• News

Originally posted by Integral0 8000+ is an exaggeration . . . but you can double that number when you consider the thousands upon thousands of Kurds that were killed by Saddam's regime.
1) http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ Check out their sources. It is no exaggeration.

2) Iraqi kurds tended to fear the Turkish more than Saddam. Do you by any chance have a reliable figure for the number of kurds Saddam killed? I have been told it is in the hundreds of thousands, but I'm not certain.

Bombing was justified . . . in order to oust Saddam.
1) Personally, I don't think two wrongs make a right. I don't think the deaths caused by Saddam Hussein make it okay to bomb the hell out of civilian populations.

2) I have a question for you. If you lived in Iraq, and disliked Saddam Hussein, would you consider it acceptable for some foreign military to bomb and kill YOUR family in the attempt to remove Saddam? If not, then do you think there is anyone in the world who would answer "yes" to that question?

Originally posted by kat
This is ridiculous, you don't know what the families are thinking or feeling, and you don't have a right to speak for them. Having had a family member die by U.S. bombs doesn't disallow having had a family member or members die to the horrors of Saddam. They very well may be celebrating. Not for you to say. Just rubbish.

Yeah. Let's assume they are happy about cluster bombs killing their family members.

Your reply doesn't make any sense, it doesn't even respond to my statements. But...please...let's not ass-u-me anything cause you know what assuming does.

Originally posted by FZ+
Reactions?
Dad gets his xmas present a couple of weeks early.

The trial should prove interesting and I'm wondering how much censorship will be involved.

Monique
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member

The trial should prove interesting and I'm wondering how much censorship will be involved.
Censorship of what?

Zero
I don't think this matters, even if it is true. Would the U.S. cease to exist if you kill Bush? This is a blip on the radar, frankly. Nothing will change either way, except to possibly escalate the violence.

Hmmmm...do you think this will go by international tribunal? Somehow, I doubt it.

Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
what about bin laden? he's the one they really should be after...

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
If we're going to go back and rehearse who had an alliance with Saddam, may I bring up Ronald Reagan?

Zero
Originally posted by Kerrie
what about bin laden? he's the one they really should be after...
Well, again, doesn't really matter...except that mopping up Al Qaida should have been a priority over Iraq.

GENIERE
The only reason I would not vote for President Bush in 2004 is if he did turn over Hussein to an international court. I’m ok with having the Iraqis try him. I’m ok with our coalition partners being involved. The trial will be in a courtroom fully accessible to the media of all countries.

I’m not surprised to hear a micro-cephalic CNN reporter state he almost felt sorry for Saddam because of his wretched appearance.

GENIERE
FZ+
A show trial is the worst possible consequence of this development. If Bush was to say something like this, the situation can majorly backfire.
Show trial? You better believe it will be a “show trial”. It will be, and should be staged to promote the US agenda. That agenda is promoting the freedom, security and prosperity of all the world’s citizens.
Finding the whereabouts of WMD is now certain. I suspect the French and German leaders are dreading the prospect of his interrogation that will reveal their alliance with him.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
An intriguing logic, this assuming conclusions and waiting for supporting facts.
True but, in my excitement of the moment, a strong suspicion is sufficient.
Let it be a moment to reach out and reconcile."

This may be the most postive outcome - switching from visiting blood vengence on former officials to rebuilding Iraq as viably independent.
I’m amenable to Tony Blair’s suggestion as long as Chirac and Schroeder bear olive branches and exhibit a duly submissive posture and, of course, relieve the Iraqi people of their debt burden.

1) http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ Check out their sources. It is no exaggeration.

2) Iraqi kurds tended to fear the Turkish more than Saddam. Do you by any chance have a reliable figure for the number of kurds Saddam killed? I have been told it is in the hundreds of thousands, but I'm not certain.

1) Personally, I don't think two wrongs make a right. I don't think the deaths caused by Saddam Hussein make it okay to bomb the hell out of civilian populations.

2) I have a question for you. If you lived in Iraq, and disliked Saddam Hussein, would you consider it acceptable for some foreign military to bomb and kill YOUR family in the attempt to remove Saddam? If not, then do you think there is anyone in the world who would answer "yes" to that question?

WOW, WHAT A RELIABLE SOURCE (sarcasm). http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
You're basing your assumptions on a "Peace Propaganda" website??? How revering is a site that has an airplane dropping bombs and saying quotes like "Iraqi Body Count". Instead of being a report for assumed deaths its more or less a caricature of what may or may not be happening. Next time there is an assassination, I'll make a website that details people who were assassinated. I'll also make sure to post pictures of sniper rifles, AK-47's, and bombs to show "how-to: the assassinating process". OH! Of COURSE! The website will be against the proliferation of assassination BUT what better way to get the message out than to show pictures of guns and listings of people who have been assassinated.

Sorry, Adam, I DON'T ESTIMATE A FIGURE FOR THE NUMBER OF DEATHS. "Reliable"??? What are the constrains of "RELIABLE"? Do you ever watch or read different perspectives on an issue???

"baby-talk" Do you ever notice that some news stations broadcast one point of view and other's another???? For example, the USA broadcasted images of Iraqi's being liberated when the US troops entered Iraqi. The opposition, OF COURSE, broadcasted "human trespasses", "violations of human rights", and "anti-war propaganda".

"2) I have a question for you. If you lived in Iraq, and disliked Saddam Hussein, would you consider it acceptable for some foreign military to bomb and kill YOUR family in the attempt to remove Saddam? If not, then do you think there is anyone in the world who would answer "yes" to that question?"

Well, Adam, "yes". You know why? Oh, I know what you are going to say: "You don't know or understand b/c it hasn't happened!". Well let me give you an analogy -> a doctor cannot guarantee everyone of his patients that they will live through an operation. Would you consider it acceptable if your loved one died at the ends of a Doctor b/c maybe he didn't do something right or didn't act fast enough or made a mistake??? Your moral question would prompt most people to say "no", but then why don't you consider that most moral people would say that those bombs weren't dropped on purpose on those families. The people who decide where to bomb => they are "in this world" ("If not, then do you think there is anyone in the world"). Don't you think morally that they did not want to Kill those families and the people who have been affected by the bombing?

You need to realize that "we" cannot guarantee that everybody lives through a conflict. Some scarifices are justifiable! For what you purpose to do is more of a loop-hole than what the USA is doing for Iraq. Rational people need to take a stand in order to allievate others not competent enough to do it themselves. Every action I do causes a multitude of other reactions . . . so in the end . . . I can never make things "right". It just depends on the path we choose and how we decide to live our lives. I stand for liberty and democracy . . . as purposed by JOHN LOCKE. If people like me can sum up enough strength to help those in need, I'll do it no matter the consequences of my actions.

HIP HIP HOORAY USA!

Oh, I agree that Saddam Hussein is a nasty guy, and in the long run Iraq will probably be better off without him. However, I do not agree with the method of removal, and I do not approve of the lies involved with the invasion.

I just want to say Adam I totally agree with you and don't want to say anything else!

russ_watters
Mentor
Originally posted by Zero
I don't think this matters, even if it is true. Would the U.S. cease to exist if you kill Bush? This is a blip on the radar, frankly. Nothing will change either way, except to possibly escalate the violence.
You are right that who is president at any one time isn't all that important to our national identity, but in a dictatorship, the dictator IS the country.

As for the iraqbodycount site, you can cut the number in half for a start since it includes both individual incidents and reports of monthly totals, effectively counting every death twice. Then you can cut it in half again (at least) as despite what the site says, it does NOT differentiate between combatants and non-combatants. Then you can cut it in half again as it does not differentiate between those killed by the US and those killed by Iraqis.

Then it would fit with the more credible evidence estimates I've heard of around 2,000 civilians killed by US forces. Besides being no higher than the number killed by Saddam during the war, it is LOWER than the number that would have died during that time period had Saddam remained in power (based on deathrates prior to the war).

In any case though, yeah, the debate on the overall war has been beaten to death. Viewed on its own, this is a great piece of news.

Last edited:
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Hey GENIERE - you forgot the Aussies (again?)
Good ol' Johnie's nose is browner than most.

Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
What would come up in an open court?

If we're going to go back and rehearse who had an alliance with Saddam, may I bring up Ronald Reagan?
This may be an area where whatever Saddam chooses to present in his own defence gets censored.

The extent to which the US Administration's support of Saddam contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands (millions?) of innocent civilians won't make for pleasant viewing (the UK's role is somewhat less than untarnished too).

- there's no credible Iraqi court, jurisdiction, or competent counsel to try Saddam locally any time soon (the most competent local lawyers are Baathists; other competent lawyers are not Iraqi)
- corollory: any local trial any time soon will be a sham
- any trial without genuine Iraqi involvement (perception matters more than reality) will not be very satisfactory
- any trial which has the possibility of a death sentence instantly rules out international approval; this includes the EU (yes Adrian, including the UK), ICC, the UN, ...
- any trial which the US runs (or facilitates) will surely include death as a possible outcome, thereby guarranteeing further strife and dissention

Can we expect now to see an announcement that Bush is going after some African despots, still in power, who have been responsible for up to 10 times as many civilian deaths as Saddam was? Should the SLORC (in Burma/Myanmar) be quaking in its boots?

GENIERE
Nereid-

Hey GENIERE - you forgot the Aussies (again?)
Good ol' Johnie's nose is browner than most.

Sorry, I guess I can tolerate Johnny, but there are too few Mel Gibson’s.

Integral0

WOW, WHAT A RELIABLE SOURCE (sarcasm). http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
You're basing your assumptions on a "Peace Propaganda" website???
1) You really need a lesson in logic and debating. Start here: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm And in particular, read this one: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

2) As I said, check the sources. You obviously didn't. Until you have read the material and thus have an informed opinion, I suggest you sit on the sidelines and stop making a fool of yourself.

How revering is a site that has an airplane dropping bombs and saying quotes like "Iraqi Body Count". Instead of being a report for assumed deaths its more or less a caricature of what may or may not be happening.
Caricature? Your personal opinion only. Again, you clearly did not actually read the material. Go and do so.

Sorry, Adam, I DON'T ESTIMATE A FIGURE FOR THE NUMBER OF DEATHS. "Reliable"??? What are the constrains of "RELIABLE"? Do you ever watch or read different perspectives on an issue???
1) You really need a lesson in logic and debating. Start here: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm And in particular, read this one: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

2) As I said, check the sources. You obviously didn't. Until you have read the material and thus have an informed opinion, I suggest you sit on the sidelines and stop making a fool of yourself.

"baby-talk" Do you ever notice that some news stations broadcast one point of view and other's another???? For example, the USA broadcasted images of Iraqi's being liberated when the US troops entered Iraqi. The opposition, OF COURSE, broadcasted "human trespasses", "violations of human rights", and "anti-war propaganda".
1) In Australia we get news shows from over a dozen countries.

2) Just for you: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

Well, Adam, "yes". You know why? Oh, I know what you are going to say: "You don't know or understand b/c it hasn't happened!". Well let me give you an analogy -> a doctor cannot guarantee everyone of his patients that they will live through an operation. Would you consider it acceptable if your loved one died at the ends of a Doctor b/c maybe he didn't do something right or didn't act fast enough or made a mistake??? Your moral question would prompt most people to say "no", but then why don't you consider that most moral people would say that those bombs weren't dropped on purpose on those families. The people who decide where to bomb => they are "in this world" ("If not, then do you think there is anyone in the world"). Don't you think morally that they did not want to Kill those families and the people who have been affected by the bombing?
You're full of it. I do not believe you would stand over the bombed corpses of your family members and say "Well, it was worth it. Sorry guys, but this for the best."

You need to realize that "we" cannot guarantee that everybody lives through a conflict. Some scarifices are justifiable!
You say that because it was not your family that died. It was not a war in your home town. When it happens there, and your family lies dead at your feet, get back to me. Then tell me how justifiable it is.

For what you purpose to do is more of a loop-hole than what the USA is doing for Iraq. Rational people need to take a stand in order to allievate others not competent enough to do it themselves.
That is precisely the rationalisation employed by the settlers of the Americas when they destroyed cultures, and killed millions of native Americans. The same as was used here in Australia. "Kill some, change the rest, and it's all for their own benefit." However, as history shows us, the rationalisation is a lie, and the results are generally negative.

I stand for liberty and democracy
As long as it involves imposing your ways on others, at the end of a gun? Right.

. . . as purposed by JOHN LOCKE.
One again, read and learn: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm Basically, an appeal to authority can be saying what you jsut said: "Someone famous once said {insert platitude here} so it must be true!"

If people like me can sum up enough strength to help those in need, I'll do it no matter the consequences of my actions.
Please go and tell that to those in Baghdad whose families are now dead. I'm sure they appreciate your Manifest Destiny type righteousness.

Last edited by a moderator:
Joy To The World?

Oh yes, joy to the world, God (Bush) has saved us all from the Satan Saddam.

Only problem is;
http://www.fatdawg.com/rumsfeldlies.html
A couple of Iraqis died in the FIRST Gulf War (anybody remember that whitewash?).
http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20030216casualty0216p5.asp
Just in case you didn’t believe the first links, heres INFALLIBLE CNN.
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/ [Broken]
“Gulf War Facts
The Coalition
The Allied coalition consisted of 34 countries, including Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, The United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The U.S. had more than 500,000 troops in the Persian Gulf War, while the non-U.S. coalition forces equaled roughly 160,000, or 24 percent, of all forces. Here are some details about the forces in the Gulf:
U.S. casualties: 148 battle deaths, 145 nonbattle deaths

Army: 98 battle; 105 nonbattle
Navy: 6 battle; 8 nonbattle
Marines: 24 battle; 26 nonbattle
Air Force: 20 battle; 6 nonbattle
Women killed: 15

U.S. wounded in action: 467

British casualties: 24, nine by U.S. fire

British wounded in action: 10

French casualties: 2

French wounded in action: 25 (estimated)

Allied Arab casualties: 39

Allied combat air sorties flown: More than 116,000

Coalition aircraft losses: 75 (63 U.S., 12 Allied)

Fixed wing: 37 combat, 15 noncombat (U.S. losses -- 28 combat, 12 noncombat; no U.S. losses in air-to-air engagements)
Helicopters: 5 combat, 18 noncombat (all U.S.)
Iraq
In June 1991, the U.S. estimated that more than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, 300,000 were wounded, 150,000 deserted and 60,000 were taken prisoner. Many human rights groups claimed a much higher number of Iraqis were killed in action. According to Baghdad, civilian casualties numbered more than 35,000. However, since the war, some scholars have concluded that the number of Iraqi soldiers who were killed was significantly less than initially reported.
Estimated Iraqi Losses: (Reported by U.S. Central Command, March 7, 1991)

36 fixed-wing aircraft in air-to-air engagements
6 helicopters in air-to-air engagements
68 fixed- and 13 rotary-wing aircraft destroyed on the ground
137 Iraqi aircraft flown to Iran
3,700 of 4,280 battle tanks
2,400 of 2,870 assorted other armored vehicles
2,600 of 3,110 assorted artillery pieces
19 naval ships sunk, 6 damaged

Enemy prisoners of war captured: U.S. forces released 71,204 to Saudi control.
The Cost
The U.S. Department of Defense has estimated the cost of the Gulf War at $61 billion; however, other sources say that number could be as high as$71 billion. The operation was financed by more than $53 billion pledged by countries around the world, most of which came from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States ($36 billion) and Germany and Japan (\$16 billion). Some of the money pledged by countries such as Saudi Arabia was delivered in the form of in-kind services to troops, such as transportation and food."

I won’t bother mentioning 10 years worth of sanctions casualties (conservative estimate – 1 million civilians).
You guys **** all over your war veterans. I believe Saddam actually supported the sick and crippled from the First Gulf War. What does the US do?
http://www.paydaynet.org/Vets [Broken]'%20children%20with%20birth%20defects.htm

Whose the Devil? Saddam/Bush? Its not so clear cut. I suspect Saddam will be tried in a CLOSED COURT. I mean we wouldn’t want all those CIA/NSA PAYROLL connections to come out, would we?
And another thing, if the US had SADDAM’s DNA, whose DON’T they have?

Last edited by a moderator:
russ_watters
Mentor
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting link, a scientific approach to flaming

Last edited:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm

"The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps."

A-OH. . . someone doesn't practice what they preach!!!

There is a word for this -> Hypocrite.

I thought peace activists want "peace"??? Its nice how you opinion has been clearly stated in "peaceful" sounding language opposing my position.

Adam, I am not proud of what my people did to the Native Americans many years ago. The past is a powerful lesson. One past lesson you should be aware of is "cruel dictator regimes need to be ousted".

Need proof? 1) Pinochet 2)Trujuillo

I'm sure you are not even thankful the US of A bailed out Australian in WW2. My grandfather was fighting for your people in the pacific arena and now you treat our country like ****?

People like you don't make progress, they hinder it. If the USA listened to people like you . . . Europe would of been destroyed by Hitler and Australia would be part of Japan AND we would't have CAPTURED SADDAM.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Although your "eloquent" language was so proper "mate". I know you feel sorry. "G'day!"

P.S. Make sure you follow your website more closely . . . do a little more reading next time before you decide to criticise other people's personal character.

Last edited by a moderator:
Zero
OK, children...I think we are done here.