it is not reasonable that we should be made out to be the worlds boogeyman when it is demonstrable that is not true.

Rest assured though that Oliver and company will be here every day concentrating on America nearly to the exclusion of all other nations, with the exception of course, Israel.

The fact is no one cares. At least not enough to sustain daily threads. You won't find many if any threads about North Korea because no one really cares. That people die there and suffer under the most bizarre and brutal of circumstances and that the nation has nuclear weapon capability and is a real potential for wold disaster is at best likely to cause a thread to be started a few times a year. In fact, North Korea is defended for its nuclear weapon capability. It's brought up again and again that only America has used nuclear weapons. As if that somehow makes everything ok. Bizarre.

Darfur, unless it can be blamed, at least in part, on America, or unless it can be shown that America is not doing enough to help then fagetaboutit.

[Matteo Martini]

:rolleyes: It wasn't our mistake until we understood what was happening and didn't act. It's rather unreasonable to expect anyone to do something about an issue they're ignorant of.


Ah..
I see..
The US and the rest of the world were ignorant that a genocide was going to happen/was happening..
Very clever from your side


Because you can't.


Because I want to stick to the main topic


I assume you mean "impractical". But this still makes no sense. Unless you want to bomb pretty much every road (which you sad you didn't), people would still be able to move around.

With more difficulty


And since what a person with a machette needs to keep going is exactly the same thing as what everyone else needs (food, water), trying to bomb "installations" which might support him means wiping out civilian infrastructure completely as well.

If this is required in order to stop/slow down a genocide, you are welcome


The only way to stop such low-tech mass war from the air when both sides are already occupying the same territory is to kill everyone,

You are under some kind of narcotics?


Once the genocide was underway, it didn't require any further coordination.


Try to drop two or three bombs on Hutus` heads, and you will see how they calm down..


No, especially Chirac and Annan, and you'd know why if you understood anything about the whole sordid affair. The former helped set up the disaster (French policy in Africa has long been disastrous but largely ignored by the world) and helped the perpetrators escape justice afterwards, the latter turned a blind eye to the problem as his underlings in the country warned him of what was about to happen, and prevented UN forces already in the country from doing anything productive. And it was especially galling that he got promoted in the wake of his catastrophic failure to general secretary.

Well, what I do not understand why you are saying that Kofi Annan and Chirac had to do all the work, while the US could absolutely do nothing..

[Gurdur]

....The fact is no one cares....


On the whole, RandFan, you are right, but I would like to point out that personally I care a great deal, and I have no inhibitions of stating just what is wrong with French policy over the decades, and it has been very wrong indeed.

I disagree totally with Ziggurat over Annan; I think that was a kneejerk effort of his. There is also a great deal of sheer ignorance about Africa (and of course the UN too, as to how it functions and how it is comprised), and a lot of very stupid, arrogant, childish scorn directed at Africa by quite a few posters here (whether "left" or "right") -- none of whom have the slightest idea of what they're talking about.

But for various personal reasons, I simply want to point out I care a big deal about Africa, especially the East and the Horn; I don't bother saying much at all about it, because quite frankly there is no point in making remarks to be only greeted by puerile ignorance, let alone dealing with the likes of MaGZ.

[Matteo Martini]

At the risk of appearing to make a To Quoque argument I have to say that this is my biggest complaint.

No problem, Americans, when stung, they try to group and shelter themselves.
Like everybody.
An understandable reaction..


And it's not just French policy BTW. The world, by and large is one great big mess.

You are wrong.
The world, except the USA by and large is one great big mess.


Much of Africa, North Korea, Much of South America, corruption, mass murder, genocide, hellish conditions, interference of sovereign affairs, invasions, coups, etc. yet most people largely focus on America. As if we are the cause of so much of the world's problems.


????
Who is the most people you are talking to?
Not me, of course.
As I never said, nor implied, that


Because of its prominence it is only reasonable to expect that America would garner much attention. However, it is not reasonable that we should be made out to be the worlds boogeyman when it is demonstrable that is not true.


You are completely out of topic.


Rest assured though that Oliver and company will be here every day concentrating on America nearly to the exclusion of all other nations, with the exception of course, Israel.


Oliver has not even taken part in this part of the discussion.
This is called paranoia, my friend..


The fact is no one cares. At least not enough to sustain daily threads. You won't find many if any threads about North Korea because no one really cares.

" No one ", means, RandFan included?


That people die there and suffer under the most bizarre and brutal of circumstances and that the nation has nuclear weapon capability and is a real potential for wold disaster is at best likely to cause a thread to be started a few times a year. In fact, North Korea is defended for its nuclear weapon capability. It's brought up again and again that only America has used nuclear weapons. As if that somehow makes everything ok. Bizarre.


Again, competely off thread, off topic, off everything..
I do not know about what you are talking about.
I do not recollect me or anyone of the poster in this part of the thread defending North Korea.
By the way, I live in Tokyo, and I am scared as ****, that those crazy people may do something, like send a rocket like they did some time ago, but with a nuke on it, this time..



Darfur, unless it can be blamed, at least in part, on America, or unless it can be shown that America is not doing enough to help then fagetaboutit.

Not the point of discussion.
I suspect you did not even read this thread, before intervening..

[Gurdur]

Ah..
I see..
The US and the rest of the world were ignorant that a genocide was going to happen/was happening..
Very clever from your side

You are being ridiculous, Matteo. Most nations simply had no way of knowing what the extremist Hutus planned until it was actually underway.

There are further reasons not to want any one single nation in the position where it COULD know all such things around the globe and police them too; I don't suppose you've thought of that at all.

And you STILL have not explained just how I am supposed to be "condoning" genocide; as it is, I am willing to bet that I personally have done far more practically to try helping stopping such things than you ever have or ever will have.

You are under some kind of narcotics?
Maybe you should justify your accusations if you make them first before asking such questions.

BTW: note to Zig: Zig, you're guilty yourself of just such a remark, and as silly as Matteo's was in its own context.

Try to drop two or three bombs on Hutus` heads, and you will see how they calm down..
You really have ZERO idea about the whole situation, don't you Matteo? And don't be racist; it was NOT all Hutus, in fact many moderate Hutus were murdered too. So LEARN something about Rwanda before you make such stupid remarks.

[Gurdur]

No problem, Americans, when stung, they try to group and shelter themselves.
Like everybody.
An understandable reaction..

BTW, to put my remarks in context, I will point out I am not an American and I do not even live in the USA.

You are wrong.
The world, except the USA by and large is one great big mess.

Really? Amazing. Personally, I find the country where I live now to be in much better shape than the USA. Quite a few other countries are not doing too badly at all either.

[Matteo Martini]

At the risk of appearing to make a To Quoque argument

BTW ( by the way ), it is called a " tu quoque " argument.
" Tu ", means " you in latin, and has to be declined in nominativo singolare ( sorry for the Italian ).
There is no way, in Latin, to declinare ( sorry for the Italian ) " Tu " as " To ".
Ah, those boring Latin lessons in high school..

[Matteo Martini]

BTW, to put my remarks in context, I will point out I am not an American and I do not even live in the USA.


That remark was not addressed to you


Really? Amazing. Personally, I find the country where I live now to be in much better shape than the USA. Quite a few other countries are not doing too badly at all either.

Drat!!
I really have to use the brackets, sometimes..

[RandFan]

BTW ( by the way ), it is called a " tu quoque " argument.
" Tu ", means " you in latin, and has to be declined in nominativo singolare ( sorry for the Italian ).
There is no way, in Latin, to declinare ( sorry for the Italian ) " Tu " as " To ".
Ah, those boring Latin lessons in high school..You are being a jerk. If you would have done a search of the forum before accusing me of not knowing something you might have realized I made a typo. There are 69 instances of my spelling it correctly.

http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=1003232

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2812130&highlight=quoque#post2812130

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2718965&highlight=quoque#post2718965

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2689137&highlight=quoque#post2689137

This is a logical fallacy. It's called Tu Quoque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque). Most of us learn when we are children why this is wrong.

[Ziggurat]

Ah..
I see..
The US and the rest of the world were ignorant that a genocide was going to happen/was happening..
Very clever from your side

Are you having trouble understanding the difference between when something is about to happen and when it is already happening? Because you sure as hell don't seem to be able to distinguish between the two. And yes, the United States, as a nation, WAS ignorant that genocide was about to happen before it actually started to happen. That is the point at which striking at coordination centers might have been effective.

With more difficulty

So? Victims will also have more difficulty escaping. Everything goes slower, but nothing actually stops. And since any ground forces deploying to the region to actually stop the slaughter are going to need supply lines with heavy trucks, etc, and will have to move large distances to get to where they would need to be, bombing all the roads would make it harder to stop the genocide.

Try to drop two or three bombs on Hutus` heads, and you will see how they calm down..

Yeah, because that's got a real proven track record of working. When has "two or three bombs" (other than nukes) ever dissuaded a population at war? Never. And how, pray tell, do you tell the difference between Hutus and Tutsis from the air? Or between Hutus engaged in genocide and those not engaged in genocide? And you say I'm the one on narcotics....

Well, what I do not understand why you are saying that Kofi Annan and Chirac had to do all the work, while the US could absolutely do nothing..

The problem with France isn't simply that it didn't do what he should have done, it's that he actually made the problem worse. The French military, for example, actually escorted many of those responsible for the genocide out of the country along with their weapons when the RPF invaded, so that they could escape justice and cause further trouble to Rwanda's neighbors. Their anti-American paranoia (Tutsi opposition was largely English-speaking, whereas Hutus were French speaking) led them to effectively support the genocide. I did make one mistake, though: Mitterand was still in charge, not Chirac, at that point.

And Kofi Annan gets special demerits because he was in charge of forces already on the ground in Rwanda, and he was directly informed (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/warning/cable.html), by the local UN military commander (Dallaire), of what was about to happen. Dallaire asked for permission to take actions which might have stopped or at least mitigated the coming massacre, and Kofi Annan refused that request, and instead suggested that Dallaire bring up the fact that the Hutu government was about to commit genocide... with that very same Hutu government. Clinton, much as I'm disappointed with his lack of action, never faced an equivalent decision.

[Matteo Martini]

Are you having trouble understanding the difference between when something is about to happen and when it is already happening? Because you sure as hell don't seem to be able to distinguish between the two. And yes, the United States, as a nation, WAS ignorant that genocide was about to happen before it actually started to happen. That is the point at which striking at coordination centers might have been effective.

That something was going to happen, was already known months before the atrocities.
Get informed.



So? Victims will also have more difficulty escaping. Everything goes slower, but nothing actually stops. And since any ground forces deploying to the region to actually stop the slaughter are going to need supply lines with heavy trucks, etc, and will have to move large distances to get to where they would need to be, bombing all the roads would make it harder to stop the genocide.


You can choose which roads you can bomb.
If you slow down the violence, you also give the community more time to get organized and to act


I doubt, that the US agencies monitoring Africa suspected nothing about it


Really?
Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah!


Yeah, because that's got a real proven track record of working.

Evidence?


The problem with France isn't simply that it didn't do what he should have done, it's that he actually made the problem worse. The French military, for example, actually escorted many of those responsible for the genocide out of the country along with their weapons when the RPF invaded, so that they could escape justice and cause further trouble to Rwanda's neighbors. Their anti-American paranoia (Tutsi opposition was largely English-speaking, whereas Hutus were French speaking) led them to effectively support the genocide.

Anti-American paranoia?
Evidence?


I did make one mistake, though: Mitterand was still in charge, not Chirac, at that point.


This is not the mistake you are making.
Not the main one, at least..


And Kofi Annan gets special demerits because he was in charge of forces already on the ground in Rwanda, and he was directly informed (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/warning/cable.html), by the local UN military commander (Dallaire), of what was about to happen. Dallaire asked for permission to take actions which might have stopped or at least mitigated the coming massacre, and Kofi Annan refused that request, and instead suggested that Dallaire bring up the fact that the Hutu government was about to commit genocide... with that very same Hutu government. Clinton, much as I'm disappointed with his lack of action, never faced an equivalent decision.

OK, so, at least, you are disappointed with his " lack of action "??
Do we agree that he could have acted, somehow, and he did not.
Regardless of what Mitterand, Kofi Annan, and the rest of the world did or not did?

[Matteo Martini]

You are being a jerk. If you would have done a search of the forum before accusing me of not knowing something you might have realized I made a typo. There are 69 instances of my spelling it correctly.


The jerk ( me ), never accused you of anything.

[RandFan]

The jerk ( me ), never accused you of anything.Right, you only lectured me about Tu Quoque because? What? Because you believed I knew how to spell it and simply made a mistake? Come on, please don't be insulting.

[Matteo Martini]

Right, you only lectured me about Tu Quoque because? What? Because you believed I knew how to spell it and simply made a mistake? Come on, please don't be insulting.

I was trying to show up a little bit, with my knowledge of Latin from high school ;)

[RandFan]

I was trying to show up a little bit, with my knowledge of Latin from high school ;)Ok, fair enough. I've had a chip on my shoulder of late. Sorry and thanks.

[Matteo Martini]

Ok, fair enough. I've had a chip on my shoulder of late. Sorry and thanks.

No, no problem.
I sometimes feel angry, as I had to study a lot that language, that has no use at all, except for two quotations.
I do not know why they still keep it in the high school curricula, so you come out at 19 from high school, knowing Latin better than English.
But, I apologize, I am getting out of thread, and off topic..

[Flo]

No problem, Americans, when stung, they try to group and shelter themselves.
Like everybody.
An understandable reaction..

In case you hadn't noticed, not everybody who disagrees with you do it because they're American, or even because they want to "group and shelter themselves", but because they consider you're talking nonsense.

[Flo]

Are you having trouble understanding the difference between when something is about to happen and when it is already happening? Because you sure as hell don't seem to be able to distinguish between the two. And yes, the United States, as a nation, WAS ignorant that genocide was about to happen before it actually started to happen. That is the point at which striking at coordination centers might have been effective.

Friend Martini has proved numerous times he hasn't got a clue about Rwanda, but he's decided nevertheless that America had to be blamed, in the "Mistakes have been made, Someone else should be blamed" mode ...


The problem with France isn't simply that it didn't do what he should have done, it's that he actually made the problem worse. The French military, for example, actually escorted many of those responsible for the genocide out of the country along with their weapons when the RPF invaded, so that they could escape justice and cause further trouble to Rwanda's neighbors. Their anti-American paranoia (Tutsi opposition was largely English-speaking, whereas Hutus were French speaking) led them to effectively support the genocide. I did make one mistake, though: Mitterand was still in charge, not Chirac, at that point.

Absolutely true, and certainly not something I'm proud about my country !

[Flo]

[QUOTE=Flo;2877946]
Wait a second... earlier in your post, you yourself said that you agreed that people who ignored deaths prior to the invasion were wrong. But here you are, doing the exact same thing.

I do not like the fact that there are terrorist attacks in Iraq. But I also didn't like Saddam's slaughter of Kurds, Shi'ites and Marsh Arabs. By mentioning only the current terrorist activity, you're ignoring those deaths. As I said before, dead is dead... people killed by Saddam deserve to be mourned just as much as those killed by terrorist attacks.

I may not have been clear enough, I was placing myself from the point of view of the Iraqi people, who doesn't see much improvement from (the risk of) being killed by Saddam and his mob to (the risk of) being killed by an assorted lot of thugs, American soldiers, shiites/sunnis/AlQaeda militias, with the added burden of lacking even more of the basic necessities of life like regular electric supply, water and sanitation, jobs, etc.

I've heard over the years many educated Iraqi deplore the fact that Saddam wasn't taken down in 1991 already, but who were ready to welcome an American invasion in 2003, provided things really got better then, and who are now positively enraged at how things are going ...


Remember, Iraq was already lacking basic commodities as a result of years of sanctions. Those sanctions were deemed necessary to keep Saddam "in check". Those sanctions could have been lifted sooner, but Saddam chose not to cooperate with the U.N., and when Iraq was allowed to sell oil, much of the profits went to support Saddam's government rather than the people.

I do remember, but at least some of the basic infrastructure was working (water, electricity, police, jobs, etc.), there weren't dayly risks of death and/or kidnapping by merely going to shopping for food, etc.


Freedom of speech:

Freedom of Religion:

Yes, there is theoretically more freedom of speech and religion, but no, the Iraqi are in fact no more free than they were before on those counts. It's a bit like in Iran: the Iranian constitution guarantees freedom of speech and religion, but the power that be ensure there is actually none. Again, from the point of view of the Iraqis, nothing has changed much.

There may have been some valid concerns prior to the invasion, but a lot of the voices came from people who used mindless slogans like "No blood for oil". Frankly, people like that deserve to be dismissed.

I wasn't talking about the slogan-wielding-no-analysis-pacifists, but about arguments from for example Blair (before the infamous "45 minutes"), or Chirac who cautioned about haste and feasibility of regime change in that region in view of their experience ...

Look at Matteo... all the mistakes he's made, all the times faults have been exposed in his posts, all the direct challenges he's ignored. Do you really think having people like that on the anti-war side is a benefit? (Not that all the pro-war people were actually thinking rationally, and not that there weren't intelligent people who were against the war; just that the nature of the rhetoric coming from some was an embarasement.)

So what ? because you have embarrassing allies should make you renounce your position ?


Not sure what exactly you mean by 'the expected outcome was never clearly stated'. I thought it was pretty clear... removal of a dictator, dismantalling of his WMD programs, and the installation of a democratic government.

No, it was never that clear, and reasons were changing almost by the day at the time.

Put it this way, France may have been against the Iraq invasion not because it was a 'bad idea', but because some members of the government were bribed. Does that mean that if you were a citizen of France who opposed the invasion that you were automatically wrong just because your government lied to you about why it opposed the invasion?

Some people, even government members, in France may well have been (I've actually little doubt about it, although I'd like to see some evidence of it, and I'm pretty sure people all over the world have been), however "some people, even government members" isn't the whole government, which may very well have had honorable motives.

[Matteo Martini]

In case you hadn't noticed, not everybody who disagrees with you do it because they're American, or even because they want to "group and shelter themselves", but because they consider you're talking nonsense.

I did not say that " everybody who disagrees with me do it because he/she is American ", you are changing my words..
And, I never said that " [ I have ] decided nevertheless that America had to be blamed "
Another time, changing my words again..
The point is why America did intervene in Iraq and not in Rwanda ( about back to post no. 532, in case you do not recollect ), and I only received unsatisfactory answers, so far, such as the answer that a land operation in Rwanda was difficult, or something like that.
So, I am here asking again the same point..
Anyway, if you think I am talking " nonsense ", I suggest the best way for you would be to completely ignore my posts, and the replies to my posts, thanks.

[Flo]

The point is why America did intervene in Iraq and not in Rwanda ( about back to post no. 532, in case you do not recollect ), and I only received unsatisfactory answers, so far, such as the answer that a land operation in Rwanda was difficult, or something like that.
So, I am here asking again the same point..

And you'll get the same answer, with an additional advice to inform yourself about the actual conditions that prevailed in Rwanda at the time (in short, the killings were mostly door to door within neighbors, not by an organised militia or army). The only ones who could have changed things somehow would have been the French and Belgian troops, and they decided not to do anything. American troops would have been far too late.


Anyway, if you think I am talking " nonsense ", I suggest the best way for you would be to completely ignore my posts, and the replies to my posts, thanks.

Pity I'm not the only one who feel that way, and that they didn't decide to just let you keep blabbing :rolleyes:

[Ziggurat]

That something was going to happen, was already known months before the atrocities.

Known to who? Kofi Annan? Indeed, as I've already proven. Known to the American public? Nope.

You can choose which roads you can bomb.

Sure you can. And how does that do any good? This wasn't a case of an invading army whose movements could be bottlenecked.

If you slow down the violence, you also give the community more time to get organized and to act

Yeah, right. Like they're acting in Darfur. It's been how many years now? And given that bombing out roads would make it much harder (and slower) for the "community" to act, or more importantly, for the RPF (the ones who ACTUALLY ended the genocide) to move in, there's simply no reason to think this would have improved anything.



I doubt, that the US agencies monitoring Africa suspected nothing about it
Really?
Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah!

Are you having a seizure? Because I didn't write that. Follow the link, you'll see that that post has never been edited, and those words don't appear in that post. YOU wrote those words. And I'm going to be generous and assume that you wrote them, jumped around in the post, forgot you wrote them, and then blocked them off with quote tags thinking I wrote them. But seeing as how I did NOT write them, I've got no idea what the hell your point here is.

Evidence?

Every major war with an air campaign. Hardly worked in Vietnam, for example.

Anti-American paranoia?
Evidence?

Journal of Modern African Studies:
http://www.jstor.org/view/0022278x/ap010143/01a00040/0
"The 1994-7 developments in Rwanda and Zaire were considered by many French politicians, diplomats and many journalists as evidence of an 'anglosaxon conspiracy', part of a plot to develop an arc of influence from Ethiopia and Eritrea via Uganda, Rwanda and Zaire to Congo and Cameroon. For them, the 'anglosaxons' (a term directed not at Britain, la perfide Albion, but at the United States) had a hidden agenda 'to oust France from Africa'." - 2nd page of article linked above

OK, so, at least, you are disappointed with his " lack of action "??
Do we agree that he could have acted, somehow, and he did not.
Regardless of what Mitterand, Kofi Annan, and the rest of the world did or not did?

Indeed I am disappointed by Clinton's lack of action. That this is a surprise to you only demonstrates that you have been engaging in the exact same false dichotomy thinking which you recently attacked others (including myself) for supposedly engaging in.

[Gurdur]

....Are you having a seizure?


OK, fine, THAT one was definitely justified, and also not only apt but funny.

Matteo STILL doesn't want to answer me or to back up his wildly dishonest claim that I was condoning genocide; I'm kinda disgusted at Matteo.

Indeed I am disappointed by Clinton's lack of action.


I was of course disappointed at everyone's lack of action, excepting the Tanzanians, who did what they could and more. and who always have, over 40 years whether against Portuguese genocide, SA apartheid, Idi Amin and the Hutu extremists. For a quite small, extremely poor country, Tanzania has a great deal to its moral credit.
________

--> Matteo: STILL no answer from you about your dishonest little accusation that I was condoning genocide?

[Matteo Martini]

And you'll get the same answer, with an additional advice to inform yourself about the actual conditions that prevailed in Rwanda at the time (in short, the killings were mostly door to door within neighbors, not by an organised militia or army).

I still have to find evidence, that the first army of the world could not stop people killing with swords..
So, the fact that the battles were door to door does not mean that nothing could be done.
Not the fact that the country is land locked
Not that the country is far
Not that the black Hutus and the black Tutsi were of the same colour, and , therefore, difficult to spot which is which.
We are talking about criminals that, mostly, did not even have guns.
I do not believe that a country that has jet fighters, tanks, chopters, machine guns, etc. etc. could do nothing to stop or, at least, slow down, the killings.


The only ones who could have changed things somehow would have been the French and Belgian troops, and they decided not to do anything. American troops would have been far too late.


Really?

The US government was reluctant to involve itself in the "local conflict" in Rwanda, and refused to even refer to it as "Genocide", a decision which President Bill Clinton later came to regret in a Frontline television interview in which he states that he believes if he had sent 5,000 US peacekeepers, more than 500,000 lives could have been saved[25]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide#Preparations_for_the_genocide


Pity I'm not the only one who feel that way, and that they didn't decide to just let you keep blabbing :rolleyes:

I can only invite you not to reply to my posts, or, if you do, to quote me correctly

[Flo]

I still have to find evidence, that the first army of the world could not stop people killing with swords..
So, the fact that the battles were door to door does not mean that nothing could be done.
Not the fact that the country is land locked
Not that the country is far
Not that the black Hutus and the black Tutsi were of the same colour, and , therefore, difficult to spot which is which.
We are talking about criminals that, mostly, did not even have guns.
I do not believe that a country that has jet fighters, tanks, chopters, machine guns, etc. etc. could do nothing to stop or, at least, slow down, the killings.

At this point, I leave you to your delusion of knowledge in matters of African geopolitics and strategy ...

[Matteo Martini]

Known to who? Kofi Annan? Indeed, as I've already proven. Known to the American public? Nope.


To the American government?
To the United Nations?


Sure you can. And how does that do any good? This wasn't a case of an invading army whose movements could be bottlenecked.

Yeah, right. Like they're acting in Darfur. It's been how many years now? And given that bombing out roads would make it much harder (and slower) for the "community" to act, or more importantly, for the RPF (the ones who ACTUALLY ended the genocide) to move in, there's simply no reason to think this would have improved anything.


I am just giving examples.
Seeing the conditions of the killers, that mostly had no guns, even a troop assault could have slowed down/ended the killings..
The possibilities were there.


Are you having a seizure? Because I didn't write that. Follow the link, you'll see that that post has never been edited, and those words don't appear in that post. YOU wrote those words. And I'm going to be generous and assume that you wrote them, jumped around in the post, forgot you wrote them, and then blocked them off with quote tags thinking I wrote them. But seeing as how I did NOT write them, I've got no idea what the hell your point here is.

You are right, I have no idea were that sentence came from.
Probably I am posting in too many threads at one time.
Please, do not consider that comment.
Thanks


Every major war with an air campaign. Hardly worked in Vietnam, for example.


But, it worked somehow for the first Iraqi invasion..


Indeed I am disappointed by Clinton's lack of action. That this is a surprise to you only demonstrates that you have been engaging in the exact same false dichotomy thinking which you recently attacked others (including myself) for supposedly engaging in.

Which is the " false dichotomy " I am engaging in?
By the way, I ask you again, we agree that CLinton could have acted, and he did not?
After all, it is his own words..

[Matteo Martini]

At this point, I leave you to your delusion of knowledge in matters of African geopolitics and strategy ...

Finally!!

[Gurdur]

I call troll.

[Matteo Martini]

________

--> Matteo: STILL no answer from you about your dishonest little accusation that I was condoning genocide?

I admit that the accusation was a little too strong, I regret that.
However, you wrote:
" There is little the West could have done to stop the outbreak of the genocide ".

Even Flo, admits that the West sould have done to prevent the genocide:
" The only ones who could have changed things somehow would have been the French and Belgian troops "

[Matteo Martini]

--> Matteo: STILL no answer from you about your dishonest little accusation that I was condoning genocide?

Also Ziggurat wrote that the West could have done something to stop the killings:
" It takes boots on the ground to stop a genocide. Strangely enough, there were western military boots on the ground early on. Of course, stopping the genocide isn't what they got used for, but we can thank Chirac and Kofi Annan for that. "

[Darth Rotor]

The US government was reluctant to involve itself in the "local conflict" in Rwanda, and refused to even refer to it as "Genocide", a decision which President Bill Clinton later came to regret in a Frontline television interview in which he states that he believes if he had sent 5,000 US peacekeepers, more than 500,000 lives could have been saved[25]

Indeed, his speculation after the fact merits some serious consideration. He was aware of all of the factors he had to consider in choosing to add American assistance to the French and Belgians already there, or not. His numbers may or may not be correct, but I think his order of magnitude is correct. Hundreds of thousands, low end or high end. It depends on how quickly he could have gotten the force in place, and where the US, the French, and Belgians could have overlapped and shared responsibilities.

He had two political factors working against him, one in the US and one in France. The one in France has already been covered, but in the US, the non interventionist and neo isloationist sentiment had been triggered by the Somalia mess. The failure was laid at his doorstep. (Correctly, form the resourcing side. Forces cut to one third the original size, with roughly the same mission performance required. More "on the cheap" error.) That mess happened in 1993, and was fresh in the memory of his political opponents in America. The 2004 election was due in the fall, and he had to carefully walk his political path in America in order to help his party in the 2004 election. (As it worked out, his party didn't do so hot in the House. Newt Gingrich became Speaker, a GOP man. Clinton would not have known that in early 2004, late 2003.)

Had the Somalia mission been more successful under his guidance, he might have had the political capital necessary to send in a force to assist the UN, and other forces, already in Rwanda. Since it was unsuccessful, for a variety of reasons, he had to look at the combination of risks in front of him:

A successful mission to Rwanda that prevents, let us say, 300,000 deaths, but still arrives in the country in time for 200,000 to have died before the US and French and others could stop them, still gets painted in the political fight in late 2004 as "failed intervention, look how many died even though he sent troops." That easily translates into "Clinton and the Democrats bungled again." How do you prove how many deaths you prevented? It's the old problem of evidence and absence.

At the time, he was trying to overcome obstacles in the Congress to assist more in Bosnia. It wasn't until mid to late 2005 that Clinton was able to marshall support for that operation, and put US combat forces in country. We already had (IIRC, it was between 700-800) US folks working in support of the various UN peacekeeping mission activities, and US ships and planes were involved in the arms embargo versus Former Yugoslavia in NATO Operation Sharp Guard.

His regret, I think, is that his principles, a desire to help out in Africa, ran into some hard problems of domestic political infighting. He chose to try and win the latter fight first so he could use American forces to assist, in a variety of places, against Congressional resistance.

With that background, look at how his decision not to go into Rwanda helped someone else: a load of Bosniacs. His choosing not to go into Rwanda until after the fighting stopped, and do the humanitarian aid mission, allowed him to go into Bosnia later. (Note: Did you know that Kellog, Brown and Root were contracted for a lot of humanitarian aid, and support, in the aid camps along the Rwanda/Zaire(Congo) border? Ever hear of Kellog Brown and Root? Want to know where else they do a lot of contracting work? Starts with an "I." ) After the fact, that choice looks rather callous, and sort of like "I save Europeans, not Africans" (indeed, it was so spun by many bleeding heart observers) but as it works out, it is likely that going into Rwanda would have made it harder, (and the likely spin on that) not easier, to go into Bosnia once the spin machine went into action -- unless such a mission could have been packaged as a huge success. I don't think he had confidence it could be so packaged.

I have engaged in a counterfactual musing here, but you started it with Clinton's observation in hindsight. :) He can't know how many he might have saved, he can only estimate.

DR

[Ziggurat]

I am just giving examples.
Seeing the conditions of the killers, that mostly had no guns, even a troop assault could have slowed down/ended the killings..

By troop assault, do you mean ground troops? If so, I'd agree that they could have done something, but that's not the claim you made before (namely, that air power could have stopped it). Too bad the troops who were on the ground already (and not American either) didn't do anything. Which brings us back to Kofi Annan. But if you mean something other than ground troops, then your claim makes no sense.

You are right, I have no idea were that sentence came from.
Probably I am posting in too many threads at one time.
Please, do not consider that comment.
Thanks

It didn't make enough sense to be malicious, so I'll gladly consider it an innocent mistake.

But, it worked somehow for the first Iraqi invasion..

Well, no. First off, while the air offensive was perhaps the best-remembered part of that war, there WAS a ground offensive, and we didn't get the Iraqis out of Kuwait until that ground offensive took place. Second, even to the degree that air power was useful in the first gulf war, it simply wasn't an equivalent problem to Rwanda. In the first Iraq war (and that's a better label, since much of the fighting happened on Kuwaiti soil), there were lots of easily identifiable targets: namely, all those Iraqi tanks. It's much harder to distinguish who to target when it's just un-uniformed people walking around. The Iraqi army also tried to maneouver out in the open desert, away from any cover (urban or natural), making them easy targets for air power. No such luck in Rwanda.

Which is the " false dichotomy " I am engaging in?

Thinking that I either agree or disagree with all your opinions on the topic.

By the way, I ask you again, we agree that CLinton could have acted, and he did not?

What part of my last response did you not understand? Yes, Clinton could have done something, he did not, and that is regrettable.

[Segnosaur]

I may not have been clear enough, I was placing myself from the point of view of the Iraqi people, who doesn't see much improvement from (the risk of) being killed by Saddam and his mob to (the risk of) being killed by an assorted lot of thugs, American soldiers, shiites/sunnis/AlQaeda militias, with the added burden of lacking even more of the basic necessities of life like regular electric supply, water and sanitation, jobs, etc.

You're right... there is rather widespread unhappiness at this point in time. Quite understandable (and at least someof it justified). But that doesn't mean that the invasion was not a moral or justified act. People often do tend to misjudge leaders or events, often thinking that their current situation is always worse than 'before', even if facts/statistics suggest otherwise.


I do remember, but at least some of the basic infrastructure was working (water, electricity, police, jobs, etc.), there weren't dayly risks of death and/or kidnapping by merely going to shopping for food, etc.

On Water/electricity... Keep in mind that before the invasion, Iraq's water/electricity infrastructure was crumbling. Post-invasion, there has actually been an increase in generating capacity. (Insurgent activity have limited gains, but most of the country has more power now than they did before.)

Remember, when Saddam was in power, many resources (electricity, water, etc) were diverted to Baghdad, while the rest of the country suffered. Things are distrubuted a little more equally now.

From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/30/AR2006043001037.html Before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, Saddam Hussein's government routed power to Baghdad, which received 18 to 24 hours of electricity a day while the rest of the country received two to four hours. Since then, Iraq's electricity generation capacity has increased from 2,500 megawatts to approximately 5,000 megawatts...

As for police... Yes, the police may not be as 'effective' in stopping crime as they were under Saddam, but people don't have to worry (as much) about being arrested, tortured, and executed by the police.

As for jobs... I've already pointed out the improvements to Iraq's GDP (which had been suffering over the past decade or so.)


Yes, there is theoretically more freedom of speech and religion, but no, the Iraqi are in fact no more free than they were before on those counts. It's a bit like in Iran: the Iranian constitution guarantees freedom of speech and religion, but the power that be ensure there is actually none. Again, from the point of view of the Iraqis, nothing has changed much.

No, its not like Iran at all. There are free newspapers in Iraq. (I gave you a reference which indcated that). Religious practices which had been banned before are now allowed. This is not a case where people have freedom on paper only.

Do you have any proof that there are FEWER newspapers, and LESS religous freedom now than before?

[quote]Look at Matteo... all the mistakes he's made,
So what ? because you have embarrassing allies should make you renounce your position ?

Not at all. I was referring to the way the 'debate' prior to the invasion occured. Yes, there were well-reasoned people on both sides of the issue, but unfortunately much of that was drowned out by the slogan-chanters and various semi-trolls like Matteo.

Not sure what exactly you mean by 'the expected outcome was never clearly stated'. I thought it was pretty clear... removal of a dictator, dismantalling of his WMD programs, and the installation of a democratic government.
No, it was never that clear, and reasons were changing almost by the day at the time.

Not sure if that's exactly correct.

Remember, prior to the invasion, while the U.S. was using a lot of effort to push WMD as justification for invading Iraq, they were not exactly ignoring other issues. I can dig up speeches done by Bush (prior to the invasion) where human rights and Saddam's links to terrorism were mentioned. Perhaps the emphasis may have changed over time, but there was never a time when those issues were ignored.


Some people, even government members, in France may well have been (I've actually little doubt about it, although I'd like to see some evidence of it, and I'm pretty sure people all over the world have been), however "some people, even government members" isn't the whole government, which may very well have had honorable motives.
True, some people in France may have had honorable motives in opposing the invasion, but who knows how much of there opposion was based on 'honourable' intentions, and how much was based on plain politics or greed?

One of the more annoying things is dealing with people claiming that the U.S. was motivated by 'greed' (or some other negative aspect) by the invasion, but they ignore the fact that other countries may have had the exact same motivies for opposing the invasion.

[Ziggurat]

Remember, when Saddam was in power, many resources (electricity, water, etc) were diverted to Baghdad, while the rest of the country suffered. Things are distrubuted a little more equally now.

In addition, demand has surged because Iraqis can buy a lot more electrical appliances now. If you measure progress only in terms of the number of hours the electricity is on, and don't consider how much electricity is delivered while it's on, then increased demand will mask growing generation capacity.

Remember, prior to the invasion, while the U.S. was using a lot of effort to push WMD as justification for invading Iraq, they were not exactly ignoring other issues. I can dig up speeches done by Bush (prior to the invasion) where human rights and Saddam's links to terrorism were mentioned. Perhaps the emphasis may have changed over time, but there was never a time when those issues were ignored.

You don't even have to do that. Just look up the text of the congressional authorization for war, and you'll see a whole bunch of reasons listed. And that has the advantage that it's not just Bush's reasons, it's Congress' too.

[Ion]

No, actually, Israel doesn't flout IAEA rules,...
There are more U.N. Resolutions against Israel than Iraq plus Iran.

[Ion]

Well it's online too, and I don't find anything about the UN in it at all:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/look/index.asp
I think you're a liar.
I know you are a liar.

Canada has allegiance to U.N. first -ahead of allegiance to U.S.-, as per the citizenship test that I took.
I can prove to you if I leaf thru the pamphlet and quote it for you.
But then so what?
You are not worthy anyway.
You are a liar before this issue, and you remain a liar after this issue.
If I quote it here from the Canadian brochure, that would be for honest posters only.

This allegiance to U.N. must be why Canada didn't join U.S. in Iraq.

[Ziggurat]

There are more U.N. Resolutions against Israel than Iraq plus Iran.

So? The significance of that is on par with the significance of your own personal antisemitism. And we weren't talking about UN general assembly resolutions, we were talking about the IAEA. Damn, but you're clueless.

Canada has allegiance to U.N. first -ahead of allegiance to U.S.-, as per the citizenship test that I took.
I can prove to you if I leaf thru the pamphlet and quote it for you.
But then so what?

Then you would have demonstrated that you can support your claims. And you would have proven me wrong to everyone else, and admit it, you'd REALLY like to be able to do that. Both would be a first for you.

You are not worthy anyway.

Of course not. After all, you think I'm a Jew (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2727552#post2727552), and we all know how you feel about them (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2747097#post2747097).

If I quote it here from the Canadian brochure, that would be for honest posters only.

Then do it for the "honest" posters: after all, they've seen me show Canadian citizenship literature with no references to allegiance to either the US or the UN, but they've seen zero evidence from you. Who knows, if you don't back up your claim, even the "honest" posters might end up believing me.

This allegiance to U.N. must be why Canada didn't join U.S. in Iraq.

Is that why they're in Afghanistan? That invasion wasn't UN authorized. Hmmm....

[Segnosaur]

No, actually, Israel doesn't flout IAEA rules,...
There are more U.N. Resolutions against Israel than Iraq plus Iran.

First of all, Ziggurat specifically mentioned 'IAEA' rules... Since Israel did not sign the NPT, it is not obligated to follow the IAEA rules. U.N. resoultions have nothing to do with it.

Secondly, while there are many U.N. resolutions against Israel, many of those resoultions are 'chapter 6' resolutions. These are different than the 'chapter 7' resolutions that were made against Iraq. I'd suggest doing a little research on the differences between the 2 of them.I know you are a liar.

This allegiance to U.N. must be why Canada didn't join U.S. in Iraq.

While the Canadian government did claim that they would go to Iraq only if the U.N. approved, that wasn't the real reason. (After all, Canada has gotten into conflicts without UN approval before.)

The real reason is that there was a provincial election at the time, and the federal Liberal party at the time didn't want to negatively influence the results in a part of the country that had relatively strong attitudes against the war. It was crass politics.

[Ion]

First of all, Ziggurat specifically mentioned 'IAEA' rules...
But I don't care about Ziggurat specifying I.A.E.A. rules.

I started the issue that Israel doesn't comply with U.N. more than Iraq and Iran.

[Segnosaur]

Is that why they're in Afghanistan? That invasion wasn't UN authorized. Hmmm....

Canada also was involved in Kosovo, another military mission that did not have the backing of the U.N.

[Ion]

So? The significance of that is on par with the significance of your own personal antisemitism.
blah blah blah
To ZigguRat stein antisemitism means exposing Israel.

[Ion]

Canada also was involved in Kosovo, another military mission that did not have the backing of the U.N.
Right.

I speculate that in Iraq, allegiance to U.N. played.

But I don't know.

It might be that allegiance to U.N. didn't play, but the fact that Bush's case was flimsy played.

[Segnosaur]

But I don't care about Ziggurat specifying I.A.E.A. rules.

Well, you should... your post was a direct response to somethign Ziggurat posted. Your attempt to bring general UN resoultions into it does nothing but hide the fact that you're point is wrong.

I started the issue that Israel doesn't comply with U.N. more than Iraq and Iran.
Except you seem to lack an understanding of the difference between Chapter 6 (non-enforcable) resoultions, such as the type passed against Israel, and Chapter 7 (enforcable) resoultions passed against Iraq.

Chapter 6 resolutions are basically recommendations, with no solid demands, and have no prescribed punishment. They also frequently call on more than 1 party to act (such as resolutions that call for both Israel and the Arab countries to do something.

Chapter 7 resolutons are ones that (in theory) must be followed. They are unilateral, and any country that does not follow them risks punishment.

Its rather like the difference between a traffic violation and an actual criminal charge.

[Segnosaur]

Right.

I speculate that in Iraq, allegiance to U.N. played.

But I don't know.

You're right.. you don't know.

I am Canadian. I am familiar with the politics that goes on around here. The decision not to go into Iraq was basically a political one that had more to do with federal and provincial politics.

As you've been shown... Canada DOES do things not approved by the U.N. Admit it, you were wrong and it was well demonstrated.

[Matteo Martini]

By troop assault, do you mean ground troops? If so, I'd agree that they could have done something, but that's not the claim you made before (namely, that air power could have stopped it). Too bad the troops who were on the ground already (and not American either) didn't do anything. Which brings us back to Kofi Annan. But if you mean something other than ground troops, then your claim makes no sense.


I do not recollect to have said that " air power could have stopped it ", exactly.
I recollect to have said that air power, for example, could have been an option to stop or slow down the killings


It didn't make enough sense to be malicious, so I'll gladly consider it an innocent mistake.


So it was.
Thanks


Well, no. First off, while the air offensive was perhaps the best-remembered part of that war, there WAS a ground offensive, and we didn't get the Iraqis out of Kuwait until that ground offensive took place. Second, even to the degree that air power was useful in the first gulf war, it simply wasn't an equivalent problem to Rwanda. In the first Iraq war (and that's a better label, since much of the fighting happened on Kuwaiti soil), there were lots of easily identifiable targets: namely, all those Iraqi tanks. It's much harder to distinguish who to target when it's just un-uniformed people walking around. The Iraqi army also tried to maneouver out in the open desert, away from any cover (urban or natural), making them easy targets for air power. No such luck in Rwanda.

Many different wars, many different conditions.
You were pointing out the example of Vietnam, I pointed out that of Iraq.
Comparisons between places and times so different does not make that sense.
My opinion is that air power could contribute to slow down, of course, I do not recollect to have said that only air power should have been used


Thinking that I either agree or disagree with all your opinions on the topic.


I try to pinpoint your comments, as precisely as possible, notwithstanding some errors, of course.


What part of my last response did you not understand? Yes, Clinton could have done something, he did not, and that is regrettable.

Well, I do not think that is it only regrettable not to have helped about one million people.
And, it was not only Clinton.
But, I am happy to have reached that conclusion.
Now, I would like to go back to the main point.
It is regrettable that Clinton did nothing.
It is regrettable that Bush invaded Iraq ( I mean, Bush son ), if you agree on this.
So, why did the US invade Iraq and did not help Rwanda?

[Ion]

You're right.. you don't know.

I am Canadian. I am familiar with the politics that goes on around here. The decision not to go into Iraq was basically a political one that had more to do with federal and provincial politics.

As you've been shown... Canada DOES do things not approved by the U.N. Admit it, you were wrong and it was well demonstrated.
There is nothing wrong by me to admit.

Canada might have avoided Iraq because of U.N..
I speculate.
But I know how important U.N. is to Canada, more important than U.S..

I remind you I know Canada better than you.

You even didn't know how to spell Jean Chretien in 2004.
You don't know French, a Canadian official language.
You are illiterate in Canada.
I remember you being a Jew in Ottawa who deplored in 2003 that Canada didn't fight Iraq.

[Ziggurat]

Now, I would like to go back to the main point.
It is regrettable that Clinton did nothing.

Agreed.

It is regrettable that Bush invaded Iraq ( I mean, Bush son ), if you agree on this.

I do not agree, though my answer to the next question doesn't actually depend on my position on this.

So, why did the US invade Iraq and did not help Rwanda?

On the most basic level, because what goes on in the middle east is vital to the interests of the United States and the global economy (we're not the only ones who lose out if things go terribly wrong), but what happens in Rwanda is not. Clinton could afford to do nothing about Rwanda, because it had no direct effect on our interests, but he could not afford to do nothing about Iraq. Do not forget that while Clinton may never have thought invasion was justified (despite having made regime change official US policy), he did attack Iraq in 1998. So you don't even have to compare Clinton/Rwanda to Bush/Iraq to figure it out: all you need to do is look at Clinton/Rwanda and Clinton/Iraq to note the difference.

[Ion]

Breaking news:




I apologize if this qualifies for a new thread but my guess is it's still in topic.
Bush and about 200,000,000 Americans need to be locked, and banned from the earth.

[Matteo Martini]

Bush and about 200,000,000 Americans need to be locked, and banned from the earth.

Come on??
You really are on narcotics..
Why saying something like this??

[Ion]

Read the thread Oliver this is America.

I told there why.

[Ziggurat]

Come on??
You really are on narcotics..
Why saying something like this??

If you haven't had the pleasure before, this sort of thing is standard fare for Ion. He regularly alienates even people he nominally agrees with on a topic because they don't adopt whatever extreme position he happens to take on the issue of the day. It's kind of sad, really.

[Ion]

...He regularly alienates even people he nominally agrees with on a topic because they don't adopt whatever extreme position he happens to take on the issue of the day...
Suuuure.

And Americans like you are angels to make war in Iraq...

[Matteo Martini]

Read the thread Oliver this is America.

I told there why.

Really, I have no time to read another thread.
Just asking, where your positions are different from those of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or Julius Caesar?

[Matteo Martini]

Suuuure.

And Americans like you are angels to make war in Iraq...

I do not want to invervene, but, may that be a reason for saying that Americans should be " banned from the earth "?
Do you realize what you are saying?
Not even the worst Ahmadinajiad said that..

[Ion]

Read that thread.

It's beyond Iraq.

[Ion]

...Just asking, where your positions are different from those of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or Julius Caesar?
Include Bush in the list.

[Ion]

Read that thread.

It's beyond Iraq.
Matteo,

the thread is here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84158&page=5&highlight=Knoxville

My first post there is:

I didn't want to see your post:

But I saw it.

So much for your "...Sadly people see what they want to see...".

To answer the thread's opening post, I have lived in:

.) Redwood City (Ca.) and read The San Jose Mercury News,

.) Baltimore (Md.) and read The Washington Post,

.) Chicago (Il.) and read The Chicago Tribune;

.) New York (N.Y.) and read The Star Ledger,

.) Knoxville (Tn.) and read something there, The Knoxville Sentinel maybe, I am not sure,

.) San Diego (Ca.) and read The San Diego Union Tribune.

I don't watch T.V., I consider it a waste.

My experience with U.S. is based on living in these places and reading the local papers.

I thought that U.S. is Michael Jordan in basketball, and Rowdy Gaines and Matt Biondi in competitive swimming.
I went to Chicago.
People weren't Michael Jordans.
They were obese, and inept in mathematics, science, culture and looks.
At work it took me great skills to qualify to come to U.S., but what I found on the ground was sub-par skills, teamwork, and ethics.
In Tennessee, an Engineering manager publicly said he was going to teach me LabVIEW because it's easier than me learning it alone, privately told me that a company like that has no time to teach and promptly took a hypocrite two-week vacation, during which I solved the LabVIEW assignment but still didn't get credit for, and I thought that's not the way I was brought up.
Many more such experiences in U.S. taught me of money greed and back stabbing over people's well being.
When Bush lied to start the war in Iraq in 2003, I understood that U.S. is made of millions of Bush-lite who don't have Bush's social power but are alike.
In the streets, locals were lecturing me about 'God' without scientific evidence, but ironically U.S. needs to import more scientific-minded people like me than people like the locals who lecture me.
The U.S. Departement of Labor considers people like me to be professionally skilled, and the people lecturing me about 'God' to be unskilled.
Still, I get lectured in the streets about this imaginary 'God'.

Reading the U.S. newspapers I observed that the Americans don't know sports.
Americans believe that golf and baseball are sports.
Golf and baseball are games.
They believe that distances are measured in yards, feet and miles instead of meters.
They believe that people are weighed in pounds, instead of kilograms.
They believe that temperatures are in Fahrenheit instead of Celsius.
Like in Europe, circa 1600.
In Tennessee, the newspaper stated in tiny print that Thorpe (no country) broke the world record in swimming in 200 free in 45 seconds.
It should have said 1:45.35 instead.
In California, the newspaper stated how many lovers an average man gets in a lifetime.
I thought "What? When I was a student in France I was getting this many in two years. Are the Americans living repressed in hospitals and monasteries, or what?"

I was born in Romania, lived in France, Canada and U.S..
The most advanced culturally is France.
I learned that I am not a Capitalist like in U.S. most people are -with consequences of being repressed-, but a liberal like in France.

I am in U.S. now, in San Diego -the city of surfers-, imposing my lifestyle on Americans.

[Matteo Martini]

Include Bush in the list.

I do not like Bush, but I do not consider him at the same level of Stalin, not even close, for example.
Anyway, if it pleases you, let` s ask again:
...Just asking, where your positions are different from those of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Bush or Julius Caesar?

[Ion]

...Just asking, where your positions are different from those of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Bush or Julius Caesar?
Where I am different than Hitler, Bush, Stalin, Pol Pot or Julius Caesar is shown in the previous post I wrote, the one with my quote from another thread.


Here, I post it again:
Repeated post removed
It's a more profound experience with U.S. than your experience with U.S..

The gist of it is that U.S. is full of Bush lites, who don't have the social power of Bush but are like Bush nonetheless.

While it is reasonable to refer to someone to a post you made on this very page, reposting it in length three times on one page can be considered flooding the forum and a violation of the MA. Please do not continue to repost this.

[Matteo Martini]

Where I am different than Hitler, Bush, Stalin, Pol Pot or Julius Caesar is shown in the previous post I wrote, the one with my quote from another thread.

Wait.
You said " that Americans should be " banned from the earth "? "
Now, how is this position different from those of Hitler, Bush, Stalin, Pol Pot or Julius Caesar?
Disclaimer
I have never heard Bush saying that anyone should be " banned from Earth "

[Matteo Martini]

It's a more profound experience with U.S. than your experience with U.S..

Why do you have to troll, instead of building a rational argument?

[Ion]

Wait.
You said " that Americans should be " banned from the earth "? "
Now, how is this position different from those of Hitler, Bush, Stalin, Pol Pot or Julius Caesar?
Disclaimer
I have never heard Bush saying that anyone should be " banned from Earth "
You are asking how is putting people in jail (away from the society that they
harm) different than what Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or Julius Caesar did.

It's stupid.

Society always puts people in jail away from the society that they harm (locked and banned from earth) in order to protect itself.

So that's what Bush and many millions of Americans need:

to be locked and banned from the earth, because they endanger the earth.

Quod Erat Demonstratum

[Ion]

Why do you have to troll, instead of building a rational argument?
Why don't you match my quote about how U.S. is made of Bush-lites, instead of trollingIncivility removed?

The quote about Bush-lites in U.S. is here, again:
Third repeat removed, see warning in post 702 above.
Match its knowledge if you can.

Breach of civility removed.

In the future, refrain from name-calling and incivility.

[Matteo Martini]

You are asking how is putting people in jail (away from the society that they harm) different than what Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or Julius Caesar did.


In many many societies, especially when under terrorism menace, people are put in jail, sometimes, for insufficient reasons.

[RandFan]

Ok Matteo.

Nevermind any of my recent posts to you. I retract them. I'll still debate you but I cannot be pissed off at you. Your willingness to try and debate with Ion in a cool and rational manner earns you high marks in my book.

I'm sorry that won't improve your image with Ion though.

[Matteo Martini]

Ok Matteo.

Nevermind any of my recent posts to you. I retract them. I'll still debate you but I cannot be pissed off at you. Your willingness to try and debate with Ion in a cool and rational manner earns you high marks in my book.

I'm sorry that won't improve your image with Ion though.

I do not get it.
Really.
I do not get it.
Serious..
Now, please, read carefully, why do you retract my recent posts to me?
Just because I am replying to another member?
What has this to do with our conversation?
I mean, am I the only one interested in a conversation with all the people around playing games of " I am on this side you are on another side "?
Now, that I have replied to Ion, did I become a " good one "?
Do you realize how childish all this is?
BTW, can I ask you how old are you?
I am 35

[RandFan]

I do not get it.
Really.
I do not get it.
Serious..
Now, please, read carefully, why do you retract my recent posts to me?
Just because I am replying to another member?
What has this to do with our conversation?
I mean, am I the only one interested in a conversation with all the people around playing games of " I am on this side you are on another side "?
Now, that I have replied to Ion, did I become a " good one "?
Do you realize how childish all this is?
BTW, can I ask you how old are you?
I am 35

I'm 46. I don't think it childish at all. No, there are no "good one[s]". I don't subscribe to any such philosophy.

I think you often myopic and obsesive about America. I think politics is largely nonsense and it blows me away that otherwise skeptical people stop being skeptical once they start talking politics.

I try, in my way, to get people to see the silly nature of their world view. The us vs them mentality.

Your willingness to engage Ion demonstrated to me that you are capable of seeing beyond the us vs them mentality.

Sorry if that offended you.

[Ion]

...Your willingness to try and debate with Ion in a cool and rational manner earns you high marks in my book.
...
You play holier-than-thou, you the warmonger of 2003.

The families of thousands of dead Iraqis owe the death of their loved ones to you.

And because this is about Iran, the same deadly gag starts again, in Iran now.

[Matteo Martini]

I'm 46. I don't think it childish at all. No, there are no "good one[s]". I don't subscribe to any such philosophy.

I think you often myopic and obsesive about America. I think politics is largely nonsense and it blows me away that otherwise skeptical people stop being skeptical once they start talking politics.

I try, in my way, to get people to see the silly nature of their world view. The us vs them mentality.

No, no, no, no, no
Wait.
The fact that I sometimes engage in discussion regarding the morality of the behaviour of the US does not mean at all the I condone, or I think that other countries behave better than the US
I thought I hade made it very clear in the past
Anyway, if you had that suspect, why not just ask me?


Your willingness to engage Ion demonstrated to me that you are capable of seeing beyond the us vs them mentality.

Sorry if that offended you.

What disturbs me, is that, if I did not take on Ion on that particular matter, you maybe would have thought that I share many of his views, which I do not
Why do I have to take on other posters to show that my position is not like theirs?

[Ion]

I see that Matteo didn't raise to my quote about millions of Bush-lites in U.S. and debate its insight.

I will dissect my quote anyway.

The quote points to shortcomings in U.S. in six different areas:
decency, sports, education, integrity in life, rational critical scientific thinking, harmless hedonism.

I will emphasize two areas out of the six.

1.) In response to the paragraph starting with "...At work it took me great skills to qualify to come to the U.S...", The San Diego Union Tribune of Monday August 20 2007 writes in page A8:

"...Immigrants who are eligible for high-skilled-employment visas include doctors, nurses and people with advanced degrees and technological skills. Before they can apply, they must obtain certification that no American workers are available for their jobs."

Imagine how retarded the Americans demonstrate themselves to be in contrast to this higher standard brought by immigrants.
In the book A Coach's Life by Dean Smith -who coached North Carolina in basketball in N.C.A.A. for many years- it is listed the degrees of all the players that Smith coached in college.
They are in Divinity (yes, in U.S. universities like North Carolina and Yale give degrees in superstitions), political science (yes, in U.S., people believe that politics is science, like mathematics are), lawyers (yes, in U.S., being a parasite is taught at university), doctors (yes, in U.S., learning by rote in medical school ranks high), but not one single Engineer -whose trademark is analytical thinking- over more than a decade.
So U.S. needs to import Engineers from Socialist countries, because poor U.S. cannot make Engineers in U.S..

2.) In response to the paragraph starting with "...When Bush lied to start the war in Iraq...", as a sample of U.S.'s mentality of might brawn makes right, U.S. -made of Bush lites from Democrats and Republicans altogether- involved its army in El Salvador in 1981, Lybia in 1981, Sinai in 1982, Lebanon in 1982, Egypt in 1983, Honduras in 1983, Chad in 1983, Grenada in 1983, Persian Gulf in 1984, Honduras in 1986, Lybia in 1986, Bolivia in 1986, Persian Gulf in 1987, Panama in 1988, Lybia in 1989, Panama in 1989, Philippines in 1989, Panama in 1989, Liberia in 1990, Persian Gulf in 1991, Zaire in 1991, Sierra Leone in 1992, Yugoslavia in 1992, Somalia in 1992, Iraq in 1993, Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003, and now in 2007 is warmongering on Iran.

This brawny military interventionism doesn't happen to many civilized countries -for example to Sweden-.
Because U.S. cannot live in harmony in the world.

It must be that the entire world 'misbehaves'.
And U.S. is the 'only' democracy in the world.

I submit that U.S. is a gangrene to the world, like U.S.S.R. was.

[Matteo Martini]

There are more U.N. Resolutions against Israel than Iraq plus Iran.

I did not know that..
Have to do my research..

[Matteo Martini]

I see that Matteo didn't raise to my quote about millions of Bush-lites in U.S. and debate its insight.

I will dissect my quote anyway.

The quote points to shortcomings in U.S. in six different areas:
decency, sports, education, integrity in life, rational critical scientific thinking, harmless hedonism.

I will emphasize two areas out of the six.

1.) In response to the paragraph starting with "...At work it took me great skills to qualify to come to the U.S...", The San Diego Union Tribune of Monday August 20 2007 writes in page A8:

"...Immigrants who are eligible for high-skilled-employment visas include doctrors, nurses and people with advanced degrees and technological skills. Before they can apply, they must obtain certification that no American workers are available for their jobs."


Now, is that the main problem with the US?
Their immigration policy?


Imagine how retarded the Americans demonstrate themselves to be in contrast to this higher standard of immigrants.
In the book A Coach Life by Dean Smith -who coached North Carolina in basketball in N.C.A.A. for many years- it is listed the degrees of all the players that Smith coached in college.
They are in Divinity (yes, in U.S. universities like North Carolina and Yale give degrees in superstitions), political science (yes, in U.S., people think that politics is science like mathematics are), [/QUOTE]

I do not think that Politics is science ( just tacked the argument ), but we have " Scienze Politiche " also in Italy..


lawyers (yes, in U.S., to be a parasite is taught at university), doctors (yes, in U.S., learning by rote in medical school ranks high), but not one single Engineer over more than a decade.
So U.S. needs to import Engineers from Socialist countries, because it cannot make them in U.S..


I will not comment this



2.) In response to the paragraph starting with "...When Bush lied to start the war in Iraq...", as a sample of U.S. might brawn makes right, U.S. -Bush lites from Democrats and Republicans- involved its army in El Salvador in 1981, Libia in 1981, Sinai in 1982, Lebanon in 1982, Egypt in 1983, Honduras in 1983, Chad in 1983, Grenada in 1983, Persian Gulf in 1984, Honduras in 1986, Lybia in 1986, Bolivia in 1986, Perisan Gulf in 1987, Panama in 1988, Lybia in 1989, Panama in 1989, Philippines in 1989, Panama in 1989, Liberia in 1990, Persian Gulf in 1991, Zaire in 1991, Sierra Leone in 1992, Yugoslavia in 1992, Somalia in 1992, Iraq in 1993, Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003, and talk war on Iran in 2007.

This brawny military interventionism doesn't happen to Sweden.
U.S. cannot live in harmony in the world.

It must be that the entire world 'misbehaves'.

And U.S. is the 'only' democracy in the world.

I submit that U.S. is a gangrene to the world, like U.S.S.R. was.

Well, I have to say that I have to thank you as, if I did not reply to you, yesterday, I would not have RandFan replying to me any more..

[plumjam]

this link might help anyone to understand Iran

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

[Ion]

Now, is that the main problem with the US?
Their immigration policy?
...
Not at all.

I spell in my previous post what the problem is:

standards.

Low standards amongst native Americans.

High standards amongs immigrants.
The high standards of these immigrants point to where these high standards are made.
In Socialist Europe.

[Matteo Martini]

this link might help anyone to understand Iran

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

This might too..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhNyFsYqy-8

[Matteo Martini]

" the waves of this explosion will not be restricted to this region .. "
" the rage of the Muslim people is accumulating .. "
and some other nice words..

[Matteo Martini]

The high standards of these immigrants point to where these high standards are made.
In Socialist Europe.

You are obviously kidding

[Matteo Martini]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ywoLsATW9w&mode=related&search=

" Death to Isreal.. "
" Are they [ Israeli ] human beings? "
" A bunch of bloodthirsty barbarians "..
..and so on..

[gtc]

You are obviously kidding

Nope. He is not kidding.

The funniest part of Ion is that he actually thinks that he is cleverer than us.

[RandFan]

The fact that I sometimes engage in discussion regarding the morality of the behaviour of the US does not mean at all the I condone, or I think that other countries behave better than the US...First off it is not "sometimes". I've been around the block a few times. I've been here for years and posted 20,000 times. I have a good idea when someone is obsessive about an issue. You my friend are obsessed more than a few if not many most with American policy and your posts typically have to do with criticism.

I thought I hade made it very clear in the past
Anyway, if you had that suspect, why not just ask me?What people believe and what they are, are not always the same thing. I'm going to put more weight behind what you say than what you claim. I still have little doubt you have a healthy amount of negative bias toward America.

Still, I could be wrong and few here are more fair than myself. I apologize frequently and concede arguments to people I seriously don't like. If I think your actions worthy of merit I'll say so.

What disturbs me, is that, if I did not take on Ion on that particular matter, you maybe would have thought that I share many of his views, which I do not There is no need to be disturbed. This is just an Internet forum. I'm just some anonymous guy.

Look, we have a few seriously deluded people here. I'm not kidding. I could be one of them. If that disturbs you then you likely shouldn't be here. FTR, I'm not one of them. :)

Why do I have to take on other posters to show that my position is not like theirs?

You don't.
I never, ever, thought your position was identical to Ion's. That's not even the point.
By far most of my favorite posters (and some of my closest friends) on this forum are people who I don't agree with me politically. When it comes to the individual, I don't give a damn about positions. I care about intellectual honesty and logically valid argument.
Your willingness to debate Ion demonstrated to me that you are capable of both. Not perfect but then none of us are.Now, chill out, it's really not that big of a deal.

[Matteo Martini]

Now, chill out, it's really not that big of a deal.

OK

[Matteo Martini]

First off it is not "sometimes". I've been around the block a few times. I've been here for years and posted 20,000 times. I have a good idea when someone is obsessive about an issue. You my friend are obsessed more than a few if not many most with American policy and your posts typically have to do with criticism.


This is because many people here ( mostly, but not only ) Americans are unwilling to see, in my personal opinion " the other side of the story "


What people believe and what they are, are not always the same thing. I'm going to put more weight behind what you say than what you claim. I still have little doubt you have a healthy amount of negative bias toward America.


Mm..
I think they are the biggest and stronger democracy in the world and an engine which propels technological progess all over the world.
But I also think the US are responsible of many crimes, in the past..


There is no need to be disturbed. This is just an Internet forum. I'm just some anonymous guy.

I am not


I never, ever, thought your position was identical to Ion's. That's not even the point.


I do sometimes think that Oliver and even Ion have some good shots.
BTW, I also disagree with them many times, but I do think it is interesting to listen to them, a long as listening to you and many others..

[RandFan]

This is because many people here ( mostly, but not only ) Americans are unwilling to see, in my personal opinion " the other side of the story " How do you come up with "mostly"? It sounds like confirmation bias to me. I'll confess you could use the same complaint against me.

Mm..
I think they are the biggest and stronger democracy in the world and an engine which propels technological progess all over the world.
But I also think the US are responsible of many crimes, in the past..
Yes, we are guilty of crimes. But those should be put into prespective. It's a bit of a broad brush to simply declare us guilty of crimes. What nations are not guilty of crimes?

I understand your point. I just want you to understand that there is much good about America also and that there is much bad about the rest of the world.

Following WWII America had the bomb (atomic) and we chose NOT to behave like the Soviets. We wanted countries to be Democratic. We worked hard to liberate Germany and we did not want to control West Germany the way the Soviets controled East Germany and so many other European Nations. America has believed that the best thing for America are healthy Democracies and so we have tried to see to it that Nations became Democratic. We made many mistakes trying to do that. We have commited crimes believing the ends justified the means.

By all means, critisize but keep an open perspective. That's all I ask.

Thanks,

RandFan

I am not:D I hate to be the one to break the news to you.


I do sometimes think that Oliver and even Ion have some good shots.
BTW, I also disagree with them many times, but I do think it is interesting to listen to them, a long as listening to you and many others..Oliver, in his heart, is a good guy. He has a lot of good intention. He just has a blind spot and is incapable of using critical thinking when it comes to his point of view.

Ion cares about equality and fairness for those who are disenfranchised and I think he also honestly cares about those who have no say in the political machinations of political powers but who suffer and die as a result of the war these armchair warriors carry out. He is passionate about these things and I applaud him for that. However his hatred of America blinds him and he too is incapable of critical thinking when it comes to his world view.

In short, I agree with you.

[Matteo Martini]

Yes, we are guilty of crimes. But those should be put into prespective. It's a bit of a broad brush to simply declare us guilty of crimes. What nations are not guilty of crimes?


Brazil?


I understand your point. I just want you to understand that there is much good about America also and that there is much bad about the rest of the world.


You do not need to tell me this.
Where do you think I live?
I have lived in the US, I have relatives living in the US, I have American friends, and had American girlfriends. I have been to American Universities.
Why do you need to point out this?


Following WWII America had the bomb (atomic) and we chose NOT to behave like the Soviets. We wanted countries to be Democratic. We worked hard to liberate Germany and we did not want to control West Germany the way the Soviets controled East Germany and so many other European Nations. America has believed that the best thing for America are healthy Democracies and so we have tried to see to it that Nations became Democratic.

Yes, of course.
We Italian have been lucky to be on the left part of the iron curtain.


We made many mistakes trying to do that. We have commited crimes believing the ends justified the means.

Mmmm..
I think in this point I have to disagree with you.
The mistakes were not just " mistakes ", were a symptom of a more profound mistake, which is why I keep pounding on some news.
We will talk about this later


By all means, critisize but keep an open perspective. That's all I ask.

Thanks,

RandFan

:D I hate to be the one to break the news to you.

Oliver, in his heart, is a good guy. He has a lot of good intention. He just has a blind spot and is incapable of using critical thinking when it comes to his point of view.


That is not the point.
Oiliver also said that OBL is a " freedom fighter ", a notion that, I would say it is obvious to say, I absolutely disagree with.
But has been very useful to tell me about the fact that many guys in the Bush administration knew that Saddam had no WMD before 9/11, something I did not know.
This is why I read his posts with attention, I do not basically care about hsi general opinions


Ion cares about equality and fairness for those who are disenfranchised and I think he also honestly cares about those who have no say in the political machinations of political powers but who suffer and die as a result of the war these armchair warriors carry out. He is passionate about these things and I applaud him for that. However his hatred of America blinds him and he too is incapable of critical thinking when it comes to his world view.


Sometimes, I wonder if he does ot play a part, here..
If you know what I mean..

[Undesired Walrus]

Should not the main reason behind not allowing Iran to have nukes is the chance that it may loose posession of nuclear weapons if the country destabilises and the sunnis take over?

Is this a not-impossible outcome?

[Flo]

Should not the main reason behind not allowing Iran to have nukes is the chance that it may destabalise if the country destabilises and the sunnis take over?

Is this a not-impossible outcome?



The vast majority of Iran is shiite, I don't see much risk of a sunni domination. However, the risk of destabilisation of the whole region is a real possibility, given the rivality between shiite and sunnis countries, mostly Saudi Arabia, on issues like who controls Mecca. I would also expect the situation in Afghanistan (large shiite minorities) and Pakistan (that has nukes and views over Afghanistan) to play a role.

[Matteo Martini]

Should not the main reason behind not allowing Iran to have nukes is the chance that it may loose posession of nuclear weapons if the country destabilises and the sunnis take over?

Is this a not-impossible outcome?

Even if they do not lose possession this way, somebody in the government could be crazy enough to let some terrorist group get some nuke.
Another possibility, is that the current government could use nuclear power as a deterrent.
In short, I would not feel easy at all to have such a government in such a nation with nuclear power, to say the least

[Undesired Walrus]

And It's all about power really in Iran isn't it?

It's not really... religion is it?... because, why else are they funding Sunni militants if they are not determined to stopping America from retaining control in Iraq?

[RandFan]

Brazil? I don't see a smilie but I assume this is a joke, right?

Why do you need to point out this?Because there is often a profound lack of proportionality and objectivity in your posts.

The mistakes were not just " mistakes ", were a symptom of a more profound mistake, which is why I keep pounding on some news.
We will talk about this later Yes, here is where I think you reveal your bias.

America is a Democracy. Unlike many nations, American's can and do vote out corrupt politicians. We have a seperation of powers and the system is largely self correcting. Nixon left office in disgrace. Bush has very low approval numbers and congress just switched from Republican to Democrat.

Power corrupts. The founders of our nation knew this. They knew that they could't prevent abuse. That is pie in the sky. What they wanted was a system that would distribute power and be self correcting. So they implimented a system that would, in their minds best do that.

The word mistake can be seen as a euphamism so if you are critising me about that then fine. That is a fair critisism. However, if you think that there is an inherent problem with the USA that makes us worse than other nations (other than our size) then I can't agree.

That is not the point.It's my point.

But has been very useful to tell me about the fact that many guys in the Bush administration knew that Saddam had no WMD before 9/11, something I did not know. This really isn't true. Absolute knowledge of a regime that was as involved in secrecy as Iraq under Saddam just wasn't possible. It's your willingness to so easily accept such demonstrable falsehoods and absurdities that bothers me. This is NOT critical thinking.

There were many guys in the Bush administration that knew that there was solid evidence that pointed to the fact that Saddam had no WMD.

It may seem subtle but it is a critical distinction. Couple that with the fact that many people relied on different evidence and didn't use critical thinking and were certain that there WAS WMD and you realize why Oliver's claim's are CT.

This is why I read his posts with attention, I do not basically care about hsi general opinions I can only ask you to employ a little critical thinking when reading Oliver's posts.

Sometimes, I wonder if he does ot play a part, here..
If you know what I mean..Who am I to judge?

[Darth Rotor]

Sometimes, I wonder if he does ot play a part, here..
If you know what I mean..

All the internet's a stage, and all the forum posters merely players.

The play's the thing.

Shakespeare rocks, particularly when posted out of context.

"Many's the good hanging prevented a bad marriage."

DR

[Correa Neto]

Brazil?

...snip...

Sorry for the OT interruption...

We're not innocent, unfortunately.

Google for any combination of Triple Alliance, war and Paraguay.

And we also have our share of millitary dictatorships and social injustices.

Thank you for the attention, please return to your regular schedule.

[Darth Rotor]

Sorry for the OT interruption...

We're not innocent, unfortunately.

Google for any combination of Triple Alliance, war and Paraguay.

And we also have our share of millitary dictatorships and social injustices.

Thank you for the attention, please return to your regular schedule.
Say what you like about Brazil, I learned in fourth grade that you guys gave the world rubber.

Yay Brazil! :)

DR

[Ion]

To:
You are obviously kidding
and to:
Nope. He is not kidding.

The funniest part of Ion is that he actually thinks that he is cleverer than us.
You mean that Texas Instruments doesn't employ in San Diego hundreds of Electrical Engineers educated in Socialist France and Europe?

Ditto for Motorola in San Diego, 3Com, Cisco?

And so on.

I know better than you, including the reason for that.
(like the European Engineering level with its superior mathematics;
for example the level in the French-based Fast Fourier Transforms, without which no digital field ever exists and the Americans would still be dangling from trees holding bananas and chanting praise to their 'God' and Capitalism)

You are clueless, both of you, one Italian, and a gtc retard from faith-based primitive U.S..

[WildCat]

The high standards of these immigrants point to where these high standards are made.
In Socialist Europe.
Is this the same place that made the Yugo? High standards indeed!

[Ion]

Is this the same place that made the Yugo? High standards indeed!
Is Yugo made in Socialist France, or in Sweden, or Norway, DumbCat?

Come on, DumbCat from DumbChicago, name to me one American mathematician who appears in Engineering books.

One.

I fail to see one American mathematician who appears in Electrical Engineering books.
Don't bother me with garbage non-mathematician businessman Edison and such, there is not one American mathematician in Engineering books.

Because from France, I name mathematicians Fourier, Le Galois, d'Alembert, Cauchy, Descartes, Poincare, Fourmi, Fermat, La Place, l'Hopital in Engineering books.

Dumb American...

Without these French mathematicians you would still be dangling from trees, over there, in Chicago.

[Darth Rotor]

Is this the same place that made the Yugo? High standards indeed!
To be fair, it made the Renault Le Car. ;) Depending upon which Europe, it also made some sweet Alfa Romeo Spiders that drive well but break down frequently, and Volkswagen Beetles that were scintillating examples excellence in design and evolutionary design.

The Yugo was from the People's skunks works in a Communistic nation, so it wasn't a fair comparison. They didn't do "customer service" since behind the Iron Curtain, the dealer deals you! ;)

DR

[RandFan]

Sorry for the OT interruption...

We're not innocent, unfortunately.

Google for any combination of Triple Alliance, war and Paraguay.

And we also have our share of millitary dictatorships and social injustices.

Thank you for the attention, please return to your regular schedule.

Let's face it, Brazil is populated with humans. If you got humans you've got problems.

That said, I would love to get down there around march for a little celebration I've heard about. They have a tranquil parade through a bucolic vilage known as Rio de Janeiro.

[BeAChooser]

There were many guys in the Bush administration that knew that there was solid evidence that pointed to the fact that Saddam had no WMD.

Except that's not a fact. If Saddam had no WMD, why did he go to the trouble of sanitizing files, computers and facilities the ISG said were related to WMD? If Saddam had no WMD, then where did that binary sarin shell come from and why did the ISG say there might be others? If Saddam had no WMD, what was in the trucks that were seen going to Syria before the war? The ISG said they have credible sources that indicate they contained WMD related items. If Saddam had no WMD, why allow his regime to be toppled and himself to be tried and executed, when all he had to do was prove that to the UN inspectors from the start?

And by the way, the war wasn't just about whether Iraq had WMD anyway.

[WildCat]

Is Yugo made in Socialist France, Sweden, Norway, DumbCat?
Of those countries, only Sweden manages to make a reliable car, and only at a very high price. Does Renault even sell in the US any more?

[Ion]

Of those countries, only Sweden manages to make a reliable car, and only at a very high price. Does Renault even sell in the US any more?
And the American mathematician in Engineering books is?

[Ion]

Right:

...
The Yugo was from the People's skunks works in a Communistic nation, so it wasn't a fair comparison.
...
DR
DumbCat confuses Communism and Socialism.

After shifting Engineering mathematics to cars.

Soon she will be shifting from cars to palm reading.

Man, she is dumb...

[Darth Rotor]

And the American mathematician in Engineering books is?
And the Romanian mathematician in Engineering books is?

Since you raised Descartes, I'll offer Isaac Newton, seeing as how Descartes was around before America existed, and Newton is from our political "mother country."

You are grasping at straws, for reasons rather obvious: that chip on your shoulder isn't made of silicon.

DR

[WildCat]

You mean that Texas Instruments doesn't employ in San Diego hundreds of Electrical Engineers educated in Socialist France and Europe?

Ditto for Motorola in San Diego, 3Com, Cisco?
Many foreigners come to the US to work because they cannot get a job in their home countries, due to the horse crap economies socialist paradises often produce - especially those with no natural resources to survive on. They take the jobs Americans don't want.

[Ion]

Many foreigners come to the US to work because they cannot get a job in their home countries, due to the horse crap economies socialist paradises often produce - especially those with no natural resources to survive on. They take the jobs Americans don't want.
Do you know one such foreigner?

I am one such foreigner, I know others, and it doesn't apply.

But DumbCat, you don't escape, name one American mathematician in Engineering books

I mean one, to show that U.S. can do mathematics.

[WildCat]

And the American mathematician in Engineering books is?
Who gives a crap? Remember when JJ, a "fat stupid American", destroyed you in mathmatics and engineering? There may have been great mathematicians from Europe, but you sure aren't one of them Ion!

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=18259

[Ion]

And the Romanian mathematician in Engineering books is?

Since you raised Descartes, I'll offer Isaac Newton, seeing as how Descartes was around before America existed, and Newton is from our political "mother country."

You are grasping at straws, for reasons rather obvious: that chip on your shoulder isn't made of silicon.

DR
I said Socialist Europe (France, etc.), not Communist Europe (Romania, etc.).

Newton was English, not American.

Americans don't have one mathematician in Engineering books.

Americans are daft.

I mean there some Americans more intelligent than me (not many though), but their system is daft.

[Ion]

Who gives a crap?...
The U.S. Department of Labor, stupid.