151,000 Iraqi civilians dead since invasion of Iraq

[Victoria]

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNew ... 1720080110

IT'S HAMMER TIME

[Mosheddy]

Re: 151,000 Iraqi civilians dead since invasion of Iraq

in before stalin quote.

[Vespasian]

Re: 151,000 Iraqi civilians dead since invasion of Iraq

Reuters never loads for me.
Is this from the direct actions of America's military? Or is it a combined total of that and the civilian deaths from Iraqi terrorist attacks as well?

Either way, Saddam Hussein needed to be deposed sooner or later.

America certainly isn't famed for her organising of warfare and it could have been done much more efficiently and perhaps achieved greater goals.

[Ultra Magnus]

Re: 151,000 Iraqi civilians dead since invasion of Iraq

Either way, Saddam Hussein needed to be deposed sooner or later.

This is true, but maybe the trigger should've been when he was gassing countless numbers of Iraqi Kurds rather than when he was putting the price of oil up.

[Vespasian]

Re: 151,000 Iraqi civilians dead since invasion of Iraq

Either way, Saddam Hussein needed to be deposed sooner or later.

This is true, but maybe the trigger should've been when he was gassing countless numbers of Iraqi Kurds rather than when he was putting the price of oil up.

I would say the real trigger would have been his refusal to comply with UN weapons inspection demands. Oil is superficial.

[Ultra Magnus]

Re: 151,000 Iraqi civilians dead since invasion of Iraq

Either way, Saddam Hussein needed to be deposed sooner or later.

This is true, but maybe the trigger should've been when he was gassing countless numbers of Iraqi Kurds rather than when he was putting the price of oil up.

I would say the real trigger would have been his refusal to comply with UN weapons inspection demands. Oil is superficial.

If that were true, then the UN would have spearheaded the whole thing.
If, however, it was just an afterthought to provide a legitimate front, then it would've been mostly America with just a handful of allies.

[Vespasian]

Re: 151,000 Iraqi civilians dead since invasion of Iraq

[quote=Ultra Magnus]

Either way, Saddam Hussein needed to be deposed sooner or later.

This is true, but maybe the trigger should've been when he was gassing countless numbers of Iraqi Kurds rather than when he was putting the price of oil up.

I would say the real trigger would have been his refusal to comply with UN weapons inspection demands. Oil is superficial.

If that were true, then the UN would have spearheaded the whole thing.
If, however, it was just an afterthought to provide a legitimate front, then it would've been mostly America with just a handful of allies.[/quote:a8518]

The United Nations never takes military action on its own and will rarely send personnel in without the armed forces of another nation already posted there. The United States and other nations have had to do their work before.

[Ultra Magnus]

Re: 151,000 Iraqi civilians dead since invasion of Iraq

[quote=Vespasian]

Either way, Saddam Hussein needed to be deposed sooner or later.

This is true, but maybe the trigger should've been when he was gassing countless numbers of Iraqi Kurds rather than when he was putting the price of oil up.

I would say the real trigger would have been his refusal to comply with UN weapons inspection demands. Oil is superficial.

If that were true, then the UN would have spearheaded the whole thing.
If, however, it was just an afterthought to provide a legitimate front, then it would've been mostly America with just a handful of allies.

The United Nations never takes military action on its own and will rarely send personnel in without the armed forces of another nation already posted there. The United States and other nations have had to do their work before.[/quote:8e201]
There's a difference between doing their work and... not.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept04...Kramer0920.htm

[Vespasian]

Re: 151,000 Iraqi civilians dead since invasion of Iraq

[quote=Ultra Magnus][quote=Vespasian]

Either way, Saddam Hussein needed to be deposed sooner or later.

This is true, but maybe the trigger should've been when he was gassing countless numbers of Iraqi Kurds rather than when he was putting the price of oil up.

I would say the real trigger would have been his refusal to comply with UN weapons inspection demands. Oil is superficial.

If that were true, then the UN would have spearheaded the whole thing.
If, however, it was just an afterthought to provide a legitimate front, then it would've been mostly America with just a handful of allies.

The United Nations never takes military action on its own and will rarely send personnel in without the armed forces of another nation already posted there. The United States and other nations have had to do their work before.[/quote:a4fce]
There's a difference between doing their work and... not.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept04...Kramer0920.htm[/quote:a4fce]

I think the violation of human rights is enough justification for the invasion, that and the weapons inspection troubles were more than enough reason to invade. The UN can sit and criticise behind closed doors despite the fact they never would have done anything.

[Ultra Magnus]

Re: 151,000 Iraqi civilians dead since invasion of Iraq

[quote=Vespasian][quote=Ultra Magnus]

Either way, Saddam Hussein needed to be deposed sooner or later.

This is true, but maybe the trigger should've been when he was gassing countless numbers of Iraqi Kurds rather than when he was putting the price of oil up.

I would say the real trigger would have been his refusal to comply with UN weapons inspection demands. Oil is superficial.

If that were true, then the UN would have spearheaded the whole thing.
If, however, it was just an afterthought to provide a legitimate front, then it would've been mostly America with just a handful of allies.

The United Nations never takes military action on its own and will rarely send personnel in without the armed forces of another nation already posted there. The United States and other nations have had to do their work before.

There's a difference between doing their work and... not.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept04...Kramer0920.htm[/quote:aa1a2]
I think the violation of human rights is enough justification for the invasion, that and the weapons inspection troubles were more than enough reason to invade. The UN can sit and criticise behind closed doors despite the fact they never would have done anything.[/quote:aa1a2]
That was my original point.
It should've happened 15 years ago when he was gassing Kurds.

The reasons for the invasion have been piling up for years.
The difference is that back then Saddam was supplying the US with affordable oil and they were supplying him with his weapons.

I'm not saying it wasn't justified, but the "final straw" seems to be the oil, which is completely trivial when viewed next to what has already been happening for years without much attempt to stop him. If that wasn't the real reason, then why did it take so long for them to act on it?

You may continue debating this if you please.
As for myself, I have made my point, and now I shall take my leave.
Good day, sir.

[Vespasian]

Re: 151,000 Iraqi civilians dead since invasion of Iraq

That was my original point.
It should've happened 15 years ago when he was gassing Kurds.

The reasons for the invasion have been piling up for years.
The difference is that back then Saddam was supplying the US with affordable oil and they were supplying him with his weapons.

I'm not saying it wasn't justified, but the "final straw" seems to be the oil, which is completely trivial when viewed next to what has already been happening for years without much attempt to stop him. If that wasn't the real reason, then why did it take so long for them to act on it?

Fair enough, I suppose that would be because of the economic ties between Iraq and nations like France and Germany who, from what I have heard, supplied the means to Iraq to produce chemical weapons.

Oil I argue against because everyone clings to that idea as if it is the centre of all politics surrounding Iraq, which it is not, but it is a considerable factor, of course.

I have to say, though, I've never heard of the US providing weapons for Iraq. I'd be interested in the details.

[Victoria]

Re: 151,000 Iraqi civilians dead since invasion of Iraq

Are you kidding me? Iraq wasn't even close to being the biggest human rights violator in 2003. The argument "we should've gone in simply because of the human rights violations" falls flat. Try looking at the entire content of Africa, the rest of the Middle Eastern countries, and some Asian countries. Why haven't we invaded them yet?

[Ultra Magnus]

Re: 151,000 Iraqi civilians dead since invasion of Iraq

Oil I argue against because everyone clings to that idea as if it is the centre of all politics surrounding Iraq, which it is not, but it is a considerable factor, of course.

I didn't mean to imply that oil was the only or central factor.
We get a lot of satire over here, from Have I Got News for You and John Culshaw on the BBC to Bremner, Bird and Fortune on Channel 4 and loads of one-off specials on More4. I don't know if you get any of these on import or anything, you probably have your own shows that are similar.
Anyway, my point is that they often talk about oil using it as a keyword to symbolise the whole US/UK/Iran/Iraq relationship in an easily identifiable way so as not to alienate any of their audience. I guess I just picked it up from them.

When I talk about oil, I just basically mean that Saddam stopped sitting up and rolling over for the west - and with the US and UK, if you're not with them you're against them.

I have to say, though, I've never heard of the US providing weapons for Iraq. I'd be interested in the details.

Confession time.
I was under the impression that it was around the early 90s, but after a little research it turns out that it was in fact the early 80s, making it closer to 30 years ago than the 15 I earlier stated.

Anyway, I'm sure you can find a lot more detailed and well-sourced stuff out there, but here's a little something to get you started.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...ne=us_iraq_80s

[Vespasian]

Re: 151,000 Iraqi civilians dead since invasion of Iraq

Oil I argue against because everyone clings to that idea as if it is the centre of all politics surrounding Iraq, which it is not, but it is a considerable factor, of course.

I didn't mean to imply that oil was the only or central factor.
We get a lot of satire over here, from Have I Got News for You and John Culshaw on the BBC to Bremner, Bird and Fortune on Channel 4 and loads of one-off specials on More4. I don't know if you get any of these on import or anything, you probably have your own shows that are similar.
Anyway, my point is that they often talk about oil using it as a keyword to symbolise the whole US/UK/Iran/Iraq relationship in an easily identifiable way so as not to alienate any of their audience. I guess I just picked it up from them.

When I talk about oil, I just basically mean that Saddam stopped sitting up and rolling over for the west - and with the US and UK, if you're not with them you're against them.

I have to say, though, I've never heard of the US providing weapons for Iraq. I'd be interested in the details.

Confession time.
I was under the impression that it was around the early 90s, but after a little research it turns out that it was in fact the early 80s, making it closer to 30 years ago than the 15 I earlier stated.

Anyway, I'm sure you can find a lot more detailed and well-sourced stuff out there, but here's a little something to get you started.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...ne=us_iraq_80s

Well, I'm not saying you did imply that oil was the central factor, but many people do and disregard everything else.


Anyway, I think we have agreed that the Iraq invasion was for good reasons, even if the outcome has perhaps made things worse.

[Mr_Gazpacho]

Re: 151,000 Iraqi civilians dead since invasion of Iraq

What xizer said in his second post.
If you wanna deal with actual threats and human rights violations, go for Iran, Saudi Arabia or North Korea.
African countries don't pose a military threat of the same magnitude, but some of them are scoring even bigger on the human rights violations list, along with several asian countries such as Indonesia and China. (the latter mentions being a pain in the ass to invade for various reasons so I guess the US are forgiven for that.)

Incoherency ftw.