Saddam or bush?

How long before Junior kills as many Iraqis as Saddam? Is anyone aware of the figures? I can't imagine the two are very far apart now?

started - you are not close at all. Millions died in the Iran/Iraq war.

give him time. As soon as he gets to use those tactical nukes, he should be able to get his numbers up fairly quickly.

You know, mass murdering is hard work!

:sarcasm:

I never said Bush was a murderer. Never did. Just foolhardy and naive. Something that is criminal when you let your politicos convince you to be president - so that they can be in control. So he has guys in his WH who have something to hide (previous neocon policy against democracy in the mid-east). And let's them fill him with the information he wants and gets nothing from outside of the loop. So he pushes the UN aside to get at Saddam. And then he lets Rummy institute a faulty plan. And here we are years later. With people dying.

Will take Bush a long while to catch up to Saddam (however you count it). I think you can blame Bush for the insurgency since it was him to made the war happen the way it did. But you cannot say that he is responsible for the car-bombing of civilian x by insurgents. The insurgents are responsible for that (if you want to talk murder).

But I hear what you are saying.

Please think about re-labeling them. MSM calls them that when in fact they are PATRIOTS.

trying to return power to themselves.

The insurgents are not monolithic. And they kill civilians. Insurgents is a neutral word.

you should go to jail. Then you stand trial. Depending if you are considered an enemy combatant - you may get a pardon or two. Once there is peace you get released.

Remember Iraq does have a government that makes more and more of its own decisions.

the country's law. You say "go to jail", but the current laws in Iraq are execution for killing a citizen.

Now what if theer is a very large group of insurgents in Iraq, thousands, all armed, all slaughtering citizens. How do you propose they be arrested, when they're shooting at everyone?

they put down their arms.

Obviously you need a bigger Iraqi army. As to the death penalty - I think jail for 20 years in an Iraqi desert would be fine - instead. But again - if a peace treaty is signed with the insurgents at some point - they all call it war and they all get off.

The order to execute insurgents who are killing Iraqis is from the President of Iraq. US soldiers are today killing insurgents. And tomorrow. And the day after that.

Take Fallujah as an example; the insurgents were many, armed, and shooting at US forces. US forces in return killed the insurgents. Obviously it's not very easy to walk up and arrest 1000 or 2000 or 30,000 armed insurgents shooting at you.

What should the authority do in such a situation; thousands or tens of thousands of armed insurgents killing citizens, when you can't walk up and arrest the insurgents. Do you do what the US forces did and shoot back?

and capacity to govern. If you see someone planning the murder of many - you hunt them down and arrest the ones who don't put up a fight.

What do you think the families of the soldiers currently in Iraq want them to do? Not there fault they are where they are.

If you want to stop the war you get your government to stop the war. You get more UN type help. You give up your contracts and allow the Iraqi people to get the economy going again by letting them make the money off of procurement. You do what you have to do to keep the peace.

The only civilians who are being killed by the USA are the ones who are being mistaken as car bombers. And the odd murder. To which there are trials to see how guilty the soldier was.

The insurgents are killing most of the civilians.

Take your pick. Either huge numbers of civilians will die for years - or the USA has to stay and allow stability and independent democracy to grow. I hope they are out in less than a year. I'm guessing there will be bases in Iraq for a long while. I'm not happy about any of it. It will just provide fuel for insurgents. Many of whom have their own agendas that do not include democracy.

Forget Fallujah and US troops, as you cannot be objective.

Pretend a situation; City X.

In City X, thousands of armed insurgents are on the rampage, killing citizens. They are not going to surrender to arrest.

The authority shoots back and kills the insurgents.

Did the authority take the proper action by shooting back & killing the insurgents?

in and fight to 'save people' from a monster then you go in with enough people to keep the peace. If you go in for the wrong reasons - you go in with enough people to keep the peace. You follow policies that will keep the peace. You protect civilians.

You keep the peace. You don't destabilize a country and then run away. You put indigenous leaders in place and you let them call the shots as soon as is possible.

This is a wrong war in so many ways. If you don't want all of the ME to be destabilized - you stay until keeping the peace can be done locally.

If you cannot attract UN people after the fact - because it is a wrong headed war - you stay yourself and build up the locals. And have the Saddam show trial to give people something to share. You make deals with the insurgents. You do whatever you have to do to keep the peace. You put former trained baathist underlings back into the army.

If you don't do it now - keep the peace... the ME will fall apart and insurgents (Islamic extremists ones) will be in control and the ME will break out into wars. Then your country will have to have a draft to fight that one.

I am so sorry your country is lead by deluded monsters who did this thing and did it badly with not enough troops. But they did it. And that is the way it is right now.

Did the authority take the right action by shooting back and killing the insurgents?

This is NOTHING to do with US troops, so you can stop your apologizing. I only used Fallujah as an example.

It's a very simple question. FYI, under Canadian law the answer is "yes".

Now what is YOUR answer?

If you don't want to answer, just say so.

By the way, YOUR country is also MY country. I have dual citizenship. I hope you live in Alberta.

you and up down answer because sometimes I think I know where you are coming from. And other times I don't. I think the Iraqis deserve their day in court. I think you agree to that. I think that will help clarify things a great deal. And if we are lucky - it will dial down the insurgency. It is pretty clear that the neocons will not get away with much. It is already the story that the 1980s will be the focus. And nobody thinks the neocons did a descent job of deciding to go to war or implementing perpetual war.

As to hoping I live in Alberta... I don't think that was called for. Though Alberta is lovely.

Simply because my position on the war has a semblance to the Clinton's position does not make me a conservative. I believe in military interventions to keep tyrants from becoming tyrants. It is a position that many people have. Including the UN. Europeans. I'm a moderate.

I am NOT asking you anything about US troops. YOU keep going on apologizing for the invasion.

I am asking you a very simple, straightforward specific question:

Argentina.

Insurgents are rampaging through the streets.

They are armed and shooting and killing citizens.

They will not accept being arrested, they'll die fighting.

The Argentinian cops shoot back and kill the insurgents.

Would that be the correct action taken by the Argentinian cops?

1. YES

2. NO

3. Refuse to answer

If you would be so kind as to pick one of the 3 answers?

Edit: Why on earth do you assume I was trying to insult you re Alberta??? For your info, I wasn't.

Obviously police get to use force when dealing with criminals using force. Obviously an army - no matter how wrongheaded - an army that is keeping the peace and encouraging democracy gets to use force to keep the peace if civilians are getting hurt.

I don't know why the question is so important to you. It is a vague one at this point. So why you expect me to answer in any other way - I do not understand.

Should the insurgents in Israel have been shot down in the 1940s? Began would have been dead a long time before he made prime-minister. Should the priest who came up with the maji maji rebellion have been shot down? Not really - he was convinced he & his people could march on colonial authorities because the colonial bullets would turn into water so no need of arms.

I'll say it again. You protect innocent civilians.

I don't know why it is so important for you to dominate my thoughts but no doubt you have better reasons than I to discuss this. I fully understand why you would want out of war. Why you would think there is so much bullshit going on that you trust nothing about this occupation. I don't know why it is so important for you to dominate everyone who has a different opinion on you about humanitarian intervention. I didn't say that that is why the neocons went in. I didn't say that they protected innocent civilians when they went into Iraq. I said they did it badly and hurt people with their horrendous policy. I am not that far away from you. I'm not exactly like you. I am an outsider and it is a different thing for me. I think I will step out of this discussion because it is not affecting me in the same way it is you and that I consider unfair.

Thank you.

"The only civilians who are being killed by the USA are the ones who are being mistaken as car bombers. And the odd murder. To which there are trials to see how guilty the soldier was."

That would be hilarious if it weren't so incredibly wrong. I live on a US base, I'm married to a US soldier, and I'm very loyal and supportive to the US military...and I know those comments are 100% bullshit.

Why do you delude yourself? You're certainly not deluding anyone else.

I live in a military town and lots of soldiers I know were opposed to this war in the beginning and hate Rumsfeld. But now that they are there, the whole town is kind of rallying around with yellow ribbons and whatnot. We only see the soldiers on the news when they come home for furlough.

Apx 2/3rds of the enlisted troops, which are apx 85% of the US military, are Dems and Indies; the other 1/3 are republicans. So out of the enlisteds it's a majority that oppose the war, but not as large a majority as for us civilians. The total lack of good leadership, the lack of proper (life-saving) equipment, and the extended/repeated tours from war to war to home to war again are...well let's be blunt; our military is being destroyed and a whole lot of the military realizes this.

In the officers, they're 15% of the entire military and they're something like 6-1 republicans, but they're turning against this shit more & more now.

What the media hasn't really mentioned is officers can quit. Enlisted troops can't, but officers can. And they are. In droves.

I'm very happy to hear the town is rallying around the troops. Despite the bullshit the rightwing spews you CAN support the troops and at the same time NOT support bush and/or the war. Which is exactly what the rightwing said when the president had a (D) after his name & troops in a war; suddenly they're saying the opposite.

Killeen is not quite so much in a rallying mood. Ft Hood is the largest base in the free world still, AFAIK, and many of the troops here are a very deeply angry & disturbed bunch.

For example, in one week we had 2 soldiers rape children in the kids' schools. That sort of thing doesn't make towns feel like rallying much.

The drunk-driving here is at a phenomenal level, the spouse-abuse has shot up, as has drug abuse and rape. Troops are coming home after 2 and even 3 tours of war, and they're spending money like there's no tomorrow; a classic PTSD symptom. Then they can't pay their bills, they can't declare bankruptcy (thanks to bush's bankruptcy law) they're facing more tours of war and the liklihood of death or lost limbs climbs with each tour.

It's not a pretty thing, the consequences of war, and now the general public is starting to find that out.

-You know that Iran was bombing Iraq's border towns.

-You know Iran publicly stated their intention of overthrowing, by force, the Iraqi government and installing an Iranian theocracy in Iraq.

-You know Iran bombed a Basra university.

-You know Iran made several assassination attempts, some successful, against members of the Iraqi government.

-You know Saddam Hussein asked to meet with the Iranian leadership 3 times to discuss a solution between them.

-You know the Iranian government refused all 3 times.

Yet you call Hussein a "monster" for starting the Iran-Iraq war.

-You know Hussein offered a ceasefire several times over several years of the Iran-Iraq war, and every single time, Iran refused.

Yet you call Hussein a "monster" for starting the Iran-Iraq war.

Wouldn't you call that being just a bit unreasonable?

And I notice your lack of response to the question.

However, no such response is required. You are a war-supporter, you support the invasion of Iraq, and you have your set talking points which you repeat endlessly and are unable to deviate from.

Perhaps someday you'll decide to learn the actual facts on many things, such as the Iran-Iraq war.

I hope so.

are shades of grey you know. Not about the neocons. But about the actions and actors outside of the neocons. The neocons didn't invent evil.

To be clear I am for humanitarian intervention and defensive war. Just like the UN.

any evidence that you are.

You repeat your mantra over & over again. You make assertions that are proved false over & over again. You refuse to even discuss facts which don't fit in your talking points. Such as the facts on the Iran-Iraq war.

You pull numbers out of thin air. A prime example is your assertion that "millions" of Iraqis and Iranians died during the Iran-Iraq war.

That is patently false.

Iran REFUSED to accept several offered CEASEFIRES. They refused to QUIT FIGHTING. But of course EVERY death is the fault of Hussein and let's add on a million or two to the actual number of deaths.

That is just despicable. It's gross and despicable when bush uses corpses for his agenda; it's just as gross and despicable when anyone else does so.

Have you even bothered to look at either HRW or AI websites to see what they have to say about the Iran-Iraq war?

Shades of grey are great...as long as they're based on real actual true facts.

false because of x. I'm sorry but I am entitled to differ from you on the issues. There has not been a trial yet. I am happy the Iraqi people will get some sort of a day in court. I think you are now too. Let us all wait for the testimony. And then once again we can go ahead and form our own opinions if the testimony is overwhelming. And we will not agree on the things that have not been clarified. I for one will take the word of many civilians and Iraqis who were there - over you or me. And what it tells me so far (as it leaked out ore the years) is that Saddam was a monster who did monstrous things.

The only way what I say becomes a mantra is because you keep attacking it. I say again - disengage. You have no need to dominate me and impose your opinions on me. You were not there. I am one of 78000 people here. There are many points of view on the DU.

Peace (though I am sure saying that alone will anger you out but I really mean it).

Iran-Iraq war; 1980-1988

Iran acknowledged that nearly 300,000 people died in the war; estimates of the Iraqi dead range from 160,000 to 240,000.

Tehran rejected a settlement offer. 1981

Iraqi Retreats, 1982-84

Hussein announced that the Iraqi units would withdraw from Iranian territory. Saddam ordered a withdrawal to the international borders, believing Iran would agree to end the war. Iran did not accept this withdrawal as the end of the conflict, and continued the war into Iraq.

Beginning in 1984, Baghdad's military goal changed from controlling Iranian territory to denying Tehran any major gain inside Iraq. Furthermore, Iraq tried to force Iran to the negotiating table by various means.

Second, Iraq turned to diplomatic and political means. In April 1984, Saddam Hussein proposed to meet Khomeini personally in a neutral location to discuss peace negotiations. But Tehran rejected this offer and restated its refusal to negotiate with President Hussein.

Third, Iraq sought to involve the superpowers as a means of ending the war.

...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm

But yes, ignore the facts & reality, blame Hussein for everything, and toss in a few "millions" of deaths.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It actually is a statement on Junior. No.....I wasn't "trolling" but perhaps you are.

:think: