Unbiased Perspective: The war in Iraq

[Hyperlite]

In my lifetime, I have never heard an issue as criticized as the war in Iraq. In recent polls, more than half of all Americans have said that they do not approve of the U.S. invading Iraq. However, when attempting to assess whether it was the right decision or not, I tried to formulate a completely unbiased opinion to see if it would help to clarify the issue in my mind. So far several hundred Americans have died as a direct result of the United States sending them overseas to overthrow an oppresive dictator. Nevertheless, it is a fact that Sadaam Hussein and his oppressive regime have been responsible for the murders of thousands of Iraqi citizens throughout his reign. One example, the gassing of the Kurds, was a particularly gruesome mass execution which killed hundreds of Iraqi citizens. In my opinion, Hussein's stronghold of power in Iraq would have clearly ensured that his sons, Uday and Qusay would have been the next in line as leaders of Iraq. Of course his two sons, both responsible for countless rapes and murders were clearly more vicious than Sadaam himself! So I pose this question, is the salvation of potentially a few thousand Iraqi lives worth the loss of a few hundred American lives? Are human lives, man for man, not equal? So if my math is correct, though the invasion of Iraq, thousands of Iraqi lives which surely would have been taken, have now been saved... Though the underlying motives for the overthrow of Hussein may have not been necissarily righteous, the overall objective has been quite positive. Therefore, I feel that it is selfish and ignorant for an American citizen to criticize the war on Iraq.

[budullewraagh]

several hundred

it's over a thousand

 

Sadaam Hussein and his oppressive regime have been responsible for the murders of thousands of Iraqi citizens throughout his reign. One example, the gassing of the Kurds, was a particularly gruesome mass execution which killed hundreds of Iraqi citizens.

it was 5,000 citizens, not hundreds. hussein was guilty of oppression, but the united states and britain are somewhat responsible (according to the UN) for the deaths of 500,000 iraqi children between the two wars. also, the civilian body count in iraq far outnumbers the casualties inflicted by hussein. before the war, the UN predicted hundreds of thousands of casualties.

 

 

 

bottom line, get your facts straight and look at the entire issue

[blike]

the united states and britain are somewhat responsible (according to the UN) for the deaths of 500,000 iraqi children between the two wars.

The use of 'between' here is a bit ambiguous. Between the two wars, as in the toll of the two wars? Or between as in the time that elapsed between the two wars. The UN sanctions have resulted in an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children deaths, not the two wars.

 

also, the civilian body count in iraq far outnumbers the casualties inflicted by hussein. before the war, the UN predicted hundreds of thousands of casualties.

No it doesn't. Show me a body count that exceeds 25,000.

 

get your facts straight and look at the entire issue

Irony, thou art cruel.

[Pangloss]

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

[blike]

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

Wrong thread?

[budullewraagh]

Or between as in the time that elapsed between the two wars. The UN sanctions have resulted in an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children deaths, not the two wars.

between, as in the time between, not during.

No it doesn't. Show me a body count that exceeds 25,000.

i said BEFORE the war those were the ESTIMATES. regardless of the actual results, it shows something about the moral fiber of a president who is willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of innocents.

[Skye]

Nobody is unbiased.

[Ophiolite]

Originally Posted by Pangloss

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

 

Wrong thread?

Don't think so:

"Therefore, I feel that it is selfish and ignorant for an American citizen to criticize the war on Iraq."

and by extension, to criticise the President. Pangloss makes an important and relevant point.

[Ophiolite]

Hyperlite,

I am one of a substantial number of persons who recognise the value of removing Saddam from power, but are appalled by the way in which it was done. UN approval should have been sought. Unilateral (OK, duolateral) action is not the way to encourage the rule of law around the planet.

And if we were right to remove Saddam, what about the other unsavoury characters ruling a variety of countries. Are we going to march in there also? I have a list, if you wish. Do we avoid them because they have nuclear weapons, or don't have oil?

The US is the most powerful country on the planet (at present). It has the power to do great good in the world, but to achieve that it must listen to what the world considers good. The alternative, if it acts purely for its own interests, will be to turn the rest of the world against it. Everyone loses if that is the path that is taken.

[Phi for All]

I find it extremely hard to be unbiased when it comes to this war. George Bush Sr. found Saddam to be a great scapegoat when the entire country was looking to crucify his son Neal after the Silverado S&L scandal. I find it very interesting that, in late April of 1999, Afghanistan, Pakistan, & Turkmenistan reactivated the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline project, excluding Unocal, the US contractor. I've heard estimates that this pipeline is worth $12 trillion in oil and natural gas.

 

After 9/11, we attack Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, which Unocal had asked a House Committee to do back in 1998, and now Unocal is back working on the pipeline under the auspices of the new Afghani leader, Hamid Karzai, who just happened to be a top advisor to Unocal.

 

And here is the American public, too busy arguing about whether or not we should be in Iraq, and we have taken it for granted that we should be in Afghanistan.

 

The magicians wave one hand so you don't pay attention to what they're really doing with the other. This probably has less to do with conspiracy than with taking advantage of opportunities, but I think we are being played like fiddles here.

[Pangloss]

Yeah I was responding to the original post, but while I was hunting for it the phone rang and by the time I got around to clicking there were other posts in front of mine. (Don'tcha hate it when that happens?) (grin)

 

 

After 9/11, we attack Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, which Unocal had asked a House Committee to do back in 1998, and now Unocal is back working on the pipeline under the auspices of the new Afghani leader, Hamid Karzai, who just happened to be a top advisor to Unocal.

 

That's a real stretch -- I think you need to stop taking your talking points from Moveon.org. The Taliban was directly sponsoring international terrorism, and it was the government of Afghanistan. When Al Qaeda attacked the US, their fate was sealed. They made their bed, they got to sleep in it. The fact that some American company (amongst many others around the world) benefitted from it is GOOD news. Not bad.

 

Phi if you can't see the moral justification in the Afghan war, then I think you need to ask yourself if there are any circumstances under which you could EVER see something done by the right side of the American political spectrum in a positive light, and whether you would have supported the war in Afghanistan if Al Gore had done it.

[Phi for All]

That's a real stretch -- I think you need to stop taking your talking points from Moveon.org.

I haven't looked at anything from MoveOn in over a year.

The fact that some American company (amongst many others around the world) benefitted from it is GOOD news. Not bad.

I think I covered that by saying Afghanistan was less a conspiracy and more taking advantage of opportunities.

Phi if you can't see the moral justification in the Afghan war, then I think you need to ask yourself if there are any circumstances under which you could EVER see something done by the right side of the American political spectrum in a positive light, and whether you would have supported the war in Afghanistan if Al Gore had done it.

I'm not being partisan on this. The Unocal deal was begun under the Clinton administration. In fact, I only register Democrat to vote in the primaries. I'm very disappointed in both major parties right now. They both make deals with immensely wealthy corporations that have a small amount to do with protecting this country and a great deal to do with protecting their cashflow. I think it's a small step to go from taking advantage of opportunities to actually engineering them, and when the return on investments approach 500% and the money involved is in the trillions, I trust big business about this much.

[Pangloss]

Ok fair enough, in terms of your motivations, but I still think you're tilting at windmills about this Unocal thing. Isn't it possible that they benefitted AND that Afghanistan needed to be taken down?

[Aardvark]

I've heard estimates that this pipeline is worth $12 trillion in oil and natural gas.

 

After 9/11' date=' we attack Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, which Unocal had asked a House Committee to do back in 1998,

 

Having read the link you posted i note that Unacol did not ask for the overthrow of the Taliban. Unacol stated it had no preferences to any of the groups in Afghanistan.

 

"Although Unocal has not negotiated with any one group, and does not favor any group, we have had contacts with and briefings for all of them."

 

Unacol also stated only that it wanted support for the UNITED NATIONS peace keeping plans.

 

"We urge the Administration and the Congress to give strong support to the United Nations-led peace process in Afghanistan."

 

Also where on Earth do you get the estimate of $12 Trillion? Not even Michael Moore at his wildest is quoting quite such an outlandish figure.

 

It looks like you are allowing bias to blind you here.

[john5746]

Therefore, I feel that it is selfish and ignorant for an American citizen to criticize the war on Iraq.

 

Move to China or Russia. Won't hear as much criticizing there.

 

Unfortunatley, there is always some tyrant killing people somewhere in the world. This doesn't mean we must invade and fix it.

 

I think everyone accepts we invaded Iraq on incorrect intelligence. People are justified in questioning their government. I know I will doubt any intelligence from here forward.

[budullewraagh]

take for instance the genocide we are ignoring

[drz]

what genocide??

 

 

(I know, but unfortunately, there are many who do not because it only gets like, 6 seconds of air on the local news.)

[budullewraagh]

um, sudan ring a bell?

[r1dermon]

genocides in sudan. but since their leader doesnt own trillions of dollars worth of oil, we dont really care about them dying.

i think a lot of people are pissed with the iraq war because the inspectors asked for more time, and then bush disregarded their requests and went in anyway. and that our whole point in going to iraq was to take saddam out of power and seize his nuclear weapons...now that saddam is out of power..where are those nuclear weapons....i think it was on a late night tv show like a year ago, when he said "oh, no weapons under here" looking under the curtains...if that doesnt qualify you for the stupidest remark as president of all time, then i dont know. dan quayle owns the throne for stupidest vice president, but for bush to say something THAT moronic...he should've been impeached right there.

[Skye]

Sudan has oil, it sells a great deal to China. This is why China is against tough resolutions on Sudan.

[blike]

if that doesnt qualify you for the stupidest remark as president of all time, then i dont know.

Almost as bad as "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

 

*cue liberals jumping to clinton's defense*

[Douglas]

genocides in sudan. but since their leader doesnt own trillions of dollars worth of oil' date=' we dont really care about them dying.

[/quote']

I'm probably misunderstanding what you're saying here. Are you suggesting we send troops to Sudan??

[Ophiolite]

Sudan has oil, it sells a great deal to China. This is why China is against tough resolutions on Sudan.

Production levels are around 350,000 barrels per day, of which almost 300,000 is exported. The quoted reserves are only 500 million barrels, so at this rate, and with no further discoveries, they have a problem within the decade.

 

The oil is produced from a single field operated by a joint venture between national oil companies of China, Malaysia and India. This is relevant because it means they have the tacit support of the two largest countries on the planet an a key islamic nation. (I believe the Canadian Company Talisman pulled out under domestic pressure.)

 

The US has arguably acted in a responsible manner in relation to Sudan through both the Clinton and Bush administrations, seeking to broker a peace settlement between the government in Khartoum and the insurgents in the south. Their failure to achive a result is more a matter of the intransigence of the Sudanese government, abetted by external support, than it is about incompetence or disinterest by the Bush administration.

[Ophiolite]

I'm probably misunderstanding what you're saying here. Are you suggesting we send troops to Sudan??

If we can send troops to Iraq 'for the benefit of the Iraqi people' then why can't we send them to Sudan?

[Douglas]

If we can send troops to Iraq 'for the benefit of the Iraqi people' then why can't we send them to Sudan?

You're more or less making my point. The issue was genocide. I've read reports that between 50,000 and 300,000 kurds were killed in Iraq.

http://www.google.com/search?q=genocide+kurds+killed+iraq&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N

And that 50,000 to 100,000 were killed in Sudan.

http://news.google.com/news?q=genocide+sudan+people+killed&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=nn&oi=newsr

 

Is there a difference between sending troops to Iraq instead of Sudan?? Or Sudan instead of Iraq??