Did Bush manipulate Iraq data?

[Chaerophon]

Yeah, because we weren't trying to do the exact same thing at the time.

[Feryar]

Also, Isreal has been restrained again and again by the US. Isreal could do much more.

I have no doubts about that. I regard Israel as a terrorist state, and it's a good thing someone is holding their leash. I just wish the US would stop feeding them weapons.

The US goes out of its way to attack only military targets and is highly successful in minimizing civilian casualties. All the (unintentional!) foreign civilian deaths from Afghan and Iraq combined together don't add up to the number lost in New York City.

As others have already pointed out, your "numbers" on civilian casualities are a product of your imagination.
According to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm the number is between 5567 and 7240. And that is just in Iraq.
http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm reports 3000-3400 in Afghanistan.

In the almost 2 years since 9/11, much has been written about "why they hate us". Various conclusions have been reached by various authors. Do you think rational discourse can make the terrorists love us again? I don't.

No, but I think withdrawing troops from the middle east and stop supporting everything Israel does could be a good start. Do you really think these people are doing this because they don't like hamburgers?
You have a tendency to jump on peoples toes with your foreign policies and that is probably part of the explanation.
By default there is a whole continent AND a big ocean dividing you from these people, so you can't exactly blame it on bad neighbourhood either.

I'm not saying the US are to blame for all of this, but you need to start realizing that there are always two sides to a story, and that noone is pure good or pure evil. Both parts are to blame for the conflict between arabs and the US, but neither seems willing to accept an inch of responsibility for it. In my eyes that makes both parts equally guilty of the continuation of the conflict.

[Occhidiangela]

I refer to the estimates of 3200, 5000, 7,000 that I have seen in different stories on the subject. I doubt a 'body for body accounting' will ever be possible. But who are those 5000?

1. What is a civilian? First of all, wrong term, non combatant is the correct association. (Though dead is dead.)

2. Is a militia a non combatant or a combatant?

3. How many died from Iraq action, mistakes, and how many from bombs and missiles on the Coalition side. Hard to determine, and given how chaotic things were for the folks in Iraq in general, is it any wonder that perhaps the book keeping may not meet SEC standards?

4. Who gets attribution for using the population as human shields? (i.e. parking tanks in a nursery school playground) That is a blatant attempt to draw fire onto non-combatants, and a viloation of Geneva Accords. (Like Saddam ever cared) But then, dead is dead, and at this point it boils down to what I call 'zero value added finger pointing.' Which, of course, is what a great deal of politics is in the first place.

5. Would you care to imagine the real horror? Had the coalition decided to deliberately target non-combatants, how far into seven figures the body count would be? Modern weapons are frighteningly lethal and accurate. Put a different way, with efforts underway to 'mimimize collateral damage' some thousands still died.

What if the extraordinary care had not been taken? How many more would have perished. Those of you who have never worked in the targeting process (NATO's process has a high fidelity of similarity to the US process) have absolutely no clue as to how targets are chosen, how many are forbidden, and the degree of precision demanded and in most cases delivered.

Here's the problem, though, such as the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade: even if your accuracy/success rating is 99.5%, the lethality of the .05% of error, be it of a human or a mechanical/electrical nature, makes for a very deadly error. With 10000 weapons used, for example, there are 50 that miss. And when they miss, at least some of those are going to hit someone.

That is a very sobering thought.

And for what it's worth, consider the much covered 'four bunker busters into a restaurant' that was going to supposedly 'really capitate the leadership.' Even if the bombs do what is necessary, and the targets are there (who knows?) and go deep before exploding, the flying concrete and other shrapnel is bound to hit something and someone in the neighborhood.

The way ahead? Given those who died in the course if Iraq's 'liberation' it will take considerable political will and effort to ensure that their scarifices, the sacrifices of those who got caught in the crossfire, is not in vain. An effort in that arena is long term, and will be costly. Given the cost exacted on the Iraqi population, however, does not a sense of equity demand that a sincere effort be made to ensure just that? That their deaths not be in vain?

[Occhidiangela]

Not sure if you saw the news on this, but a few weeks back, Sec Def Rumsfeld announced a the withdrawal of the majority of US troops from Saudi Arabia. How was this announcement greeted?

With a bombing attack, by terrorists, on the international compound where a number of folks of varying nationalities died. Gee, it looks like some folks need Americans there to justify their criminal activity, to have someone besides brother Arabs to kill when they want to make a point.

I would have thought someone would at least have acknowledged 'yeah, thanks, about time, we've been asking for you to leave the Holy Land for some time now, nice to see you leaving.'

Maybe there were some official announcements along those lines that I missed. One can't read every newspaper . . .

[Growler]

The US had many good reasons to invade Iraq and finish off Saddam Hussein, presented by others many times in other places. If you don't accept them, we must disagree. Allow me to follow the part of your response that interests me.

A dangerous precedent to be set, don't you think? Any government in the world, presumably, derives its powers from the consent of the governed. In the case of a dictator such as Saddam, that consent is considered to be implicit as it is in many other countries, since there is no democratic means in place to explicitly state that it is so (keep reading, I'm not done).

The precedent has long ago been set. My country (USA) explictly justifies its creation on this basis in its Declaration of Independence. I think the USA is the last revolutionary country on earth, and the rest of the world is filled with tired cynics.

This idea of 'implicit consent' is ridiculous. I realize that sometimes it is practical to deal with a 'de facto' existing regime as as if it were the proper gov't, but that is only a measure of convenience. There is no need or justification for inferring consent on the part of the captive population. Official recognition of a dictatorship by any government does not grant moral legitimacy, such legitimacy can only be derived internally from the population of the dictator's country. In summary, Saddam Hussein did not deserve any respect or recognition of sovereignty. Still, if only he'd been a bit more sensible he could have avoided being overthrown.

Was the entire middle east responsible for the terrorist attacks?

No, but large segments of it appear sympathetic to the terrorist attacks. You didn't answer my question.

Attacking out of spite those whose opinions never had a chance of being properly formed...

We did not attack out of spite, we did not atttack the entire populace. Can you ever accept either of these facts?

Furthermore, if those who have taken up arms as terrorists do so because they are ill informed or brainwashed, this does not excuse them nor should it spare their lives. The war against Terror is a real war with the real goal of killing terrorists, not changing their minds by winning a debate. Saddam may not have had significant provable terrorist allies, but he was an obstacle to progress and provided plenty of provocation to finish him off. I believe war with Saddam would have happened someday even had the terrorist attacks of 9/11 not happpened.

The same cannot be said of that in Iraq. Support that existed for the march into Afghanistan disappeared when it came to Iraq. There was a reason for that.

And 10,000 frenchmen can't be wrong, eh?

The reason was the termination of French and German business dealings with Saddam circumventing the sanctions regime. I think the reason that the euro-crowd so frequently hurls the "its all about oil" charge at America is simple psychological projection: that is exactly what european businesses were doing, buying Saddam's smuggled oil.

[Growler]

I'm not sure if you are seeing this one or not, but with different societies comes different ideals on which people are basing their arguments. It's tricky to highlight in this topic unfortunately, but it looks to that you are making a point based on one definition of what you percieve is an accurate portrayal of moral standing (with regards to certain weapon types). Other posts will certainly come from other societies where the perception is entirely different.

Indeed. To me, it is completely ridiculous to regard an inanimate object as either moral or immoral, only persons can have a moral standing. It is difficult to address or change such fundamental premises in a forum such as this.

[Fragbait]

...this is a hotbutton issue.
Although many lurkers responded, may I just shortly quote the forum rules:

Avoid hotbutton issues.
Basically put, there are some issues and topics that are useless to debate on an Internet forum. You'll never be able to change people's minds on hotbutton political issues such as abortion or gun control. Yet, various people always try to do just that on every forum out there. Here's the deal: many posters try to make a name for themselves by starting a thread on just such an issue just so they can have a special thrill over watching a hundred posts spring up from their inciting topic. They'll then feed the conversation along by constantly nibbling at other posters' arguments. Once the topic has dried up, they'll move on to the next one, and keep doing it for weeks, causing gargantuan threads over and over. This is known as trolling, and the moderators WILL put a stop to you if they catch you in the act.

Note: Just wanted to show this. Feel free to go on.


Greetings, Fragbait

[Growler]

I'm glad the the Australians were there, but what are you basing this on? Since they were a small part of the overall force, their results may be nonrepresentative and nonreproducible due to the luxury of having few targets, and perhaps specially selected targets.

[kandrathe]

I think I read that MI6 or MI5, was implicated.

[Growler]

I've seen those bodycount numbers. Because they are based on media reports, they lack credibility. They count things like little girls getting run over by trucks. As if that were intended, or that no one ever got hit by a truck before the Americans came. Then there is the problem of defining a 'civilian', especially now that Iraq's former armed forces are dissolved. Al-Jazeera is listed as a source. Al-Jazeera was penetrated by Iraqi intelligence agents, wasn't it?

Not buying it. I don't have any credible numbers, but I have my judgement on what numbers may be plausible. 5,000 - 7,000 is not plausible.

Do you really think these people are doing this because they don't like hamburgers?

Its all about pork. They don't like pork. Especially bbq pork ribs, a blasphemy most grievous in the eyes of Allah. Lamb good, pork bad. :huh:

Seriously, what I really think this is all about is Islamic civil war. It is a religious war, and since europeans are all so sophisticated and above it all I wouldn't expect them to understand. That's ok, it doesn't really involve them anyway. Will it stay that way?

I'm not saying the US are to blame for all of this, but you need to start realizing that there are always two sides to a story, and that noone is pure good or pure evil. Both parts are to blame for the conflict between arabs and the US, but neither seems willing to accept an inch of responsibility for it. In my eyes that makes both parts equally guilty of the continuation of the conflict.

There are two sides to every war, the winning side and the losing side. That is really all that matters now. You can stay out of it and pretend to be above it all, but I think your pose of moral rectitude is fraudulent.

[eppie]

Hello,
If Tony Blair did this, probably also Bush did. (but this is no proof of course)

The strongest clues in my opinion are however the fact that Saddam didnot use anything on american soldiers in the last war. He knew this would be his only chance to kill some american soldiers. (let's assume he would like this, and that he is the bad person we say he is). And honestly if the americans find WMDs of any kind at this moment should we believe them?. America has every WMD known to man itself and probably even brought some to Irak, just in case.
If now there is the discussion wether they manipulated evidence for the presence of WMD in Irak, I think we cannot trust them if they finally would find WMDs now.

[Chaerophon]

I applaud you, that there is as fine of an example of Americocentrism as I've ever encountered. I'll get back to you in the morning, but suffice to say, Germany didn't have any oil contracts in Iraq.

[Haider]

The reason was the termination of French and German business dealings with Saddam circumventing the sanctions regime. I think the reason that the euro-crowd so frequently hurls the "its all about oil" charge at America is simple psychological projection: that is exactly what european businesses were doing, buying Saddam's smuggled oil.

Please show us facts for this (no, Instapundit or Free Republic are not credible sources). AFAIK Germany gets most of its oil from Great Britain.

[Feryar]

Not buying it. I don't have any credible numbers, but I have my judgement on what numbers may be plausible. 5,000 - 7,000 is not plausible.

Well, I'm awfully sorry, but to me the press (and even Al-Jazeera) who actually are where it happens are much more credible a source than you are. But it's fine by me, keep living in your fantasy world.
http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/...ning%20Standard

I don't think this is a religious war, I think it is a political one that gets colored by religion.
Consider the fact that Islam does not separate between politics and religion, and neither does Christianity (at least not in practice).
I thought you were fighting a war against terrorism? Reading your posts leads me to believe that you regard this as a war against Islam.

Well, since I'm so "sophisticated and above it all", and I really don't feel like this discussion is getting anywhere I think I'll withdraw from it. My views are the same, and you have pretty much confirmed what I figured some americans are thinking about this war. It scares me, and I hope my country pulls out of NATO before you turn it into an aggressive alliance.

[Occhidiangela]

EDIT: Grr, such a typing spazz.

At root, it is a religious war, or at the very least an ethnic war: Arab versus Jew, particularly immigrant European Jew. Other elements are Arab versus Arab, Arab versus Persian, and Arab Muslim versus Arab Christian.

It roots can still be traced to
Balfour, and his French and Italian colleagues who redrew the Map of the Old Ottoman Empire.

It still boils down to the existence of the State of Israel, yes or no, which is a religious/ethnic issue. That is what a root cause analysis will show.

Now, to add a few layers of complexity . . .

Soviet Support of nationalist movements for some 50 years. (Note also that the Sov's were one of the FIRST to recognize Israel in 1947.)

The creation of an Islamic Republic, an expansionist and nationalist model at odds with godless Communism and the Muslim world's status quo of 1979.

The Arab tendency to get their arses handed to them in any exercise in modern warfare.

[Taem]

...this is a hotbutton issue.
Although many lurkers responded, may I just shortly quote the forum rules:

Avoid hotbutton issues.
Basically put, there are some issues and topics that are useless to debate on an Internet forum. You'll never be able to change people's minds on hotbutton political issues such as abortion or gun control. Yet, various people always try to do just that on every forum out there. Here's the deal: many posters try to make a name for themselves by starting a thread on just such an issue just so they can have a special thrill over watching a hundred posts spring up from their inciting topic. They'll then feed the conversation along by constantly nibbling at other posters' arguments. Once the topic has dried up, they'll move on to the next one, and keep doing it for weeks, causing gargantuan threads over and over. This is known as trolling, and the moderators WILL put a stop to you if they catch you in the act.

Note: Just wanted to show this. Feel free to go on.


Greetings, Fragbait

WHAT is a “hot-button” issue Fragbait? When I posted this topic I had no intention of creating unrest, even though I was aware that people did disagree with my conjectural theories. The world is full of disagreements, and while I’m not using this excuse to justify starting a topic that could potentially become a “hot-button” topic, I'm trying to point out that my intention was NOT to start a “hot-button” topic, but to hear out other’s who might of shared my point of view, and listen to the reasons of those who opposed so I might have a better understanding of the reason(s) Bush might of lied.

Perhaps you are addressing your insinuations towards someone in particular on a particular subject matter such as religion, in which case, a simple PM might have sufficed.

[Occhidiangela]

Ever since 1441 was passed, to any number of Lurkers.

Fragbait just missed the point.

[kandrathe]

I was trying to think of a pithy reply involving Troll MEAT. But, alas, my synapses are frayed from parenting. I'm much more on the wave length of Billy Goats Gruff.

[Occhidiangela]

You were opening a discussion as to whether or not President Bush "might have lied" rather than if he "might of lied."

What means this "might of lied" phrase? Is it a prepositional phrase describing the power of . . . lied. I think lied is German for song, so I will infer the phrase to mean "the power of song." :D

"Might have lied." "Might've lied." "Might of lied."

Spoken-to-written is such a treacherous pathway, is it not? Ashock and Lemekin got me on that when I tried to spell out 'Dark Eyes' in Russian a while back, and I was even wronger, in that the word I was looking for was "Black Eyes." All an error based on how I had heard a word.

Just a little tease to rib you, with a smile, during The Grammarian Games here at the Lounge. Do I get a bronze medal, or is this just a qualifying heat? Heat? No, not a flame, just a 'wee nudge in the ribs!" :D

[Chaerophon]

The precedent has long ago been set. My country (USA) explictly justifies its creation on this basis in its Declaration of Independence. I think the USA is the last revolutionary country on earth, and the rest of the world is filled with tired cynics.

And here I was thinking that such imperialist standards had been debunked long ago. Then again, Britain sure did a good job of spreading its way of life back in the good ol' 17 and 1800's, didn't they? Destroyed a number of cultures along the way, but I'm sure that you think that they're better off in the long run anyways. For that matter, in my opinion, the USA is one of the least "revolutionary" of the modern western nations. Every day I am absolutely shocked with the American people's acceptance of the "status quo" based upon their belief in their inherent "freedom", and the importance of its spread. Without a doubt, it's the catch phrase for a new millenium under the auspices of which myriad injustices can and will be committed as long as an idiot like Bush is in power. The attacks in Iraq had nothing to do with freedom. They had everything to do with control.

This idea of 'implicit consent' is ridiculous.

No, in fact, it is not. It has been the norm for around 2500 years and the fact that you can't bend your one-track "democratic" mind around it doesn't make it any less true. Certainly other regime forms can facilitate all manner of injustice - so can democracy. While the democratic system has certainly demonstrated its inherent stability and strength, for you to say that a democratic country has the moral right to invade another country on that basis alone is farcical. Certainly, gross injustice ought to be punished. The fact remains that democracies are not imposed, they develop from within.

We did not attack out of spite

,

I never said that you did. What you claimed in the first post "we will continue, blah, blah, blah" was a proclamation of your intention to continue to attack out of spite for the actions of a select few.

we did not atttack the entire populace. Can you ever accept either of these facts?

I don't believe that I ever made that claim... While you may not have explicitly attacked the entire populace, the fact remains: war is war. Maybe it was the means to a 'just' end. Maybe they attempted to minimize civilian casualties. That's fine. The fact remains that the United States INVADED Iraq.

Furthermore, if those who have taken up arms as terrorists do so because they are ill-informed or brainwashed, this does not excuse them nor should it spare their lives. The war against Terror is a real war with the real goal of killing terrorists, not changing their minds by winning a debate.

Certainly not. However, to attack an entire country who a.) does not have any particular terrorist affiliations (particularly compared to its neighbours) and b.) is governed by a regime at polar opposites with those clerical orders in the rest of the arab world from which terror cells develop seems very nearly counterproductive, particularly given the fact that it seems evident that they own few, if any WMD. (Once again, particularly compared to their counterparts in the middle east and elsewhere) Such acts certainly do not change anyone's minds; rather, they generally serve the purpose of turning more and more heretofore uninvolved citizens towards the terrorists rather than away from them.

And 10,000 frenchmen can't be wrong, eh?

The reason was the termination of French and German business dealings with Saddam circumventing the sanctions regime. I think the reason that the euro-crowd so frequently hurls the "its all about oil" charge at America is simple psychological projection: that is exactly what european businesses were doing, buying Saddam's smuggled oil.

Try at least 30 million. Then add to that the majority of the rest of Europe, including Britain, and you arrive at the conclusion that, although the political goals may have involved the oil economy, the vast majority of the population of Europe is staunchly against the war. I just got home from France and Italy - there are signs stating their support for "pace" (peace in Italian) hanging from EVERYONE's windows, storefronts, displays, offices. Thousands upon thousands of them. It's not a myth, there are MANY MANY people against the war.

As for the rest, first of all, your facts aren't straight. Germany had no oil contracts with Iraq. Italy and Spain had very minor contracts, (along with Russia, obviously) but in those countries, I would say that support for the war is somewhere around zero. It's true, none of these countries will have their exclusive oil contracts with Iraq with the regime change. The Americans will organize a free market for oil in which the largest firms (e.g. many American ones with whom Bush et al have associated for most of their lives. Not to mention the fact that big money wins big lobbyists) will win out. Furthermore, with the regime change will come assurance that OPEC is unable to function and the potential military stranglehold over the cartel that would be held by a Hussein with WMD will be averted.

You should go back and review Nico's post re: the Wolfowitz doctrine, or rather, the "American Imperialist Manifesto" as I like to call it, and then get back to me.