Iraq war, your opinions?

[Lenticular_J]

Both sides are being overstated. We weren't the saviors of Iraq, we killed people that didn't have to be killed. But we killed far, far, far less than Saddam's regime.

 

 

 

We are better than Saddam. In the few casualty reports I've seen, collateral casualties for Iraqis were just under 36,000. I read this quite a long time ago, however it was still directly after the bombings. I believe complete and total lives lost due to bombings and killings (accidental or not) were around 100,000 in the past five years. A staggering number, but nonetheless we didn't purposefully commit genocide that ended up killing well over 500,000 within less time than us. This number is still growing, as mass graves are being unearthed regularly. If you're thinking in terms purely of lives lost, we are better than Saddam. Not to mention we didn't attempt religious genocide.

 

 

 

We've killed people. I seriously doubt anyone's proud of that. But to compare unwonted civilian casualties as a result of cluster bombing to genocide? Completely ludicrous.

 

 

 

I really believe someone should just make a topic to cover Iraq in its entirety. Should help a bit.

[RichieMcD]

^^ Your really overstating that. One thousand people died from the bombing. It's not like the whole country was flattened and millions were killed.

 

 

 

Source on your miraculously low claim of 1000 people? as this site begs to differ {source}

[jackattack]

^^ Oh silly me it's actually less.

 

 

 

As this sight begs to differ...

 

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/n ... ter-bombs/

 

 

 

And only one person was killed directly by cluster bombs.

[Tom_Servo]

^^ Your really overstating that. One thousand people died from the bombing. It's not like the whole country was flattened and millions were killed.

 

 

 

Source on your miraculously low claim of 1000 people? as this site begs to differ {source}

 

 

 

That, my friend, is a propaganda site and cannot be used as a source. And that graph also takes into account collateral damage from insurgent bombings, not just Collation collateral damage.

[jackattack]

^^ I wouldn't say that. They only use the documented deaths.

[baalboy5]

should I just change the title to "Iraq war, your opinions?'?

[jackattack]

If you wouldn't mind.

[Lenticular_J]

I believe that would be best, Baal.

[reaper88888]

Because the international banking families that control the U.S., along with various other countries have brainwashed the majority in the powerful nations, and are too rich and powerful for weaker nations to stop. Basically, they can run roughshod over whoever they want, because the people that could potentially stop them are being enslaved by entertainment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To put it a bit more simply, the people who are doing it are too powerful for most nations to stop, and the ones that could stop them simply don't care.

 

 

 

 

 

For additional information, try watching this. It is a tad long though, so be sure you have time:

 

 

 

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

[jackattack]

^^ I'm pretty sure I've seen that. Is that the one about 9/11 being set up by the U.S. and and nafta turning into a north American union and then a one world government? Ya thats probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Probably worse than loose change. The only good point is that income taxes are probably unconstitutional.

[Ginger_Warrior]

We are better than Saddam. In the few casualty reports I've seen, collateral casualties for Iraqis were just under 36,000. I read this quite a long time ago, however it was still directly after the bombings. I believe complete and total lives lost due to bombings and killings (accidental or not) were around 100,000 in the past five years. A staggering number, but nonetheless we didn't purposefully commit genocide that ended up killing well over 500,000 within less time than us. This number is still growing, as mass graves are being unearthed regularly. If you're thinking in terms purely of lives lost, we are better than Saddam. Not to mention we didn't attempt religious genocide.

 

There are areas of the world with much worse regimes. If saving people from persecution really was your prerogative here, then I have to wonder why you haven't marched into Zimbabwe or Sudan already.

[RichieMcD]

^^ Oh silly me it's actually less.

 

 

 

As this sight begs to differ...

 

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/n ... ter-bombs/

 

 

 

And only one person was killed directly by cluster bombs.

 

 

 

Did you read the table on the bottom of the amount of civilians killed by cluster bombs? Certainly amounts to more than 1.

[Lenticular_J]

We are better than Saddam. In the few casualty reports I've seen, collateral casualties for Iraqis were just under 36,000. I read this quite a long time ago, however it was still directly after the bombings. I believe complete and total lives lost due to bombings and killings (accidental or not) were around 100,000 in the past five years. A staggering number, but nonetheless we didn't purposefully commit genocide that ended up killing well over 500,000 within less time than us. This number is still growing, as mass graves are being unearthed regularly. If you're thinking in terms purely of lives lost, we are better than Saddam. Not to mention we didn't attempt religious genocide.

 

There are areas of the world with much worse regimes. If saving people from persecution really was your prerogative here, then I have to wonder why you haven't marched into Zimbabwe or Sudan already.

 

Ad how is that relevant to Iraq? I never said we were trying to save people from persecution, as pointed out before our main goal was (false) WMDs. You claimed a lot of things that were false, I proved you wrong, and now you're trying to change the subject.

 

 

 

Also, I wouldn't trust the iraqbodycount.org website fully. I'm not saying to trust the Pentagon fully, either.

 

 

 

And on the subject of zeitgeist? The guy(s?) who made that are complete loons. I've seen it, and laughed harder than I ever had before. Except when I saw a squirrel on waterskis. Heh, he was good. But, yeah, it's just a bunch of crazies who took the book 1984 a tad too seriously, I reckon.

[Kriegsmier]

We are better than Saddam. In the few casualty reports I've seen, collateral casualties for Iraqis were just under 36,000. I read this quite a long time ago, however it was still directly after the bombings. I believe complete and total lives lost due to bombings and killings (accidental or not) were around 100,000 in the past five years. A staggering number, but nonetheless we didn't purposefully commit genocide that ended up killing well over 500,000 within less time than us. This number is still growing, as mass graves are being unearthed regularly. If you're thinking in terms purely of lives lost, we are better than Saddam. Not to mention we didn't attempt religious genocide.

 

There are areas of the world with much worse regimes. If saving people from persecution really was your prerogative here, then I have to wonder why you haven't marched into Zimbabwe or Sudan already.

 

Ad how is that relevant to Iraq? I never said we were trying to save people from persecution, as pointed out before our main goal was (false) WMDs. You claimed a lot of things that were false, I proved you wrong, and now you're trying to change the subject.

 

 

 

Truth. We like to help people, but it is our best intrest to deal with current threats to us, then take care of everything else. Yeah yeah i know....no WMDs etc etc. Iraq has the money (well saddam had the money) to pose a threat to the US, Whether that be civilians traveling abroad or troops stationed abroad. Money and means is something that a 3rd world african country engulfed in civil war does not have. They pose no threat to other, just themselves. Take care of the imediate threat. Iraq/Saddam was like a new age Hitler, these African countries arn't looking to take over the world. Sudan is fighting Sudan...Iraq was fighting Kuwait, and is always fueding with Iran.

 

 

 

Point is, Iraq is not fighting a civil war, the african countries are.

[Makoto_the_Phoenix]

Firstly, I think that I'll answer the OP's original question point-blank, and I believe that it's been answered. To declare war, the President of the United States must convince Congress that a declaration of war is in the best interests of the nation. Not sure how any other nation does it; if someone is a tyrant/overlord, all they'd really have to do is point at a country on the map.

 

 

 

We are better than Saddam. In the few casualty reports I've seen, collateral casualties for Iraqis were just under 36,000. I read this quite a long time ago, however it was still directly after the bombings. I believe complete and total lives lost due to bombings and killings (accidental or not) were around 100,000 in the past five years. A staggering number, but nonetheless we didn't purposefully commit genocide that ended up killing well over 500,000 within less time than us. This number is still growing, as mass graves are being unearthed regularly. If you're thinking in terms purely of lives lost, we are better than Saddam. Not to mention we didn't attempt religious genocide.

 

There are areas of the world with much worse regimes. If saving people from persecution really was your prerogative here, then I have to wonder why you haven't marched into Zimbabwe or Sudan already.

 

Ad how is that relevant to Iraq? I never said we were trying to save people from persecution, as pointed out before our main goal was (false) WMDs. You claimed a lot of things that were false, I proved you wrong, and now you're trying to change the subject.

 

 

 

Okay, firstly, Ginger_Warrior is correct. Saddam's regime was far more tame than the genocides that have been going on for two decades in the African nations, and even now in Cambodia. Of course, since there's no political gain that can be had by helping those nations out, we don't even hear about it in the news. I'm not saying that what Saddam did was any better than what is going on now, but genocide is serious business.

 

 

 

I'm also somewhat surprised that you missed the relevance to Iraq, too. The first reason we went over there was to combat terrorism. Then it was to fight WMD on a humanitarian scale. If the latter were true, we'd definitely be involved in the African and Cambodian nations right now.

[magekillr]

There are areas of the world with much worse regimes. If saving people from persecution really was your prerogative here, then I have to wonder why you haven't marched into Zimbabwe or Sudan already.

 

 

 

Lol, Ginger, Americans can't locate Zimbabwe on a globe, let alone care or know about what is going on there. I mean I could blame the media, because I can't remember the last time something that I would consider news worthy was on any major television station here, but really it trickles down from the public and what gives ratings. People here obviously couldn't care what goes on there, and I don't think our government does either, as their resources have practically been stripped bare.

[Kriegsmier]

There are areas of the world with much worse regimes. If saving people from persecution really was your prerogative here, then I have to wonder why you haven't marched into Zimbabwe or Sudan already.

 

 

 

Lol, Ginger, Americans can't locate Zimbabwe on a globe, let alone care or know about what is going on there. I mean I could blame the media, because I can't remember the last time something that I would consider news worthy was on any major television station here, but really it trickles down from the public and what gives ratings. People here obviously couldn't care what goes on there, and I don't think our government does either, as their resources have practically been stripped bare.

 

 

 

Nice generalization of Americans there. Oh yes since our president lacks a little less then normal brain power in some situations, that must mean ALL americans are dumb. Thanks for making yourself look like an arrogant ignorant R tard.

[magekillr]

There are areas of the world with much worse regimes. If saving people from persecution really was your prerogative here, then I have to wonder why you haven't marched into Zimbabwe or Sudan already.

 

 

 

Lol, Ginger, Americans can't locate Zimbabwe on a globe, let alone care or know about what is going on there. I mean I could blame the media, because I can't remember the last time something that I would consider news worthy was on any major television station here, but really it trickles down from the public and what gives ratings. People here obviously couldn't care what goes on there, and I don't think our government does either, as their resources have practically been stripped bare.

 

 

 

Nice generalization of Americans there. Oh yes since our president lacks a little less then normal brain power in some situations, that much mean ALL americans are dumb. Thanks for making yourself look like an arrogant ignorant R tard.

 

 

 

I'd put money on it that 1 in 4 Americans, tops, wouldn't know Zimbabwe is a country, and I'd raise the stakes a bit that not even 5% could locate it on a map. It's a fact that Americans are horrible at Geography, so I don't see how this is such a farce.

[Lenticular_J]

1 in four Americans wouldn't know it's a country? Kinda going against yourself there, aren't you?

 

 

 

By the way, Makoto, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge regime isn't committing such a genocide anymore. In fact, they're near wiped out from what I've last read. I'm not saying that Saddam is the worst. I'm saying, we're talking about Iraq. Not Zimbabwe, not Sudan, not Cambodia. It's irrelevant to talk about those places in a discussion about Iraq.

[1_man_army]

1 in four Americans wouldn't know it's a country? Kinda going against yourself there, aren't you?

 

 

 

 

Knowing where it is and knowing that it is a country are two different things.

[Ginger_Warrior]

1 in four Americans wouldn't know it's a country? Kinda going against yourself there, aren't you?

 

 

 

By the way, Makoto, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge regime isn't committing such a genocide anymore. In fact, they're near wiped out from what I've last read. I'm not saying that Saddam is the worst. I'm saying, we're talking about Iraq. Not Zimbabwe, not Sudan, not Cambodia. It's irrelevant to talk about those places in a discussion about Iraq.

 

No, you and jack seem to have decreed this topic is about Iraq. The rest of us are still debating war as a whole.

 

 

 

Therefore, discussing justifications for the war in Iraq by comparing the state of Iraq's government compared to others in the world in entirely relevant. If you can't see that, that's your problem.

[meol]

By the way, Makoto, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge regime isn't committing such a genocide anymore. In fact, they're near wiped out from what I've last read. I'm not saying that Saddam is the worst. I'm saying, we're talking about Iraq. Not Zimbabwe, not Sudan, not Cambodia. It's irrelevant to talk about those places in a discussion about Iraq.

 

The main reason for your going into Iraq were these supposed WMD's, but later reports showed that no such weapons existed. When questioned about why you stayed there after these reports, the most common justification is: "we fight against a dictator, for the freedom and democracy in Iraq".

 

 

 

Then, the question arises; if there are such constant fights for such ideals (ever since the Cold War), why has there never been military action against other such regimes, like those mentioned above? Or, why did you stay (and still stay there) after those reports?

[magekillr]

1 in four Americans wouldn't know it's a country? Kinda going against yourself there, aren't you?

 

 

 

 

How does it go against me? I can locate it, and I know it exists. The fact that I am American really doesn't mean much to me. Check my Nationalism thread.

[Lenticular_J]

I was poking fun at you for a typo, mage. I'm pretty sure you meant would, not wouldn't. :P

 

 

 

And as to Ginger, we were talking about the Iraq War. Baalboy asked if he should change the title to "Iraq War, Your Opinions?" (although he hasn't yet). As far as I can see, that makes it about Iraq. We can go ahead and debate other things, but I'm probably going to be a lot more ignorant on them than Iraq...IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ

 

 

 

 

 

Meol, I never said it was a justification for the war (anymore). I'd like to pull out. Why do people seem to think I'm along the exact same viewpoint as Jack? If anything, I'm trying to be in the middle of both sides in this issue, rather than an extreme.

[RichieMcD]

It's not against you lent, it's more again George Bush's claim that the American army is in there to free them from a tyrant and them let them live in a democracy and the others who love that opinion in this thread, if this is true, why haven't they entered Sudan? Why haven't they entered Chechnya? Why haven't they entered areas where there is so much worse genocides and civil wars going on? 2 things these areas have in common, the civil wars / genocides going on there were worse but neither area were abundant in oil.