Jump to content

100,000 Iraqis Killed since Bush's Invasion

monsoon

By monsoon
in The Coffee House

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply
PghUSA Town

PghUSA

Posted
Posted

It is a sad situation . . . heard Germany wasn't "unoccupied" until 1954 same for Japan, a full 10 years AFTER war there were still "suicide bombers" in both nations. War is hell, let's pray for peace, and let's hope they stop killing people in the name of Allah. Those Marines that just died and those new recruits in the Iraqi Police that were sabotaged and senselessly murdered. Peace needs to come but it's only worth something with democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PghUSA Town

PghUSA

Posted
Posted

The connection is each instance was authority perserving human rights or property rights . . . when you morally equate hooded thugs on TV beheading people or ambushing unarmed Iraqi police trainees to US or British Soliders it begs a connection being made to contrast the different motives of each. If your head was threated by 1 or 5 or 5,000 authority really shouldn't hesitate. Our soliders aren't there slaughtering children and women and aid workers. I don't want to see anyone die and I'm getting frustrated at the aimless manner that Bush is handling the withdrawal, but I wonder how many of those thousands were the Iraqi police trainees murdered by extremists or Iraqis that died because of extremists bombings? Your inferring that these are Americans vs. Iraqis on all. Finally I do agree with you that what must happen there is resolution and withdrawal but Kerry has stated that he is not going to just "pull out" but handle it better. If he does end up winning I truly hope he does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PghUSA Town

PghUSA

Posted
Posted

I'm scratching my head about that too Ruso,

at the time Saddam was as Stalin was to us in 1940-1945, we supplied him with the same weapons used to imprison E. Berlin and Eastern Europe, FDR could have seen that coming.

he was as Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti who we aided in the pillage and murder of countless citizens in the 1990s under both Bush Sr. (although he let him go) and then under Bill Clinton (who reinstalled the corrupt leader on Haiti) we funded him and allowed him to change the young democracy into a virtual dictatorship by the late 1990s. Clinton who picked him out of the "trash heap of history" in 1994 could have seen that coming.

Well George W. is at least as smart or as stupid as Clinton and Truman and FDR. Although it was not George W. that funded Saddam in the 1970s and 1980s as HST, FDR, and WJC did their soon to be tyrants.

The world would be perfect if we could predict the Stalins, Aristides and Saddams, but sadly we can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spartan Gigalopolis

Spartan

Posted
Posted

A study by John's Hopkins University has concluded that 100,000 Iraqis have died in Iraq since GW Bush's "liberation" of the country from control by Saddam Hussein.  One of the more interesting points of the study is the motality rate is now 58 times higher for the average Iraqi now, than before the invasion occured. 

Yet after all this carnage, we are still getting videos from a very healty looking Osama Bin Laden.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that a random statistic like that is meaningless. It doesn't say what percentage of that were estimated to be affiliated with terrorist activities. You make it sound like we are just over there killing people for the hell of it.

That Osama video meant nothing. What power does that guy have anymore? I think Alqaeda as been severly injured. These other random terrorists are just beating their chests as far as I'm concerned.

It is a sad situation . . . heard Germany wasn't "unoccupied" until 1954 same for Japan, a full 10 years AFTER war there were still "suicide bombers" in both nations.  War is hell, let's pray for peace, and let's hope they stop killing people in the name of Allah.  Those Marines that just died and those new recruits in the Iraqi Police that were sabotaged and senselessly murdered.  Peace needs to come but it's only worth something with democracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly.

Why did the US sell all those weapons of mass destruction to Saddam when it was convenient for them???
The US origiannly sold weapons and armourment to Saddam as a means to repel the Soviet Union during the Cold War. This was during a time when the Soviets were trying to invade Afghanistan, and when it was feared communism would overtake the world. I suppose it seemd right at the time. The West supported any government that was non-communist during that time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ruso Hamlet

Ruso

Posted
Posted

Besides the political "needs" of the time, Selling weapons to kill kurds is not acceptable by any means. Showing that the US and the USSR had the same absurd objectives, the two opposites poles got united. While the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the americans sent CIA agents to take the democratically elected president of Chile, Allende, out of power. There is no justification for any abuse of any empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PghUSA Town

PghUSA

Posted
Posted

Besides the political "needs" of the time, Selling weapons to kill kurds is not acceptable by any means. Showing that the US and the USSR had the same absurd objectives, the two opposites poles got united. While the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the americans sent CIA agents to take the democratically elected president of Chile, Allende, out of power. There is no justification for any abuse of any empire.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By this theory FDR and Truman are more evil then George W Bush could ever be . . . they knownigly supplied and supported Stalin as he killed millions in gulags . . . as long as he helped them defeat Hitler.

Bill Clinton the same way with Jean-Bertrand Aristide in the 1990s.

Again one year our "friend" can be tommorrow's enemy and theres no clear way to tell.

Forget the fact that it was Reagan who supported Saddam and NOT George W., whereas FDR, Truman and Clinton all have blood on there hands supporting dictators that committed genocide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PghUSA Town

PghUSA

Posted
Posted

The millions dying in gulags came after WWII.  You might want to check your history.  FDR & Truman were facing decisions that could end the world.  The attempts to legitimized Bush's illegal actions by comparisons to these leaders and what they had to do in WWII. is simply amazing.    But if you must drag WWII into this, then Bush's actions should be compared to Hitler's invasion of Poland as the rest of the world considered that to be an illegal action, it was done in the name of "peace" as it would make the Germans safer, and it had wide support of the German people due it crafty manulipulation of the media.

Hitler never attacked us Sadam never attacked us what were we doing fighting Hitler, and many in this nation believed in the 1930s that Hitler was NEVER going to be a threat to North or South America.

The deaths in the gulags took place BEFORE DURING AND AFTER WWII, FDR and TRUMAN who served until 1953!!! both realized that Stalin was using his people as cannon fodder to throw back Hitler (thousands dying to save a few piles of ammo etc.), it was genocide. Both leaders also let Tito and other despots kill thousands maybe millions during and after WWII. Truman could have PREVENTED the occupation of HALF of EUROPE after WWII but he didn't, he could have said the heck with Stalin but he didn't he supplied him knowing that Stalin had hinted about imprisoning most of Europe!

If WWII was SAVING THE WORLD, Hawaii was not a State, Hawaii was what the Phillipines were a territory, it was not Cleveland or New York and Germany did not attack us, so why were we fighting Germany (because they were allied to Japan in the loose Axis compact sorta like Saddam had multiple connections to Ossama).

Pearl Harbor in 1941 was a forward-area military compound not in A STATE, the twin towers had more casulties then Pearl Harbor INNOCENT NON COMBATANTS, Pearl Harbor were military men willing to make the ultimate sacrafice, that was not the case on those 4 planes or in those towers on 9/11. Bush is MORE justified in invading Iraq then FDR was in invading Germany . . . both never attacked us, but Iraq was allied with something that is as you put it "CHANGING THE WORLD" from Israel to Malaysia to Africa to Spain to the U.S. the present day Nazis are bombing NY and Pennsylvania and hiding out in Saddams Iraq . . . if Truman was President today Baghdad would be glowing like Nagasaki. Truman dropped it for them attacking our military on a military base, Bush won't think of that for them attacking moms and dads going to work . . . But Bush is MORE evil?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PghUSA Town

PghUSA

Posted
Posted

Tried to justify? :blink: scroll back and count how many times i've said I dont want people dying, we need peace, the killing needs to stop etc. As far as the 100,000 included in that is the slaughter of unarmed iraqi police trainees, the bombing of Iraqi police buildings, the beheadings, the car bombs in the market place by terrorists. . . getting back to the threads title and subtitle you infer our military leaders are as evil as the thugs beheading people . . . out of the 100,000 some were combatants that would love to kill you and me most of the non-combatants are victims of the same terror that hit groundzero . . . again I have not heard one report of out of control U.S. soliders killing just to kill or Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld giving such orders. It is chaos over there and innocents are being killed and hurt but the military command is bending over backwards from what i've heard in preventing noncombantant deaths. I answered some of these points about a dozen posts ago, but we were moving rapidly ahead in the discussion.

If I am ignorant (and one would have to be ignorant to believe I was not knowlegable . . . misguided perhaps, but the absence of knowlege is not something im seeing on any of these posts) . . . I have said repeatedly that we rushed into Iraq that we should have waited and put pressure on him, then what is someone who voted with Bush on the invasion? Kerry offers no real alternative for peace . . . what I am hoping for and maybe its impossible at this point is for a Japan or Germany like result to this conflict. Nader running and Kerry changing things up do not give me confidence. Sad thing is it took us a good 9-10 years of post-war occupation to make the others successes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.