Thread: Obama is president, but the war in Iraq continues.

wow, this isnt a complicated subject. we should not have went and therefore we should not be there. i mean really, we went because of 9/11 which took 3000 lives and now we have lost 5000 american soldier lives in the war and well over 1000000 (1 million) iraqi civilian lives, what are we accomplishing? not to mention the monumental national debt we have already that is being used to enslave america. be real people, obviously its not a partisan issue (republican and democrat) FIGHT THE NEW WORLD ORDER

Originally Posted by poopman

we should not have went and therefore we should not be there.

You're oversimplifying the issue. And the number of Iraqi civilians killed is well below a million, not that it makes it any more acceptable.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

You're oversimplifying the issue. And the number of Iraqi civilians killed is well below a million, not that it makes it any more acceptable.

maybe its not complicated man. and it is over a million dead iraqis.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert...e_b_60396.html


http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq

Originally Posted by poopman

maybe its not complicated man. and it is over a million dead iraqis.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert...e_b_60396.html


http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq

It's one of the most complicated wars in human history. There are no credible estimations of the Iraqi civilian death toll since nobody is responsible for keeping track. There is no official number and if you average all of the estimations out there, which range from less than 100,000 to 1,000,000, you get a much lower number than one million.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

It's one of the most complicated wars in human history. There are no credible estimations of the Iraqi civilian death toll since nobody is responsible for keeping track. There is no official number and if you average all of the estimations out there, which range from less than 100,000 to 1,000,000, you get a much lower number than one million.

Did you even read the sources he posted for you? The huffington post article is about the motivation behind the Justforeignpolicy website. It says that the reason why they made the website was because there was a credible estimate made by the Lancet Medical Journal in 2006 that put the number of iraqis dead at 655,000, but there was nothing to refer to since then. That was 4 years ago, and only 3 years into the war. I think it is pretty safe to say that judging by these numbers the death toll could easily be up over a million by now.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Did you even read the sources he posted for you? The huffington post article is about the motivation behind the Justforeignpolicy website. It says that the reason why they made the website was because there was a credible estimate made by the Lancet Medical Journal in 2006 that put the number of iraqis dead at 655,000, but there was nothing to refer to since then. That was 4 years ago, and only 3 years into the war. I think it is pretty safe to say that judging by these numbers the death toll could easily be up over a million by now.

Of course I read it, I know all about the Lancet survey. Like I said, there are no credible sources for a true death count in iraq. The Lancet survey is no more credible than any of the others, and the numbers vary greatly from the Lancet findings. The lancet survey is one of the highest numbers published so far and it has a margin of error of about 300,000, meaning their actual number could be as low as 300,000 or as high as 900,000, they are just splitting the difference with the 600,000. That hardly sounds credible to me. There are many things that are misleading about these polls, one being the amount of assumption and estimation that goes into finding these numbers, and another being that these are estimations of all deaths since the beginning of the war, not just deaths at the hands of Americans. And when you say the number could have easily jumped to one million in three years, you aren't taking into account the fact that the violence level isn't steady and things have in fact improved over the past year or so. It is widely excepted that you can divide any estimation by three and that is the number of Iraqis killed directly by Americans, the rest are killed by insurgents, criminal activity, sectarian violence, or died due to "poor healthcare." You can't cite any one of these polls as a "credible" source since they all use the same unreliable methods and they all get vastly different numbers. If you average all of these polls together, you get a number much lower than one million.

All of that being said, it is really pointless to argue about the death toll because it won't make a bit of difference whether the number is 100,000 or whether it really is over a million. I just don't like when people go throwing large numbers around for shock value when that number bears no credence to the actual situation, it's misleading and dishonest. People shout "one million Iraqi dead!" like we have slaughtered a million innocent people. If he hadn't said "well over a million" like it was the absolute truth, I wouldn't have said anything.

Originally Posted by poopman

i mean really, we went because of 9/11 which took 3000 lives

The U.S. went to Iraq because of 9-11?

I get confused when I see statistics on the civilian death toll in Iraq. What exactly is a civilian in Iraq? The insurgents are not professional military soldiers wearging green uniforms and answering to people of higher military ranks. They are crazy terrorists who think Satan has invaded and set up a Satanic government, and they are blowing shit up. Are they civilians? If those are civilians, then I hope we have killed a million of that type of civilian and kill all that remain. As far as good folks who are minding their own business and peacefully enjoying their new rights, how many of them have we killed? We don't target them. We try hard to avoid them. We use precision weapons that are awesome. We drop leaflets on areas before we do battle in them. There is no way we have killed one million of those people. Now, the insurgents do target those people. If they have killed one million of them, they would have done it with or without our presence. In fact, they would have done it even more easily. It is the new democracy the insurgents are trying to take down. They are willing to set the world on fire to end the democracy. So, I wouldn't really call those killings war casualties. They are anti-democracy killings by insurgent terrorists.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I get confused when I see statistics on the civilian death toll in Iraq. What exactly is a civilian in Iraq? The insurgents are not professional military soldiers wearging green uniforms and answering to people of higher military ranks. They are crazy terrorists who think Satan has invaded and set up a Satanic government, and they are blowing shit up. Are they civilians? If those are civilians, then I hope we have killed a million of that type of civilian and kill all that remain. As far as good folks who are minding their own business and peacefully enjoying their new rights, how many of them have we killed? We don't target them. We try hard to avoid them. We use precision weapons that are awesome. We drop leaflets on areas before we do battle in them. There is no way we have killed one million of those people. Now, the insurgents do target those people. If they have killed one million of them, they would have done it with or without our presence. In fact, they would have done it even more easily. It is the new democracy the insurgents are trying to take down. They are willing to set the world on fire to end the democracy. So, I wouldn't really call those killings war casualties. They are anti-democracy killings by insurgent terrorists.

Your better than this. Lots of hyperbole and propaganda. If my country was invaded by outsiders who claimed to be liberating my country when it was evident that they had economic motives, I'd join some form of resistance. The Iraqi insurgency is an extremely complex entity; there is a Radical Islamist section that is in its very nature anti-democratic, and there are those that simply wish to see an end to this foreign occupation. Peacefully enjoying their new rights? The USA has broken Iraq, yes they had some human rights issues and their government was "evil" for want of a better word, but literacy rates were rising, the health of the general population was rising, Iraq was improving in a number of ways. There are many countries around the world with un-democratic leadership, yet they are not in the state Iraq is in. The war is a farce, it always was a farce and still is. Your right with the original basis for this thread, that Obama has changed fuck all' but that doesn't change the fact that a great number of those involved in the Iraqi insurgency are civilians who are not terrorists but individuals fighting against foreign occupation.

I'm sure you'd be aggrieved if your country was invaded by a foreign country that wanted to rape your national resources and instate a puppet government.

Imran, you greatly undermine what kind of government the Hussein regime was. The country didn't just have "some human rights issues" under them. Why would you make such an understatement? They had genocide. They lived in absolute horror over the idea of doing anything to make them look like they might possibly oppose the government because those who were merely suspected of it were tortured and then killed. It happened by the tens of thousands and would have never ended if somebody didn't come in and stop it. The people did not have real elections. Hussein got 100% of the vote every time. Go figure. It was a brutally oppressive dictatorship. Well, guess what. We changed all of that. The people now have a democratic government, and they elect the leaders. The government does not commit genocide on them. That is factual. So yes, the people of Iraq are enjoying new rights. The fact that they are in a transition phase with insurgents trying to kill the democracy does not change that.

By the way, how do you feel about the insurgent targetting of civilians?

If the insurgents really wanted us to leave, they would stop doing exactly what is keeping us there. Use common sense here. It is their terrorism that is keeping us in Iraq because we know what the insurgent motive is. It is to bring down the new democracy. If you don't believe me, explain why so many of them have threatened to kill people for voting. Can you tell me that? Do you know who Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was? He was the Al Qaeda leader in Iraq. He said this...

"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology."

Also, why do the people vote in higher percentages than Americans in spite of the fact that they are threatened with death for doing so? It's because they value their new rights. Right????????

You cannot legitimately compare our presence in Iraq to a foreign invader coming to the United States and wrecking our democracy. My government is not like the Hussein regime was, and neither is yours. Do you really want to argue that they are on the same level? If my government were like the Hussein regime, I would enthusiastically welcome its overthrow by a foreign democracy that comes to bring us democracy. I am certain you would feel the same way. Do you deny it?

About this fighting for natural resources accusation, I challenge you to prove it. I see the accusation all the time, but nobody can ever prove it. I am not saying it is impossible. I am saying it has not been proven. It is just an accusation so far. Do you have anything to offer other than an accusation? Besides, even if that were a motive, the other motives are legitimate.

Also, calling my points "propaganda" does not serve as a counterargument. Some propaganda is true.

Universal is correct, their is no gains of natural resources. At some point we may get more from Iraq, but we aren't stealing it and we get more from Canada.

The Hussein regime was overtly oppressive, tyrannical and just plain wrong. It was wrong when you allied with it, and it was still wrong when you overthrew it; however, its moralistic credentials were irrelevant in both cases. There are numerous countries around the world with much worse issues. Why does the USA, the world's self appointed global police department not intervene all over Africa and in a number of other Arabic countries?
Your entire argument seems to hinge upon democracy. These insurgents want to overthrow the new "democracy". Of course they do; they know what US foreign policy consists of. Running around the world; saving people from themselves and then forcing some puppet government on them where they get to pick from a number of candidates who will follow almost identical policies once they are elected, that is to say they will tow the American line on economics.

You obviously have very strong opinions on this issue, as do I; I don't for one minute think either of us is capable of influencing the others opinion even the slightest in this manner.
I can't honestly hope to present an argument against US foreign policy since the Second World War and what I perceive to be the not so hidden agenda. Have you read any of Chomsky's work on this subject?

The same applies to the Iraqi Insurgency, something incredibly complex that you are trying to reduce to a few crazy al-Qaeda. I recently read "Insurgent Iraq - Al Zaraqawi and the New Generation" by Loretta Napoleoni. I would recommend it, purely so you can get both sides of the debate.

Can you suggest some material I could read either on The Iraqi Insurgency or American Foreign Policy in general that might provide a more "pro-American" point of view, for want of a better term?

Originally Posted by imran_p

The Hussein regime was overtly oppressive, tyrannical and just plain wrong. It was wrong when you allied with it, and it was still wrong when you overthrew it; however, its moralistic credentials were irrelevant in both cases. There are numerous countries around the world with much worse issues. Why does the USA, the world's self appointed global police department not intervene all over Africa and in a number of other Arabic countries?

A long list of reasons was behind the war, and the other nations do not give us such long lists. Very importantly, the Hussein regime broke a ceasefire with us for 12 years. Also, we would have loved for the U.N. to have handled the problem instead. They wouldn't do it. We don't want to be the world police.

Originally Posted by imran_p

Your entire argument seems to hinge upon democracy. These insurgents want to overthrow the new "democracy". Of course they do; they know what US foreign policy consists of. Running around the world; saving people from themselves and then forcing some puppet government on them where they get to pick from a number of candidates who will follow almost identical policies once they are elected, that is to say they will tow the American line on economics.

No, my entire argument does not hinge on democracy. Taking down a terrorist government and enforcing a ceasefire are two of the big principles that I think legitimized the continuation of war.

Let's assume that what you illustrated really is a threat. Isn't it a much better scenario than Hussein regime or Sharia law? Liberating nations from totalitarianism is always good. The Zarqawi quote I posted illustrates a lot of the resentment toward democracy. What kinds of government would you say top the list of insurgent goals? What kind of government would you like to see Iraq end up with?

Originally Posted by imran_p

You obviously have very strong opinions on this issue, as do I; I don't for one minute think either of us is capable of influencing the others opinion even the slightest in this manner.
I can't honestly hope to present an argument against US foreign policy since the Second World War and what I perceive to be the not so hidden agenda. Have you read any of Chomsky's work on this subject?

A little bit. I'm not a big fan of his.

Originally Posted by imran_p

The same applies to the Iraqi Insurgency, something incredibly complex that you are trying to reduce to a few crazy al-Qaeda. I recently read "Insurgent Iraq - Al Zaraqawi and the New Generation" by Loretta Napoleoni. I would recommend it, purely so you can get both sides of the debate.

No, I did not say it's a few crazy Al Qaeda. I quoted Zarqawi to illustrate a common belief among Islamofascists. If the insurgents gave a shit about freedom and rights, they would not be doing what they are doing. Do you think they would? Iraq has a chance to be free and become a prosperous nation. The insurgents want to destroy the golden opportunity. Think about that.

What do you think the insurgents are accomplishing? How do you feel about their targetting of civilians? Does it make you happy when you find out a U.S. or British soldier was killed by an insurgent?

Originally Posted by imran_p

Can you suggest some material I could read either on The Iraqi Insurgency or American Foreign Policy in general that might provide a more "pro-American" point of view, for want of a better term?

One you might be especially open to and that has a brilliant author is A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq by Christopher Hitchens. The author is most famous for being an outspoken atheist, so you won't read the book thinking you are reading something from some brainwashed sheep who automatically worships the Republican Party platform. Hitchens is great at provoing thought.

Originally Posted by imran_p

The Hussein regime was overtly oppressive, tyrannical and just plain wrong. It was wrong when you allied with it, and it was still wrong when you overthrew it; however, its moralistic credentials were irrelevant in both cases. There are numerous countries around the world with much worse issues. Why does the USA, the world's self appointed global police department not intervene all over Africa and in a number of other Arabic countries?
Your entire argument seems to hinge upon democracy. These insurgents want to overthrow the new "democracy". Of course they do; they know what US foreign policy consists of. Running around the world; saving people from themselves and then forcing some puppet government on them where they get to pick from a number of candidates who will follow almost identical policies once they are elected, that is to say they will tow the American line on economics.

You obviously have very strong opinions on this issue, as do I; I don't for one minute think either of us is capable of influencing the others opinion even the slightest in this manner.
I can't honestly hope to present an argument against US foreign policy since the Second World War and what I perceive to be the not so hidden agenda. Have you read any of Chomsky's work on this subject?

The same applies to the Iraqi Insurgency, something incredibly complex that you are trying to reduce to a few crazy al-Qaeda. I recently read "Insurgent Iraq - Al Zaraqawi and the New Generation" by Loretta Napoleoni. I would recommend it, purely so you can get both sides of the debate.

Can you suggest some material I could read either on The Iraqi Insurgency or American Foreign Policy in general that might provide a more "pro-American" point of view, for want of a better term?

I don't think anybody is pretending we went for purely unselfish, humanitarian purposes. America does do a lot of policing but we don't do it for free, there has to be a special incentive. Though we sometimes put on the air of an altruistic, peace-keeping nation, I am not so naive as to believe that is our only motivation for getting involved in conflicts around the world. Its got to be a win-win situation for us to invest any amount of resources in the cause, a "mutualistic" relationship. That's why we don't give a fuck about Africa. This isn't just about ending an oppressive regime and it isn't just about resources, though they play a part. It is a strategic move that helps protect the interests of America, that is it. All other pros and cons are secondary.

It is also important to point out that the war going on now has very little to do with Saddam Hussein. The distinction between the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq becomes more blurred with every passing day. It is essentially the same enemy with the same goals. We may be responsible for the influx of insurgencies in Iraq but that is just the reality of the current situation. Playing the blame game doesn't do a lot of good at this point, but that is not to absolve us of any responsibility. Not many people supported America in overthrowing the Hussein regime, but it is hard to justify criticism for the only real effort to end an oppressive insurgency that is spreading throughout the world like a disease.

Edit: If you'd like some reading material, try The Utility of Force by Gen. Rupert Smith (from your native land) or anything talking about special forces in the Middle East. I just finished reading The Masters of Chaos which is about the green berets, it is more about the US Army special forces in general but it talks about operations in Iraq and goes into detail about the work they do as special forces operators. Neither of those books are necessarily pro-American, but they discuss the most effective ways to fight the war and they also touch on the potential positive outcomes of the war which I think lends credence to the pro-American argument.

Caprisun I must admit you've completely confused me. First you talk about the Iraq war being a strategic move to further and protect US interests; something i would most certainly agree with. Then you move on to talking about Afghanistan and almost seek to draw a parallel between the two.

The problem here is your attempts to merge the Islamic Jihad and the Iraq Insurgency. The insurgency is composed of a few main groups; nationalists who view the invasion as simply that, Ba'ath Party loyalists and a handful of die hard jihadists; some of whom come from the rest of the Arab world. However, in Iraq it is accepted that the majority of the resistance is being fought by secular Iraqi Nationalists who wish the foreign invaders to leave. The war being fought primarily with Jihadists in Afghanistan is not similar to the war being fought primarily against a predominately secular Iraqi resistance.

If your interested in the true nature of the Iraqi insurgency I highly reccomend the book by Loretta Napoleoni.

UM, I want to reply to your points carefully and at length when I have time to respond, I'm not ignoring your points. I just want to answer these questions though quickly.

How do you feel about their targetting of civilians? Does it make you happy when you find out a U.S. or British soldier was killed by an insurgent?

This is not the first time you have asked me questions of this nature; I'd think you know me better than this now. The targeting of civilians is disgraceful, it's wrong. I find the second question slightly offensive if it is asked in seriousness. I don't feel happy when the death of soldiers is reported, death does not make me happy. I feel sad when an insurgent dies and I feel sad when a soldier dies.

Originally Posted by imran_p

I don't feel happy when the death of soldiers is reported, death does not make me happy.

What? It is exactly what you support. Isn't it? You are in favor of the insurgency, and the insurgency's method is to kill Coalition soldiers and Iraqis. If you don't support the killing the insurgents are doing, what actions of theirs do you support? You expressed that you are pro-insurgency. Or did you not express that?

Come on UM, stop playing games. I stated that if my country was invaded by some Arabs, with their foreign culture, their foreign ideals and foreign vested interests to coerce my country into operating along certain economic lines, to prevent my country developing in the way it had been for the last 30 years that I would want these foreigners out of my country and I would resist. Just because I support resistance to the occupation does not mean it makes me happy to see soldiers killed. I understand and empathize with the cause of the resistance, not of Jihadists who are committing acts of terror.
My supporting the resistance does not mean the death of my countrymen or yours makes me happy. If I was alive during the Second World War I would have fully supported opposing Nazi expansion yet the death of German soldiers would not have made happy. This is quite basic and I'm 100% sure you understand the distinction.

Imran, you seem to be all over the place with this. You don't support the killing? Then what exactly do you support? Do you like just the insurgent speech? Do you like their signs? What is it about what they are doing that you support? You acted like you were their public advocate two days ago, and now you say you are against the major game they are playing. What specifically are you in favor of? Saying that you sympathize does not answer the question.

It is the killing I spoke against. Are you with me on that?

You're either with us, or against us.

Originally Posted by dajo

You're either with us, or against us.

... or neutral. People who condone what you do are with you.

Come on your smart, this is easy. Your question was, does the death of soldiers make you happy?

Your debating style is effective yet I think sometimes you intentionally generalize and try to simplify incredibly complex situations and opinions.
You want my view on the insurgency?

I understand it. I understand armed resistance to occupying forces. I understood the response of the Mujahedin against the invading Soviet forces. If I was an Iraqi I would probably bare arms against coalition soldiers. I understand their pain, their anger and their response. Do I think their response will achieve anything worthwhile? No. Am I happy when they kill soldiers; no I'm not happy when these primarily working class men die.

Do I even understand or empathize with the elements of the insurgency that come from all over the Arab world to kill the "White Devils", and bomb innocent civilians? No. The Jihadists are sick people and are a problem that the US has created. Despite US propaganda, there was very little if any Jihadist movement in Iraq prior to the invasion.

I hope you understand what I'm saying. I understand the resistance. I agree with the principles of armed resistance against an invader. I am not happy when people die. Especially people with whom I share a great deal in common.

In my eyes, the insurgents and the soldiers are both pawns, both victims in a game played out by those who don't give a shit about the human cost of their ambition.

Okay, so you are not made happy by killings of Americans and Brits in Iraq. You are just in favor of such killings. Is that right?

You said that if you were an Iraqi you would probably be part of the insurgency and kill Coalition soldiers. What kind of government would you be pushing and hoping for during your rejection of the golden opportunity for lasting democracy and prosperity in Iraq?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

... or neutral. People who condone what you do are with you.

Actually, not really, no. There are far more positions than right, left and centered.

I think what you are doing here, is painting a bit of a black and white picture.

'If you say this,... then you must ultimately also mean this,.. and therefore you
are in favour of allied soldiers being killed.'

what..?

Edit:

Ok, I don't want to read everything. Could you quote him, where he
actually said that stuff? And also,.. US foreign policy is far from democratic.
If you read Chomsky, you'll see that this is actually a reason for all the hate
against the United States, and not because of envy (or whatever it is you
think the reason is)

Originally Posted by dajo

Actually, not really, no. There are far more positions than right, left and centered.

I think what you are doing here, is painting a bit of a black and white picture.

'If you say this,... then you must ultimately also mean this,.. and therefore you
are in favour of allied soldiers being killed.'

what..?

What you are thinking of is the fact that there are degrees of support and degrees of opposition. A little bit of support is not the same as extreme support, etc. However, you either support a cause, oppose the cause, or neither support it or oppose it. Can you tell me a fourth alternative?

How carefully have you been reading Imran's posts? He expressed belief in the legitimacy of the insurgency. Did you not catch it?