Artysim,

I don't doubt the statements you underlined, so what's your point?

Mistakes were made, but it's not those details that George Bush is condemned for.

I have to disagree with the term "illegal war" though. It's propaganda and nothing else to call a war "illegal".

Saddam's Iraq did violate a cease-fire and did fire at British and American aircraft. Reacting to that is NOT illegal, not according to international or any applicable law in the world.

Saddam's government was linked to terrorism as thousands of posters in the Palestinian territories still prove. He did give money to Palestinian terrorists. And while he was no supporter of the Wahabi nutters who attacked New York, his support for terrorism was absolutely something that had to be stopped.

As for the WMD's, that was specifically mentioned in the article above. The fact is that they did find WMD's, that it was reported, and that you and other are still using the lie that Saddam had no WMD's EVEN in a direct reply to an article that points out that it is a lie.

So I agree with everything you say, except that the war was "illegal", because claiming that it was is pure propaganda and has no impact on the morality of the invasion, and the lie that Saddam had no WMD's, because some were found.

Do you think the American invasion of Normandy was "legal" according to whatever law you use here?

You can certainly blame George Bush (and me) for that misjudgment. Neo-conservative ideology does indeed state that all races and peoples, including Arabs, are capable of living peacefully in a free society.

But George Bush is now being accused of being an anti-Arab racist AND a believer that Iraq's society could be reformed. It's impossible for him to be both.




Due to terrorist attacks... on the plus side, we don't hear of starvation and the shortage of medicines any more.

In Kurdistan reconstruction is going ahead well and the benefits can be seen quite clearly.

A million bodies over five years is actually not that difficult to get rid of- a nation disposes of far more physical garbage in landfills when comparing the physical mass. It's the same problem as Chechnya- no one can really say how many people have died there because the Russians don't want to air their dirty laundry to the world and it's not a very friendly environment for journalists.

In Rwanda nearly one million people were killed over the course of 100 days, which exceeded the tempo the Nazis achieved in most of their death camps. And most of the killing in Rwanda was done with machetes. 

This report was produced by Iraqi doctors and epidemiologists from John Hopkins university- and I quote-

"Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for many years, called the survey method "tried and true," and added that "this is the best estimate of mortality we have."

The survey was conducted between May 20 and July 10 by eight Iraqi physicians organized through Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. They visited 1,849 randomly selected households that had an average of seven members each. One person in each household was asked about deaths in the 14 months before the invasion and in the period after.

The interviewers asked for death certificates 87 percent of the time; when they did, more than 90 percent of households produced certificates.

According to the survey results, Iraq's mortality rate in the year before the invasion was 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people; in the post-invasion period it was 13.3 deaths per 1,000 people per year. The difference between these rates was used to calculate "excess deaths."

Of the 629 deaths reported, 87 percent occurred after the invasion. A little more than 75 percent of the dead were men, with a greater male preponderance after the invasion. For violent post-invasion deaths, the male-to-female ratio was 10-to-1, with most victims between 15 and 44 years old.

Gunshot wounds caused 56 percent of violent deaths, with car bombs and other explosions causing 14 percent, according to the survey results. Of the violent deaths that occurred after the invasion, 31 percent were caused by coalition forces or airstrikes, the respondents said.

Burnham said that the estimate of Iraq's pre-invasion death rate -- 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people -- found in both of the Hopkins surveys was roughly the same estimate used by the CIA and the U.S. Census Bureau. He said he believes that attests to the accuracy of his team's results.

He thinks further evidence of the survey's robustness is that the steepness of the upward trend it found in excess deaths in the last two years is roughly the same tendency found by other groups -- even though the actual numbers differ greatly.

The survey cost about $50,000 and was paid for by Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Center for International Studies."

Apples and Oranges Leauki

1) The United States and Germany were in a formal state of war with each other (they had both issued declarations of war against the other on the international stage)

The U.S never officially declared war on the State of Iraq when they invaded. Although the congress authorized use of force, there was never an actual declaration of war.

2) Germany had invaded and occupied France and many other countries. Also, Germany was officially allies with Japan who had attacked the U.S and were actively waging an aggressive war against the U.S.

When the U.S invaded Iraq they had not aggressively attacked ANYONE outside of their borders since the end of GW1. They were not a threat to anyone. They had not declared war on the U.S or allies with anyone who was officially at war with the U.S.

The "WMD"s you speak of were a few hundred artillery shells and a few short range rockets, holding mostly things like mustard and sarin gas, all of which was produced pre-1991. ALL nations keep stockpiles of chemical weapons in some way shape or form. The amount found was miniscule and obsolete in comparison to any actual arsenal. Hell, even here in Canada we've got far more chemical weapons stockpiled than Iraq had!

Well, actually, yes, it was. There are international laws regarding the declarations and states of war. The UN never mandated or approved the U.S invasion of Iraq. Only once it was over did they provide a mandate (which expires soon) acknowledging the U.S as the defacto rulers and occupiers of Iraq.

At it's core, it was a war of choice. There was no pressing urgent need to invade Iraq. There are far worse dictators and regimes that the U.S has actively supported and worked with because they were willing to play ball with the U.S (Kyrgystan and many of the smaller eastern-european, east-asian former soviet bloc countries come to mind)

 

Eh, no. While losing habeas Corpus means a lot, it is not in and of itself the loss of any other right. You can still do all the rest for the rest of your life, there is no law against it, or anyone out to "get you".

But the SCOTUS opinion your reference has nothing to do with your habeas Corpus, but that of the detainees at Gitmo. They did not preserve anything, they just EXTENDED the rights to armed combatants in a time of war. Now we all agree they are not POWs (and thus protected from our tyranny by the GC), and most of us will agree that they were Armed Combatants. So their ruling does not apply to POWs, just thugs that decide to bomb an embassy in a foreign land.

SCOTUS opinions are usually (not always of course) carefully crafted to address the issue at hand, without being as leaky as legislation (that more often than not has undesired consequences). This is such a case. I do not agree with their ruling, but like Algore, recognize they have the final say. So for now, non-american thugs got HC. I still have mine. Unlike my forefathers in about 1863.

Out of a total of 25 million? They would be noticed, and decidely so. Iraq is not the US, in population or size. The people touting those figures are doing so for hysterical value alone, not for any thoughtful dialog or to even remotely discuss the truth about Iraq.

You can be against the freeing of iraq and the disposal of Saddam (why? I guess even maniacal meglomaniac have some friends), you can be very much against the loss of American and allied lives - as after all, Iraqis dont vote or live next to you. We can even debate the intel that went into - the same intel Bill Clinton used, but somehow escapes loathing for using (and killing Iraqis). But when you start using Hysterical facts, then the discussion is over. And it becomes not a discussion of what is wrong or right, but about who can shout the loudest.

BUT - France at the time, the only government of France, was not at war with the US, and we invaded their territory. Picky? Yes, but then so is your comparison. Vichy France was not a threat to us in 44. And they were not shooting at us either.

I also believe that the War in Iraq is a branch/effect of the War on Terrorism. We knew Saddam Hussien was aiding terrorists so we went tin there and delt with him. Thats another key reason for this war, its not 100% about the nukes.

And by the way we are COMPLETELY justified to invade Iraq if they are:

1. Harboring and Aiding Terrorists 

2. Building weapons of mass destruction.

So they didnt commit the 2nd reason, they were still doing the first reason. We were simply defending ourselves and alot of the world by invading Iraq, not any of this other alterior motives bs.

From what I've picked up, didn't Saddam killed terrorist going into Iraqi borders from Iran? I heard this from a friend that visited Iraq before the war and told me that it was pretty peaceful (at least when you don't see the secret killings around).

- Dont look at the man behind the curtain.

Well, the methods used for getting these "hysterical" figures were standard that's done all over the world for a variety of metrics. And they're pretty accurate, tried tested and true methods that were being used. Nothing groundbreaking or fishy there. So what makes this any different? The whole issue behind the death toll in Iraq is that there's no body that's actually made an effort to figure out total casualties. Now it's officially handled by the Iraqi government but before that it was the CPA, who was too busy trying to rebuild a smashed country to worry about minor things like civillian casualties.

I never said I was against the disposal of Saddam. The fact that he was a monster is not justification for an illegal invasion of the state of Iraq. There are "maniacal megalomaniacs" in countries all over the world, many of whom were supported by the U.S so long as they acted in the U.S interests (Suharto, the Shah, Pinochet, the list is very long) So why hasn't the US invaded those countries to spread freedom to those oppressed peoples? And what right do we have to say that we can invade other countries as we please, even if they haven't done anything to harm us? That's called pre-emptive warfare and on the international stage it escalates and destabilizes everything! There's a whole lot more evidence and impetus to go after a country like N Korea than ever there was for Iraq (Yes I know that we're not technically at peace with N Korea as it's still just an armistice)

Well, you're right there in that I am very much against the loss of American lives. In fact I'm pretty much against the loss of most life.

Once again, please point out why these 'facts' are so hysterical. I posted a quote from a report that was conducted by the Massachusett's Institute of Technology working with staff from John Hopkins University who used well known, established polling methods to estimate the death rate in Iraq post-invasion. Why is that hysterical?

And lastly, I will never devolve into a 'shouting match' with you. While we may disagree I fully respect your opinion and enjoy these discussions!

~It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it~ Aristotle

In that case, you are justified to invade all of Europe. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were at one point living out of Europe. You are also justified to invade all of north Africa and the middleast. Stop number 1 should be Saudi Arabia as most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis!

Hi, Dr. Guy -

First, with regard to Bush admin obfuscation and attempted blocking of any investigation into 9/11, I refer you to Kristin Breitweiser's Book, "Wake Up Call". Just read the open letter to Ann Coulter in the back - shouldn't take more than ten minutes. Mrs. Breitweiser's husband was killed in the New York 9/11 attacks, and she was disbelieving when the Bush admin tried to kill any thought of an investigation. So, she and other 9/11 widows, who came to be called the "Jersey Girls", made it their cause to put public pressure on the administration to investigate. They were stonewalled every step of the way, and the final report was edited by the White House. At least one reference to the incompetence of Condi Rice was stricken.

One source for the Iraq civilian casualty figure since our invasion is a country-wide group of Iraqi physicians overseen by epidemiologists from Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health. The figure of 655,000 (about 500 a day) was published in the British Medical Journal "The Lancet", as reported by the Washington Post on October 11, 2006. There are plenty of other places to get similar numbers if you want to take the trouble.

Bush's Social Security reform wasn't passed because people all over the country from both parties let their elected reps know that it would be political suicide to vote for it. You're right, it's an exception (and a rare one) to the Republican Congress functioning as Dubya's rubber-stamp.

As to "habeas corpus", here we go for one more try. Bush claimed to power to declare anyone - anyone at all, an "illegal enemy combatant", according to criteria that are very vague. Such a person could then be detained indefinitely. Let's say this happened to you, Dr. Guy. You would be in prison, perhaps in Guantanomo. You would have no right to an attorney. You would have no right to a court date. You could be held literally forever. You wouldn't even have a right to know the charges against you. Are you with me so far? While in prison, you couldn't "bear" arms, you couldn't vote, you wouldn't be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures, and so on. You'd be in prison.

By the way, a former prosecutor, Vincent Bugliosi (guy who nailed Charles Manson) is making the case in a book that Bush could be tried for murder after his term in office is over. The rationale is that if Bush can be proved to have lied us into the Iraq War, he could be prosecuted for the murder of every American serviceperson killed in that war. PLEASE NOTE - I didn't say I agree with this - I didn't say I think it's a good idea. I am passing information without expressing an opinion.

For all you folks who say we did discover WMDs in Iraq, I'm very confused, as President Bush said in an interview in Britain just last week that we had not. Perhaps one of you should let him in on it, and me, too, while you're at it.

Oh, and while Saddam may have been aiding terrorists, by giving money to the families of suicide bombers in the Israeli theatre, he has never been proven to have aided Al Qaeda. He was a secular Arab, and was loathed by Bin Laden, according to what I've read. And you can read it, too.

Would someone tell me please, specifically, just how Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a military threat to the United States? I seldom believe Condi or Colin, but in 2001 they both said that Iraq was no threat to anyone.

Cheers to all.

Apparently not since they inflate the actual figures by a factor of 10-20. Anyone who uses that kind of method is not employed long.



I was using the royal you as in anyone can be, not you in particular.



Which is fine and noble - but does not stop despots from taking it at will.



When you inflate casualty figures by a factor of 10-20 (not percent, multiples), it no longer becomes a discussion of facts and reasons, but who can out gross the other. Simply put, the figures of 1 million killed since the occupation have been shown to be patently stupid and virtually impossible (not totally as sure, they may have sent the bodies to the moon on a space shuttle I suppose). A reasoned discussion/debate begins with reality, not wishful figures.



I appoligize, as I indicated earlier here, I had not meant You Artysim, but You as in "Someone can". You have always been a great debater and a sound voice of reason for the Left - even when I know I am Right (pun intended).

Would one of you folks on the right address the Nuremberg Principles, please?  We not only were adherents to them, we helped write them, and used them to prosecute (and hang) people who we felt had not followed the principles laid out in them.  In other words, the principles laid out in them were so obvious that they should not have had to be written out.

It's easy to simply disregard every argument put forth that you don't like.  I'm finding a lot of that here.  A good example is the figure of 500,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqi civilian casualties.  You have been told who came up with the figure, you've been told how the figure was arrived at, and if you've tried to find a source to dispute it or debunk it, you haven't said so.  Rather, you've just said it's nonsense.

In February of 2001, Colin Powell in Cairo said:  "He (Saddam) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.  He is unable to project conventional force against his neighbors."

May, 2001, Powell said that Saddam hadn't been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction for the last 10 years."  He went on to say that the United States had kept Saddam "in a box."

In July, 2001, Condi Rice said of Saddam:  "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country.  We are able to keep his arms from him.  His military forces have not been rebuilt."

It was statements like these, added to the fact that weapons inspectors were crawling all over Iraq, that made much of the world skeptical about Bush's veracity.  And later, it was the release of the Downing Street Memo (which, contrary to claims made on this site, has never been proved to be anything other than authentic) that actually demonstrated that Iraq was a war of choice, and therefore a "war of aggression", as defined in the Nuremberg Principles.

If any one of you really thinks that a third-world country with a fourth-world army (one that in eight years could not even beat Iran, for heaven's sake) was a military threat to the United States, please explain it to me.  Saddam was a secular Arab who had no truck with Al Qaeda - he loathed them, and they loathed him.  Yes he supported terrorist organizations - who attacked Israel.  He had nothing to do with 9/11.  Was his army going to board cruise ships and invade New Jersey?