It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iraqi deaths before the war

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I agree, Bleys, but is going to be something to watch when the Kurds decided to be autonomous and the Turks decide to impose their opposition and stop them then I wonder what the US is going to do if war brakes between the Turks and the Kurds, whose side will they take.



Keep in mind the NATO treaty.....


Originally posted by Amuk


My question for you is if you hate America so much why dont you join the insurgents?

Or would that involve getting up from your computer and doing something instead of sitting on your ass and bitching



Wow! Did you nail that one! Cheers!


And yes, I understand you are against the war...




posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 10:35 PM
link   
There is NO logic in any statements about killing Iraqis to save them.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by heelstone
There is NO logic in any statements about killing Iraqis to save them.


So are you saying it would have been better to let 200,000 a year die from starvation and disease till Sadam died of old age?



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Amuk, I read your post thoroughly and my comment was not directed towards you, it was directed towards anyone that supports the war, which I know (and knew when I made that post) you do not, so I'm sorry you thought I was directing that comment towards you.

As far as the war saving lives; I clearly point out how there were other options, like financial aid or opening up limited trade. The embargo ended because there was no longer a need for it as Iraq had lost a stable governmental structure and financial resources, this was the direct result of the war.

As a veteran, a father, a worker, an American and a volunteer, I have to tell you that you are out of line and should be ashamed for telling me to become an "insurgent". Never once have I said that I hate America! Last I checked, I had the right to voice an opinion, just because I think that an elected (actually not elected) administration has defamed the American people doesn't mean I hate America. If you are going to put me down for my criticizing the murders of human beings, then you should think twice about what you believe in.

As far as criticizing me for "bitching" or not getting up from my computer, I have expressed opinions which are based on facts on the same board as amuk and edsinger, so your comments pretty much define the word hypocritical. And based off of your guys' points, you both sit at your computer way more than I do

So instead of trying to insult me, why don't you guys address the points that I make. I don't think that they're hard to understand or irrational, so why not shed some light on my mistakes if I'm so wrong?

[edit on 28-10-2004 by ledbedder20]

[edit on 28-10-2004 by ledbedder20]



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ledbedder20
Amuk, I read your post thoroughly and my comment was not directed towards you, it was directed towards anyone that supports the war, which I know (and knew when I made that post) you do not, so I'm sorry you thought I was directing that comment towards you.


You have my apologies

I just read so much "we hate America no matter what" that I jump the gun sometime and your comments would lead me to believe you were one.

My whole point with this Post is the war was kinda like pulling a tooth it will hurt for a while but your body (the Iraqis) will be better off for it.

All the embargo was doing was making a few people rich and killing millions of men, women and children. I did not support the war but in the long run the Iraqis will be better off. I always thought they should have finnished it during the FIRST war. Think of how many lives would have been saved if they had.

The UN was not going to lift the embargo so this was IMO the lesser of two evils.

Can ANYONE say it would have been better to keep the embargo going slowly killing EVERYONE in Iraq and making a handful of compinies rich?

[edit on 28-10-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 10:58 PM
link   
I almost forgot...

The reason for the Iraqi embargo was his invasion of Kuwait you remember when all the Middle east countries came crying to the UN to save them from the Big Bad Saddam?

The one person that seems to escape ALL blame is the one that started it all.......Saddam



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Thank you. Friends?


I completely agree with you. The embargo was hurting Iraq and apparently led to millions dying, something needed to be done. You are right, it should have been done 12 years ago! It is a shame that these innocent people have died and the world stood by watching, but it happens alot (africa, indonesia, india, etc..).

Maybe the cost of helping Iraq would have been alot less 12 years ago, can't be sure of that though. I am sure, however, that the destruction that a year and a half of fighting has brought hasn't helped the country. I still maintain that we shouldn't have invaded them, we should have helped them.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Friends


I just wanted to bring this up because everyone seems to think Iraq was the land of milk and honey before the war and that is far from the truth.

This is a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

The realities of the world are that no one, the USA or the UN, was going to lift the sanctions while Saddam was in power so this was better for them than the embargo. Whither it will remain so is a whole other matter.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk

The one person that seems to escape ALL blame is the one that started it all.......Saddam


That also was Bush's Fault, he has some oil fields he wanted to drill and saddam double crossed him




posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 11:21 PM
link   
If the U.N. should prosecute Saddam for wrongfully invading Kuwait, the they would have to prosecute Bush by the same accord.

There was moderate acceptance for the war based on Iraq being an imminent threat and illegally posessing WMD's, bothe of which turned out to be false. So the invasion had no grounds right?

I am glad that you are bringing something positive to light Amuk. I hope that maybe the suffering for the Iraqi people will end in light of everything, but invading and further death is still wrong.

The thing that decided it for me was when I saw footage of a 2 or 3 year old Iraqi child who had been injured by a US airstrike. His arm was torn to shreds and his bones were exposed. I have a 1 and a half year old and I just pictured her screaming in pain and I knew that there has been enough suffering in this world. I wouldn't wish that feeling I got on anyone, I can't imagine all the pain these people have felt over the past 12 or 13 years and especially now.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 11:40 PM
link   
I guess I have to agree with Amuk on this. (WOW! a woodtick agreeing with a hillbilly!:wow


War sucks. Anyone who likes war has to be major messed up in the head. Unfortunately, sometimes it has to be waged. Whether the war in Iraq is one of those occasions is open to debate. The outcome- in the long run - I believe will be a positive for both the Iraqi people and the world as a whole.

Ledbedder- I understand your concern. I have kids too, and to think of them in that condition is horrifying. However to see them in the condition most kids in Iraq were in before the invasion is also horrifying. One death is simply longer coming. Lets all hope this whole nightmare is over as soon as possible, and the Iraqi people are alowed to live in peace and well-being for the first time in decades.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Montana
Lets all hope this whole nightmare is over as soon as possible, and the Iraqi people are alowed to live in peace and well-being for the first time in decades.


Well I think that's something that we can all agree on. Good words Montana.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Montana
I Lets all hope this whole nightmare is over as soon as possible, and the Iraqi people are alowed to live in peace and well-being for the first time in decades.


AMEN


Can you imagine the life of these poor people? How many died as a result of the Iraq/Iran war? How many died because Saddam got up on the wrong side of the bed that day? Half a million or more killed in the first war, two million killed because of the embargo and now ground zero for the "war on terror?"

This is out of what 22 million or so? That would be like 30-40 million dying in America.

How ever it comes about I wish these poor people some peace.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
So are you saying it would have been better to let 200,000 a year die from starvation and disease till Sadam died of old age?

How about as soon as Saddam's regime was toppled the U.S. should have gotten out of Iraq and allowed the people of the country to form their government in the fashion they most see fit? The coalition would not be over there killing civilians right now if that were the case. Sure it would have been an islamic theocracy, but as we have witnessed with the dearth of Al Qaeda ties and WMD, there is no such thing as a giant terrorist network trying to destroy the United States in Iraq. All we are witnessing now is a concerted effort by the Iraqi population to drive their occupiers and their puppet government out.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 12:06 AM
link   
If our goal was to bring freedom to I raq, then we would have taken Saddam, offered help in setting up a new government and then rolled out. We have done the opposite, the U.S has to have entire control over every square inch of Iraq, that's why the war has cost us so much, the military has been fighting tooth and nail to "secure" the country. If we got the "evil-doer" why are we still there?

Writing a 100 billion dollar check to Iraq after getting Saddam would have been more helpful than prolonging the fighting and cheaper in the longrun. But we all know why we're there; Texas Tea, pretty fitting name huh?

That's why we have to control every square inch, because that was our main goal, setting up a mock democracy as a front for the control of Iraq's resources, also to establish a very strategic military stronghold in the middle east. Makes more sense than saying that we're imposing our morals and ideals on a country halfway around the world.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 12:10 AM
link   
It's nice to point out that the invasion is better off for the Iraqi people due to the sanctions. However we along with Britain created the sanctions.

Now lest you forget the past the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 greatly damaged Iraq and reduced it from prosperity to economic difficulty. The United States and the UK (as well as France and the Soviet Union) supported Iraq in that conflict, the longest conventional war of the twentieth century. The support included weapons sales, military advisors and intelligence sharing. The United States provided, economic assistance, political support, arms, satellite intelligence and the assistance of a US naval battle group.

Wow isn't that interesting how Americans just don't seem to know about that. After Saddam decided to annex Kuwait of course we could not have Saddam controlling more oil so we attacked. President George Bush Sr. claimed publicly that we do not seek the destruction of Iraq, nor do we seek to punish the Iraqi people for the decisions and policies of their leaders.

Well isn't that interesting as much of the damage to Iraq was due to one of history’s heaviest aerial bombardments, a 43-day long campaign.

The worst civilian suffering, senior officers say, has resulted not from bombs that went astray but from precision-guided weapons that hit exactly where they were aimed – at electrical plants, oil refineries and transportation networks... ‘What we were doing with the attacks on infrastructure was to accelerate the effect of the sanctions’… If there are political objectives that the U.N. coalition has, it can say, 'Saddam, when you agree to do these things, we will allow people to come in and fix your electricity.' It gives us long-term leverage’… Said another Air Force planner: ‘We're not going to tolerate Saddam Hussein or his regime. Fix that, and we'll fix your electricity.”

But sanctions cannot legally, under the UN Charter or under any standard of international law, serve as punishment for past acts, heinous as they are. Nor, of course, should the punishment fall on the people of Iraq and not the responsible leaders themselves.

As the international community grew increasingly aware of the human costs of the sanctions, the US and UK worked tirelessly to shift responsibility away from themselves and onto Saddam Hussein.

Now lets talk about facts on Iraq itself. Iraq possesses the world’s second largest proven oil reserves, currently estimated at 112.5 billion barrels, about 11% of the world total and its gas fields are immense as well. Many experts believe that Iraq has additional undiscovered oil reserves, which might double the total when serious prospecting resumes, putting Iraq nearly on a par with Saudi Arabia. Iraq’s oil is of high quality and it is very inexpensive to produce, making it one of the world’s most profitable oil sources.

There is not an oil company in the world that doesn’t have its eye on Iraq.

Now lets ask ourselves who has the largest oil companies in the world? Five companies dominate the world oil industry, two U.S.-based, two primarily UK-based, and one primarily based in France. The United States ranks first in the corporate oil sector, with the UK second and France trailing as a distant third. U.S. Exxon Mobile is the largest.

US and UK companies long held a three-quarter share in Iraq’s oil production, but they lost their position with the 1972 nationalization of the Iraq Petroleum Company which of course caused major commodity swings giving OPEC bragging rights and power throughout the years.

In testimony to Congress in 1999, General Anthony C. Zinni, commander in chief of the US Central Command, testified that the Gulf Region, with its huge oil reserves, is a “vital interest” of “long standing” for the United States and that the US “must have free access to the region’s resources.”

So really the statement that Iraq'i's are better off by the U.S. invading is not really true.

Iraqi's would have been better off had they just handed over all their oil from the beginning.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Excellent work!! I really admire people that do their homework. It's amazing that these things aren't investigated on a more widespread basis. AS apathetic as America has become, we're still very passionate, but most people are too lazy to figure out the truth.

Great job vincere7!



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by vincere7
It's nice to point out that the invasion is better off for the Iraqi people due to the sanctions. However we along with Britain created the sanctions.



The US and the UK are the only countries in the United Nations now? There's something I didn't know. Maybe you should check that.

Believe me, EVERYONE knows there is oil there. Everyone knows there was an Iran-Iraq war in the 80s. Everyone knows the 'Coalition' stopped Iraq from taking over Kuwait (we also know Saddam would not have stopped there).

What do you feel about current events?



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 12:35 AM
link   
I just saw on the 6pm news (NZ) that a report estimates that 100,000 Iraqi civillians have died in Coallition airstrikes, and that Iraqis are 58x more likely to die a violent death than before the war.
Look at all the pain and anguish 3000 deaths on 9/11 caused, yet I haven't seen one commemoration event with mournful music, flag waving or leader playing the role of the good christian priest eulogizing the innocent Iraqi civillian deaths....some war on terror huh...seems more like a 'war of terror'.
100,000 people just to take out one f#$@ing man. Osama bin Laden is an amateur when it comes to killing innocent civillians. Your crime family in command are the real f@#%ing terrorists.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 12:36 AM
link   
No where in this have tried to justify the war.

The USA and UK were not the only countries in the FIRST gulf war they begged for someone to save them from the Big Bad Saddam, who was armed by us in the first place and if memory serves me correct was told by our government we would look the other way if he invaded Kuwait.

My point ,again, was there were only TWO choices that were going to be allowed.

Do nothing and watch 200,000 a year die till Saddam out of his well known love for his people stepped down.

OR

Invade and take him out.

Thinking we should have let them form there own government is fine and dandy but we would have been stupid to invade just to allow another government that hated us to take the last ones place.


Reality time folks

NO country does ANYTHING that does not have its best interests at heart.

Can you name me ONE country that would invade a country to take out a leader hostile to them and then allow ANOTHER one hostile to them take his place?

Do you think a country invades another to save its people?

Can you tell me ONE time this has happened?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join