US death toll in Iraq war hits 4,000

Evans, I do agree that some countries need to be 'policed' when they are in times of civil war and disorder, but Iraqi was never a policing policy it was an invasion of the country. American instead of jumping into every country should let counties grow themselves, to have there 'teething' issues and when order is lost, move in but not take over.

Look at Australia, they have many policing policies around the world to protect governements from rebels and terroritst, but we don't just jump in and are asked or we offer support.

I just think that America is to imperialist and they need to be controled by the UN=(Useless Nations)(to use your meaning of UN)

 

tomcat

A question for you what would the UN do ?

 

Well that is the diffuclt part mate. See they UN is doing the same thing that the League of Nations failed to do which is not control nations, they failed to contain and control Germany in ww2 and they fail to control the US's actions, she has the freedom to do what whe wants, and when she wants and no nation will stand up to them.

But to answer the question, Trade embargo. It is harsh, and can easily destroy and nation on the planet these days. The problem is that no one will ever do it because they need the imports and exports to the US, therefore she can do what she wants. How do you control such a nation as the USA?

 

Are you for real? Pray tell, What formative education lead you to this foolish line of thought?

 

I would never advise such a course of action, because it would devestate the world's economy, However the question still remains if that is not the answer.

How do you control the US?

 

I'm just curious, there are Aussie troops in Iraq, just who was it in the Iraqi government that Invited them?
thanks

 

That is true they were not asked in either and should leave when the nation is able to look after its self. However the old Australian PM John Howard had a habit of following the Bush with everthing he did and said even with the Australian people against him.

 

That may be, but my point is this, when you point a finger at someone else, there are more fingers pointing back at yourself!

This is a hard topic to discuss, and I have thus held my tongue, maybe I'll regret that later! But I want to say this, on my departure from this thread, a very good friend of mine explained to me, upon his return from Iraq, that it is horrible there, yes, bug good things happen as well!
Such as the children who can go to school! Families who were once afraid to go out at all, now go to visit relatives. Smiles abound in a country where not too long ago, very few smiled.
He goes on to explain that the executions of the citizens no longer takes place. He told me of the soccer stadium that was used for this purpose. He heard of these stories for the Iraqis. I'm sure there are people there that do not want us there, but you must admit that there are pronanly people that do want help! Not just from the US but from whoever! Unfortunately in this case the "help" arrived in a way I'm not in agreement with, but that doesn't mean that only bad things happen there. There were several countires that stood up next to the US and said "let's go"! Now that it gets ugly, they want to step back, as politicians do, and say "we never wanted this", it's all too conveniet isn't it!
Anyway sorry for the rant!
Have a great night!

 

No rant, some good points, my friends with Trigger time in the sandbox have been eaten alive by sand fleas....the desert is not a forgiving place to people used to green space.

With all the resolutions by the eh hum, UN.....how many do you proclaim before you say enough is enough....all it takes is one nuke, either in the atmosphere or in the oil fields and instant chaos all over the world so treading on political rice paper ain't an option. Never mind the fact that during the Scud attacks, Israel was inches from retaliating....they responded in Syria recently, and in the past bombing one Iraqi reactor....Brinkmanship has merely taken center stage in the Mideast rather than formerly between the Soviet Union and America, although this could change as well, hopefully not. Why these people don't take a play from the Dubai handbook and pave their streets with gold.....the world may never know. Tribal and sectarian hatred runs deep no mater who's in power or minding the store. SOS different management.

 

Ok let us get the UN debate done.

The UN has taken on a lot of responsebilities. The UN that Hammarskiold led to resolve the conflict in Congo is quite different to the one we have today.

Food/development programmes feature heavily. Pro-active measures to stop conflicts has it's merits. It is hard to start a revolt when you have food in your belly and your children get medicine and go to school.

The thing is that this masssive organisation is filled with red tape, and lawyers are bickering on about every little point. And when you try to get a concensus with two warring parties involved in the process it is bound to take time.

The various tools that the UN have invented such as the Observer Force are prime examples of things that can be manipulated. "We have people there." when it really is a few observers that can do s*d all to improve conditions.

But I blow a gasket when people say Useless Nations, and anyone that says that is welcome over here to say it to my uncle who protected a Lebanese family with his body during an Israeli 2 hour artillery barrage. He still get's cards for christmas. Or my Sergeant who acted as living shield on the Balkans wearing the blue helmet.

The way I see it is that the UN is doing allright to be pro-active in the period long before a crisis appear, left actionless during a crisis and then commit peacekeeping forces to protect those who are left.

The UN mandates for forces operating are sometimes on the border of suicidal.

So yes I am not satisfied with the UN's ability to intervene. This is an activity that we have lost proficiency of. The rest is improving. The trouble is that the UN encompass so many views of life and culture/religion that the debate on wether we should intervene or not takes too long.

The next point is that the massive disarment in the world makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the UN to handle all the possible missions. If we were to get the job done there would be a lot of chinese and russians wearing blue helmets. Because the western world is put of boots. They all went Canterbury when the Cold-war ended.

Modern US critique is that the UN is useless. Well that is a narrow view of a vast organisation.

Another critique is that the UN is mugging the US.
The US fund some 22% of the UN, Japan 18% and then the rest follow a lot more moderatly. But then again we are talking about the most powerful economies in the world.

Think what you will about the UN, but Useless is a bit harsh isn't it?

Jaeger

 

I never meant that the UN is completely useless at all, for they play important roles with all there peace keeping and polieing actions. However my 'useless nation' comment was aimed at the fact that the UN is powerless to stop the USA from doing what it wants, what good are they if they cant do what they were designed to do?

Just because the US funds 22% (to use your information) of the UN that dosn't mean they have more of a say then any other nation in the UN or the right to 'park where ever they want'(invade, conqueor, police, peace keep, rebuild, what ever they want to call it.

Now with all my rant and raving, please do not mistake this for me not thinking that the Americans do a good in areas such as sudan, I am purelly looking at the fact that they are imperialist. 'Democracy is great, the American way is the only way, and you are all wrong.'

Just because we live in a Democratic society that dosn't give us the right to invade and control any nation just because they are not. Just because they are muslim does not mean that they need to be 'educated' on the 'right way'. Just becuase someone does something different dosn't make it wrong.

'There is more than one way to skin a fish'

 

Bit busy so I'll make this brief, all those stats I quoted were taken directly from the US State department report in human rights in Iraq during 2006, I gave you the source about three pages back, the one you accused of being from the 'liberal leftist media' remember?

 

I admit some of the more recent comments regarding Liberals= Commies etc are a prime example of the complete lack of intelligence of some folk who frequent this site.

I am mindful that we can't always agree but I do get pissed off with the hillbilly attacks on anyone who expresses an open opinion which happens to be not Neo-Conservative.

If some of you guys were to just should stop voting for politicians who promised you more freedom to own semi automatic guns I strongly suspect the world wouldn't have to live under the imperialist Repulican menace.

 

I like

 

Can you please explain?

Sounds to me that if I disagree with a conservative point of view then im automatically mistaken? Did I understand you correctly?

Another example, I for one would support the troops in Vietnam even though I would disagree with the war. How would you classify this? Can one not support A without disagreeing with B ?

P.S.

Im a registered Republican

 

Sorry, you clearly are missing my point. It is very simple, As soon as you say 'the government can do what it wants without telling us' you take away the very basis for democracy, i.e. accountability to the people. Thus the very idea that the government can do what it likes behind closed doors is fundamentally undemocratic. That isn't to say that the interests of security don't sometimes necessitate a degree of secrecy, but that should be kept to a minimum as far as possible and carefully monitored to ensure that whatever the government does is neither illegal nor immoral.

Right, this has got confused, let us look at what happened:

1. I stated two facts, firstly that we have not invaded Iran and secondly that even if we had, it would not mean we have succeeded in Iraq.
2. I was informed that this statement was apparently 'chaimberlainesque'
3. You started rambling on about appeasement, something which does not bear any resemblance to my original statement of fact.
4. This has gotten very confused and I have still yet to see what the hell Nevill Chaimberlaine has to do with the fact that we have not invaded Iran and whether we had or not it wouldn't indicate success in Iraq.

As for your question of how we have failed, once again I cite the US State Department statistics that I have quoted repeatedly on this thread. 16,000 civilians killed in a single city in a single year, that's one pretty big statistic suggesting we haven't succeeded.

The 70 government officials kidnapped in their government run bus on their way home from work might disagree with you. As might the 16,000 people they have killed or the populations of cities in which the killings of civilians by terrorists and militias without provocation is 'a daily occurance' (Iraq)

Pretty good evidence that the terrorists are doing what the hell they please. Then again since this is your recollection of something you saw on television an unknown period of time ago, I might also question it's use as a source. Also worth adding several key facts; 1. Hussains government allowed women into government office, something almost unheard of in the middle east 2. Iraq never had Sharia law 3. Iraq was one of the most secular nations in the middle east.

Well, let's see, according to Johns Hopkins University the number of Iraqi civilians dead between 2003 and 2006 was around 654,965 (Johns Hopkins Gazette | October 16, 2006). On the other hand, taking the highest extreme estimates I can find, the total number killed by Saddam's regime (not including those killed in war or who died as a result of UN sanctions) is around 400,000 including an estimated 300,000 dissidents and 100,000 Kurds (the most concise source for this is Saddam Hussein killer file but feel free to provide alternative stats if you like). So, there you go.

In which case I apologise and point out that I was simply doing my best to make sense of your post which was almost unintelligible, something about leftists waiting for bogey-men to go away and if we had dragged our ass then we wouldn't have achieved all we have achieved, which I interpreted (I believe reasonably) as saying that if we hadn't invaded Iraq then they wouldn't have the schools etc listed in your post. I simply pointed out we also wouldn't have the current number of Iraqi casualties, refugees and so on. Not twisting words, just adding a fact you missed.

How the hell am I beating around the bush? You can't blame the political left for instability in the middle east because it has never been stable. How much more direct and to the point can I get?

I guess though that if you can't blame the political left, you might be able to blame those who put Saddam in power and provided him with weapons and intelligence for so long

At the point it is time for a musical interlude, I am proud to present Guardsmen Topin and Kranky of the Coldstream Guards proving that even on ceremonial duties you can have some fun:

YouTube - London Guard Rave Dance

And now back to your usual programming:

You do realise that a) that doesn't make much sense (you want me to be biased?) and b) you are just as biased as me. Incidentally when it comes to tunnel vision, I'm not the one who appears to be saying 'ignore all the massive negative statistics, just look at this tiny list of rather limited achievements given to me by a mate for which I can't give any more reliable source than hearsay.'

I gave you my source 3 pages ago, the US state department account of the humanitarian situation in Iraq published in 2006, available for you to read here:

Iraq

If you want more sources, this one is interesting:

Iraq's Humanitarian Crisis - Security Council - Global Policy Forum

I'm not going to claim it is unbiased (hell, it is about the humanitarian crisis in Iraq so it's hardly going to focus on the positives) but all the same it gives some interesting stats.

As an amateur historian I would have thought you would accept the simple logic that 'my mate says' is not a valid source. It is called hearsay. Now, Throughout this I have accepted the facts out of respect for you as I trust your word and I am willing to accept that if you believe what this unnamed marine has said is true. However I might suggest that with this in mind you might want to think about how able you are to put the sources provided by anyone else in question when you know full well that in any kind of legitimate academic setting if you came up with 'facts' based on 'what your mate says' would get you laughed out of the building.

Because with an estimates suggesting that around 100 civilians are killed every day in Iraq, the millions of refugees created by the war, the massive corruption in government, the hundreds of thousands already dead, the police force which kidnaps and ransoms people, terrorists kidnapping and murdering government employees and so on, a few schools, a few mobile phones and a government controlled media rather pale into insignificance.

No, it is because I read the government published reports on the subject. I honestly generally ignore the majority of what the media says because I don't trust them any further than I could throw them. What I do do however is read reports published by my government, your government, the UN and so on to find out what is really happenning.

My answer would be next to nothing

Right, I'm going to say this again, all of those statistics came from the report I cited on the first page of this thread and have been quoting again and again all the way through. These are stats published by the US State Department right here Iraq I might suggest that you actually read it, there are quite a lot of interesting facts there, even a couple of positive ones.

As have I, to such an extent that I am fed up with quoting your 'leftist liberal' state department.

What truth?

I understand the situation and as I have said before, I find it VERY tough to believe that any of the positives outweigh the negatives. You have still yet to tell me how 100,000,0 mobile phone owners is a bigger success than the estimated 4.1 million refugees living in Iraq and abroad. How does 364 schools outweigh 16,000 people being brutally murdered in a single city in a single year? How does 15 new hospitals (of dubious quality) outweigh 70 government workers kidnapped in a single day, 35 of whom were murdered, to say nothing of the civilians who are torn from their homes daily by terrorists and insurgents? Please, would you explain THIS to me?

Is there some sort of forum secret police that I have been unaware of who are stopping others from posting?

Don't take things too seriously no one is talking about expulsion or anything of the sort, lively and heated debate is fine as long as it stays away from mud-slinging and we have been at this long enough to know not to take offence at each others words I hope. I just really detest the use of the term 'liberal' as it has been bandied around in this thread, as I have said, it is childish and ignorant, I can't help thinking great offence would be caused it those of us who have fallen victim to it were to use similarly emotive terminology to describe you pro-war types.

Indeed, very neat Of course the 600 were charging in error after the wrong target, a cockup of fairly impressive proportions, so yes, very apt

As a friend and as a serving officer in the British military so I guess as a friend, colleague, associate, junior, superior or drinking buddy depending on the scenario. Why do you ask?

Incidentally, I still have yet to see you justify how it can be impossible to support the troops but oppose the war. As I pointed out earlier, I support our military wholeheartedly throughout the globe and yet I still feel the war in Iraq is wrong.

 

I guess it’s about time I threw my two cents into this heated, but otherwise civilized thread. Stefen I fully agree with you. I believe it is absolutely possible to support the troops but not the war. They are ALL brave and honorable souls, each and every one. But at the same time I never did like, or agree why we went in. That said, I do not believe we can pull out. We have stuck ourselves there and like it or not have to stay. 16000 deaths in a single city, in a single year? I ask, who perpetrated these acts of genocide? Not US or British or German or Polish, or whoever else’s troops. Just think, how many Iraqis will die after there are no foreign troops to protect them. Like many of us I too have close buddies of mine serving in Iraq. What he has told me is that first, the media has it all wrong. Rather than focusing on the good that is done, they focus on the death and destruction all around. Problem is that it is not “all around”. I hear Baghdad mentioned all the time, along with a few other hotspots, but that is about it. Most of the country seems to be in relative peace. Tomcat, you almost sound anti-American in your posts. Problem is that history is full of a country that is the superpower. The Romans, Mongols, French under Napoleon… The list goes on. The question is not who will stop the US, but who will take our place. Perhaps China? What is going on in Iraq right now are many good things, strewn in alongside are the bad. Iraq is gearing up for a major civil war. Do we let them duke it out? The answer is no because, IMHO, we will be back in only two-three years anyways to stop the genocide. Let’s weather the storm, and when it passes, maybe we can all look back one day with hindsight and we can factually determine whether it was right or not. Right now, we have too stay, but that’s just my opinion.


OK, I’m ready for the flak to come my way.

 

First off, thanks to all of those who sent me not only PMs but emails to two of my addresses. Thank you all for all the positive things you said in them and not a single one out of a total of 15 PMs and emails, not a one was negatory. I was surprised that I was supported in them by two people here who I rarely agree with.

Anyway, I want to make something clear. When I say U.N = Useless Nations, I mean the U.N who owes the American taxpayer monies for their unpaid fines and fees and such. Also, an attempt was made last year to have some "cleaning of house" (the U.N) when John Bolton was made U.N Ambassador-but after he tried for a short time, saw how useless the U.N was in him trying to help reform it a bit. This is NOT made up and IS a matter of record that can be looked up if someone wants to or has time to do the research on.

I do not feel the need to waste my time to do any research on that and will not-simply-because I have no interest in it. So therefore, when I say U.N. = Useless Nations, you will know exactly what I am talking about without having to re-write what I just said.

Also, I do not believe in nor do I support what some are saying that we need a "one world Govt.' If that ever happens, whose laws are we supposed to follow???? I sure as hell, do not wish to follow the laws that might be on the books for the Chinese, or say, the Syrians! We have an most important document that was written by a brilliant man-in the name of Benjamin Franklin. This document is what our country is supposed to be based on. However, stinking slimy buttheads-called: politicians are busy trying their best to slaughter what our Constitution and Bill of Rights says.

I sure as hell, do NOT want U.N troops stationed in MY Country, as it is well-known that they have been on our Southern border before. That excuse was, that they needed a certain kind of training. OK, let them train say, on the island of Attu or somewhere where there is few or no people living.

The U.N, has absolutely no right being on American soil to begin with. Yeah, I know that the fragging politicians have them here for one reason or another. Lord knows why it was decided that we be host to them? The vast majority of Americans do NOT want those folks here. Many so called: U.N. ambassadors and such have also committed crimes that they are immune to. Crimes such as rape, murder, embezzelment and such. Would you want those scumbags doing these crimes in your country and then the law says that since they are ambassadors-that they are immune to being prosecuted by our laws. BULLSHIP!!!!

Now, I never have said that the U.N, has never been useful-I think the Korean War is a prime example. However, ever since Hammarskiold has not been involved-the leadership of this fine organization has gone to hell, and a hand-basket!

If a few wanted me to reply to their questions or comments and I did not, forgive me because I lack the proper time to do so.

Take care and best regards--Carl.

PS, yeah, I have more respect for NATO than I do for the U.N-simply because they are not as corrupt as the U.N is now. That is partly the reason why John Bolton (SP?) resigned as Ambasssador. In case one knows nothing about him, Google his name and read for yourself. This guy was one of the good guys and could have helped change the U.N a bit and make it an organization with a great name.

This is absolutely my last reply to this U.T. = (Useless Thread.)

 

Fair enough, hardly worth posting all those sourced and facts for you

 

I'm simply going to say that if you don't want people to call you names, then you should not call other people names. No specifics here, just in general. With this particular statement you have said that people on this site have a "lack of intelligence" and that they use "hillbilly attacks". That was not necessary.