Anniversary of the War
- Thread starter Kuuipo
- Start date
athena123
Well-known member
I think Bush's decision to invade Iraq was truly bone-headed; it took our focus from the really bad guys and Osama bin Laden's group. But we are there now and we need to 'fess up to the possibility of a loooonnnnggg occupation. While the presence of our troops serves as a lightning rod for islamic extremists and their ilk, they are a somewhat stabilizing force. A sudden withdrawal will leave a bloodbath behind.
The threat of an outside force usually has a unifying effect. It would be wonderful if all the sectarian violence could be curtailed; when shiites and sunnis and all other battling sects can unite in the face of an occupying group.
Sometimes I think the only way we'll all unite as humanity will be if we have to face an invading force from outerspace. That's just sad
The threat of an outside force usually has a unifying effect. It would be wonderful if all the sectarian violence could be curtailed; when shiites and sunnis and all other battling sects can unite in the face of an occupying group.
Sometimes I think the only way we'll all unite as humanity will be if we have to face an invading force from outerspace. That's just sad
Shimmer
Well-known member
Quote:
What are your numbers for the number of civilians killed by Hussein's regime over the years? I would love to see them.
I would also like to see how the 89K statistic was reached, as the links and articles I'm finding are putting that particular number at a substantially lower amount.
While compiling those numbers, I would also like to see the numbers for how much AID the American military has provided in terms of food, educational materials, and medical care.
Quote:
yet, we're the bad guys.
Originally Posted by MissChievous
And around 89,000 civilians killed, you forgot to mention... |
What are your numbers for the number of civilians killed by Hussein's regime over the years? I would love to see them.
I would also like to see how the 89K statistic was reached, as the links and articles I'm finding are putting that particular number at a substantially lower amount.
While compiling those numbers, I would also like to see the numbers for how much AID the American military has provided in terms of food, educational materials, and medical care.
Quote:
| With more than 100,000 Iranian victims of Iraq's chemical weapons during the eight-year war, Iran is one of the countries most severely afflicted by weapons of mass destruction.[57] The official estimate does not include the civilian population contaminated in bordering towns or the children and relatives of veterans, many of whom have developed blood, lung and skin complications, according to the Organization for Veterans of Iran. According to a 2002 article in the Star-Ledger: "Nerve gas killed about 20,000 Iranian soldiers immediately, according to official reports. Of the 90,000 survivors, some 5,000 seek medical treatment regularly and about 1,000 are still hospitalized with severe, chronic conditions."[58] Iraq also used chemical weapons on Iranian civilians, killing many in villages and hospitals. Many civilians suffered severe burns and health problems, and still suffer from them. Furthermore, 308 Iraqi missiles were launched at population centers inside Iranian cities between 1980 and 1988 resulting in 12,931 casualties.[57] |
yet, we're the bad guys.
Shimmer
Well-known member
Yes, that's exactly what we should do. Withdraw from the region completely...remove our military presence. Then Iran can take it over, and, essentially through a domino effect, the land mass and forces of aggressive anti Western nations there becomes slightly larger than North America. That's exactly what we want to have happen.
And lets not think about what removal of American presence would do to already ridiculous gas prices.
Short term, removal sounds awesome. Long term, it's as bone headed to leave as it was to go in.
And lets not think about what removal of American presence would do to already ridiculous gas prices.
Short term, removal sounds awesome. Long term, it's as bone headed to leave as it was to go in.
Trunkmonkey
Well-known member
I'm certainly not one to be happy we have a military presence still stuck in a foreign nation that can't form a stable government and infrastructure but we ARE stuck there.
Here's a history lesson for you folks. In the first gulf war the reason we didn't drive on to Baghdad and take out the Hussein regime was our allies feared that we would create a vacuum and Iran would simply take over when we were gone. Just look at the map and who were our allies at the time and it's not hard to figure out.
Here's another little fun fact that most people in the press haven't shared or, in my opinion, are too stupid to pick up on. Nerve gas, chemical weapons, etc, are essentially bug spray that works on humans. Find a factory that is producing raid and it can be converted to producing chemical weapons for use on humans in 12 to 24 hours.
So let's get out of there right now. Load up the boys and girls and bring them home and this is what I think would happen.
Iran takes over Iraq in a matter of months. Kuwait is history shortly thereafter. Saudi Arabia either forms an alliance with this new superpower or is invaded and soundly defeated by a larger military force. The UAE is gone along with Quatar and Bahrain. Oman and Yemen have little choice but to capitulate or join an alliance.
Oh and by the way take a look at Syria and Jordan sitting over there. What the heck? Lets join up with the new big boys and kick Israels ass while we're at it.
So where are we then? A Middle Eastern superpower that is run by Islamic extremists with nuclear weapons and a mandate to take over the world by force and control of most of the worlds readily available oil supply.
Let's take it a step further. There's a bunch of little countries up there in the Northeast with stan after their names that are primarily Islamic as well.
Theres something to think about while we're wringing our hands and whining about the war for BOTH sides to think about.
I heard it stated in a very succinct way this morning. The people who were against the war don't have enough failure to point to to make a compelling case for getting out because it hasn't gone as badly as it could. The people who were for it don't have enough success to point to fully support it anymore.
As the Lt. said in Full Metal Jacket 'It's a huge shit sandwich and we're all going to have to take a bite'
elegant-one
Well-known member
Quote:
EXACTLY what I was thinking earlier today Shimmer
| Originally Posted by Shimmer
What are your numbers for the number of civilians killed by Hussein's regime over the years? I would love to see them. I would also like to see how the 89K statistic was reached, as the links and articles I'm finding are putting that particular number at a substantially lower amount. While compiling those numbers, I would also like to see the numbers for how much AID the American military has provided in terms of food, educational materials, and medical care. yet, we're the bad guys. |
EXACTLY what I was thinking earlier today Shimmer
SuSana
Well-known member
Quote:
It is actually 4,462 as of 3/15. But who's counting.
I don't think people follow it as much anymore, out of sight out of mind maybe? The news would rather report on what celebrity is pregnant or dating who than the war, but when you are family of a soldier you don't really have a choice.
| Originally Posted by Kuuipo
Yesterday marks 5 years since Pres. Bush declared war on Iraq. There have been 4,000 American soldiers lost to the war. Does anyone still follow the war in the news? |
It is actually 4,462 as of 3/15. But who's counting.
I don't think people follow it as much anymore, out of sight out of mind maybe? The news would rather report on what celebrity is pregnant or dating who than the war, but when you are family of a soldier you don't really have a choice.
flowerhead
Well-known member
......
flowerhead
Well-known member
wow, 5 years on. it's widely considered to be a political and humanitarian disaster that surpasses even vietnam in terms of mishandling. i wonder how long the american & british troops will be there.
user79
Well-known member
Quote:
Iraq Body Count
Here you can read how they get the numbers: About IBC :: Iraq Body Count Quote:
One of the widely used online sources for counting civilian deaths in the Iraq war.
Sure, Hussain also killed people, but 2 wrongs don't make a right, imo. War is still war and the Iraq war has been grossly mismanaged by a handful of people. I am sure we can all agree on that?
I would consider it normal that once a country has decided to take on the role of invading and completely re-structuring another country that it is prepared to spend money on its reconstruction and aid.
BTW, if you want some numbers on how much the current Iraq war has cost the US economy, Nobel Peace prize recipient and former president of the IMF, as well as a well respected economist Joseph Stiglitz has published the following numbers very recently:
Quote:
Source: Aida Edemariam talks to author Joseph Stiglitz about the true cost of the Iraq war | World news | The Guardian
Think of what that money could have been better spent on.
| Originally Posted by Shimmer
What are your numbers for the number of civilians killed by Hussein's regime over the years? I would love to see them. I would also like to see how the 89K statistic was reached, as the links and articles I'm finding are putting that particular number at a substantially lower amount. While compiling those numbers, I would also like to see the numbers for how much AID the American military has provided in terms of food, educational materials, and medical care. yet, we're the bad guys. |
Iraq Body Count
Here you can read how they get the numbers: About IBC :: Iraq Body Count Quote:
| Iraq Body Count (IBC) records the violent civilian deaths that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention in Iraq. Its public database includes deaths caused by US-led coalition forces and paramilitary or criminal attacks by others. |
One of the widely used online sources for counting civilian deaths in the Iraq war.
Sure, Hussain also killed people, but 2 wrongs don't make a right, imo. War is still war and the Iraq war has been grossly mismanaged by a handful of people. I am sure we can all agree on that?
I would consider it normal that once a country has decided to take on the role of invading and completely re-structuring another country that it is prepared to spend money on its reconstruction and aid.
BTW, if you want some numbers on how much the current Iraq war has cost the US economy, Nobel Peace prize recipient and former president of the IMF, as well as a well respected economist Joseph Stiglitz has published the following numbers very recently:
Quote:
| $16bn The amount the US spends on the monthly running costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - on top of regular defence spending $138 The amount paid by every US household every month towards the current operating costs of the war $19.3bn The amount Halliburton has received in single-source contracts for work in Iraq $25bn The annual cost to the US of the rising price of oil, itself a consequence of the war $3 trillion A conservative estimate of the true cost - to America alone - of Bush's Iraq adventure. The rest of the world, including Britain, will shoulder about the same amount again $5bn Cost of 10 days' fighting in Iraq $1 trillion The interest America will have paid by 2017 on the money borrowed to finance the war 3% The average drop in income of 13 African countries - a direct result of the rise in oil prices. This drop has more than offset the recent increase in foreign aid to Africa ·The Three Trillion Dollar War, by Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, is published by Allen Lane, price £20. To order a copy for £18 with free UK p&p, go to guardian.co.uk/bookshop or call 0870 836 0875. |
Source: Aida Edemariam talks to author Joseph Stiglitz about the true cost of the Iraq war | World news | The Guardian
Think of what that money could have been better spent on.
user79
Well-known member
Quote:
The price of gas is actually going up due in part because of the war, not the other way around. Gas prices go down in times of stability, and go up in times of conflict, especially conflict in the Gulf states.
Also, do you really think the Iraq war has made the world more secure? In fact, quite the opposite is true, and according to a recent public survey I saw presented on American TV (I cannot link it because it was on TV although I'm sure if you look for it, you can find it), the majority of polled persons considered the world less safe after the start of the Iraq war.
Since the removal of Saddam, and sure he was an evil guy, the number of extremist attacks, civic violence of the forming of radical terrorist or fundamentalist groups has only gone up. If anything, the war has made the world and international climate more dangerous and has increased the likelihood of future terrorism and civil war.
BTW, I don't think anyone blames the soldiers. Soldiers are only carrying out orders and are an extension of the decision makers choices. The culprits of this war are the powerful cliques surrounding that idiot Bush. I for one cannot wait to have that man out of politics, and his cronies as well.
| Originally Posted by Shimmer
Yes, that's exactly what we should do. Withdraw from the region completely...remove our military presence. Then Iran can take it over, and, essentially through a domino effect, the land mass and forces of aggressive anti Western nations there becomes slightly larger than North America. That's exactly what we want to have happen. And lets not think about what removal of American presence would do to already ridiculous gas prices. Short term, removal sounds awesome. Long term, it's as bone headed to leave as it was to go in. |
The price of gas is actually going up due in part because of the war, not the other way around. Gas prices go down in times of stability, and go up in times of conflict, especially conflict in the Gulf states.
Also, do you really think the Iraq war has made the world more secure? In fact, quite the opposite is true, and according to a recent public survey I saw presented on American TV (I cannot link it because it was on TV although I'm sure if you look for it, you can find it), the majority of polled persons considered the world less safe after the start of the Iraq war.
Since the removal of Saddam, and sure he was an evil guy, the number of extremist attacks, civic violence of the forming of radical terrorist or fundamentalist groups has only gone up. If anything, the war has made the world and international climate more dangerous and has increased the likelihood of future terrorism and civil war.
BTW, I don't think anyone blames the soldiers. Soldiers are only carrying out orders and are an extension of the decision makers choices. The culprits of this war are the powerful cliques surrounding that idiot Bush. I for one cannot wait to have that man out of politics, and his cronies as well.
Shimmer
Well-known member
Quote:
I'm not entirely disagreeing with that, but the fact that removal of american forces would destabilize that region is pretty solid.
To say that Bush is the one to shoulder all the blame would be inaccurate, I believe.
| Originally Posted by MissChievous
The price of gas is actually going up due in part because of the war, not the other way around. Gas prices go down in times of stability, and go up in times of conflict, especially conflict in the Gulf states. Also, do you really think the Iraq war has made the world more secure? In fact, quite the opposite is true, and according to a recent public survey I saw presented on American TV (I cannot link it because it was on TV although I'm sure if you look for it, you can find it), the majority of polled persons considered the world less safe after the start of the Iraq war. Since the removal of Saddam, and sure he was an evil guy, the number of extremist attacks, civic violence of the forming of radical terrorist or fundamentalist groups has only gone up. If anything, the war has made the world and international climate more dangerous and has increased the likelihood of future terrorism and civil war. BTW, I don't think anyone blames the soldiers. Soldiers are only carrying out orders and are an extension of the decision makers choices. The culprits of this war are the powerful cliques surrounding that idiot Bush. I for one cannot wait to have that man out of politics, and his cronies as well. |
I'm not entirely disagreeing with that, but the fact that removal of american forces would destabilize that region is pretty solid.
To say that Bush is the one to shoulder all the blame would be inaccurate, I believe.
susannef
Well-known member
Quote:
I agree with this. I really dont think there is any simple solution. If the american troops would just pick up and leave there would be chaos.
During Saddam's regime followers of the Shia fate were beeing harrased and murdered. In the current Iraqi regime followers of the Sunni fate are beeing harassed and murdered.
Women have it harder now, Saddam was a big asshole no doubt, but he was a secular leader and he promoted womens issues.
Today in Iraq women are beeing forced out of the workfield, and are beeing forced to wear hijab again.
Sorry bout the swenglish.
| but the fact that removal of american forces would destabilize that region is pretty solid. |
I agree with this. I really dont think there is any simple solution. If the american troops would just pick up and leave there would be chaos.
During Saddam's regime followers of the Shia fate were beeing harrased and murdered. In the current Iraqi regime followers of the Sunni fate are beeing harassed and murdered.
Women have it harder now, Saddam was a big asshole no doubt, but he was a secular leader and he promoted womens issues.
Today in Iraq women are beeing forced out of the workfield, and are beeing forced to wear hijab again.
Sorry bout the swenglish.
athena123
Well-known member
Whether we agree with it or not, Bush's decision landed us in the briar patch and there is no easy way to disentangle ourselves. American troops will likely be there for a long time and yes, we'll have to pay to repair for the damages caused by our invasion as well as reconstruction costs. It's a mess.
And yep, although I'm not a republican I actually voted for the Alfred E. Neuman sitting in the Oval office because I thought the other guys would be much, much worse. Only history will be able to affirm whether Bush will stand as one of the worst presidents or one of the best.
And yep, although I'm not a republican I actually voted for the Alfred E. Neuman sitting in the Oval office because I thought the other guys would be much, much worse. Only history will be able to affirm whether Bush will stand as one of the worst presidents or one of the best.
SquirrelQueen
Well-known member
Quote:
Quote:
A sudden withdrawal would also be very dangerous for our troops. Any withdrawal would have to be done in increments, which would make the troops left behind far more vulnerable to attack. Honestly, I am very nervous about this election because we have Barack Obama saying that if he's elected, he would start withdrawing the troops immediately. I don't know if he's being naive or if he's promising something he knows he can't deliver---telling people what they want to hear in order to be elected. I was impressed with Hillary Clinton when, at a rally, she observed that troop withdrawal is a time for increased casualties and that it can't be done overnight. I thought to myself, yeah, she gets it. And, while I disagree with much of what John McCain stands for, I do have confidence that he could manage the war while minimizing casualties.
My DH is in the Guard and served in Iraq before we met. I would not be surprised if he ends up deploying again. Forgive me for sounding selfish, but for me the war is personal. In looking at the current presidential candidates, I ask myself, who would be the most competent as commander-in-chief? Whom would I want to be President if my husband is sent back to Iraq?
You know, the human costs of this war are staggering. Suicide. Substance addiction. Failed marriages and broken families. Depression. PTSD. Traumatic brain injuries. It's just an all-around bad situation for our country and, indeed, the rest of the world---except for the folks at Halliburton, of course.
Sorry, I guess my cynicism is showing.
| Originally Posted by athena123
I think Bush's decision to invade Iraq was truly bone-headed; it took our focus from the really bad guys and Osama bin Laden's group. But we are there now and we need to 'fess up to the possibility of a loooonnnnggg occupation. While the presence of our troops serves as a lightning rod for islamic extremists and their ilk, they are a somewhat stabilizing force. A sudden withdrawal will leave a bloodbath behind. |
Quote:
| Originally Posted by athena123
Whether we agree with it or not, Bush's decision landed us in the briar patch and there is no easy way to disentangle ourselves. American troops will likely be there for a long time and yes, we'll have to pay to repair for the damages caused by our invasion as well as reconstruction costs. It's a mess. |
A sudden withdrawal would also be very dangerous for our troops. Any withdrawal would have to be done in increments, which would make the troops left behind far more vulnerable to attack. Honestly, I am very nervous about this election because we have Barack Obama saying that if he's elected, he would start withdrawing the troops immediately. I don't know if he's being naive or if he's promising something he knows he can't deliver---telling people what they want to hear in order to be elected. I was impressed with Hillary Clinton when, at a rally, she observed that troop withdrawal is a time for increased casualties and that it can't be done overnight. I thought to myself, yeah, she gets it. And, while I disagree with much of what John McCain stands for, I do have confidence that he could manage the war while minimizing casualties.
My DH is in the Guard and served in Iraq before we met. I would not be surprised if he ends up deploying again. Forgive me for sounding selfish, but for me the war is personal. In looking at the current presidential candidates, I ask myself, who would be the most competent as commander-in-chief? Whom would I want to be President if my husband is sent back to Iraq?
You know, the human costs of this war are staggering. Suicide. Substance addiction. Failed marriages and broken families. Depression. PTSD. Traumatic brain injuries. It's just an all-around bad situation for our country and, indeed, the rest of the world---except for the folks at Halliburton, of course.
Sorry, I guess my cynicism is showing.
kimmy
Well-known member
i don't follow the war anymore. my family served there. my friends (one whom i consider a brother) served there.
i can't stand watching the news because they just talk shit. i don't need to see some idiot news anchor demeriting the sacrifices they made and will continue to make.
we'll grind this ax for a long time. i don't think we went about it right, but guess what? we went there. us leaving now would just open us up to another nine eleven, and i don't know about you, but i'm not ready to give up another three thousand innocent civilians just because the bleeding hearts want to bitch about what a terrible country america is for hurting these people that attacked us.
i know, there's going to be a million "iraq didn't attack us!" posts. and no, they didn't...the terrorist group their government funded did, so i consider them equally to blame.
i can't stand watching the news because they just talk shit. i don't need to see some idiot news anchor demeriting the sacrifices they made and will continue to make.
we'll grind this ax for a long time. i don't think we went about it right, but guess what? we went there. us leaving now would just open us up to another nine eleven, and i don't know about you, but i'm not ready to give up another three thousand innocent civilians just because the bleeding hearts want to bitch about what a terrible country america is for hurting these people that attacked us.
i know, there's going to be a million "iraq didn't attack us!" posts. and no, they didn't...the terrorist group their government funded did, so i consider them equally to blame.
athena123
Well-known member
squirrelqueen, the war is pretty personal for me too. One of my nieces is in the army and she's already spent one tour in Iraq. She re-enlisted and will be stationed there again within a month. I too am worried about the next election cycle. Will we wind up electing someone who tells us what we want to hear without any true understanding of the long-term facets of this war, or will we be smart enough to vote for someone who truly "gets it"?
I don't like any of the current crop of front-runners. I'll either vote for Ron Paul, who I agree with in so many areas or else I'll vote for the front runner that I think will cause the least amount of harm, which is what I did the last time around when I choked down a vote for Bush. I just may have to suck it up and cast a vote for McCain because I think he's the most realistic in terms of Iraq and it's a big issue for me.
I don't like any of the current crop of front-runners. I'll either vote for Ron Paul, who I agree with in so many areas or else I'll vote for the front runner that I think will cause the least amount of harm, which is what I did the last time around when I choked down a vote for Bush. I just may have to suck it up and cast a vote for McCain because I think he's the most realistic in terms of Iraq and it's a big issue for me.
*Stargazer*
Well-known member
Quote:
Where does that number come from?
This war couldn't possibly be any more personal for me. My first daughter turned five last week. She was born on the morning of March 19, 2003 at the Camp Pendleton Naval Hospital while my husband was sitting on the Kuwait border waiting to enter Iraq. She was a week old before he knew she'd been born and two weeks old before he saw the first pictures of her. She was four months old before he came home, the first time. I've lived this war every single day since it started.
It has been poorly managed and poorly executed in many instances because politicians have stuck their noses into some place they have no business. Withdrawing at this point would be irresponsible and dangerous for more than one reason. I really wish the media would be more responsible and report that the surge that took place last year is actually having a positive effect. I guess that doesn't grab viewers or sell papers, though.
| Originally Posted by SuSana
It is actually 4,462 as of 3/15. But who's counting. I don't think people follow it as much anymore, out of sight out of mind maybe? The news would rather report on what celebrity is pregnant or dating who than the war, but when you are family of a soldier you don't really have a choice. |
Where does that number come from?
This war couldn't possibly be any more personal for me. My first daughter turned five last week. She was born on the morning of March 19, 2003 at the Camp Pendleton Naval Hospital while my husband was sitting on the Kuwait border waiting to enter Iraq. She was a week old before he knew she'd been born and two weeks old before he saw the first pictures of her. She was four months old before he came home, the first time. I've lived this war every single day since it started.
It has been poorly managed and poorly executed in many instances because politicians have stuck their noses into some place they have no business. Withdrawing at this point would be irresponsible and dangerous for more than one reason. I really wish the media would be more responsible and report that the surge that took place last year is actually having a positive effect. I guess that doesn't grab viewers or sell papers, though.
