Perfect Cartoon of Iran and the UN

[raildogg]

Why is Iran building an underground facility in Nataanz? And why did we seize a ship a few years ago with all the nuclear weapons making equipment? AQ Khan did help the Iranians with nuclear know-how.

I do agree that Iran is a peaceful country and we should let them build nukes.

Now lets get ready for the Iranian people to start chanting "Death to America" after their friday prayers. Should be fun.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: conjur
What mass graves? A few thousand bodies have been found but nothing anywhere near approaching the hundreds of thousands mentioned before the invasion. As for the killing of Kurds and Shiites, the majority of those occurred right after 1991 Gulf War when the US encouraged those groups to rise up against Saddam and then sat back and watched them be slaughtered. Although, I suppose Saddam was supposed to just do nothing and allow himself to be overthrown? Would have been great if he had been but what leader of any nation is going to go down without a fight in a situation like that?

Study the graph carefully, let me know if you need help

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7050...Iraq%20Pre%20and%20Post%20Saddam.2.jpg

<ahem>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10874-2003Apr11?language=printer

The practical expression of this policy came in the decisions made by the military on the ground. U.S. commanders spurned the rebels' plea for help. The United States allowed Iraq to send Republican Guard units into southern cities and to fly helicopter gunships. (This in spite of a ban on flights, articulated by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf with considerable swagger: "You fly, you die.") The consequences were devastating. Hussein's forces leveled the historical centers of the Shiite towns, bombarded sacred Shiite shrines and executed thousands on the spot. By some estimates, 100,000 people died in reprisal killings between March and September. Many of these atrocities were committed in proximity to American troops, who were under orders not to intervene.

So, you can take those averages and stuff them. The "average deaths under Saddam" is a meaningless stat and skews what really happened under his rule. Most estimates come to about 300,000 killed during his entire reign. While that article mentions 100,000 Shiites killed in 1991, most estimates I've seen were around 60,000. Then there's the 180,000 Kurds killed in the late 1980s as what was, essentially, part of an ongoing back-and-forth, civil war-type battle between the Ba'ath Party and the Kurds going back as far as the 1960s (before Saddam was even the ruler...he became President in 1979). Saddam had even entered into an agreement, at one point, giving Kurds rights to the oil in their areas and usage of their language. But, a deep-rooted agenda by some (I'm unclear as to whom exactly) to enact an Arabization of the area went against that agreement and then the long-term fighting between the Ba'ath Party and the Kurds began. Much worse had been done in Rwanda and Sudan and, don't forget, Iraq as an ally of the US in that timeframe as Iraq stood as a barrier or opposition to the radical regime that had just taken power in Iran following the deposing of the Shah.

Now, what's happened since the US invasion is rather well-documented:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq
Min Max
34511 38660

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx


Let me know if you need any help shedding the wool from your eyes.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: conjur
What mass graves? A few thousand bodies have been found but nothing anywhere near approaching the hundreds of thousands mentioned before the invasion. As for the killing of Kurds and Shiites, the majority of those occurred right after 1991 Gulf War when the US encouraged those groups to rise up against Saddam and then sat back and watched them be slaughtered. Although, I suppose Saddam was supposed to just do nothing and allow himself to be overthrown? Would have been great if he had been but what leader of any nation is going to go down without a fight in a situation like that?

Study the graph carefully, let me know if you need help

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7050...Iraq%20Pre%20and%20Post%20Saddam.2.jpg

<ahem>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10874-2003Apr11?language=printer

The practical expression of this policy came in the decisions made by the military on the ground. U.S. commanders spurned the rebels' plea for help. The United States allowed Iraq to send Republican Guard units into southern cities and to fly helicopter gunships. (This in spite of a ban on flights, articulated by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf with considerable swagger: "You fly, you die.") The consequences were devastating. Hussein's forces leveled the historical centers of the Shiite towns, bombarded sacred Shiite shrines and executed thousands on the spot. By some estimates, 100,000 people died in reprisal killings between March and September. Many of these atrocities were committed in proximity to American troops, who were under orders not to intervene.

So, you can take those averages and stuff them. The "average deaths under Saddam" is a meaningless stat and skews what really happened under his rule. Most estimates come to about 300,000 killed during his entire reign. While that article mentions 100,000 Shiites killed in 1991, most estimates I've seen were around 60,000. Then there's the 180,000 Kurds killed in the late 1980s as what was, essentially, part of an ongoing back-and-forth, civil war-type battle between the Ba'ath Party and the Kurds going back as far as the 1960s (before Saddam was even the ruler...he became President in 1979). Saddam had even entered into an agreement, at one point, giving Kurds rights to the oil in their areas and usage of their language. But, a deep-rooted agenda by some (I'm unclear as to whom exactly) to enact an Arabization of the area went against that agreement and then the long-term fighting between the Ba'ath Party and the Kurds began. Much worse had been done in Rwanda and Sudan and, don't forget, Iraq as an ally of the US in that timeframe as Iraq stood as a barrier or opposition to the radical regime that had just taken power in Iran following the deposing of the Shah.

Now, what's happened since the US invasion is rather well-documented:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq
Min Max
34511 38660

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx


Let me know if you need any help shedding the wool from your eyes.

no thx my wool is just fine.
Isn't stats a funny game you can ignore the ones you want declare others meaningless and focus in on ones that support your view....sigh on to other things....Have a great day!

 

[conjur]

Thanks for your roundabout acquiescence.

Too bad you can't be a man about it, though.


<sigh>


BTW, your blogger graph is completely and utterly worthless. It shows Saddam average monthly deaths in a period when Saddam was no longer in control of Iraq. Hmm...how can that be?

 

[Jawo]

I love Cagle Cartoons! One of the best political cartoon sites out there!

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel49
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10874-2003Apr11?language=printer

Interesting.
Bush went in against the wishses of the Democrats.
The US overwhelmingly supported Bush.
The Democrats supported the war effort.
The Democrats kept saying that we must pull out as soon as Saddam retreated from Kuwait.
The mainstream media kept saying that we must pull out as soon as Saddam retreated from Kuwait.
Half of the US began chanting we must pull out as soon as Saddam retreated from Kuwait.
Bush relented and said, ok. (spineless coward)
Finally, Saddam pulled the troops out of Kuwait and, as a man of his word (stupid) Bush prematurely pulled out aborting the hopes of many Iraqis.
Clinton makes it US policy to depose Saddam but agrees to lift sanctions. (spinless coward)

It appears tha Galbraith suffers from short term memory.

 

[caddlad]

BTW, your blogger graph is completely and utterly worthless. It shows Saddam average monthly deaths in a period when Saddam was no longer in control of Iraq. Hmm...how can that be?

Waiting..........

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: caddlad

BTW, your blogger graph is completely and utterly worthless. It shows Saddam average monthly deaths in a period when Saddam was no longer in control of Iraq. Hmm...how can that be?

Waiting..........

Waiting for what I said I was done trying to squeezw water out of a stone and wished him a pleasant day. But if you must wait you may want to go over to the site and note that he used some antiwar sites for obtaining some of his numbers...just a thought

 

[Proletariat]

Funny cartoon

 

[kage69]

So this means we keep "crossing the line" until we get slapped back ala 9/11?

Sorry, there were no spilled tea leaves in my post. Limp-wristed displays of indignance remind me of other, in-effectual and ultimately useless gestures. No one really took Qaddafi seriously, and likewise many aren't taking the UN seriously. If you recall however, we dished out the lion's share of the slapping during the whole Libya thing. Q-Duck got the message and has kept his pie hole shut. After the Lockerby incident, I am aware of no more Libyan adventures in international terrorism.