C
caroljm36
Guest
Lisa N:
It’s BUT monkey Lisa…
- Status
F
Fitz
Guest
I have to run and won’t be able to read this now. I will be back on Sunday evening. However, I do believe that the Iraqi people elected a new President and Prime Minister just yesterday or the day before. It was lost in the all the info on the Pope.
However, we could ask them if they want Saddam back. What do you think? Do you think the Iraqi people that voted will be happy to be able to decide their leaders? I am not refusing to read the article, I am off to a retreat this weekend.
I don’t pretend to know what the Iraqi people want, each and every one of them. However, I do think that they don’t want a dictator that kills them or their family on a whim.
L
Lisa_N
Guest
BAHAHAHA. Title alone would give you the idea it was less than fair and balanced. Yes I did read it. Usual blather about no WMDs etc. I work with several Iraqi exiles who have family in Iraq. One is a Kurd who escaped before the first Gulf War and had many family members killed. They state their families are hopeful and optimistic for the first time in decades.
Also some of the news stories have so much spin such as the ones talking about intermittent power in Baghdad. But as one of the civilian engineers explained, Saddam used to take a majority of power for his palaces. When that same amount of power was redistributed there was less power for some of the areas and until the infrastructure is in place there will be shortages.
Democracy is messy. Read our own history and we didn’t have to get out from under the thumb of a brutual murderous dictator. How long did it take us to formulate an effective government?
I think it was PJ O’Rourke who said it best. If you are against the Iraq action you are for Saddam. It would be nice if diplomatic action would have worked. It didn’t. Maybe it would have worked if our ‘friends’ France and Russia had told Saddam that we were serious and he needed to abdicate his ‘throne.’ They didn’t. We were serious. Saddam is now in jail and IMO that is a very good thing.
Lisa N
L
LSK
Guest
I think the article is wonderful. It was a miracle. A true Christ-centered miracle. This young woman, a widow with a daughter, trying to rebuild her life, turning to Christ to help do so, and He chose to work through her. I think it is sad that to acknowledge such a miracle means the person is taking a political stance; however, like Ms. Coulter wrote, somehow to believe in Christ and love Him has translated into politics in a divisive manner. Not good. :crying:
G
gnjsdad
Guest
I think we can safely say that the Shiites and Kurds have obviously bid good riddance to Saddam. Both groups have become the power players in the new Iraq, if it can be held together, and this is very much open to question. The Sunni minority understandably is very nervous and has by and large refused to participate in any great numbers. The potential for bloody civil war remains great.
The election did not occur in a vacuum. The huge elephant in the room, 150,000 occupying American troops, just can’t be ignored. Given that the country is under military occupation, it is hard for me to accept the premise that the Iraqi people freely voted. Every vote cast and every candidate selected occurred against this backdrop of US power. Will the US stay or go? How long will the occupation last? Will the US presence end relatively soon, or will it be permanent, with treaties drawn up allowing permanent bases? If a substanital US presence continues, in what sense can the Iraqi government be considered independent?
Hope you retreat is rewarding
Neither do I, but I see other possible bad outcomes; civil war and sectarian violence; insurrection in the Sunni areas; and - this should not be forgotten either - the deteriorating situation for Christians and Catholics in Iraq.
And thanks for your civil response. I apologize if my original post was somewhat belligerent. I guess I need to develop a thicker skin in here.
G
gnjsdad
Guest
Lisa N:
Lisa N:
Lisa N:
Lisa N:
But hey, who cares what the Pope, bishops conferences, and millions of people say. If PJ O’Rourke said it, that changes everything.
Lisa N:
As opposed to your sources, which are always fair and balanced, I suppose?
Lisa N:
That’s fine. However, we can’t ignore the hundreds of thousands who’ve been killed or displaced since Saddam was ousted.
Lisa N:
We gained independence in 1781; the Constitution was ratified by the requisite number of states in 1791; so it took roughly 10 years for us to develop an effective government. However, your comparison breaks down because, unlike in Iraq, we had no foreign occupying army watching over the formulation of our government.
Lisa N:
I kinda like PJ O’Rourke. I may have to reconsider…
But hey, who cares what the Pope, bishops conferences, and millions of people say. If PJ O’Rourke said it, that changes everything.
Lisa N:
It would’ve been nice if diplomatic actions (and weapons inspections) were allowed to work.
G
gilliam
Guest
Where are you getting your statistic that 100,000 civilians were killed? Remember, the Lancet article, where people are getting that number from has been completely debunked. Or are you including insergents? Even then I don’t know where you can come up with that number.
.
No one should think we had an effective central government when the Constitution was ratified.
.
We allowed them to try to work for 15 years and they were not working, instead, Saddam was raking billions off the top and purchasing what he wanted, bribing whom he wanted and persecuting who he wanted. What more do you want?
A
aimee
Guest
Excellent post, gilliam 
G
gnjsdad
Guest
I will concede that the Lancet figure on the number of civilain deaths is disputed. However, disputed does not mean debunked. The word “debunked” implies that a credible and reliable figure exists somewhere, and that, therefore, some standard for comparison exists. The problem is that neither the governing authority in Iraq nor the US military has released any estimates on the number of Iraqi civilian casualties. Why is that? Is it because such estimates are too difficult to obtain under the circumstances? Or, is it that that the figures exist, but the authorities are reluctant to make them known? Or, is it that they just haven’t bothered? Isn’t this soemthing we as Americans should know as part of the cost of “bringing democracy to Iraq”?
I do feel confident that the number of displaced civilians is at least in the tens of thousands, if not higher, at least judging by what happened in Fallujah.
It’s too bad that we, as citizens interested in what transpires in Iraq, are reduced to playing the “my stats and sources vs your stats and sources” game. They say that truth is the first casualty of war. I see nothing so far that would make me dispute that.
I’m not sure this is to the point.
The sanctions regime, as cruel to the Iraqi people as it was, was working at the time. Saddam was contained, did not have full control even over the totality of his own country, and was no credible threat to any of his neighboring countries. The UN weapons inspectors, so mercilessly derided by such know-it-alls as Rush Limbaugh, turn out to have been vindicated.
So Saddam was profiting by the Oil for Food Program? As Inspector Renault (sp?) in *Casablanca *would say, I’m shocked, shocked!! Are you really saying that this was a justification for war?
C
condan
Guest
How about those who were killed BEFORE we ousted Saddam?
BECAUSE WE KICKED THEM OUT!!!
What, 14 tries weren’t enough? You’re right. We should have just sat around and waited until something REALLY bad happened. Then we could convene a bogus commission on the taxpayers’ nickel so Sandy Berger could steal more documents. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
G
gilliam
Guest
When those who are saying it is nonsense come from the scientific world, and those who support it are doing so as a matter of faith, and when it boils down to a matter of statistics, we can pretty confidantly say that it is debunked.
Because such estimates are too difficult to obtain. There is no sense in making numbers up.
Look at the recent incident at Abu Ghraib for example. There is a lot of evidance that the terrorists suffered a tremendous loss, but since they drag their bodies away with them, there is no way of telling how large that loss is.
Scroll to Wednesday, April 6th, 2005: 2100hrs entry. Not for the squeemish. Warning Language
Sure, but you don’t make up numbers.
You could point to that as evidence, sure. I am only disputing the deaths and I am doing that because there is no reliable source for any number close to 100,000 innocent civilian deaths.
In the case of Fallujah we deliberately avoided mass civilian deaths.
No, what I am saying is that your not providing good numbers period, just repeating inaccuracies. I want to be just to you here. If you have reliable numbers, please post them. Otherwise avoid using numbers at all.
Saddam was making a killing off of it and the people continued to suffer. So I don’t see where it was working at all.
That was thanks to the US Army and Air Force, not because of the sanctions.
The inconpetenceof the UN weapons inspectors being exposed even today, so I don’t see how you can say this with a straight face. That they happened to say that they couldn’t find any weapons while they sat around hotels in Bagdad, then after the Liberation, after the weapons might have been transported elsewhere, we couldn’t either with dillegent looking doesn’t mean they were vidicated for sitting around hotels.
So Saddam was profiting by the Oil for Food Program? As Inspector Renault (sp?) in *Casablanca *would say, I’m shocked, shocked!!
me too
Don’t be silly. The reasons we liberated Iraq are well known and are documented in the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
R
reggie
Guest
The American Revolution resulted in death and destruction. We were fighting for our own freedom and the Founding Fathers and those who fought with them were willing to risk everything for it.
The Iraqi people were not able to fight Saddam. They had long been unarmed and oppressed by his forces. While there are difficulties in that country now, the people feel some optimism for the future and are actively involved in the process. The American forces in Iraq were not there to force the vote, they were there protecting the voters.
People need to stop projecting the Americans as the bad guys in this. For whatever reason, Pres. Bush and Congress saw the need to take Saddam out of power. I would like to ask all of you who keep harping on the no WMD to think about what you would be saying if Saddam had nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and had thrown his support to Bin Laden, who then used them in another attack on our soil and the death of possibly thousands more than died 9/11. Bin Laden’s successful attack may have inspired Saddam, who seeing that it could be done may have joined with bin Laden, or given materials to attack again.
We can differ over the war, disagree with its prosecution and be skeptical about the outcome but we cannot deny that there is a movement taking place in which the Iraqi people are a part. I know that most of them would probably like us to leave, but deep down they understand they are not quite ready to defend themselves. It is an ill wind that blows no good. Whether or not this democracy flourishes, the soldiers who have lost their lives there did so in the defense of our country and the chance for freedom in Iraq.
The Iraqi people were not able to fight Saddam. They had long been unarmed and oppressed by his forces. While there are difficulties in that country now, the people feel some optimism for the future and are actively involved in the process. The American forces in Iraq were not there to force the vote, they were there protecting the voters.
People need to stop projecting the Americans as the bad guys in this. For whatever reason, Pres. Bush and Congress saw the need to take Saddam out of power. I would like to ask all of you who keep harping on the no WMD to think about what you would be saying if Saddam had nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and had thrown his support to Bin Laden, who then used them in another attack on our soil and the death of possibly thousands more than died 9/11. Bin Laden’s successful attack may have inspired Saddam, who seeing that it could be done may have joined with bin Laden, or given materials to attack again.
We can differ over the war, disagree with its prosecution and be skeptical about the outcome but we cannot deny that there is a movement taking place in which the Iraqi people are a part. I know that most of them would probably like us to leave, but deep down they understand they are not quite ready to defend themselves. It is an ill wind that blows no good. Whether or not this democracy flourishes, the soldiers who have lost their lives there did so in the defense of our country and the chance for freedom in Iraq.
P
Philip_P
Guest
So…the ends justify the means? I guess there’s no point being against fetal stem cell research anymore,then…
L
Lisa_N
Guest
Philip P:
Sometimes when you are trying to save the princess, the knight must kill a few guards on the way in. Force isn’t the first choice but it’s sometimes the only one that will work.
Lisa N
Not always, but the more peaceful, diplomatic efforts failed miserably. We are only at the tip of the iceberg as far as what was going on under the nose of the UN, not to mention CNN’s watch. I do believe had some of the rest of the world community put pressure on Saddam, maybe diplomacy would have worked. However they did not. I feel there was no other way but force. Much as the peaceniks love to talk about “give peace a chance” we can’t sit by and watch a despot continue his evil actions in the hope it will eventually work. Our mistake was not taking Saddam out in 1991. But again there we relied on diplomacy, the UN and sanctions. That was certainly effective…NOT.
Sometimes when you are trying to save the princess, the knight must kill a few guards on the way in. Force isn’t the first choice but it’s sometimes the only one that will work.
Lisa N
P
Philip_P
Guest
That would be a more convincing argument, if Bush had shown any honest intention to avert war. He didn’t. If it wasn’t for Colin Powel, I doubt he would have even bothered trying to talk to the UN. The decision to invade Iraq was made the day the Supreme Court settled the issue of who won the 2000 election.
G
gilliam
Guest
Philip P:
And that was real productive, wasn’t it? All it really accomplished was for the terrorists to supply and organize for 5 months. And possibly to hide the WMD in Syria. Remember, there was no way the UN would do anything, they were being bribed.
P
Philip_P
Guest
Right, the Islamicists that were closely coordinating with their archenemies the ultrasecular Baathists. Look, I’m sure this has all been retreaded ad nauseum on these boards, so I’ll just come back to my main point - the ends do not justify the means. President Bush was morally obliged to pursue and exhaust the alternatives before going to war. Instead, he was pretty insistent in urging us toward war.
A
aimee
Guest
Philip P:
As for the President…perhaps you shouldn’t take your talking points from the old democrats web sites…even some of them know better now…I’m not going to say anything else…hmmm well, you don’t know Pres. didn’t exhaust alternatives…I have my own thoughts on it but its been talked ad nauseum as you said.
I don’t really think you made your point…thats the thing.
As for the President…perhaps you shouldn’t take your talking points from the old democrats web sites…even some of them know better now…I’m not going to say anything else…hmmm well, you don’t know Pres. didn’t exhaust alternatives…I have my own thoughts on it but its been talked ad nauseum as you said.
G
gnjsdad
Guest
Again, disputed is not debunked. I offered the 100,000 figure recognizing that it is not definitive. So far, you haven’t offered any figure. So my point about truth in war stands.
No one interested in truth believes in making up numbers.
I am confused here. According to you, ‘there is a lot of evidence that the terrorists suffered a tremendous loss’, but you didn’t indicate what that evidence might be. What other evidence, absent their dead bodies, which were supposedly dragged away, was there? I originally heard that 80 insurgents were killed during this attack. That number was subsequently reduced to 6. Since we don’t know for sure, I suspect that the original report of 80 insurgents killed was not accurate. Again, truth is hard to come by in war.
Then at least we agree that the number of civilian deaths in Iraq has not been accurately determined.
Again, you’re accusing me of ‘repeating inaccuracies’ (100,000 civilian dead) without providing any standard against which the figure can be tested. If we can be reliably sure that there were significantly fewer deaths, then the accusation would be justified. How can my figure be called ‘inaccurate’ when, in fact, no one knows for sure?
When I said the sanctions regime was working, I meant that it neutralized Saddam as a threat to the US.
This is an unsubstantiated slap at the inspectors. Did they really spend all that time just sitting around in their hotel rooms? Why didn’t the Bush administration point that out during the pre-invasion buildup? No one, as far as I know, discussed this so-called problem with Hans Blix.
‘might have been transported elsewhere’?? Maybe; perhaps. But how is that evidence of the inspectors incompetence, especially since we have had no more success 2 years after the invasion?
G
gnjsdad
Guest
I’d like to offer another thought about this. It seems to me that the attack on Abu Ghraib was a victory for the insurgency, no matter how many insurgents were killed. Their victory lay in the fact that Abu Ghraib, as a hated symbol of the American occupation and a potent source of anti-American fervor in the Muslim world, was attacked at all. It wouldn’t matter if 8 or 80 or 800 insurgents were killed. The attack insures that the insurgency is alive and well and will go on. That’s the paradoxical nature of insurgencies like this; seeming ‘defeats’ get transformed into victories because the fact of the occupation gets reinforced in the Muslim public sphere.
- Status