Some Facts about Death in Iraq

[RabidMongoose]

Dude, how many ways shall I concur with you? Saddam was not a good man. He needed to go. The way he was thrown out is not the correct way. Iraq will be better without Saddam, after a looooooong period of time. Not anywhere in the near future. If things were done correctly, that is by political upheaval or diplomatic pressure, specially by Iraqs neighbors, things would have definitely been better for Iraq.

Well you just now finally stated your opinion firmly. Before you were tip-toeing around the question.

While I think you live in a strange and fairy-tale type of world in some of your suggestions, I agree with some of your suggestions.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: TheBDB
Does civilian deaths mean those not wearing a military uniform or those who are innocent of any wrongdoing and are "collateral damage" due to strikes on legitimate targets? There is a BIG difference in my opinion.

Lets not get into semantics. The war is unjust. A LOT of HUMANS died. That is unjust. We weep for our soldiers, weep for theirs too, who fought, and are fighting for their country. You would pick up arms too if the Iraqis decided to invade the US.

It isn't semantics. Innocent and civilian are not the same thing in a world of terrorists. I am not passing judgement on the justness of the war. My opinion of the war is of no consequence. I am simply wondering how these numbers are determined.

I'm sorry, but 'insurgents' is not equal to 'terrorists'. Iraqis would call the US occupying forces as the terrorists. I am surprised you are still using the term 'terrorists' for an entire nation in war against the US.

Secondly, civilians are innocent. Bombs dropping on their houses (clearly not a legitimate target) and gunships taking aim and firing at wounded Iraqis crawling away (pictures available on the net) is NOT collateral damage. Please see Iraq Body Count Link

They report all deaths. From the website: "This database includes up to 7,350 deaths which resulted from coalition military action during the "major-combat" phase prior to May 1st 2003. In the current occupation phase the database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation"

I hope this satisfies your question. I dont know how else to answer your question. The Secretary of State himself said "we dont do body counts." We may never even get to know how many innocent civilians died in Afghanistan.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Dude, how many ways shall I concur with you? Saddam was not a good man. He needed to go. The way he was thrown out is not the correct way. Iraq will be better without Saddam, after a looooooong period of time. Not anywhere in the near future. If things were done correctly, that is by political upheaval or diplomatic pressure, specially by Iraqs neighbors, things would have definitely been better for Iraq.

Well you just now finally stated your opinion firmly. Before you were tip-toeing around the question.

While I think you live in a strange and fairy-tale type of world in some of your suggestions, I agree with some of your suggestions.

I agree that my suggestions are idealistic, but that is what I believe should be done. Ofcourse realistically speaking, there is no chance of it happening.

I was not tiptoeing. I gave you my opinion in all my posts.

 

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: TheBDB
Does civilian deaths mean those not wearing a military uniform or those who are innocent of any wrongdoing and are "collateral damage" due to strikes on legitimate targets? There is a BIG difference in my opinion.

Lets not get into semantics. The war is unjust. A LOT of HUMANS died. That is unjust. We weep for our soldiers, weep for theirs too, who fought, and are fighting for their country. You would pick up arms too if the Iraqis decided to invade the US.

It isn't semantics. Innocent and civilian are not the same thing in a world of terrorists. I am not passing judgement on the justness of the war. My opinion of the war is of no consequence. I am simply wondering how these numbers are determined.

I'm sorry, but 'insurgents' is not equal to 'terrorists'. Iraqis would call the US occupying forces as the terrorists. I am surprised you are still using the term 'terrorists' for an entire nation in war against the US.

Secondly, civilians are innocent. Bombs dropping on their houses (clearly not a legitimate target) and gunships taking aim and firing at wounded Iraqis crawling away (pictures available on the net) is NOT collateral damage. Please see Iraq Body Count Link

They report all deaths. From the website: "This database includes up to 7,350 deaths which resulted from coalition military action during the "major-combat" phase prior to May 1st 2003. In the current occupation phase the database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation"

I hope this satisfies your question. I dont know how else to answer your question. The Secretary of State himself said "we dont do body counts." We may never even get to know how many innocent civilians died in Afghanistan.

Sorry, my phrase "world of terrorists" is simply referring to the fact that before 9/11 many people did not realize that such destruction could be caused by people not in the military of a foreign nation.

I am simply trying to find out how many of the civilian deaths were those actively fighting against the Americans and how many were those sitting in their homes minding their own fvcking business. Being a member of the US military I would be pissed to learn about any accidental deaths due to weapons malfunctions/mis-targeting etc. That is the number I am looking for.

 

[Stunt]

Hey look, it's another republican trying to justify the war in iraq which has no credible motive at the moment.
So bush invaded iraq for the betterment of the iraqi people, he is actually saving lives over the long term (this is what you are saying....agreed?)

According to the BBC
The total cost of the iraq war including the prospective occupation needed until infrastructure is completed is $162 billion for the war and reconstruction plus $48-$60 billion per year for occupation.
Putting the total bill at up to $450 billion.

Now you are assuming that the government that repaces saddams is better in terms of human rights. It is definately a possibility that these fighters that are fending off the US cause enough trouble to cause the US to evacuate. The replacement will surely be a dictator, and his ideals are yet to be see.

Lets say the occupation in iraq is successful, we will be optimistic. $450 billion invested for the saving of the future killings by the saddam government.

But when i look at the economics side of things you can analyse the opportunity cost of the iraq war. An accorign to this document the cost of fighting the aids and hiv epidemic would cost $10 billion a year. This initiative which is grossly underfunded by the US would save some of the 2.3 million people who died from hiv related illness in Africa in 2003.

So to think of this war as saving peoples lives, there are MUCH MUCH better ways to save lives.
nice thought though...

 

[etech]

Why aren't the Kurds sending out "freedom fighters" to kill the evil American imperialist invaders?

 

[geecee]

Originally posted by: Sultan
Not for us to decide. People should decide their own fate. We should not meddle in other people's affairs. You would not like me telling you what to do and how to live and how to go about your business. Why should this country tell another then?

There is a problem with this philosophy and it really is a no-win situation for the United States. If the US does this, and ignores genocide (imagined or not), disease, famine, natural disaster, human rights abuses, oppressive government or a myriad host of other things, it will be accused of being heartless, of lacking compassion, and/or of not utilizing its ample resources (as one of the world's wealthiest and most powerful nations) to better the situation ("Do the right thing."). There are many (Americans or otherwise) who would feel that we have a responsibilty to aid those in need due to this.

Now, on the other hand, when we do take action financially or militarily, we are questioned on who we are supporting and on whether our actions are justified. The other "half" (using half figuratively) of the world population (again American or otherwise) is then heard - accusing us of imperialism and/or warmongering, and they, as you have done, urge us to keep out of other people's business and let the internal affairs of a sovereign nation play out without our interference.

In your original post, you cited the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam. You then cite the number of Iraqis killed by American forces. This is the crux of the above argument. If the US does not do anything to help those Iraqis being killed by Saddam, we are turning a blind eye on the death of innocents or ignoring the stiuation beacuse it does not benefit us, strategically or financially. If we invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power, we are warmongers and oil bandits. Now granted, the pretext of our invasion was the imminent threat of WMD. What if we had just flat out said we are invading Iraq to remove Saddam from power? How do you think that would've gone over internally or with the rest of the world? Now I am not naive enough to believe that the invasion of Iraq was solely for the betterment of the Iraqi people, and I will concede that the US probably had SOME less than philanthropic interest in the matter. But as a matter of argument, nothing that the United States does will ever be welcomed by everyone, or even a majority for that matter. I think that with the demise of the Soviet Union and the consequent elimination of our only real rival superpower, the US thrust itself into its own no-win situation.

Another thing that I would like to point out. What do they majority of the Iraqi people want ( or for that matter, most of the rest of the world as well )? They want peace, harmony, an ability to put food on the table, to live without the constant threat of death and destruction, to raise their children in the way that they see fit, perhaps to even speak freely about a variety of different subjects and to worship in a manner that they wishand to occasionally have some fun. But there is always the 5% of the population that wants power, discord, to forcefully impress their belief and value system on others, etc., etc., etc. that causes problems for the rest (here and abroad). If there were some way to eliminate that 5% of the population, there would be no need for any of us/U.S. to get involved in anything. However, I am not naive enough to believe that that will ever happen either.

Bottom line, are the Iraqi people better off? Who knows? Would they have arrived at the same place someday, without US intervention? Again, who knows? We can debate this subject until our last breath and I doubt any of us will ever have a definitive answer. Do I believe that the US will eventually leave the Iraqi people to their own devices and to pursue what their populace/government wants? Yes, I do. Do I believe that that government will succeed? No idea. Do I believe that there will be those who will want to topple that government regardless? You betcha. Do I believe that people will oppose our government's policies/actions and question its motives no matter what it decides to do? Again, a big fat, "you betcha".

 

[CWRMadcat]

Originally posted by: geecee

Originally posted by: Sultan
Not for us to decide. People should decide their own fate. We should not meddle in other people's affairs. You would not like me telling you what to do and how to live and how to go about your business. Why should this country tell another then?

There is a problem with this philosophy and it really is a no-win situation for the United States. If the US does this, and ignores genocide (imagined or not), disease, famine, natural disaster, human rights abuses, oppressive government or a myriad host of other things, it will be accused of being heartless, of lacking compassion, and/or of not utilizing its ample resources (as one of the world's wealthiest and most powerful nations) to better the situation ("Do the right thing."). There are many (Americans or otherwise) who would feel that we have a responsibilty to aid those in need due to this.

Now, on the other hand, when we do take action financially or militarily, we are questioned on who we are supporting and on whether our actions are justified. The other "half" (using half figuratively) of the world population (again American or otherwise) is then heard - accusing us of imperialism and/or warmongering, and they, as you have done, urge us to keep out of other people's business and let the internal affairs of a sovereign nation play out without our interference.

In your original post, you cited the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam. You then cite the number of Iraqis killed by American forces. This is the crux of the above argument. If the US does not do anything to help those Iraqis being killed by Saddam, we are turning a blind eye on the death of innocents or ignoring the stiuation beacuse it does not benefit us, strategically or financially. If we invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power, we are warmongers and oil bandits. Now granted, the pretext of our invasion was the imminent threat of WMD. What if we had just flat out said we are invading Iraq to remove Saddam from power? How do you think that would've gone over internally or with the rest of the world? Now I am not naive enough to believe that the invasion of Iraq was solely for the betterment of the Iraqi people, and I will concede that the US probably had SOME less than philanthropic interest in the matter. But as a matter of argument, nothing that the United States does will ever be welcomed by everyone, or even a majority for that matter. I think that with the demise of the Soviet Union and the consequent elimination of our only real rival superpower, the US thrust itself into its own no-win situation.

Another thing that I would like to point out. What do they majority of the Iraqi people want ( or for that matter, most of the rest of the world as well )? They want peace, harmony, an ability to put food on the table, to live without the constant threat of death and destruction, to raise their children in the way that they see fit, perhaps to even speak freely about a variety of different subjects and to worship in a manner that they wishand to occasionally have some fun. But there is always the 5% of the population that wants power, discord, to forcefully impress their belief and value system on others, etc., etc., etc. that causes problems for the rest (here and abroad). If there were some way to eliminate that 5% of the population, there would be no need for any of us/U.S. to get involved in anything. However, I am not naive enough to believe that that will ever happen either.

Bottom line, are the Iraqi people better off? Who knows? Would they have arrived at the same place someday, without US intervention? Again, who knows? We can debate this subject until our last breath and I doubt any of us will ever have a definitive answer. Do I believe that the US will eventually leave the Iraqi people to their own devices and to pursue what their populace/government wants? Yes, I do. Do I believe that that government will succeed? No idea. Do I believe that there will be those who will want to topple that government regardless? You betcha. Do I believe that people will oppose our government's policies/actions and question its motives no matter what it decides to do? Again, a big fat, "you betcha".

Well stated.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: geecee

Originally posted by: Sultan
Not for us to decide. People should decide their own fate. We should not meddle in other people's affairs. You would not like me telling you what to do and how to live and how to go about your business. Why should this country tell another then?

There is a problem with this philosophy and it really is a no-win situation for the United States. If the US does this, and ignores genocide (imagined or not), disease, famine, natural disaster, human rights abuses, oppressive government or a myriad host of other things, it will be accused of being heartless, of lacking compassion, and/or of not utilizing its ample resources (as one of the world's wealthiest and most powerful nations) to better the situation ("Do the right thing."). There are many (Americans or otherwise) who would feel that we have a responsibilty to aid those in need due to this.

Now, on the other hand, when we do take action financially or militarily, we are questioned on who we are supporting and on whether our actions are justified. The other "half" (using half figuratively) of the world population (again American or otherwise) is then heard - accusing us of imperialism and/or warmongering, and they, as you have done, urge us to keep out of other people's business and let the internal affairs of a sovereign nation play out without our interference.

In your original post, you cited the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam. You then cite the number of Iraqis killed by American forces. This is the crux of the above argument. If the US does not do anything to help those Iraqis being killed by Saddam, we are turning a blind eye on the death of innocents or ignoring the stiuation beacuse it does not benefit us, strategically or financially. If we invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power, we are warmongers and oil bandits. Now granted, the pretext of our invasion was the imminent threat of WMD. What if we had just flat out said we are invading Iraq to remove Saddam from power? How do you think that would've gone over internally or with the rest of the world? Now I am not naive enough to believe that the invasion of Iraq was solely for the betterment of the Iraqi people, and I will concede that the US probably had SOME less than philanthropic interest in the matter. But as a matter of argument, nothing that the United States does will ever be welcomed by everyone, or even a majority for that matter. I think that with the demise of the Soviet Union and the consequent elimination of our only real rival superpower, the US thrust itself into its own no-win situation.

Another thing that I would like to point out. What do they majority of the Iraqi people want ( or for that matter, most of the rest of the world as well )? They want peace, harmony, an ability to put food on the table, to live without the constant threat of death and destruction, to raise their children in the way that they see fit, perhaps to even speak freely about a variety of different subjects and to worship in a manner that they wishand to occasionally have some fun. But there is always the 5% of the population that wants power, discord, to forcefully impress their belief and value system on others, etc., etc., etc. that causes problems for the rest (here and abroad). If there were some way to eliminate that 5% of the population, there would be no need for any of us/U.S. to get involved in anything. However, I am not naive enough to believe that that will ever happen either.

Bottom line, are the Iraqi people better off? Who knows? Would they have arrived at the same place someday, without US intervention? Again, who knows? We can debate this subject until our last breath and I doubt any of us will ever have a definitive answer. Do I believe that the US will eventually leave the Iraqi people to their own devices and to pursue what their populace/government wants? Yes, I do. Do I believe that that government will succeed? No idea. Do I believe that there will be those who will want to topple that government regardless? You betcha. Do I believe that people will oppose our government's policies/actions and question its motives no matter what it decides to do? Again, a big fat, "you betcha".

I just have one problem with this whole argument. It should not be the US who acts as the liberator, SPECIALLY for people who did not ASK for liberation. We have the United Nations, which was created for this purpose.

We dump grain into the ocean. That is a fact. Most of Africa is starving. I am sure many Americans are compassionate and feel responsibility to aid the unfortunate. However, the leaders act on a different scale, for political or resource gain. Take the example of Somalia. There was an ACTUAL genocide being carried out there. Did the US not pull out within weeks? Why? We dont have a different scale of compassion now, do we?

Your second paragraph mostly speaks of the US Government lying to get its COMPASSIONATE objective being achieved. That argument too is flawed, and I think you also concur.

I agree with your answer to the first two questions. Do I believe that the US will eventually leave the Iraqi people to their own devices and to pursue what their populace/government wants? I dont think so. A puppet regime which allows the US to set up bases within the nation, and allows dirt cheap oil would be the one taking power. Case in point Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The POPULACE pure hates the US presence and the monarch rulers. The rulers, who cannot stay in power without American backing are still there.

Read Stunt post. I am sure COMPASSION and the RIGHT THING would be served better by doing what he proposes.

 

[geecee]

Originally posted by: Sultan
I just have one problem with this whole argument. It should not be the US who acts as the liberator, SPECIALLY for people who did not ASK for liberation. We have the United Nations, which was created for this purpose.

We dump grain into the ocean. That is a fact. Most of Africa is starving. I am sure many Americans are compassionate and feel responsibility to aid the unfortunate. However, the leaders act on a different scale, for political or resource gain. Take the example of Somalia. There was an ACTUAL genocide being carried out there. Did the US not pull out within weeks? Why? We dont have a different scale of compassion now, do we?

Your second paragraph mostly speaks of the US Government lying to get its COMPASSIONATE objective being achieved. That argument too is flawed, and I think you also concur.

I agree with your answer to the first two questions. Do I believe that the US will eventually leave the Iraqi people to their own devices and to pursue what their populace/government wants? I dont think so. A puppet regime which allows the US to set up bases within the nation, and allows dirt cheap oil would be the one taking power. Case in point Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The POPULACE pure hates the US presence and the monarch rulers. The rulers, who cannot stay in power without American backing are still there.

Read Stunt post. I am sure COMPASSION and the RIGHT THING would be served better by doing what he proposes.

I agree that the US should NOT be a liberator of nations, as such a role just screams out "ABUSE ME!" and can be twisted into any manner of usage to justify our actions. However, my point was that the US simply cannot win. It's what I liken to "Microsoft syndrome". We are the wealthiest, most powerful nation and thus nothing that we ever do will be perceived in the right way. Now I have no love of Mr. Gates or his company, but Bill Gates is (BY FAR) the largest single charitable giver in the world. His company produces a product that made computing easy (arguable, I know) and standardized (to some degree) for generations of PC users. So why is he so hated? Is it because his company bullies and intimidates the industry and uses its size and marketing power to create an unfair competitive advantage? Certainly. Is it perhaps because his company and products dominate the industry and there is no large rival to keep it honest? Probably to some extent as well. Well, picture the US as the "Microsoft" of the world stage... Anyway, I digress.

Your point about allowing the United Nations to make the determinations is well taken, but idealistic at best. I would agree with you if we lived in a perfect world. But we do not and thus sometimes the only thing we can rely on the UN for is inaction and lively political debate. Which leads me to the next point I want to make. You cannot expect any nation (US or otherwise) to NOT act (in SOME degree) in its own self-interest. There is not a country in the world that does not consider its own interests before taking action, whether it be a UN vote or military action. Is the United States any different? Is it fair that we be held to some "higher" standard?

The US does support some questionable regimes, I agree. But we are working with what's available unfortunately. And since we're not allowed to topple governments, occupy nations and establish puppet leaders... Yes, Stunt is right, the world would be a better place if we did those things. But its not going to happen. But we can dream can't we?

 

[skyking]

When the US military toppled Saddam's regime, there was no proper plan for establishing a government to replace it.
The "One size fits all, Democracy, One each" template does not sit well on that country, and the Adminstration was foolish to think that it would. The differences in culture and religion were minimized, and passed off as being easy to accomodate.
Saddam was the proverbial lid on a pressure cooker, no, a crucible of explosive elements kept together by an artificial border. The U.S. took the lid off, and it is going to boil over. It would have happened sooner or later, but now we are left looking culpable to the Muslim world. If Osama Bin Laden were able to practice mind control from his cave in Afghanistan, he could not have achieved a better result. "Invade Iraq, GW, and take some of the heat off of me. Invade, and even the progressive moslems who disagreed with my tactics, and want me jailed will be distracted by your imperialist tactics".
The U.S. has played into his hand completely. All of our resources should have been brought to bear against Bin Laden, unitl he was found and dealt with. The world community could not object to that single-minded goal, without looking foolish.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: geecee

Originally posted by: Sultan
Not for us to decide. People should decide their own fate. We should not meddle in other people's affairs. You would not like me telling you what to do and how to live and how to go about your business. Why should this country tell another then?

There is a problem with this philosophy and it really is a no-win situation for the United States. If the US does this, and ignores genocide (imagined or not), disease, famine, natural disaster, human rights abuses, oppressive government or a myriad host of other things, it will be accused of being heartless, of lacking compassion, and/or of not utilizing its ample resources (as one of the world's wealthiest and most powerful nations) to better the situation ("Do the right thing."). There are many (Americans or otherwise) who would feel that we have a responsibilty to aid those in need due to this.

Now, on the other hand, when we do take action financially or militarily, we are questioned on who we are supporting and on whether our actions are justified. The other "half" (using half figuratively) of the world population (again American or otherwise) is then heard - accusing us of imperialism and/or warmongering, and they, as you have done, urge us to keep out of other people's business and let the internal affairs of a sovereign nation play out without our interference.

In your original post, you cited the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam. You then cite the number of Iraqis killed by American forces. This is the crux of the above argument. If the US does not do anything to help those Iraqis being killed by Saddam, we are turning a blind eye on the death of innocents or ignoring the stiuation beacuse it does not benefit us, strategically or financially. If we invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power, we are warmongers and oil bandits. Now granted, the pretext of our invasion was the imminent threat of WMD. What if we had just flat out said we are invading Iraq to remove Saddam from power? How do you think that would've gone over internally or with the rest of the world? Now I am not naive enough to believe that the invasion of Iraq was solely for the betterment of the Iraqi people, and I will concede that the US probably had SOME less than philanthropic interest in the matter. But as a matter of argument, nothing that the United States does will ever be welcomed by everyone, or even a majority for that matter. I think that with the demise of the Soviet Union and the consequent elimination of our only real rival superpower, the US thrust itself into its own no-win situation.

Another thing that I would like to point out. What do they majority of the Iraqi people want ( or for that matter, most of the rest of the world as well )? They want peace, harmony, an ability to put food on the table, to live without the constant threat of death and destruction, to raise their children in the way that they see fit, perhaps to even speak freely about a variety of different subjects and to worship in a manner that they wishand to occasionally have some fun. But there is always the 5% of the population that wants power, discord, to forcefully impress their belief and value system on others, etc., etc., etc. that causes problems for the rest (here and abroad). If there were some way to eliminate that 5% of the population, there would be no need for any of us/U.S. to get involved in anything. However, I am not naive enough to believe that that will ever happen either.

Bottom line, are the Iraqi people better off? Who knows? Would they have arrived at the same place someday, without US intervention? Again, who knows? We can debate this subject until our last breath and I doubt any of us will ever have a definitive answer. Do I believe that the US will eventually leave the Iraqi people to their own devices and to pursue what their populace/government wants? Yes, I do. Do I believe that that government will succeed? No idea. Do I believe that there will be those who will want to topple that government regardless? You betcha. Do I believe that people will oppose our government's policies/actions and question its motives no matter what it decides to do? Again, a big fat, "you betcha".

There is a problem with your philosophy too. Why should US and US alone bear the responsibility of the world. There is an organization called UN that was created for the purpose you mentioned. That is, deal with genocide, disease, famine, natural disaster, human rights abuses, oppressive government or a myriad host of other things.

The problem with this Iraq deal is that US proceeded without UN mandate and pretty much go against the majority of the UN body. Because of that, international body view US action as something done in self interest at the expense of Iraqi people. If US had worked the angle and get UN to support this war in Iraq, get UN along with Muslim nations to rebuild Iraq and restructure the government body, there wouldn't be a perception that the US is the occupying power.

By going the UN route, even if no action was taken because of disagreement between UN members, the blame would have been on UN and not US. US can actually claim credit and tell the rest of the world "I told you so" if nothing was done and something bad happened. After all, it is not the duty of one country to do handle every crisis in the world, even if that one country is the lone superpower.

Bottom line, the happiness of Iraqi people is not the responsibility of American people. If American really want to do something for the Iraqis, they should've bring the matter to UN and take any necessary action through the UN. Oh yeah, and one final point, Collin Powell didn't go to UN with human right agenda, but a talk on WMD that is proven to be totally none-existance. So don't even go and pretend that this war was started as fight for human right. That is just some BS pull out of thin air by this Admin to save face.

 

[geecee]

Originally posted by: rchiu
There is a problem with your philosophy too. Why should US and US alone bear the responsibility of the world. There is an organization called UN that was created for the purpose you mentioned. That is, deal with genocide, disease, famine, natural disaster, human rights abuses, oppressive government or a myriad host of other things.

The problem with this Iraq deal is that US proceeded without UN mandate and pretty much go against the majority of the UN body. Because of that, international body view US action as something done in self interest at the expense of Iraqi people. If US had worked the angle and get UN to support this war in Iraq, get UN along with Muslim nations to rebuild Iraq and restructure the government body, there wouldn't be a perception that the US is the occupying power.

By going the UN route, even if no action was taken because of disagreement between UN members, the blame would have been on UN and not US. US can actually claim credit and tell the rest of the world "I told you so" if nothing was done and something bad happened. After all, it is not the duty of one country to do handle every crisis in the world, even if that one country is the lone superpower.

Bottom line, the happiness of Iraqi people is not the responsibility of American people. If American really want to do something for the Iraqis, they should've bring the matter to UN and take any necessary action through the UN. Oh yeah, and one final point, Collin Powell didn't go to UN with human right agenda, but a talk on WMD that is proven to be totally none-existance. So don't even go and pretend that this war was started as fight for human right. That is just some BS pull out of thin air by this Admin to save face.

rchiu, your points are well made. However, my point still is that US inaction (even if agreed on by the UN first) would still cause them to be blamed by some segment of the world population. It would be viewed as a "We don't care about the rest of the world" attitude, and used by those same people to promote an anti-US stance. Also, the UN as an organization would be wonderful if every member nation supported its mandates equally. However, that is not the case. The majority of peacekeepers and aid come from a small handful of the member nations, notably the United States. (There are those in the world who view the UN as a puppet, anyway, for the larger, more influential nations.) I personally support the idea of a world organization that would "govern" the world, but I doubt that it would be a very effective one, simply because of what I mentioned previously - every nation has a vested self-interest, and that will make the UN more of popularity contest (in terms of a nation's foreign policy decisions and political influence). I suppose it could work to some degree as our congress does, but the amount of back room maneuvering that goes on in our legislature may not translate well into a world stage. Or, it may cause less than altruistic blocs of nations to form and outvote a single nation in a matter that directly affects it.

The other thing that may be of note, rchiu, is that the post-mortem "I told you so", may not be so great if the United States is the target of the aggression and was told earlier to stand down by the UN. If a nation obtained some sort of WMD and employed it against the United States (or conspired to do so with unaffiliated organizations, i.e. AQ), the United States could not NOT take action against this sort of threat.
Most of my previous arguments were based in hypotheticals, and I do concede that. None of my reasoning necessarily said that the US invasion of Iraq was due to human rights concerns, and I said as such. So please don't get worked about it and accuse me of defending that point of view as it is not one shared by myself. However, this matter brings my above point into play. If the US feels that a nation, such as Iraq (which was sympathetic to anti-US interests and had the capability to create WMDs)represents a direct threat to its well being and the UN does not agree, what should the US do? Wait for another disaster perhaps greater than the scale of the 9/11 attack before it acts? Again, this is hypothetical, for the sake of argument. I realize that there is a fine line between imminent threat and simply posturing/foreign policy conflict (i.e. real vs imagined).

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: geecee

rchiu, your points are well made. However, my point still is that US inaction (even if agreed on by the UN first) would still cause them to be blamed by some segment of the world population. It would be viewed as a "We don't care about the rest of the world" attitude, and used by those same people to promote an anti-US stance. Also, the UN as an organization would be wonderful if every member nation supported its mandates equally. However, that is not the case. The majority of peacekeepers and aid come from a small handful of the member nations, notably the United States. (There are those in the world who view the UN as a puppet, anyway, for the larger, more influential nations.) I personally support the idea of a world organization that would "govern" the world, but I doubt that it would be a very effective one, simply because of what I mentioned previously - every nation has a vested self-interest, and that will make the UN more of popularity contest (in terms of a nation's foreign policy decisions and political influence). I suppose it could work to some degree as our congress does, but the amount of back room maneuvering that goes on in our legislature may not translate well into a world stage. Or, it may cause less than altruistic blocs of nations to form and outvote a single nation in a matter that directly affects it.

The other thing that may be of note, rchiu, is that the post-mortem "I told you so", may not be so great if the United States is the target of the aggression and was told earlier to stand down by the UN. If a nation obtained some sort of WMD and employed it against the United States (or conspired to do so with unaffiliated organizations, i.e. AQ), the United States could not NOT take action against this sort of threat.
Most of my previous arguments were based in hypotheticals, and I do concede that. None of my reasoning necessarily said that the US invasion of Iraq was due to human rights concerns, and I said as such. So please don't get worked about it and accuse me of defending that point of view as it is not one shared by myself. However, this matter brings my above point into play. If the US feels that a nation, such as Iraq (which was sympathetic to anti-US interests and had the capability to create WMDs)represents a direct threat to its well being and the UN does not agree, what should the US do? Wait for another disaster perhaps greater than the scale of the 9/11 attack before it acts? Again, this is hypothetical, for the sake of argument. I realize that there is a fine line between imminent threat and simply posturing/foreign policy conflict (i.e. real vs imagined).

Yes, UN does not work as desiged because of the international politic and the voting/veto system. However, that is not an execuse for one country to bypass UN and unilaterally take action upon a soverign nation. First, that kind of action just opens up too many potential abuses because there are not a third party to verify the intent in the beginning and not a third party to monitor actions. Simple example, if UN was involved in Iraq, the prisoner abuse may not be as big a issue because there are other people watching. And second, if country can bypass UN anytime they feel it is justifiable on their part, and a precedence is made, that pretty much render UN useless. No nation have to abide the resolusions passed in UN, if one country doesn't follow those resolutions, why should the others?

If US really has problem with UN and really want to do something about the world crisis, try reform UN not destroy it.

About WMD, sure a country has the right to defend itself as it sees fit. I have no problem with a country defending itself if there is clear and present danger. However, how can a country like US with its vast intelligent resource make a mistake like claiming tons of chemical weapons before the war and finding not a single oz? That tells me that those claim was not based on facts, but was created by people sitting in the office, not people in the field, to justify some action they already want to take. And that is not acceptable, and that is an abuse of the right of a nation to self defense. If a nation can claim self defense based on any kind of facts, true or made up, then there is not going to be order in this world.

Also another problem when a country takes pre-emptive action based on unverified fact. What does that country do when the facts are found false? Must that country leave and apologize? What is the mechanisim for compensating damage done to the invaded country? United State made a huge mistake when invading a soverign nation by claiming it had WMD when it had none. What is the consequence of of that mistake? Has United State apologize for the mistake? Has anyone in the intelligence agency, the administration apologized, took punishment, leave the office because of that mistake? Remeber this is a mistake that caused tens of thousands death and total destruction of a country's infurstrcture and political system.

Imaging you have no association with US, and you live in another country. How would you view US action and what it has done to this point?

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: geecee

Originally posted by: rchiu
There is a problem with your philosophy too. Why should US and US alone bear the responsibility of the world. There is an organization called UN that was created for the purpose you mentioned. That is, deal with genocide, disease, famine, natural disaster, human rights abuses, oppressive government or a myriad host of other things.

The problem with this Iraq deal is that US proceeded without UN mandate and pretty much go against the majority of the UN body. Because of that, international body view US action as something done in self interest at the expense of Iraqi people. If US had worked the angle and get UN to support this war in Iraq, get UN along with Muslim nations to rebuild Iraq and restructure the government body, there wouldn't be a perception that the US is the occupying power.

By going the UN route, even if no action was taken because of disagreement between UN members, the blame would have been on UN and not US. US can actually claim credit and tell the rest of the world "I told you so" if nothing was done and something bad happened. After all, it is not the duty of one country to do handle every crisis in the world, even if that one country is the lone superpower.

Bottom line, the happiness of Iraqi people is not the responsibility of American people. If American really want to do something for the Iraqis, they should've bring the matter to UN and take any necessary action through the UN. Oh yeah, and one final point, Collin Powell didn't go to UN with human right agenda, but a talk on WMD that is proven to be totally none-existance. So don't even go and pretend that this war was started as fight for human right. That is just some BS pull out of thin air by this Admin to save face.

rchiu, your points are well made. However, my point still is that US inaction (even if agreed on by the UN first) would still cause them to be blamed by some segment of the world population. It would be viewed as a "We don't care about the rest of the world" attitude, and used by those same people to promote an anti-US stance. Also, the UN as an organization would be wonderful if every member nation supported its mandates equally. However, that is not the case. The majority of peacekeepers and aid come from a small handful of the member nations, notably the United States. (There are those in the world who view the UN as a puppet, anyway, for the larger, more influential nations.) I personally support the idea of a world organization that would "govern" the world, but I doubt that it would be a very effective one, simply because of what I mentioned previously - every nation has a vested self-interest, and that will make the UN more of popularity contest (in terms of a nation's foreign policy decisions and political influence). I suppose it could work to some degree as our congress does, but the amount of back room maneuvering that goes on in our legislature may not translate well into a world stage. Or, it may cause less than altruistic blocs of nations to form and outvote a single nation in a matter that directly affects it.

The other thing that may be of note, rchiu, is that the post-mortem "I told you so", may not be so great if the United States is the target of the aggression and was told earlier to stand down by the UN. If a nation obtained some sort of WMD and employed it against the United States (or conspired to do so with unaffiliated organizations, i.e. AQ), the United States could not NOT take action against this sort of threat.
Most of my previous arguments were based in hypotheticals, and I do concede that. None of my reasoning necessarily said that the US invasion of Iraq was due to human rights concerns, and I said as such. So please don't get worked about it and accuse me of defending that point of view as it is not one shared by myself. However, this matter brings my above point into play. If the US feels that a nation, such as Iraq (which was sympathetic to anti-US interests and had the capability to create WMDs)represents a direct threat to its well being and the UN does not agree, what should the US do? Wait for another disaster perhaps greater than the scale of the 9/11 attack before it acts? Again, this is hypothetical, for the sake of argument. I realize that there is a fine line between imminent threat and simply posturing/foreign policy conflict (i.e. real vs imagined).

I am sorry, but I do not agree with your point about US inaction. The US has, in almost every decade, fought a major war. Even the first Gulf War is seen by many in the MidEast as instigated by the US (when it sort of permitted or cast a blind eye to Saddam's intentions to invade Kuwait). As a result, multiple US bases have been established in Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and U.A.E. That itself does not bode well with the people of these nations.

This war too was based on lies. Complete lies. Lies were presented to the UN. Only two countries supported this war other than the US - that is Australia and the UK. All other nations (and maybe these three as well) sought a piece of the Oil pie, as was evident from the Polish Prime Minister who frankly said that was the motive for sending troops. Please also note that the majority of the world's population, even those in the countries taking action were protesting against this blatant act of war. No one protested to actually go to war.

The US has failed when PEACEKEEPING was essential, as in the case of Bosnia, Rwanda and Somalia. That is where the segment of world population cries about US inaction. Withdrawl from Somalia resulted in hundreds of thousands dead, if not millions. The US owes the UN a hell of a lot of money. Third world countries are the primary source of actual manpower. The US is loathe to sending Americans into hostile territories, specially when its interests are not being served.

Also, I would like you to take a moment and consider why at different times, this nation has had unbelievable attacks on its soil, from Pearl Harbor, to 9/11 (these two raised a spectrum of conspiracy theories). Either the whole world is evil, or we're actually doing something wrong.