Why George W. Bush Really Invaded Iraq

Are you talking about Douglas McArthur?

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

your right ty for corecting me

"since your reply " thought Americans had an inborn distrust and suspicion of government" tells me your not an american."

Are you saying that no American has an inborn distrust and/or suspicion of American government?

I'm saying I am surprised I don't see more of it.

"and i believe in my country, I'm a patriot."

Sounds more like the Power's parrot to me.

Americans is the trust they place in their government. You always hear about Americans' dislike of government. Their country was founded on revolution and defiance in an age marked by free and independent thought. But it seems like when it really counts only a few are prepared to actually question things thier government does or says.
I guess it's a fine line between (what they see as) patriotism and independence.

you hear alot of things but seems you cant see the trees in the forest.

you should just relize what my country has done for the free countries plus what its gonna do for the opressed.

so were others until this invasion of Iraq. Just because I don't like the current U.S. governement and its policies does not mean I am a devoted anti-American.
There is much about America that I love and admire.

give me a break you want to leave saddam in power to kill more no thank you
we had bad intel yes but the end results that counts freedom

goal of the invasion. Self-defence against a nuclear or chemical attack was, The Bush people went to this "freeing of Iraqis" as their default reason when it became obvious what a fraud their original reasons had been. Make no mistake, if this preemptive strike thing had not come up there would have been no invasion.
Tell me what you think is better Mark, life under Saddam or life with the violence chaos and danger that is Iraq today.Don't forget the depleted uranium, unexploded cluster bombs etc.
I wouldn't want to have to make that choice.

id rather die trying to be free, them live under a dictator that kills my family that talks about him.

you rather live in fear? i live in freedom.
and the uraniums from rounds only people that need worry is the ones that were in the vehicles.

and I'm willing to bet b4 we leave we will help look for un exploded rounds.

not like in Afghanistan when Russia left huh!


and as to the invasion it was because of bad Intel, seems the un thought he had as thats why there was sanctions against Saddam.

and i rather die trying to be free then live in fear of my oppressor

Who shall we go after next - North Korea? After all, it was one of the axis of evil. Shall we make a list, post it on the internet, and free all those oppressed people in the world? Where is China on the list?

As John Stossel says - Give me a break!

We are not big enough to police the whole world.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

or as the worlds a changeing seems freedoms breaking out all over

thank our president had some balls to bad some here find that bad.

Is possible he has balls. But only water there! LOL!

I didnt see that the subthread was closed and if you consider my last post to be included among the posts in that sub thread I am sorry.Didn't see it until now.

making for the major U.S.defence companies? Try in the billions.The low estimate right now for Iraqi deaths since March 2003 is around 20,000, the high is over 150,000. That does not count wounded, maimed and disfigured Iraqi civilians. That number is somewhere around around 100,00 although no one seems to know for sure.

That is the estimated figure for the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam........not the war in Iraq since 2003.

The number of Iraqis killed since 2003 is around 10,000 or less and most of them have been killed by insurgents....and includes the Iraqi police.

There was a link long ago here in SE that showed the running total of deaths........but the disclaimer on that page stated that it included the police and the insurgents, which was why the number was higher than true since they weren't able to separate the totals since the insurgents were dying at such a fast pace.

If you can find a link anywhere on the net to back up YOUR numbers, please present it.

TONI

read it here:

http://www.epic-usa.org/Portals/1/Lancet_report_on_iraqi_mortality_before_and_after_2003.pdf


or here:http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=424

There are other estimates in this range but the Lancet report is condidered one of the best works of its kind.

since there not worth the band with its a work allright.

just as good and truthfull as " michal Moores" fiction.
keep on posting i need a good laugh.

But you keep making statements without backing them up. Echo 2 linked to pages that show numbers and you simply say they are not true. Please come up with links Mark.

no matter how Lancet words their article, if you look at the individual grafts they actually show on the site, from pre-April 2003, there are practically NO deaths by violence listed.......and yet it is well known by the mass graves being found every day, that Saddam had killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. Where is the comparison that shows the reality of that?

Also......it's interesting that, looking at the charts, that Fallujah is listed separately (which has been the known area for insurgents coming together in one main area and the CIVILIANS were all told to leave the area so the 'body count' in the chart is almost exclusively insurgents killed there).

Also.....there is NO separation of deaths by actual civilians vs Iraqi police vs insurgents so it appears that a body is a body is a body and the count isn't accurate.

Also....there is NOTHING in the article that indicates that any of the civilians were killed by insurgents. It ONLY states that they were all killed by coalition forces and mostly via air strikes which is absurd to even consider that the coalition air strikes have killed over 100,000 civilians.

Methinks your article is slanted as an anti-war piece of propaganda. There have been better and more accurate links to stats by other members of SE...I just can't find the posts right now, but thanks for the laugh of the day.

TONI

It was put together by a team of public health researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the Columbia University School of Nursing, and the College of Medicine at Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. These researchers did what few have been able to do, go out into the Iraqi countryside and do fieldwork. All other estimates are from what's called "passive surveillance", that is they get their info from third party reports which come in randomly and can in no way be called reliable. Here we actually have a report done by people who went out into the Iraqi cities towns and vilages.
You say no deaths listed pre-2003 is proof somehow of its shortcoming. Yet this is what Iraqis told the researchers. Maybe Hussein did not kill as many people as we have been told. He killed thousands to be sure, don't get me wrong.
The study excluded high casualty areas like Najaf and Ramadi and much of Anbar, for example, where fighting and U.S. bombings went on for weeks and months. It also included the more peaceful areas like the entire Kurdish region and the Governorate of Sulaymaniya, for example, where the post-invasion mortality rate was considerably lower than the pre-invasion rate. Had the team excluded these areas the figure would have been much higher. The study did include Sadr city but "by random chance was in an unscathed neighbourhood with no reported deaths from the months of recent clashes" (p. 7). Another thing to bear in mind is the U.S. and the Iraqi government do not issue civilian casualty figures.
Regarding your comment about deaths via air strikes, let me remind you that 60 years ago one air strike on one city, Dresden, on one night, with less lethal ordinance then the U.S. uses today, killed some 50,000 people. Number of wounded unknown.
There is also the issue of depleted uranium which is causing untold harm to the Iraqi people as well as these left over unexploded cluster bombs.
Knight Ridder recently got a hold of some figures kept by the Iraqi ministry of Health which showed that the U.S. was killing twice a many civilians as were insurgents.
According to the Red Cross, not all civilians left Fallujah Toni. Many stayed. Don't forget the U.S. estimate of the number of insurgents in Fallujah was initially 12-1500.
As of right now there is no media in Fallujah, none since November so all we have is the word of the U.S. State Department and the Coalition authority.

I would say if the study has a fault it would be the circumstances in Iraq, which prevents more of these studies from being done.

statements.......

>>>>Maybe Hussein did not kill as many people as we have been told.>>> Tell that to the Iraqi people who have been since nearly day one pointing out the mass graves.....and all the people who have had family just flat out disappear over the last 40+ years with Saddam. I don't know what people your sources supposedly have been talking to, but their figures are way off base just looking at the history of what we have already known about for years and not just since we got there two years ago.

>>>>Regarding your comment about deaths via air strikes, let me remind you that 60 years ago one air strike on one city, Dresden, on one night, with less lethal ordinance then the U.S. uses today, killed some 50,000 people. Number of wounded unknown.>>>>

Considering that technology for air strike being far more accurate over a 60 year period of time, your statement is ludicrous to say the least. And cluster bombs have hardly been used in Iraq in the two years we've been there. There hasn't been a need for them because other missiles were better for exact targeting, which is why I questioned your source figures for air strikes killing so many civilians and still do.

>>>>According to the Red Cross, not all civilians left Fallujah Toni. Many stayed.>>> Many didn't stay......some did because they had nowhere else to go in the country. There were days of warning given before we entered Fallujah. Nowhere near stayed that represent the numbers shown in your source or the whole place would have been dead.

>>>>There is also the issue of depleted uranium which is causing untold harm>>>> From what types of ammunition? I don't know of anything we're using that contains uranium....please define those weapons.

>>>>>Knight Ridder recently got a hold of some figures kept by the Iraqi ministry of Health which showed that the U.S. was killing twice a many civilians as were insurgents.>>>>>> Oh yeah...that ministry is a real good source of information (sarcasm intended). Considering that it was also an Iraqi official who claimed that over 400 TONS of WMD were missing from an armory and we were to blame for not protecting it.....when, in fact, they were also claiming there were NO WMD in the country, and when, in fact, the actual total of missing weapons was less than 4 TONS and could easily have been put on a couple of trucks and moved out just after we got there. Can't have it both ways.....

>>>As of right now there is no media in Fallujah, none since November so all we have is the word of the U.S. State Department and the Coalition authority.>>> I'll take their word for it before a source that can't reach enough people to get their numbers right so they use a math formula to get the numbers they believe would be right.

>>>>I would say if the study has a fault it would be the circumstances in Iraq, which prevents more of these studies from being done.>>>>> Good pre-emptive out for your source; however, like I said before, there were other 'body count' links provided previously here in SE and those numbers are nowhere near what this ONE report shows.....and even those links couldn't separate civilians from police or insurgents.

TONI

in the tank buster rounds they make the round harder.

and as to the effects of the dust seems to me there only gonna hurt the enemy im not real concerened about my enemy i just want them dead

I would like to see it.None of your objections amount to anything.

1) First of all we have no reliable figures for how many people Saddam killed. Second, some of those mass graves have fewer than 100 people.Third,at least one of those mass graves was filled with Iranian soldiers another with Kuwaitis, Fourth, I am prepared top believe a scientifically peer reviewd study over CNN MSNBC and the rest of the corporate media. What are your source Toni?
Fifth, I am also prepared to believe the word of Iraqis over your dismissivenes. Are you saying the Lancet team lied?

2)Really Toni? You will take the word of a discredited government whose Coalition Auhtority will not release civilian casualty figures. I've heard of patriotism but this is a little extreme.
I think in this case I will take the word of the Red Cross and the Red Crecent.

3) Anyone who looks into the subject knows there is no such thing as precision munitions. The DOD thinks it has a success if 2 out of 10 of these guided munitions comes within 20 meters of its target.
By the way, how accurate can you be when you drop a 1000 lb. bomb on an urban area.The payload of American munitions is devastating. It dwarfs the stuff they used on Dresden and other cities 60 years ago.The effect is multiplied when these munitions are used in urban areas for weeks at a time. That doesn't count the firepower that the average U.S. soldier is capable of delivering.


4)So the U.S. installed Iraqi government is not credible. OK I'll keep that in mind for purposes of this discussion.

5) Toni the U.S. and the rest of the world has been using depleted uranium in its munitions for decades. Rockets, bombs, artillery and tank shells. That's common knowledge. Google it.

6) Convenient way out? I think not.The situation on the ground is not a way out.It is a tragic reality

So is GW and many other American presidents.Among those,the ones that chose to keep the killings of the Vietnamn people and those who actually killed them.