News Arab Coalition: Uniting to Defend Against Bush Regime

[tumor]

That's interesting...why dn't you expound on this..how was Saddam "mostly" good for Iraq and Arabs in general? as opposed to be a murderous oppressive thug with a perversion towards watching snuff films.

What snuff films? who told you about that?

Your oppinion is the result of listening to much to the US medias.

 

[member 5645]

. Saddam is couldn't come close to Bush regime numbers.

You can interpret things by Bush regime propoganda or you can be honest and judge things physically, as a scientist would, that is by actions and results.

Got any more questions?

If you are going to purport scientific analysis, the least you could do is put up some data:

The following logic only looks at things on a short term. If we wanted, we could extrapolate the data for forecasted deaths if sanctions were left in place (or even go back to Saddam in the 80's) to set the numbers MORE in favor of war.

(Iraqis deaths from 1991-2003)-(Iraqi deaths from 2003-present)=X

If X => 0 THEN
WAR = RIGHT
SANCTIONS = WRONG
GOTO END
ELSE
IF X < 0 THEN
WAR = WRONG
SANCTIONS = RIGHT
END IF
END

Mortality in the Iraqi Population

before and after the imposition of the embargo



Year No. of Deaths
1989 (before the embargo) 27,334
1990 (embargo imposed in 6/8/1990) 32,464
1991 95,942
1992 123,463
1993 128,023
1994 133,681
1995 138,784
1996 140,281

Mortality in under 5 age- per month

No. of Deaths per Month
July 1990 (1 month before the ambargo) 539
July 1998 6,452

Mortality in under 5 age- per year

Year No. of Deaths
1989 7,110
1990 8,903
1991 27,473
1992 46,933
1993 49,762
1994 52,905
1995 55,823
1996 56,997


http://www.unesco.org/delegates/iraq/effects_health.htm

 

[tumor]

Iraq under Saddam almost achieved standard of living comparable to the industrial nations.Women had full rights,hospitals and education was for free.
And of course Iraq was a secular nation.
I guess that was enough for America,this "Bad" example had to stop one way or another.

 

[russ_watters]

Pretty obvious.

Pretty obvious that its an invalid comparison for several reasons, especially since you have asserted elsewhere that Iraq is in a state of war. Your comparison is like comparing Germany in 1939 with Germany in 1947. Its laughable. How about comparing it with Germany today?

Next, how does comparing it to bad conditions now say anything about Saddam being good? IMO, it went from really bad to slightly worse. You need to compare Saddam's regime to conditions in other countries. How did pre-war Iraq rank in civil rights? Per capita GDP? Poverty? Literacy? Women's rights? Disease? Etc.

omin, your arguments are utterly, utterly absurd.

 

[russ_watters]

Iraq under Saddam almost achieved standard of living comparable to the industrial nations.

Well, at least you are making the right type of comparison - but "almost" is pretty subjective. How about some actual statistics? Allow me...

Infant mortality: 52/1000 (15 is "good" - that qualifies as dismal)
Life Expectancy: 68 (75 is "good" - that qualifies as an "almost")
Literacy (male): 56% (90% is "good" - that qualifies as awful)
Literacy (femal): 24% (that qualifies as bad for both literacy and women's rights)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

 

[member 5645]

Iraq under Saddam almost achieved standard of living comparable to the industrial nations.Women had full rights,hospitals and education was for free.
And of course Iraq was a secular nation.
I guess that was enough for America,this "Bad" example had to stop one way or another.

Under Hitler Germany was a great power and the populous had great incomes. We shouldn't have interfered!

 

[tumor]

Under Hitler Germany was a great power and the populous had great incomes. We shouldn't have interfered!

Not only we should not have interfered, but we should make friends with Germans and crush true evil.. Communism.
And after gettig rid of Stalin, next we should have get rid of God damned stock brokers! in our own backyard!

 

[omin]

Saddam did not get this income through genecide and conquering other states. Saddam simply used the oil that was in Iraq to achieve this wealth.

The number may not always be legitimate. That is why we need to use common sense. Who is the one directly behind the deaths occurring today in Iraq? Who was behind the deaths during starvation sactions? Who was behind screwing Iraq economically forcing a war? ON and on.

 

[Polly]

I wouldn't worry about them Omin.

 

[member 5645]

1>Saddam did not get this income through genecide and conquering other states. Saddam simply used the oil that was in Iraq to achieve this wealth.

2>The number may not always be legitimate. That is why we need to use common sense.

3>Who is the one directly behind the deaths occurring today in Iraq?
4>Who was behind the deaths during starvation sactions?
5>Who was behind screwing Iraq economically forcing a war? ON and on.

1>Depends on whether you are speaking directly or indirectly, thus using the situation he developed to line his own pockets (wooh to the oil for food scandal)
2>I have used common sense in a direct logic statement above, followed with numbers to plug in. Morality is relative. If the end goal is to save lives, and to many here it seems it is, then my post was common sense and logical. Arguing morality is like arguing against religions - while it's great mental masturbation, it's a moot discussion.
3>Directly is the US military and insurgents a> capturing and slaughtering civilians b> using tactics such as car bombs to kill and spread fear to the populous
4>Saddam and the UN. We looked to end said sanctions, the rest of the UN, and the Arab world, looked to prolong them indefinitely
5>I dunno, Iraq? Afterall, they invaded Kuwait and did not leave even after the UN amassed a 500,000 person force near by.

 

[member 5645]

I wouldn't worry about them Omin.

What and odd statement to make in the middle of a worthwhile discussion...

 

[Burnsys]

America Gov. has no moral autorithy to invade irak, not after rumsfeld helped suport sadam in power.. give him helicopters, chemical weapons precursors, and inteligence to help him... Ohh right saddam had tricked rumsfeld into thinking he was a good person. hahaha. what hipocracy..

Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/


Declassified Documents of U.S. Support for Hussein,"
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/sp_world_battle022703.htm

 

[omin]

America Gov. has no moral autorithy to invade irak, not after rumsfeld helped suport sadam in power.. give him helicopters, chemical weapons precursors, and inteligence to help him... Ohh right saddam had tricked rumsfeld into thinking he was a good person. hahaha. what hipocracy..

Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/


Declassified Documents of U.S. Support for Hussein,"
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/sp_world_battle022703.htm

Those helicopters and weapons were paid for. The right to bear arms was actually operating fine back then. We should have remaind friends. Iraq would not be a mess today.

 

[Gza]

Don't worry Omin, Bush is in power for another 4 years, he'll figure out the right thing to do.