Time to kick Iran

[Matteo Martini]

@Matteo Martini: What do you think about this? :

Threatening Petroeuro? [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif[/qimg]
Oliver (Today)

(Read my first and last message in this thread)

OK

Reading now, I will reply to you there

 

[Matteo Martini]

There is absolutely NO physical evidence to support the claim of 655,000 dead at that time in the war.

This is why I wrote " Debatable ", in first place.

 

[Matteo Martini]

On the bright side, all those dead from the UN condoned (by inaction) atrocities can't contribute to Human Caused Global Warming.

"Always with the negative waves, Moriarty. Think beautiful thoughts."

DR

Darth, the more I know you, the more I dislike you..

( did I break any rule? )

 

[Matteo Martini]

I don't think RandFan is lying, he is responding to the words you have written, and the world view that those words infer.

Please. RandFan is an adult and intellingent person.
Let him defend his own positions by himself, would you??

 

[Matteo Martini]

Actually, no, I would get involved. you are the one that

Yes,
I would NOT get involved, if I know I would probably do worse ( to the victim )

Ah yes, the casualty estimate from the Lancet article. You should know that that particular article had many significant flaws:
- If you read the article, they only asked a small fraction of the people for death certificates.
- If I remember correctly, that particular survey used clustering in their sample taking, and the number of clusters was very small (47). What this means is that their surveys often distort results (especially in a place like Iraq, where conflicts will not be uniformly spread.) Other organizations had also used clustered samples, but they tend to use many more clusters (more than 3 times the number.)

A similar study was done several years back by the same team, and it was found that their estimates were 4 to 5 times higher than similar studies done by the U.N., but which used larger numbers of clusters.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108

Not many people seem to understand the meaning of the word " debatable ", here..

So, in other words, you havent thought things through enough to actually come up with a coherent strategy for dealing with that stuff. Easier for you to say "A way will magically be found" than to say "I have no idea. Guess those people under Saddam or in Kosovo deserved to die."

Not even in the wildest dreams of the wildest dreamer, there is a solution good for all the situations..

Well, lets see... Russia was a major arms supplier to Iraq.

The second after the US?

Other european countries were beneficiaries under the oil-for-food scandals.

Do I have to give you the list of the scandals in which the US were involved?
Do you have time to read them all?
Be prepared..

Of course, there is also an anti-American bias in many countries (partially deserved, partially not) which may prevent some of them from supporting the U.S. even when it is acting in a 'good' manor.

When this bias prevented some of them from supporting the U.S. even when it is acting in a 'good' manor??

Or perhaps the U.S. did not make its case for invasion as well as it should. I do believe that Bush made a big mistake by putting more emphasis on WMD and less on links to terrorism and human rights violations.

You do not seem to understand the point that the problem of " human rights violations " is, according to many, worse now than before.

However, if a country truly cared about human rights, they might be willing to say "I don't think the U.S. is right about WMD, but we should go along anyways because Saddam commits genocide".

Nope.
No way.
As I said, you do not seem to understand the point that the problem of " human rights violations " is, according to many, worse now than before.

Because regardless of how hard the U.S. and/or Europe pushes, there is no guarantee that other countries will follow along (especially with China and Russia holding vetos.)

This is why dimplomacy is needed..
BTW, why Russia should be stay in the side of the bad people, by default and the US should be stay in the side of the good people, by default??

So, once again... I possed the situation (wish I could say it was hypothetical, but its not), where a country is engaging in genocide or similar attrocities, and attempts to work within the U.N. (your supposed measure of 'international consensus') has failed. By your logic, you have no moral objection to such attrocities continuing because the U.N. did not approve of action.

No, if the US moved along alone, they should take the blame of what they do.

 

[RandFan]

I never said that Americans are bad.

You are just highly critical of America and seemingly without ever showing any balance or fairness to America.

I did not speak against Saddam, should you consider that I am in favour on him.

You miss my point. I note that you are only concerned with America. America is not the only nation that is involved in a war. Yet America is YOUR choice for critisism.

Look, I don't mind critisism. I critisize America myself. I only tire of those who can only find wrong with America.

My actions??
Which actions??

You spend a lot of time critisising America. How much time do you spend discussion the the genocide in Darfur? How much time do you spend discussing the human rights violations of North Korea?

It's realy simple Matteo. What you do demonstrates what you think.

If you would come to the defense of America when Oliver says something demonstrably wrong like AUP, Darat, Tricky and many, many others who are very critical of the American president and/or were involved in other problems around the world I could believe you were objective in your critisism.

What you choose to respond to and how you choose to respond speaks volumes.

Then, we partially agree.
It is not complete responsibility, it is partial responsibility, as American soldiers do not kill Iraqi civilians ( unless some exceptional cases ), and they have provided regular elections for the Iraqi people.

I wish that this attitude would come through a bit more often.

 

[Segnosaur]

Yes,
I would NOT get involved, if I know I would probably do worse ( to the victim )

No, given the fact that you seem to be willing to defer your morality to others, you'd likely allow a rape to continue, even if the chance of harm to the victim was minimal.

Ah yes, the casualty estimate from the Lancet article. You should know that that particular article had many significant flaws

Not many people seem to understand the meaning of the word " debatable ", here..

Well, given the fact that your side of the 'debate' has been shown to be based on faulty or non-existant evidence is rather significant. And since you seem to be basing at least part of your criticism of the U.S. actions on how much worse the situation is now than before the invasion, this particular flaw in your argument kind of debunks your entire arguments.

So, in other words, you havent thought things through enough to actually come up with a coherent strategy for dealing with that stuff.

Not even in the wildest dreams of the wildest dreamer, there is a solution good for all the situations..

All those situations were things that were happening in Iraq prior to the invasion. If you are claiming that there is no solution to those situations, then WHY are you claiming that Saddam's actions could have been prevented without invasion?

YOU made the claim that Saddam could have been stopped without invasion. YOU should be able to explain how he could have been stopped.

(on Russia supporting Iraq because it was an arms supplier)

The second after the US?

Actually, no... In the years that Saddam was president of Iraq, Russia and the other soviet block companies sold Iraq almost 70% of it's conventional arms. France and China were also significant suppliers. The U.S. supplied about 1% of its arms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq

Do I have to give you the list of the scandals in which the US were involved?

I never claimed the U.S. wasn't involved in scandals. What I SAID was that some countries (like France) might be willing to support Iraq at the U.N. because of one specific scandal (oil for food) .

When this bias prevented some of them from supporting the U.S. even when it is acting in a 'good' manor??

Yes that will happen. People don't always consider their opinions rationally. (Consider the number of people in the middle east who don't think that bin Laden was behind 9/11 as an example.)

You do not seem to understand the point that the problem of " human rights violations " is, according to many, worse now than before.

Well, lets see... Now that Saddam has gone, we have:
- Fewer premature deaths (since your claims of more deaths was based on a study that was flawed)
- Actual elections (not that the elections were perfect, but they were better than Saddam and his 100% support votes)
- Greater freedom of speech (with new newspapers opening up post-Saddam)
- Improved economic conditions and a growing economy (although security remains a problem, their economy is still growing). And this includes areas like small businesses and construction, not just the oil industry

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16241340/site/newsweek/

Nope.
No way.
As I said, you do not seem to understand the point that the problem of " human rights violations " is, according to many, worse now than before.

The "many" people who claim that human rights violations are worse now than before Saddam was removed are not dealing with the facts.

This is why dimplomacy is needed..

Except for the sad fact that diplomacy does not always work. Need a list of cases where diplomacy has failed?

BTW, why Russia should be stay in the side of the bad people, by default and the US should be stay in the side of the good people, by default??

I never claimed that Russia was always on the side of bad and the U.S. was always on the side of good. The U.S. has definitely done some bad things in the past. I'm referring to the current situation and hypothetical future situations. If, in the future, the U.S. tries to support a brutal dictator while Russia works on installing a democratic government, then I'll criticize the U.S.

No, if the US moved along alone, they should take the blame of what they do.

Once again... to make things clear... You are willing to allow genocide to occur if the U.N. is unwilling to take action. Forget 'blame'. A simple yes or no... You find it morally acceptable to allow genocide to occur.

 

[Segnosaur]

For the 100th time, why on Earth if I did not speak against Saddam, should you consider that I am in favour on him.
Why????????????????????????????????

You know, the cynic in me finds something very ironic in that statement.

Over and over again, you use the bogus argument that since the U.S. hasn't spoken out to say they won't use nuclear weapons against Iran, that somehow means they support the use of nukes there. Somehow, silence in that case indicates support.

Now here you are, on the other side of the fence, and you're complaining that your 'silence' is being misinterpreted.

 

[Matteo Martini]

You are just highly critical of America and seemingly without ever showing any balance or fairness to America.

You miss my point. I note that you are only concerned with America. America is not the only nation that is involved in a war. Yet America is YOUR choice for critisism.

Look, I don't mind critisism. I critisize America myself. I only tire of those who can only find wrong with America.

Did I only find wrong with America?
Uh??

You spend a lot of time critisising America. How much time do you spend discussion the the genocide in Darfur? How much time do you spend discussing the human rights violations of North Korea?

Can I spend my time as I wish?

It's realy simple Matteo. What you do demonstrates what you think.

If you would come to the defense of America when Oliver says something demonstrably wrong like AUP, Darat, Tricky and many, many others who are very critical of the American president and/or were involved in other problems around the world I could believe you were objective in your critisism.

I can take the blame for what I say, I can not thake the blame for what other people say..

What you choose to respond to and how you choose to respond speaks volumes.

I can not understand..
Am I not free to choose what to respond to?

I wish that this attitude would come through a bit more often.

Come on..
We are just talking..

 

[Matteo Martini]

You know, the cynic in me finds something very ironic in that statement.

Over and over again, you use the bogus argument that since the U.S. hasn't spoken out to say they won't use nuclear weapons against Iran, that somehow means they support the use of nukes there. Somehow, silence in that case indicates support.

" We do not rule out any options ".
This is not silence..

 

[Matteo Martini]

No, given the fact that you seem to be willing to defer your morality to others, you'd likely allow a rape to continue, even if the chance of harm to the victim was minimal.

I never said that " I'd likely allow a rape to continue, even if the chance of harm to the victim was minimal."

Well, given the fact that your side of the 'debate' has been shown to be based on faulty or non-existant evidence is rather significant. And since you seem to be basing at least part of your criticism of the U.S. actions on how much worse the situation is now than before the invasion, this particular flaw in your argument kind of debunks your entire arguments.

I do not get the meaning of this complicated argument
By the way, other researches show that direct and indirect victims of the war may be in the range of the hundreds of thousands..

All those situations were things that were happening in Iraq prior to the invasion. If you are claiming that there is no solution to those situations, then WHY are you claiming that Saddam's actions could have been prevented without invasion?

Not completely prevented, maybe, but largely contained, yes.

YOU made the claim that Saddam could have been stopped without invasion. YOU should be able to explain how he could have been stopped.

I already did.
Bomb selected targets.
If he attacks the Kurds, bomb his forces.
Bomb his palace.
Etcetera..

Actually, no... In the years that Saddam was president of Iraq, Russia and the other soviet block companies sold Iraq almost 70% of it's conventional arms. France and China were also significant suppliers. The U.S. supplied about 1% of its arms.

I admit to having been taken aback by this link.
Only 1%?
If this is true, I maybe have been completely wrong on this point.
I need to look upon it more

U.S. support for Iraq
After the Iranian Revolution, enmity between Iran and the U.S. ran high. Realpolitikers in Washington concluded that Saddam was the "lesser of the two evils", support for Iraq gradually became the order of the day.

"In June, 1982, President Reagan decided that the United States could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran. President Reagan decided that the United States would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran. President Reagan formalized this policy by issuing a National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") to this effect in June, 1982," said the "Teicher Affidavit," submitted on 31 January 1995 by former NSC official Howard Teicher to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida.[3]

According to retired Colonel Walter Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose." He claimed that the Defense Intelligence Agency "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival"[4], however, despite this allegation, Reagan’s administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports affirming the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians.[5][6][7]


[edit] Parties involved
Much of what Iraq received from the US, however, were not arms per se, but so-called dual-use technology— mainframe computers, armored ambulances, helicopters, chemicals, and the like, with potential civilian uses as well as military applications. It is now known that a vast network of companies, based in the U.S. and elsewhere, fed Iraq's warring capabilities right up until August 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait. [8]

The "Iraq-gate" scandal revealed that an Atlanta branch of Italy's largest bank, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, relying partially on U.S. taxpayer-guaranteed loans, funneled US$ 5 billion to Iraq from 1985 to 1989. In August 1989, when FBI agents finally raided the Atlanta branch of BNL, the branch manager, Christopher Drogoul, was charged with making unauthorized, clandestine, and illegal loans to Iraq—some of which, according to his indictment, were used to purchase arms and weapons technology.

Beginning in September, 1989, the Financial Times laid out the first charges that BNL, relying heavily on U.S. government-guaranteed loans, was funding Iraqi chemical and nuclear weapons work. For the next two and a half years, the Financial Times provided the only continuous newspaper reportage (over 300 articles) on the subject. Among the companies shipping militarily useful technology to Iraq under the eye of the U.S. government, according to the Financial Times, were Hewlett-Packard, Tektronix, and Matrix Churchill, through its Ohio branch. [9]

Even before the Persian Gulf War started in 1990, the Intelligencer Journal of Pennsylvania in a string of articles reported: "If U.S. and Iraqi troops engage in combat in the Persian Gulf, weapons technology developed in Lancaster and indirectly sold to Iraq will probably be used against U.S. forces ... And aiding in this ... technology transfer was the Iraqi-owned, British-based precision tooling firm Matrix Churchill, whose U.S. operations in Ohio were recently linked to a sophisticated Iraqi weapons procurement network."[10]

Aside from the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and ABC's Ted Koppel, the Iraq-gate story never picked up much steam, even though The U.S. Congress became involved with the scandal. [11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war#U.S._support_for_Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq

I never claimed the U.S. wasn't involved in scandals. What I SAID was that some countries (like France) might be willing to support Iraq at the U.N. because of one specific scandal (oil for food) .

Maybe.
I never praised France.
I do not know enough..

Yes that will happen. People don't always consider their opinions rationally. (Consider the number of people in the middle east who don't think that bin Laden was behind 9/11 as an example.)

Absolutely.
And, you do not consider the number of peoplke in the US who think that terror was the only reason the US went to war

Well, lets see... Now that Saddam has gone, we have:
- Fewer premature deaths (since your claims of more deaths was based on a study that was flawed)
- Actual elections (not that the elections were perfect, but they were better than Saddam and his 100% support votes)
- Greater freedom of speech (with new newspapers opening up post-Saddam)
- Improved economic conditions and a growing economy (although security remains a problem, their economy is still growing). And this includes areas like small businesses and construction, not just the oil industry

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16241340/site/newsweek/

You forgot to mention:
- Less deaths by terrorist attacks

The "many" people who claim that human rights violations are worse now than before Saddam was removed are not dealing with the facts.

Do we agree that being killed by a suicide bomber can be somehow considered as a breach in the human rights?

Except for the sad fact that diplomacy does not always work. Need a list of cases where diplomacy has failed?

I still do not see why the US attacked Iraq, instead of engaging in a diplomatic work in order to isolate them.

I never claimed that Russia was always on the side of bad and the U.S. was always on the side of good. The U.S. has definitely done some bad things in the past. I'm referring to the current situation and hypothetical future situations. If, in the future, the U.S. tries to support a brutal dictator while Russia works on installing a democratic government, then I'll criticize the U.S.

You Americans ( and this is the problem ) do not see the point that, sometimes, even a brutal dictator can maybe be better or equal than a democracy, as in the case of Iraq

Once again... to make things clear... You are willing to allow genocide to occur if the U.N. is unwilling to take action. Forget 'blame'. A simple yes or no... You find it morally acceptable to allow genocide to occur.

This is not a yes or no reply.
If the US did go to Rwanda, without UN consensus, and managed to stop violence, I would praise them for what they did.
But, they did not go.

 

[Segnosaur]

I never said that " I'd likely allow a rape to continue, even if the chance of harm to the victim was minimal."

In a way you did.

Because you're criticizing the U.S. for going into Iraq which would have had the side effect of stopping oppression of Iraqi people (in effect "stopping the rape").

I do not get the meaning of this complicated argument

Let me try to explain it in simpler terms:
- You are arguing that the U.S. was wrong to go into Iraq partly because, according to your information, the number of deaths caused now was greater than the number of deaths that were happening when Saddam was in power.
- I showed that your source of information (that there were more deaths now than before) was flawed... bad statistical methods used by people who had a history of overinflating the statistics, and who had a known bias against the U.S. Statistics that even other groups opposed to the U.S. invasion recognize were flawed.

So, IF you say "the U.S. was wrong" because of the number of deaths, and its shown that your estimate of the number of deaths is wrong,then your conclusion ("U.S.=wrong") is similarly flawed.

By the way, other researches show that direct and indirect victims of the war may be in the range of the hundreds of thousands..

Please post a reference to this claim.

YOU made the claim that Saddam could have been stopped without invasion. YOU should be able to explain how he could have been stopped.

I already did.
Bomb selected targets.
If he attacks the Kurds, bomb his forces.
Bomb his palace.
Etcetera..

But I pointed out several flaws with your 'plan'.... for example, his positioning of military targets near civilian infrastructure. Until you can explain how you would handle those details, you haven't explained how Saddam could have been contained.

Actually, no... In the years that Saddam was president of Iraq, Russia and the other soviet block companies sold Iraq almost 70% of it's conventional arms. France and China were also significant suppliers. The U.S. supplied about 1% of its arms.

I admit to having been taken aback by this link.
Only 1%?
If this is true, I maybe have been completely wrong on this point.
I need to look upon it more

U.S. support for Iraq
(info about U.S. supporting Iraq deleted for length)

Hey, I never denied that the U.S. gave some support to Iraq in the past.

Of course, I could point out that part of that may have been the U.S. trying to prevent an expansion of Iranian influence post revolution. I could have also pointed out that past support for dictators does not mean that all future actions must be seen as 'wrong' somehow.

I could also point out that other countries were quite involved in supplying chemical, nuclear and biological arms to Iraq. For example, Germany seemed to be a major supplier (even bigger than the U.S.) of chemical arms, and it was Germany who was one of the most vocal opponents of the invasion. Conflict of interest there?

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jcbw/jcbw030417_1_n.shtml

The problem is there is a preception that Iraq was some sort of longstanding U.S. lapdog which is not based in reality.

Maybe.
I never praised France.
I do not know enough..

You may have never praised France, but you had been arguing that the U.S. was wrong to invade Iraq without U.N. support. You also questioned why a country would support a brutal dictator. What I've done is pointed out a reason why the U.N. might ignore serious issues (such as genocide) even if its not morally right to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme#Criminal_investigation_in_France

Do we agree that being killed by a suicide bomber can be somehow considered as a breach in the human rights?

Getting killed by a suicide bomber is wrong. Getting killed by the government of a dictator like Sadam is wrong. Dead is dead.

If the number of people killed by the bombers is smaller than the number killed by the government (for example, of Sadam)

I still do not see why the US attacked Iraq, instead of engaging in a diplomatic work in order to isolate them.

Because they had already tried over a decade to 'isolate' him, and their actions were partly ineffective and resulted in hardships to the Iraqi people.

Sadly, magical solutions don't exists.

You Americans ( and this is the problem ) do not see the point that, sometimes, even a brutal dictator can maybe be better or equal than a democracy, as in the case of Iraq

First of all, I'm not an American. I'm a Canadian.

Secondly, you still have to show that things are worse under the current democracy than they were under Saddam. We know that there are fewer deaths now than under the genocides of Saddam. We know that there have been strong economic expansion, more free speech, and actual elections in Iraq. What was better under Saddam?

Once again... to make things clear... You are willing to allow genocide to occur if the U.N. is unwilling to take action. Forget 'blame'. A simple yes or no... You find it morally acceptable to allow genocide to occur.

This is not a yes or no reply.
If the US did go to Rwanda, without UN consensus, and managed to stop violence, I would praise them for what they did.
But, they did not go.

So why would the U.S. be considered morally right to go into Rwanda to stop killings there, but was morally wrong to take action in Iraq to stop a genocidal dictator?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Darth, the more I know you, the more I dislike you..

( did I break any rule? )

I guess you have never heard of a "sense of humor" nor a "sick joke."

Too bad. You missed one.

DR

 

[Matteo Martini]

In a way you did.

I did not

Because you're criticizing the U.S. for going into Iraq which would have had the side effect of stopping oppression of Iraqi people (in effect "stopping the rape").

Ridiculous

Let me try to explain it in simpler terms:
- You are arguing that the U.S. was wrong to go into Iraq partly because, according to your information, the number of deaths caused now was greater than the number of deaths that were happening when Saddam was in power.
- I showed that your source of information (that there were more deaths now than before) was flawed... bad statistical methods used by people who had a history of overinflating the statistics, and who had a known bias against the U.S. Statistics that even other groups opposed to the U.S. invasion recognize were flawed.

So, IF you say "the U.S. was wrong" because of the number of deaths, and its shown that your estimate of the number of deaths is wrong,then your conclusion ("U.S.=wrong") is similarly flawed.

No. The conclkusion is right, even if the number 655000 is inaccurate

Please post a reference to this claim.

Boring..
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-08.htm
100,000 Excess Iraqi Deaths Since War - Study
And, that was 2004..

But I pointed out several flaws with your 'plan'.... for example, his positioning of military targets near civilian infrastructure. Until you can explain how you would handle those details, you haven't explained how Saddam could have been contained.

Even bombing targets near civilian infostructures would not have made 100000 deaths.
Or 655000
Or 10000
Or 2000

Hey, I never denied that the U.S. gave some support to Iraq in the past.

Of course, I could point out that part of that may have been the U.S. trying to prevent an expansion of Iranian influence post revolution. I could have also pointed out that past support for dictators does not mean that all future actions must be seen as 'wrong' somehow.

I could also point out that other countries were quite involved in supplying chemical, nuclear and biological arms to Iraq. For example, Germany seemed to be a major supplier (even bigger than the U.S.) of chemical arms, and it was Germany who was one of the most vocal opponents of the invasion. Conflict of interest there?

Two bads do not make one good

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jcbw/jcbw030417_1_n.shtml

At least, they did not participate in the invasion..

Getting killed by a suicide bomber is wrong. Getting killed by the government of a dictator like Sadam is wrong. Dead is dead.

If the number of people killed by the bombers is smaller than the number killed by the government (for example, of Sadam)

??
Evidence?

Because they had already tried over a decade to 'isolate' him, and their actions were partly ineffective and resulted in hardships to the Iraqi people.

Sadly, magical solutions don't exists.

I do not think so, because, a decade before the first invasion of Iraq, the US were helping Iraq.

First of all, I'm not an American. I'm a Canadian.

American is the sense of living in North America.

Secondly, you still have to show that things are worse under the current democracy than they were under Saddam. We know that there are fewer deaths now than under the genocides of Saddam. We know that there have been strong economic expansion, more free speech, and actual elections in Iraq. What was better under Saddam?

Just one short reply.
Yes

So why would the U.S. be considered morally right to go into Rwanda to stop killings there, but was morally wrong to take action in Iraq to stop a genocidal dictator?

As in Rwanda the situation was much worse than in Iraq under Saddam.
And, in Rwanda there was no oil.

 

[Darth Rotor]

As in Rwanda the situation was much worse than in Iraq under Saddam.
And, in Rwanda there was no oil.

It was different than the Saddam Iraq situation. Using it as a comparison for body count purposes is not the best comparison, particularly as in Burundi and Rwanda were various allies of the parties in Rwanda who could cross the border and participate in the civil war, whereas Saddam's Iraq was not that chaotic a place. Like him or not, there was at least a bit of law and order in his country.

A bit more importantly in Rwanda than "no oil" was, considering arguments for intervention and practical limits, the issue of "no coast line" and "no harbor" and "spare to no infrastructure" and undeveloped transport lines."

Look at the map. Look at where Rwanda is. Then, consider trying to support a multi thousand troop UN force out of a small airport that can barely handle one 747 per day. More importantly, you have to consider how well positioned within the neighboring nations are fuel depots and rail lines. In 1994, there were not highways like the Autostrade to rely on for big convoys of trucks. With low logistics base, you can't support a large intervention by any group, be it US forces, UN forces, or whoever. There is a physical limit to how large a force you can interpose on that nation without a significant time taken to grow temporary bases, much less permanent bases.

Here is one of the problems air resupply to early relief efforts had. Planes had to keep a certain fuel reserve, which limited how soon they could come down and deliver supplies, and how much they could carry, due to how small the fuel dumps were at the Kigali airport when trying to refuel or support the massive airplanes being flown into the country. Antonovs and C-5's could drink them dry, so all planes had to carry enough fuel to get in and then get out to another airport. I'll leave the MOG discussion out, as military air logistics bores people.

Similar problems in Uganda and Burundi, in terms of staging fuel, available facilities, and volume of deliveries of petrol.

That is but one of dozens of obstacles to a rapid intervention. (political will is another matter.) The intervention that eventually came into place took time, as support bases slowly built up, and as the actual fighting subsided after Kagame's successful counteroffensive.

DR

 

[Segnosaur]

In a way you did.

Because you're criticizing the U.S. for going into Iraq which would have had the side effect of stopping oppression of Iraqi people (in effect "stopping the rape").

I did not

Ridiculous

Why is it rediculous? I pointed out Saddam's oppression of Iraq's people. (Same as a woman getting raped). I said that it was morally right to consider an intervention in Iraq even if success were not guaranteed (much the same way that I might consider stopping a rape). YOU said that such intervention was wrong if not sanctioned by the U.N. regardless of how bad the genocide was (much the way someone would ignore a rape).

No. The conclkusion is right, even if the number 655000 is inaccurate

The number 655,000 is not only inaccurate, it is completely worthless.

If you are going to claim there are more deaths in Iraq per year now than when Saddam is in power, you have to post information which is reasonable/rational. We're not talking numbers that are out by just a few percentage points, we're talking numbers that may be at least 4 or 5 times higher than they really are.

Please post a reference to this claim. (that other researchers found hundreds of thousands of deaths)

Boring..
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-08.htm
100,000 Excess Iraqi Deaths Since War - Study
And, that was 2004..

Ummm... do you ever actually pay any attention to details of stuff anyone posts?

First of all, your 2004 study was done by the exact same people who did the 2006 study, and contained the exact same flaws.. done by people who had a bias against the Bush administration, using the same flawed statistical methods (few clusters, lack of death certificates).

Secondly, that study has already been referenced AND DEBUNKED by myself and BeAChooser. (See for example my posting on 9th August 2007, 07:59 PM, or BeAChooser's posting on 10th August 2007 at 12:17 AM.)

Even bombing targets near civilian infostructures would not have made 100000 deaths.
Or 655000
Or 10000
Or 2000

So, your solution is 'Ignore the problem'? And if Saddam places a military target in the middle of an orphanage and hundreds of orphans die, that's no problem? And if the U.N. decides that such actions are not allowed, you going to allow the U.S. to continue bombing those targets unilaterally?

Two bads do not make one good

I never said they did.

What I DID say was that past bad acts (such as support for Saddam in the 80s) should not necessarily mean that future actions (e.g. the removal of Saddam) were somehow wrong.

At least, they did not participate in the invasion..

You're missing the point...

You are claiming that the U.S. was wrong because they did not get U.N. support for the invasion. A lot of the reason they failed to get U.N. support is because countries like Germany who had a possible bias in keeping Saddam in power were speaking out against them.

If the number of people killed by the bombers is smaller than the number killed by the government (for example, of Sadam)

??
Evidence?

Already presented on my post from 8th August 2007, 03:54 PM.

The number of deaths in Iraq has dropped from 20000-40000/year on average (while Saddam was oppressing his people) to 16000 today (due mostly to insurgent activity). The only reason why you seem to think there are MORE is because you are believing in one study done by people who were biased and using a flawed methodology (one that's rejected by even most anti-war groups).

I do not think so, because, a decade before the first invasion of Iraq, the US were helping Iraq.

What exactly is your point?

Are you referring to the time before the first gulf war? If so, its pretty irrelevant, because at the time the U.S. wasn't trying to 'contain' Saddam. We do, however have about a decade of experience AFTER the first gulf war when they were TRYING to stop (or at least limit) Saddam's oppression.

American is the sense of living in North America.

I could point out how the Canadian government did not get involved in the Iraqi invasion. I could also point out how, by your definition, people in Brazil, argentina, etc. coudl also be classified as "American" because they are from South America.

But I guess the main question is... who cares? Why exactly are you singling out "Americans"? Isn't it a stereotype and extremely arrogant to assume that only non-"Americans" can understand anything?

Secondly, you still have to show that things are worse under the current democracy than they were under Saddam. We know that there are fewer deaths now than under the genocides of Saddam. We know that there have been strong economic expansion, more free speech, and actual elections in Iraq. What was better under Saddam?

Just one short reply.
Yes

So, what you're saying is that the people who are alive today who might have been killed under Saddam do not deserve to live, the people who have more money do not deserve the extra income, and the people who publish newspapers do not deserve the right to free speech.

As in Rwanda the situation was much worse than in Iraq under Saddam.

So, by your argument, its not morally right to stop one 'bad' person if there was a 'worse' person around. So stopping a genocidal dictator who kills 500,000 people is wrong if there is a dictator who's killing 600,000.

By your logic, every country should immediately stop arresting or investigating any thefts or assaults, since there are clearly more serious crimes around.

And, in Rwanda there was no oil.

Ah, back to the old tired "no blood for oil" argument.

So tell me, if you think the U.S. invaded Iraq because of the oil, then I have to ask why? If the U.S. wanted oil, they could have just made a deal with Saddam... ("Sell US the oil and we'll get those sanctions lifted"). After all, we know they had no problem making deals with dictators before.

So what you're saying is that the U.S. must turn a blind eye to all genocides that happen in other countries if that country has significant natural resources, even if the U.S. wouldn't financially benefit from the invasion.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Even bombing targets near civilian infostructures would not have made 100000 deaths.
Or 655000
Or 10000
Or 2000

Well, Segnosaur alluded to this, but how are you going to avoid civilian deaths when bombing "near civilian infrastructures"? If the area near a bridge is bombed, the people on that bridge are going to be killed or injured.

If the area near a water treatment plant is bombed, workers at the plant, people driving or walking by on the street, and people who live close to it are going to be killed or injured.

If the area near a city hall is bombed, city employees, people going to the city hall to do business, people walking or driving by on the street, and people who live close to it are going to be killed or injured.

It is also my impression that the U.S. has been pretty careful not to bomb indiscriminately. There has been no carpet-bombing, has there?

Please note that this is not to imply any approval or disapproval of U.S. action in Iraq, just to point out what seems to be an illogical stance on your part ("avoid civilian deaths by precision-bombing military installations near civilian structures.")

I do not think so, because, a decade before the first invasion of Iraq, the US were helping Iraq.

And, given the result, we were wrong. So because we made a mistake, we should just let it stand?

American in the sense of living in North America.

You will win yourself no friends in Mexico or Canada with that assumption.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-08.htm
100,000 Excess Iraqi Deaths Since War - Study
And, that was 2004..

This was total garbage brought to you by the same folks at John Hopkins who later put out the 655,000 garbage. In my previous post to you, I noted some of the flaws in that 100,000 study. Didn't you bother to read it? Why do you persist in this woo from woosearchers?

 

[Matteo Martini]

It was different than the Saddam Iraq situation. Using it as a comparison for body count purposes is not the best comparison, particularly as in Burundi and Rwanda were various allies of the parties in Rwanda who could cross the border and participate in the civil war, whereas Saddam's Iraq was not that chaotic a place. Like him or not, there was at least a bit of law and order in his country.

So, atacking Iraq was a double mistake..

A bit more importantly in Rwanda than "no oil" was, considering arguments for intervention and practical limits, the issue of "no coast line" and "no harbor" and "spare to no infrastructure" and undeveloped transport lines."

Look at the map. Look at where Rwanda is. Then, consider trying to support a multi thousand troop UN force out of a small airport that can barely handle one 747 per day. More importantly, you have to consider how well positioned within the neighboring nations are fuel depots and rail lines. In 1994, there were not highways like the Autostrade to rely on for big convoys of trucks. With low logistics base, you can't support a large intervention by any group, be it US forces, UN forces, or whoever. There is a physical limit to how large a force you can interpose on that nation without a significant time taken to grow temporary bases, much less permanent bases.

Here is one of the problems air resupply to early relief efforts had. Planes had to keep a certain fuel reserve, which limited how soon they could come down and deliver supplies, and how much they could carry, due to how small the fuel dumps were at the Kigali airport when trying to refuel or support the massive airplanes being flown into the country. Antonovs and C-5's could drink them dry, so all planes had to carry enough fuel to get in and then get out to another airport. I'll leave the MOG discussion out, as military air logistics bores people.

Similar problems in Uganda and Burundi, in terms of staging fuel, available facilities, and volume of deliveries of petrol.

That is but one of dozens of obstacles to a rapid intervention. (political will is another matter.) The intervention that eventually came into place took time, as support bases slowly built up, and as the actual fighting subsided after Kagame's successful counteroffensive.

DR

I see..
You only attack countries, which have reliable transportation, and good infrastructure..
LOL!!
I am laughing out loud..

 

[Matteo Martini]

Why is it rediculous? I pointed out Saddam's oppression of Iraq's people. (Same as a woman getting raped). I said that it was morally right to consider an intervention in Iraq even if success were not guaranteed (much the same way that I might consider stopping a rape). YOU said that such intervention was wrong if not sanctioned by the U.N. regardless of how bad the genocide was (much the way someone would ignore a rape).

I said that you should not intervene ( in the rape, on in Iraq ), if there was a high risk to make things worse for the victim.
As has happened.
Do you get it?

The number 655,000 is not only inaccurate, it is completely worthless.

If you are going to claim there are more deaths in Iraq per year now than when Saddam is in power, you have to post information which is reasonable/rational. We're not talking numbers that are out by just a few percentage points, we're talking numbers that may be at least 4 or 5 times higher than they really are.

I have posted enough numbers..
BTW, that 655000 number was posted in the Washington Post, not in the Gazette of the Scouts of Minneapolis..

Ummm... do you ever actually pay any attention to details of stuff anyone posts?

First of all, your 2004 study was done by the exact same people who did the 2006 study, and contained the exact same flaws.. done by people who had a bias against the Bush administration, using the same flawed statistical methods (few clusters, lack of death certificates).

Secondly, that study has already been referenced AND DEBUNKED by myself and BeAChooser. (See for example my posting on 9th August 2007, 07:59 PM, or BeAChooser's posting on 10th August 2007 at 12:17 AM.)

Ah!
You and Beachoser debuncked it?

So, your solution is 'Ignore the problem'? And if Saddam places a military target in the middle of an orphanage and hundreds of orphans die, that's no problem? And if the U.N. decides that such actions are not allowed, you going to allow the U.S. to continue bombing those targets unilaterally?

Every case should be handled saperately.
Were all military targets placed close to orphanages?

I never said they did.

What I DID say was that past bad acts (such as support for Saddam in the 80s) should not necessarily mean that future actions (e.g. the removal of Saddam) were somehow wrong.

Agreed.
Glad that you consider " support for Saddam in the 80s " as a bad act

You're missing the point...

You are claiming that the U.S. was wrong because they did not get U.N. support for the invasion. A lot of the reason they failed to get U.N. support is because countries like Germany who had a possible bias in keeping Saddam in power were speaking out against them.

And, Germany was right and US was wrong, on Iraq invasion..

Already presented on my post from 8th August 2007, 03:54 PM.

The number of deaths in Iraq has dropped from 20000-40000/year on average (while Saddam was oppressing his people) to 16000 today (due mostly to insurgent activity). The only reason why you seem to think there are MORE is because you are believing in one study done by people who were biased and using a flawed methodology (one that's rejected by even most anti-war groups).

Do you have any evidence of the 20000-40000/year number?
Do you have any evidence that that number could not be reduced without taking off Saddam?

What exactly is your point?

Are you referring to the time before the first gulf war? If so, its pretty irrelevant, because at the time the U.S. wasn't trying to 'contain' Saddam. We do, however have about a decade of experience AFTER the first gulf war when they were TRYING to stop (or at least limit) Saddam's oppression.

You said that the US were trying to isolate Saddam for more than a decade..
If it was " more than a decade before the first invasion ", I find it quite unlikely

I could point out how the Canadian government did not get involved in the Iraqi invasion. I could also point out how, by your definition, people in Brazil, argentina, etc. coudl also be classified as "American" because they are from South America.

Did the Canadians got involved with the invasion?

But I guess the main question is... who cares? Why exactly are you singling out "Americans"? Isn't it a stereotype and extremely arrogant to assume that only non-"Americans" can understand anything?

We are getting off track.
Let` s drop it..

So, what you're saying is that the people who are alive today who might have been killed under Saddam do not deserve to live, the people who have more money do not deserve the extra income, and the people who publish newspapers do not deserve the right to free speech.

So, by your argument, its not morally right to stop one 'bad' person if there was a 'worse' person around. So stopping a genocidal dictator who kills 500,000 people is wrong if there is a dictator who's killing 600,000.

I think it is impossible to make such exact comparisons..

By your logic, every country should immediately stop arresting or investigating any thefts or assaults, since there are clearly more serious crimes around.

Yawn..

Ah, back to the old tired "no blood for oil" argument.

So tell me, if you think the U.S. invaded Iraq because of the oil, then I have to ask why? If the U.S. wanted oil, they could have just made a deal with Saddam... ("Sell US the oil and we'll get those sanctions lifted"). After all, we know they had no problem making deals with dictators before.
.

Already replied on this

So what you're saying is that the U.S. must turn a blind eye to all genocides that happen in other countries if that country has significant natural resources, even if the U.S. wouldn't financially benefit from the invasion.

No, I was saying that the US should invade countries even if that country has NOT significant natural resources
Just kidding..
But, not so much