Ron Paul on Iraq: 'Who's better off?'

the world (amd UN) had a lot more respect for Clinton than for Bush, and for the US under Clinton -- there have been numerous polls discussed here specifically showing that.

Seventh -- Ron Paul is not a liberal, but a far-right Libertarian, one of the most conservative members of the House. I don't have time to rebut the rest of your idiotic comments at the moment (you clearly don't know who Ron Paul is or where he's coming from) -- more tonight...

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Big "So what".

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." -- Winston Churchill

The policy of appeasement also contributed to the start of another war. One leader who believed in appeasement was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain made concessions to both Hitler and Mussolini in an attempt to keep his nation out of war. But his policy only made Italy and Germany stronger. Both continued building a military, and both continued their conquests for land. It seemed that nations were too frightened of the new totalitarian states to protest their activity. In their neglect came a power that could not be stopped.
Appeasement and the indifference of the League of Nations let Hitler, Mussolini, and Japanese forces build up the power, prestige, and control they needed to launch a major war. And that is what finally happened.

Kofi, his kid and the French, get it?

>>Fourth, was Saddam given enough warnings, or do you believe that one more might have done the trick.<<
But the warnings were about WMDs that he didn't have, Jerry. And Bush prematurely ended the inspections that were on the way to proving that. For the first time since the mid-19th century, the US was the agressor in a war, in direct violation of world opinion.
Yes, Saddam was a bad man, and ideally the world and Iraq are better off without him. But given the cost in lives and dollars, a majority of Americans now believe it wasn't worth it -- and so do I.

>>Fifth, After being suckered in by Bill Clinton's false CIA info and you attacked Iraq, would you now advise Bush to quit and let the place go back to strong-man rule<<
No, that's not what this is about. Bolton was one of those who pressured the CIA into downplaying their doubts about the WMD intelligence -- that behavior should not be rewarded with a top-level job for which he's singularly ill-suited!

>>Sixth, will the world be a better place with a democracy in Iraq or another strongman ruler? And is it worth the sacrifice.<<
See number 4 -- the answer to the first half is not yet clear, but the answer to the second is "almost surely not!" Ask yourself this -- were the people of the former Yugoslavia better off without a dictatorial strong-man in power? The answer there is clear, given the country's disintegration and the death and destruction (hundreds and thousands and billions, respectively) that followed his death. Saddam in power (emasculated, in 2003) was probably the lesser of two evils. Almost all of his much-heralded butcheries against his own people preceded the First Gulf War.

>>Seventh, Do you thing Hating Bush and printing Liberal bull-hockey blaming him for things that democrats caused is causing lives like those in Iraq, and all the attacks on the USA during the Clinton and Carter administrations?<<
Making those charges against Ron Paul, the most conservative Republican member of the House, is simply absurd.

>>Eighth, Do you think the other countries of the world should standup and help (at least the gutless UN) or should Americans do it all alone and hide their passports when terrorists board an airplane or cruise ship?<<
And this relates to the deception that garnered support for the war, and our domestic slide down the slippery slope to a police state, precisely how?

>>Ninth, have you ever wondered how a man like Saddam could murdered so many people and have the weenie liberals of this world say, "Ya but he didn't have weapons of mass destruction, you should have let him continue for another indefinite period of time.<<
See comments on #6 -- do you think the 100,000+ dead Iraqis think they're better off now?

>>Tenth, how can rational people take Saddam's side over Bush's?<<
"Two wrongs don't make a right."

>>do you believe after all the Americans killed from the wheelchaired cripple on a cruise ship to the 225 Marines in the barracks to Lockerbee, Scotland to the thousands murdered in the twin towers, that Bush is doing this for oil profits or his love for Jews or he wanted Mexicans to help harvest crops? (All of those have been suggested on this board)<<
No, I believe he started out from day one to pay back Saddam for trying to kill Bush 41, and then went forward when it became clear to Karl Rove it was the only way for Republicans to hold onto Copngress and the White House in 2002 and 2004. Sadly, enough of the the American public bought the Republicans' big lies and
patriotic appeals that, coupled with the usual vote suppression by any means, the strategy was successful. And in the long run, that's truly tragic for America.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

>>>>>>Fourth, was Saddam given enough warnings, or do you believe that one more might have done the trick.<<
But the warnings were about WMDs that he didn't have, Jerry. And Bush prematurely ended the inspections that were on the way to proving that. For the first time since the mid-19th century, the US was the agressor in a war, in direct violation of world opinion.
Yes, Saddam was a bad man, and ideally the world and Iraq are better off without him. But given the cost in lives and dollars, a majority of Americans now believe it wasn't worth it -- and so do I.>>>>>>>

The warnings were about WMD that he didn't have......(your words....I don't agree with them)

EXCEPT that Saddam made damn sure that every country around him BELIEVED that he had them so they would be afraid enough that they would stop the sanctions. As long as he kept up that mask, the true face couldn't be seen, and he went out of his way to continuously divert the inspectors from being able to look where THEY wanted to, which gave even more credibility to Saddam having them. Over ten years of subterfuge added to that belief for countries other than the USA.

No matter how large or small the arsenal was, he DID have them at some point in time, and USED them....which offered up even more credibility to that belief.

Daddy and MANY others today are still alive because of our actions, no matter what your theory might be. Your belief that this is a vengeful President doesn't wash......He's a President who got tired of the crap and attacks the USA sat down and took for too many years and decided it was time to clean house. Turning the other cheek didn't work anymore.....and neither did the diplomatic measures that we spent so many years trying to achieve.

We're in it for as many years as it takes.....or as long as Bush is still in the WhiteHouse and until another wimp President gets in and pulls us out. But even with that said, we have already pulled a good number of our military out and not replaced them, so it's already starting.

>>>>>>>>>>>Eighth, Do you think the other countries of the world should standup and help (at least the gutless UN) or should Americans do it all alone and hide their passports when terrorists board an airplane or cruise ship?<<
And this relates to the deception that garnered support for the war, and our domestic slide down the slippery slope to a police state, precisely how?>>>>>

Nice backhand maneuver at avoiding the actual question. Evidently the attacks we've endured for years that culminated to this point haven't outraged you anywhere near as much as a 'deception' that you envision that the USA SOLELY and ALONE believed?????

>>>>>>>>>>Ninth, have you ever wondered how a man like Saddam could murdered so many people and have the weenie liberals of this world say, "Ya but he didn't have weapons of mass destruction, you should have let him continue for another indefinite period of time.<<
See comments on #6 -- do you think the 100,000+ dead Iraqis think they're better off now?>>>>>>>

There you go, tossing the 'magic' number around again, Dave.....do you EVER bother to read the posts here in SE or the news articles that argue that number? Jeezzz

>>>>>>>>>>>>do you believe after all the Americans killed from the wheelchaired cripple on a cruise ship to the 225 Marines in the barracks to Lockerbee, Scotland to the thousands murdered in the twin towers, that Bush is doing this for oil profits or his love for Jews or he wanted Mexicans to help harvest crops? (All of those have been suggested on this board)<<
No, I believe he started out from day one to pay back Saddam for trying to kill Bush 41, and then went forward when it became clear to Karl Rove it was the only way for Republicans to hold onto Copngress and the White House in 2002 and 2004. Sadly, enough of the the American public bought the Republicans' big lies and patriotic appeals that, coupled with the usual vote suppression by any means, the strategy was successful. And in the long run, that's truly tragic for America.>>>>>>>>

See above regarding your misplaced sadness since you don't seem to have any regarding the tragic events the USA has endured at the hands of terrorists for years and never did a damn thing about. Your outrage has been squarely linked to Bush wanting revenge for his daddy and nowhere else. Bring something else to the table for a change because this has gotten so old from you after five years already.....you started spewing this crap the first day Bush was elected usually with a warning to us all about how he would find a way to make it happen. If we hadn't gone to Iraq, you would still be waiting for the shoe to fall in order to prove your 'prediction', Dave....and ANY decision made by this President would have been justification enough for you since you started saying it again when we went to Afghanistan prior to Iraq and the WHOLE world but you approved of that move.

TONI


TONI

but you pretty much said it

> Your outrage has been squarely linked to Bush wanting revenge for his daddy and nowhere else. Bring something else to the table for a change because this has gotten so old from you after five years already.....

This constant endless repetition of back-to-the-60s SDS leftism needs to be stopped. It's gone on way too long already, years and years and years without change. It's mental. This place was great when it was Town Hall, before this all-SDS-politics-all-the-time plague came upon us.

I wish he'd take this SDS leftism to a usenet newsgroup or a moveon forum or something, instead of continuing to crap in this forum. This same old leftist SDS junk being vomited in this forum every day, over and over and over, needs to stop. They repeat the same garbage a million times a month and only he and the other trolls want to hear it!

DE

Saddam was given enough warnings. If police just gave out warnings people would not stop they would just continue to ignore. You call it aggression, I call it protecting the innocent people of Iraq who could not do anything about Saddam.

Despite escalating violence in Iraq over the past year, almost two-thirds of active duty U.S. soldiers approve of President George W Bush's handling of the situation, and 73 percent believe Washington is ''very'' or ''somewhat likely'' to succeed in its goals there?

Majority of those who are not ?shielded? from Iraq believe they are doing the right thing and it?s worth it.


(5) Here we go again if Saddam had WMD and used them you would be first to say Clinton was right and Bush should have listened to Clinton. BTW every IA in world said he had WMD?s


(6) Democracy in my option is always better.
A Great Moment for Our Country?
Why were the people of Yugoslavia happy?
For 13 years, Milosevic made life extremely difficult for the people living in that region. To end the suffering, the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization stopped trading with Yugoslavia. Milosevic clung to power until the people threw him out of office.
?This is a great moment for our country,? said Kostunica. ?After all the suffering, this may bring us peace.?
Rebuilding a Nation
When Kostunica became Yugoslavia's president, he was forced to deal with many problems. After years of war, the nation's economy was struggling. Many sections of the country wanted to break away from Yugoslavia and form their own countries.
In 2003, Yugoslavia became a loose federation known as Serbia and Montenegro. The two nations cooperate in some areas, such as national defense. However, they use different kinds of money and have different leaders. Kostunica serves as the prime minister of Serbia, while Montenegro is governed by its own prime minister.
Although progress has been made since Milosevic's rule, Serbia and Montenegro are still recovering from those ddark days. Even so, the people of those nations will not forget that the revolution began at the Kolubara mine.
?We are ready for change,? said Dusan Jikic at the time. ?It's a nice feeling. I need this hope.?

The European Parliament has voted in favor of Romania and Bulgaria joining the European Union in 2007 or 2008. The former Yugoslav countries to their west, Slovenia apart, are lagging far behind. But Serbia has been told that it too can start accession talks. The most contentious issue will be Kosovo.

But even in that battle-scarred region the news is encouraging. Almost 15 years after Yugoslavia began its descent into hell, there is a new determination, on the ground and in Brussels, to ensure that the countries of the western Balkans are heading for membership of the EU, rather than drifting further into isolation and poverty.

(7) This goes back to just appeasing terrorist again. (appeasing does not work)

( Another appeasement - I would at least try something - I also believe it?s better to have tried and failed and correct than to run and hide in the ddark and pretend terrorist don?t exist and only one party can save the world.

(9) Does give me liberty or give me death mean anything to anyone?
Iraq casualty rate of about 2.5%
Revolutionary War 5.3%
War of 1812 2.4%
Mexican War 22.2%
.
.
.
World War II - Casualties 1,078,162 - 6.6%

Are the people (who are benefiting) involved in the above wars better off?


(10) Three lefts make a right?. To compare Saddam to Bush is ridicules.

(11) This is the weakest of all done all for the 41st


But the rest was fun?.

(Why does the opposite of light get *****?)

That's the number the Lancet report came up with.The Lancet report has been peer reviewed and its methodolgy determined to be in line with the established norms for studies like this.
However, detractors of the Lancet report usually make two criticisms of it.
1) The report can not and does not distinguish between insurgents and civilians
Answer: Correct. However insurgents are typically males 20-45 years of age, give or take on both ends of that estimate.
That leaves all children (newborns and infants included)up to the age of 18 let,s say. It also leaves the elderly, men over 50, the handicapped, the ill,mentally and physically, (men who could not fight if they wanted to) and virtually all the women.
If you discount the entire male pop. age 20 -45, and not all the males in this group are insurgents,you are still left with a very large number from the original 100,000 estimate.

Bear in mind in all of this, that we are not counting wounded Iraqis.

The second criticism leveled at the report is that it is only a small sample of households, 1000 appproximately.
However for a population the size of the U.S.(280,000,000) 1000-1500 households is considered adequate to accurately gauge public opinion. The same could be said for a study like the Lancet report were it conducted in the U.S.
Therefore it is reasonable to assume that a sample of 1000 households is adequate for a country like Iraq,with a pop. of 25-27,000,000
In addition, the Lancet study included large peaceful areas of Iraq and excluded many combat zones. This would have had a dramatic upward affect on their estimate.

People like to dismiss the 100,000 figure. I would like to know from them where they would put the figure.
Or are we not supposed to talk about that?

that same report could have the estimate as low as 8,000.....which is much closer to the 10,000 that others (no I don't have the links anymore) have reported.

The difference between the 100,000 that you guys fling around and the 10,000 which we believe to be more accurate is massive, and is similar to the 400 TONS of WMD that the Iraqi representative in the last two weeks of the Presidential campaign claimed turned up missing from an armory we were accused of not defending.....and the actual 4 tons that couldn't be accounted for. 4 tons is two pickup truck loads and easily whisked away just as we arrived or prior to arriving.

And if there weren't any WMD, why would an Iraqi official claim it was missing in such large quantities?

My only comment about this....end of post.......

TONI

Please, if you can come up with a study or some other piece of credible data, I would like very much to see it.
I have abandoned the low count of the Lancet report. I no longer believe 8,000 is anywhere close to the real number of Iraqi dead.The more I look into this the more I belive the number is much higer than 10,000.
I have found only one credible source outside of the Lancet report in determining this figure.It's a website puts the figure in the low twenties. I don't know what you will think of it, but please, take time to read their section on sources and methods.
I would like to know what you think of it.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm

Their total includes all deaths caused by "insurgent" attacks and people who died as a result of the breakdown of infrastructure, etc.

There have been reports of both acting in that capacity.
As others have noted,there are flaws in the Lancet estimate. How where and when did 100K civilians get killed?

reports but the ones I have seen put the number at about 100 women.I don't know how many teenagers might be involved. But as a group the best estimate is that the insurgents number about 50-100,000. Out of a population of 27 000 000 you are talking about less than one percent. even if they were all killed the insurgents would only account for a tiny fraction of the estimate given by the Lancet report.
Others have said there are flaws. I have addressed two of them here.I recommend you read the report
The most important thing about the Lancet report is that it has been peer reviewed. Its methodogy has been deemed
in line with accepted norms. Although I grant you nothing about the violence and chaos in Iraq today allows for much in the way of norms. More importantly, it is the best study we have. The Lancet team risked life and limb in their data collection process. In fact, it is really the only study we have.
As for how the iraqi civilians got killed, you will see that the Lancet report conludes that most of the fatalities were from U.S. air strikes.
The Lancet report estimate is consistent with the collateral damage a U.S. invasion would cause. Remember the U.S. military is still a Cold War army. Most of its ordinance is designed to defeat a Soviet invasion through East Germany. That means that the ordinace is designed to cause maximum destruction, indiscriminate destruction, over a wide area.ie cluster bombs and various guns of the 30 mm variety that are capable of firing 4000 rounds a minute,bombs dropped from planes that level 3 or 4 city blocks.

Regards,

The Lancet report's methodology and conclusions are widely disputed. I'm not a scientist or statistician but my instincts are that 100k is far too high an estimate.

You say maybe 10k. I don't know. I suppose we'll have better numbers someday.

And what do you estimate to be Saddam's murder toll? I've seen claims as high as a million.

for example the British government rejected it.
I can't break it down any better for you than I have unless you ask me something specific. I think the best thing to do with the Lancet report is read it and then read about it. Otherwise you're just taking someone else's word for it. I understand, though, if you don't want to read it. Stats and graphs can get a little mind numbing.
You're right we will have better numbers someday.
As for Saddam's death toll, I would put it at 3 or 400000.
However, bear in mind that the U.S. counts Uzbekistan as part of the Coalition. Uzbekistan is a well known human rights abuser.The U.S.is giving the Uzbek government a pass on its brutality to its citizens in exchange for air bases.

But the warnings were about WMDs that he didn't have, Jerry.

[Not true, since 1991 when he killed zillions of his own people and took Kuwait, he was being warned about breaking HIS word that HE signed after the coalition kicked his rear. We all agreed on that, quit trying to change history.

He surrendered and agreed to (as did the rest of the world) to sanctions against him. He was being forced to live up to his terms of surrender. This is not a unjustified attack. He thought because he had some side deals with France, suckered in Canada and Germany that we would be politically impotent like President Clinton acted, you both were (and still are) wrong.]

And Bush prematurely ended the inspections that were on the way to proving that.

[Oh good God, the inspectors were tossed out, and stymied when they were there, everyone know that.]

For the first time since the mid-19th century, the US was the agressor in a war, in direct violation of world opinion.

[That's bull, I had a English man tell me that we jumped in WWII at the last minute to get the glory. We waited till Pearl Harbor and it was a mistake.]

Yes, Saddam was a bad man, and ideally the world and Iraq are better off without him. But given the cost in lives and dollars, a majority of Americans now believe it wasn't worth it -- and so do I.

[But you are not fighting the war. And unfortunately for you, you can't predict how bloody it would have got if he was allowed to gain more power. Some of your party predicted that the USA would need hundreds of thousands of body bags, and you were wrong then too. Besides, the majority of the voting public agree with Bush and not you. Check and see who was elected.]

Ask yourself this -- were the people of the former Yugoslavia better off without a dictatorial strong-man in power? The answer there is clear, given the country's disintegration and the death and destruction (hundreds and thousands and billions, respectively) that followed his death. Saddam in power (emasculated, in 2003) was probably the lesser of two evils. Almost all of his much-heralded butcheries against his own people preceded the First Gulf War.

[And he was a nice man after signing the conditions of surrender? Give me a break. He lied, broke the conditions and kicked out the inspectors and nor somehow it's not his fault that we were wrong about WMD. I'm getting a headache.]

>>Eighth, Do you think the other countries of the world should standup and help (at least the gutless UN) or should Americans do it all alone and hide their passports when terrorists board an airplane or cruise ship?<<
And this relates to the deception that garnered support for the war, and our domestic slide down the slippery slope to a police state, precisely how?

[The wheeled chaired handicapped tourist was killed and tossed overboard by Muslims many years ago because he was an American. Bush wasn't even thinking about running, that's how.]

>>Ninth, have you ever wondered how a man like Saddam could murdered so many people and have the weenie liberals of this world say, "Ya but he didn't have weapons of mass destruction, you should have let him continue for another indefinite period of time.<<
See comments on #6 -- do you think the 100,000+ dead Iraqis think they're better off now?

[He killed that many Kurds alone. What is your point?]

>>Tenth, how can rational people take Saddam's side over Bush's?<<
"Two wrongs don't make a right."

[It wan't two wrongs, it was sanction after sanction that he thumbed his nose at. Sanctions that the entire world and the UN put in place.]

No, I believe he started out from day one to pay back Saddam for trying to kill Bush 41, and then went forward when it became clear to Karl Rove it was the only way for Republicans to hold onto Copngress and the White House in 2002 and 2004. Sadly, enough of the the American public bought the Republicans' big lies and
patriotic appeals that, coupled with the usual vote suppression by any means, the strategy was successful. And in the long run, that's truly tragic for America.

[Unusual vote suppression? What are you talking about? I'm the one that was asking (before the last vote) which Catsup Queen paid Jesse Jackson to hide for twelve months during Kerry's run for fear that he would suck off the Black vote from the Liberal vote. I'll bet ole Jesse is swimming in a lake of Catsup right now.

I'm going to log off the forum for a rest from unproven nonsense like that, and spend more time with facts and people that like dealing with them. No fair talking about me while I'm taking a sanity break.]