Why dont they blow up...

[burner69]

Sorry Seinfeld, I was kinda half joking.

I agree the report has limitations, but it seems to be the least limited available.

Even our own governments agree

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4076993.stm

 

[burner69]

Come on, you're playing this game now too. Not everybody spends their whole life online waiting for responses. If you do, then you should examine your own social life.

Don't worry, I'm only on here cuz I've got insomnia, and find it informative and fun to debate and widen my knowledge of current affairs and people's opinions. Better than lying awake in bed staring at the ceiling.

In the day I've got a social life, promise. I'm at uni man, it'd be criminal not to :dozey:

 

[seinfeldrules]

I agree the report has limitations, but it seems to be the least limited available.

What about all the other surveys which disagree with that number?

Even our own governments agree

Without knowing the details, I would venture to say that political opposition to Blair could have easily used the numbers as a political tool, without really caring if they were correct or not.

 

[CptStern]

snip.

so you're in agreement that the figure is between 14,000 and 100,000? conservatively narrow it down and pinpoint the number you think it is. I'm just curious as to how many civilians you think have died

 

[burner69]

What about all the other surveys which disagree with that number?

Without knowing the details, I would venture to say that political opposition to Blair could have easily used the numbers as a political tool, without really caring if they were correct or not.

The rest are from bias sources, with just as many limitations as the Lancet's report. Making them inferior IMO

Blair said that the figures are probably wrong, but had nothing to back that claim, so now they're going to have an independant survey cuz they admit they have little in the way of accurate info.

Yeah it can easily be used as a political tool, but for a good cause I think; at the end of the day if the figures are shown to be as high as the Lancet say they are, Blair/Bush etc will be forced to change strategy or update equipment to lessen civvy death numbers during times of war.

Only a good thing.

 

[seinfeldrules]

so you're in agreement that the figure is between 14,000 and 100,000? conservatively narrow it down and pinpoint the number you think it is. I'm just curious as to how many civilians you think have died

Around 20k. Not all from the US either, I am not buying into the notion that the US is soley responsible because of links such as these.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=55654&d=6&m=12&y=2004&pix=world.jpg&category=World

The violence was the latest in a string of deadly attacks targeting Iraqi forces and others allied with the US military that have killed at least 68 Iraqis since Friday.

 

[seinfeldrules]

The rest are from bias sources, with just as many limitations as the Lancet's report. Making them inferior IMO

How are they bias? Just because they are western? That is laughable.

 

[burner69]

How are they bias? Just because they are western? That is laughable.

No, cuz it comes from people with agendas. Just as I wouldn't trust Al-Qaueda's findings into Iraqi civvy deaths.

Do you really think the first comprehensive unbias study is out by 80'000? That's a long way to go wrong by,

And I dont just blame Americans at all, but you'd be fooling yourself if you thought the car bombs killing civvys, which are always reporting, are killing anywhere near the number of civilians as the constant bombardment from artillery and planes, and street battles. They kill dozens, often more, each day.

 

[CptStern]

Around 20k. Not all from the US either,..

so 20,000 dead civilains doesnt sound a little high to you for a "humanitarian" mission?

I am not buying into the notion that the US is soley responsible because of links such as these.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=55654&d=6&m=12&y=2004&pix=world.jpg&category=World

ah but you must admit that if the US wasnt occupying Iraq under false pretenses then those civilians would still be alive

 

[Eg.]

no, most likely they would have been starved beacuse of theose expensive palaces, or tortured to death for the heck of it. Saddams son even had free reign over all the girls schools

 

[seinfeldrules]

no, most likely they would have been starved beacuse of theose expensive palaces, or tortured to death for the heck of it. Saddams son even had free reign over all the girls schools

Quoted for emphasis.

so 20,000 dead civilains doesnt sound a little high to you for a "humanitarian" mission?

Nobody is saying we went in there to only help out the Iraqi people. Still, I think these numbers are high, but I think it will help to further the greater good in the end.

 

[CptStern]

no, most likely they would have been starved beacuse of theose expensive palaces, or tortured to death for the heck of it. Saddams son even had free reign over all the girls schools

pfft educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam


btw The billions of dollars that the west claimed saddam had squirreled away is a lie ...started by none other than the father of all the bs information that led to this war, CIA employee and current Prime Minister of Iraq: Iyad Allawi

 

[seinfeldrules]

btw The billions of dollars that the west claimed saddam had squirreled away is a lie ...started by none other than the father of all the bs information that led to this war, CIA employee and current Prime Minister of Iraq: Iyad Allawi

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/07/wmd307.xml

Saddam siphoned 10 cents off every barrel of oil leaving the country and a further 10 per cent "kickback" from every shipment of food or medicine to reach Iraq.

He was smuggling oil through Syria, which said the pipeline was being "tested", and by ship to the highest bidders.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-11-15-saddam-oil-fraud_x.htm

NEW YORK (AP) — Saddam Hussein's regime made more than $21.3 billion in illegal revenue by subverting the U.N. oil-for-food program through surcharges, kickbacks and smuggling oil — more than double previous estimates, according to congressional investigators.

 

[burner69]

no, most likely they would have been starved beacuse of theose expensive palaces, or tortured to death for the heck of it. Saddams son even had free reign over all the girls schools

Care to back any of those claims up?
And...what has Saddams son got to do with the debate at the moment?

 

[burner69]

You've also succesfully avoided the 20'000-100'000 dead issue. Answering instead with unsubstantiated personal opinion on the matter.

http://www.thelancet.com/home

Read the Iraq report, and tell me more people would have died without the hundreds of hours of shelling.

 

[seinfeldrules]

You've also succesfully avoided the 20'000-100'000 dead issue. Answering instead with unsubstantiated personal opinion on the matter.

Read before you write. He asked me for my personal opinion.

 

[burner69]

Nobody is saying we went in there to only help out the Iraqi people. Still, I think these numbers are high, but I think it will help to further the greater good in the end.

Sorry, my bad.

But now we have the issue:

* You agree the numbers are high, and therefore something should be done to look into prevention.
* You believe there is more to it that just helping the Iraqi people. What else, do you think (I'm asking for opinion out of interest, and am aware my own is by no standards fact) did we go to war for? Remember the governments have already been cornered into admitting Saddam had no terrorist links, and that he was not a threat to western civilisation.

My big problem with this war is its timing, at such a dangerous and unstable period charging into an expensive, dangerous and costly (both politically, personally, and financially) conflict suggests lack of forethought, and/or lack of care before, and/or other, unmentioned motives.

 

[seinfeldrules]

* You believe there is more to it that just helping the Iraqi people. What else, do you think (I'm asking for opinion out of interest, and am aware my own is by no standards fact) did we go to war for? Remember the governments have already been cornered into admitting Saddam had no terrorist links, and that he was not a threat to western civilisation.

We went in on the intelligence that pointed to Saddam having WMD. Intelligence that MI5 and the Russian Intelligence Agency backed up.

PS Nobody is saying Saddam didnt have ties to terrorism, just there were no clear ties between himself, Osama, and 9/11.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/index.cfm?docid=2441

The Iraqi regime rebuffed a request from Riyadh for the extradition of two Saudis who had hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad, but did return promptly the passengers and the aircraft. Disregarding its obligations under international law, the regime granted political asylum to the hijackers and gave them ample opportunity to ventilate in the Iraqi Government-controlled and international media their criticisms of alleged abuses by the Saudi Arabian Government, echoing an Iraqi propaganda theme.

While the origins of the FAO attack and the hijacking were unclear, the Iraqi regime readily exploited these terrorist acts to further its policy objectives.

Several expatriate terrorist groups continued to maintain offices in Baghdad, including the Arab Liberation Front, the inactive 15 May Organization, the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). PLF leader Abu `Abbas appeared on state-controlled television in the fall to praise Iraq's leadership in rallying Arab opposition to Israeli violence against Palestinians. The ANO threatened to attack Austrian interests unless several million dollars in a frozen ANO account in a Vienna bank were turned over to the group.

The Iraq-supported Iranian terrorist group, Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), regularly claimed responsibility for armed incursions into Iran that targeted police and military outposts, as well as for mortar and bomb attacks on security organization headquarters in various Iranian cities. MEK publicists reported that in March group members killed an Iranian colonel having intelligence responsibilities. An MEK claim to have wounded a general was denied by the Iranian Government. The Iraqi regime deployed MEK forces against its domestic opponents.

 

[Eg.]

well, with that kind of estimate of 14k to 100k being so wide, it cannot be sicentific, as if they threw up a number. i still say meh to the numbers

 

[burner69]

We went in on the intelligence that pointed to Saddam having WMD. Intelligence that MI5 and the Russian Intelligence Agency backed up.

PS Nobody is saying Saddam didnt have ties to terrorism, just there were no clear ties between himself, Osama, and 9/11.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/index.cfm?docid=2441

Although we were told initially he had strong ties with 9/11.

The intelligence was by no means conclusive by any standards, and as shown it seems was incorrect, with no WMDs turning up - as suspected by many. Not to say that it would be totally wrong to go to war against a hunch - just not NOW. Why now? Why when it will magnify the already uncontrollable terrorist problem? Why when it means much of the Afghan war is wasted, by allowing Al-Quadea to regroup?

My stance on this whole issue is shifting slightly to the simple fact that victory, or even progress in the 'war on terror' is unreachable. Just as it is unreachable with drugs.

Rather than misguiding people with scare tactics, and saying terrorists are totally evil, motiveless people, why don't we stop invading countries - which draws out more terrorists
http://robots.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/powell.terror/
(Sorry for the repeat link btw)
and start looking for other alternatives. Opposition to the west will happen, rather than unrealistically attempting to stamp it out, why not try and compromise to reduce the number of terrorist attacks and subsequent loss of life, the number of people killed in war, and the ever falling global opinion on the west.

 

[burner69]

well, with that kind of estimate of 14k to 100k being so wide, it cannot be sicentific, as if they threw up a number. i still say meh to the numbers

Rather than dismissing the report because its figures are vastly different to other sources, why not read the report, and compare it to the report that brought up the 14k figure.

 

[Eg.]

well, i dont care. simple as that, let the number be 1 million,

as far as im concerend, the terrorists are busying themselves in Iraqi, where are army can deal with them. i see american lives as no.1, so screw the rest of teh world

 

[seinfeldrules]

The intelligence was by no means conclusive by any standards

President Bush was told "It is a Slam Dunk"

Rather than misguiding people with scare tactics, and saying terrorists are totally evil, motiveless people, why don't we stop invading countries - which draws out more terrorists

Terrorists are evil people. I dont doubt they have motives. However, when they kill innocent people to get their point across, I dont really care what the motives are.

the number of people killed in war,

The US' tatics call for this as much as possible.

 

[burner69]

well, i dont care. simple as that, let the number be 1 million,

as far as im concerend, the terrorists are busying themselves in Iraqi, where are army can deal with them. i see american lives as no.1, so screw the rest of teh world

People like you let the rest of this forum down.

President Bush was told "It is a Slam Dunk"

Terrorists are evil people. I dont doubt they have motives. However, when they kill innocent people to get their point across, I dont really care what the motives are.
.

It seems then, that the intelligence service needs looking at.

I don't like repeating this, but if terrorists are evil for killing innocent people, what is the coalition? They aren't doing it purposefully, not that Eg would care otherwise, but they are killing far more.

If these people are resorting to such extreme methods they really REALLY want their motives known and raised. Attacking them is only worsening the problem, it cannot by denied.
If negotiation would reduce the number of deaths caused by both sides it can only be a good thing, the only thing that would suffer is some american's ego (not implying you though, seinfeld)

 

[seinfeldrules]

Negotiations such as these (see below)? This is appeasement. They (NK) claim to do something, then back out of agreements years down the road. Currently, they are attempting to get 5 billion dollars from the US to halt its weapons program. Then when they reneg on their agreements again, they will demand more and more.

http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1b3_5.html

In June 1994, former President Jimmy Carter visited North Korea, as a special representative of President Clinton. He proposed a diplomatic solution. If North Korea agreed to freeze the dangerous parts of its nuclear program, the United States, Japan, and South Korea would give North Korea two nuclear power plants that were less likely to be used for weapons proliferation. This agreement would help its desperately poor economy, which has been suffering from a severe energy shortage. This was an incentive for North Korea to halt its WMD activity. North Korea agreed to this deal, and a few months later, North Korea and the United States signed a joint understanding closing the bargain. The understanding is known as the "October 1994 Agreed Framework between the United States of America and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea." Today, the North Korean nuclear weapons program appears to be frozen and work continues on building the two new nuclear power plants.

In October 2002, however, North Korea verified a U.S. accusation that it had been secretly pursuing a uranium enrichment program, rather than the plutonium-based nuclear weapons program addressed in the Agreed Framework. This covert program breached the spirit, and possibly the specific terms of its obligations under the 1994 agreement, and may also have violated the country's obligations under the NPT. However, North Korea argued that violations of the Agreed Framework had occurred first on the U.S. side, and that the escalation of threats by the United States to North Korea's national security entitled North Korea to seek possession of nuclear weapons.

It seems then, that the intelligence service needs looking at.

Agreed. This is what Congress and the President are currently doing.

I don't like repeating this, but if terrorists are evil for killing innocent people, what is the coalition? They aren't doing it purposefully, not that Eg would care otherwise, but they are killing far more.

The bolded part is key to your statement.

 

[burner69]

But when more people are killed, regardless of intent, strategies need rethinking.

The above report backs up what I see as being beneficial about negotiations: no conflict broke out, many lives were saved. And considering America is deciding that N.Korea has no right to own the same weapons as them, I think N.Korea responded quite well.

If I was any country not allied with the US I'd want nukes to protect myself, if I had to do it secretly, then I would.

 

[burner69]

Also I could list many more conflicts that have resulted in many thousands of deaths, and solved no more problems.

 

[Bait]

i see american lives as no.1, so screw the rest of teh world

Ugh............This is the kind of attitude that will cause tremendous problems in the future, of that there is no doubt.

As for the intelligence, how can 3 orginizations whose focus is intelligence be so compeltely off the mark? I mean, they weren't remotely true. Seeing as how that intelligence was either A) Pulled out of their ass B) Formulated to advance personal agendas of certain people or C) Based on half investigated rumours and hearsay, this does NOT make it a valid excuse to go to war and kill thousands of innocent people. Changing the motive 3/4 of the way through and realizing the bullshit that has just been spread so thouroughly doesn't justify it either. This war was built on lies, and because of these lies people who didn't deserve to die are dying. This will eventually catch up with the people in charge of this war, but that is only a matter of time.

 

[seinfeldrules]

The above report backs up what I see as being beneficial about negotiations: no conflict broke out, many lives were saved. And considering America is deciding that N.Korea has no right to own the same weapons as them, I think N.Korea responded quite well.

NK responded well by breaking the agreement? This is why we shouldnt negotiate with countries like these. You really are an extremist if you dont see how it is wrong. It isnt only America that doesnt want NK to have nuclear weapons, it is everyone which wants world peace. Their leader is insane. All their money is spent on the military, none is left for their own people and his eye is clearly on SK. It was a very weak rebuttal on your part.

 

[burner69]

What? Allowing countries the same rights as yours?

 

[Kangy]

I hate to agree with Seinfeld, but NK would lay into SK in a heartbeat if it had something powerful like a nuke to throw into the fray.

I dislike America being able to dish out "nuclear rights" but in this instance, I see no problem.

 

[burner69]

I hate to agree with Seinfeld, but NK would lay into SK in a heartbeat if it had something powerful like a nuke to throw into the fray.

I dislike America being able to dish out "nuclear rights" but in this instance, I see no problem.

Then surely you disagree with laying into Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran in a heartbeat. And also, I don't see how invading NK would stop them secretly making the nukes. We invaded Iraq a little over ten years ago, and they could still apparently make WMDs.

If anyone nuked anybody else they know they'll get battered by that persons allies.

 

[Kangy]

No, it'd happen differently.

NK would invade SK, but say "if any of you intervene, we'll put a nuke into Hawaii or Japan!" and while the whole nuclear stalemate happened, NK would overrun SK, and that'd be the end of it for a bit.

Oh, and I'm not sure about invasion either. Last resort, definately, and done with the help of the UN if possible.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Then surely you disagree with laying into Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran in a heartbeat

We had to hit back at Al Qaeda following 9/11. What better place than Afghanistan where all their training bases were, along with Osama?

We invaded Iraq a little over ten years ago, and they could still apparently make WMDs.

We didnt invade Iraq. We liberated Kuwait.

If anyone nuked anybody else they know they'll get battered by that persons allies.

Conventionally yes, but it would be unlikely to start a nuclear war unless it was India vs. Pakistan.

NK would invade SK, but say "if any of you intervene, we'll put a nuke into Hawaii or Japan!"

The scary thing is it could already be happening. Their whole plan relies on a small, if any, US force in SK. We are currently reducing our troop number in SK. Also, they plan on swaying the students to be more accepting of the North and less of the US. This is happening. Their final excuse to invade could be a self made one. Imagine if they blew up a military base, blamed the US or SK, then invaded the South. There would be no US there to help and SK would be overrun in weeks. Their plan is in motion, but it is a very patient one that will develop over many years. The growing anti US sentiment there is evidence of that to me.