Thousands Protest at Iraqi Bombing Site

[adios]

No outrage from the left, only blame for the U.S. Seems like much of the Iraqi nation doesn't share this sentiment.

Thousands Protest at Iraqi Bombing Site (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050301/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=1480)

[jaxmike]

the left doesn't want the truth about Iraq and Afganistan to come out.

[andyfox]

"Seems like much of the Iraqi nation doesn't share this sentiment."

That may be so, but from where in the article did you glean this? 2,000 people demonstrated in front of the clinic, calling for Allawi's resignation.

[CORed]

I hope this demonstration is real and not a staged media event. If so, it may be a sign that the insurgents' tactic of mostly targeting Iraqi's who are "collaborating" with the Americans is backfiring. If we have any hope of getting out of this mess with anything resembling honor, it is to get an Iraqi govenment in place that can deal with Al Zarqawi and Company and the Baathists on their own.

[jaxmike]

do you not have the capacity to connect events. first bin laden talks to zarqawi (sp) in that message about targeting americans. now this protest and you think their tactics *might* be backfiring?????? wow, you watch too much of the liberal media if you havent figured out that the iraqi people as a whole do not support the terrorists.

[Chris Alger]

All the people killed yesterday at Hillah would be alive it it weren't for people like you. People like me (and many others here) told you repeatedly that a U.S. invasion would likely bring more not less terror, and that's exactly what it's done. With all this blood on your hands you contend that we aren't sufficiently outraged at all those who bear responsibility for this atrocity. You're wrong.

[jaxmike]

i am glad that people as incompetent as you, except for Bill Clinton, cannot run the US government. if you think that the US brought terror to iraq you are the single most ignorant person i have ever interacted with. do some research, how many people, on average, die today in iraq? now, how many, on average, died in iraq under saddam husseins tyrannical regime? the results might shock you.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
do some research, how many people, on average, die today in iraq? now, how many, on average, died in iraq under saddam husseins tyrannical regime? the results might shock you.

[/ QUOTE ]

facts, please. you're speculating, assuming things without providing any proof. you remain difficult to take seriously. if you're gonna make an argument based on 'facts' you have to provide those facts. c'mon. you seem to believe some things very strongly, but appearently not strongly enough to do your own research.

and as a member of what you may consider 'the left' i'll tell you that i AM outraged, at the attacks, the attackers, and the dumbsh** policies that allow them to succeed, and put us and the iraqis in that sitation in the first place.

[jaxmike]

i dont have the links, i am not sure that there is the data to do it. i am just suggesting that of the hundreds of thousands of his own people saddam and his regime killed in the past 15 years, if you calculate that on a day by day basis, i am assuming that the number dead, per day, is going to be around or higher than the number of iraqis dying today.

[tolbiny]

Saddam has been in power for a lot longer than 15 years- he first rose to power in the 1960's, becoming the eventual dictator in the 70's.

the estimates of those killed under his regime (from wars, murder, and genocide) range from 100,000 to 10 million. Both of those numbers seem extreme to me, and from what i have read the estimates from 500,000 to 2 million seem much more believable. Over a 35 year span that averages to around 36,000 people per year.
Estimates of Iraqi dead since the invasion run from 10,000-120,000 plus 3,000 more American troops and other forgien civilians. averaging it out over 3 years you are looking at 23,000 people a year.
These are very loose extimations, and it would not be unlikely that the actual numbers are closer together or farther apart. We will probably never know.

[Chris Alger]

The Iraqi death toll caused by the U.S. invasion is greater than all the people killed by Saddam since the Gulf War, or during the last ten years. But from what you've said so far, I can only understand your point some weird assumption that Iraqi deaths for which the U.S. bears responsibility should somehow be offset by those for which Saddam was responsible. Which is no better than saying "Saddam killed Iraqis, therefore it's okay for the U.S. to kill Iraqis."

[Chris Alger]

10 million? You mean more than 40% of Iraq's population? You can't be serious.

The most precise and well-researched figure I've seen is 290,000 "missing" Iraqis from Human Rights Watch, together with the plausible assumption that most of the missing were killed. Of course this doesn't include Iranians that died as a result of Iraq's aggression.

[tolbiny]

"10 million? You mean more than 40% of Iraq's population? You can't be serious."

I have seen that number, but i obviously didn't take it seriously as i didn't include it in the average.

"The most precise and well-researched figure I've seen is 290,000 "missing" Iraqis from Human Rights Watch, together with the plausible assumption that most of the missing were killed. Of course this doesn't include Iranians that died as a result of Iraq's aggression."

Do you have a link to this data? I have probably skimmed a half dozen different "studies" some including Irainians killed, some not saying either way. If asked i would have personnally guessed at 500,000, but it would just have been a guess.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
All the people killed yesterday at Hillah would be alive it it weren't for people like you.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's hilarious.

[ QUOTE ]
People like me (and many others here) told you repeatedly that a U.S. invasion would likely bring more not less terror, and that's exactly what it's done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Therefore terrorism need not be condemned. What a crock but I expect it from you.

[ QUOTE ]
With all this blood on your hands you contend that we aren't sufficiently outraged at all those who bear responsibility for this atrocity. You're wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

So according to Chris Alger, terrorism against innocent civilliams need not be condemned since he didn't agree with U.S. policy. That's sick.

[adios]

So if a repressive and oppressive dictator would have less people die in a given time span, say 15 years, you'd support that instead of say the current U.S. governement and it's system? I'm fairly certain of what the vast majority of Iraqis prefer.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
i am not sure that there is the data to do it. i am just suggesting that of the hundreds of thousands of his own people saddam and his regime killed in the past 15 years, if you calculate that on a day by day basis, i am assuming that the number dead, per day, is going to be around or higher than the number of iraqis dying today.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you see how ass-backwards this statement looks next to this one:

[ QUOTE ]
do some research, how many people, on average, die today in iraq? now, how many, on average, died in iraq under saddam husseins tyrannical regime? the results might shock you.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the second statment, you insinuate that there is factual data to support your idea that more people died under saddam in terms of #/day than are dying now. You further insinuate that your opponent in the discussion is 'incompetent' and you are obviously condescending with you insistance that that poster 'do some research'.

my reaction was this : fair enough, but i won't believe it till i see the facts that made you have this opinion.

then you admit that you're just making an assumption, and admit that you are unaware of the truth, as well as being obviously incapable/unwilling to do the research to back up your argument (propaganda).

you are a laughingstock in this forum, jaxmike. maybe you should start reading newspapers, maybe take a poli-sci course at your local community college, and come back here when you're ready to hang with the grown-ups, and debate politics the way reasonable, educated people do.

If all your intrested in is shooting off your mouth (and that's all i've seen so far, prove me wrong) then please stop clogging up our forum with your hateful and uninformed, unproductive garbage. if i wanted to hear shouting conservatives repeating the same non-arguments over and over, i could listen to talk radio.

I mean, c'mon. really. try a little.

[bholdr]

one can't seriously consider all the iranians killed intheir war as victims of saddam. they were more victims of their own incompetent leadership that semt them chasing tanks with pitchforks and bayonets.

From the estimated that i've seen, and the information i've gathered, the mnumber of total dead under saddam, including but not lmited to : gassed kurds and iranians, political prisoners executed or disappered, victims of the sadistic and arbitrary killers in husains gov, etc, puts the number between 500k and 700K. i would consider this a fair estimate.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore terrorism need not be condemned. What a crock but I expect it from you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Backwards. Since the threat of "more terrorism" was one argument against the war, terrorism is a bad thing, something those making the argument implicitly condemn.

[ QUOTE ]
So according to Chris Alger, terrorism against innocent civilliams need not be condemned since he didn't agree with U.S. policy. That's sick.

[/ QUOTE ]
That doesn't remotely follow. Violence against civilians should always be condemned. I condmen it across the board. You condemn it only when someone else is responsible. That's incoherent.

[Chris Alger]

Justice for Iraq, A Human Rights Watch Policy Paper (http://hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iraq1217bg.htm), Dec. 2002. HRW has variously contended that the Iraqi government under Saddam has "disappeared" between 250,000 and 290,000, "many" of which were killed, or that "at least" 290,000 were killed by Saddam or that 290,000 is a "conservative" estimate fo those killed.

[TransientR]

You do realize Jax, that there was no weeping and handwringing over the people Saddam gassed and otherwise brutalized when he served the U.S.'s political purposes?

And to remember recent history, saving the suffering Iraqi people, and installing democracy, were not the pretexts behind the drumbeats for war. We faced a "mushroom cloud."

Frank

[Warchant88]

I'm sick of people on here trying to find dirt on the good things that happen in the Middle East. Just because you hate Bush, you should still acknowledge the good things that are happening. Yes, the deaths are bad, but there are many positive things coming out of the war.

[TransientR]

Positive things coming out of the war? Time will tell..I hope so. But it doesn't change the fact that once you go down the slippery slope of "preemptive war," or "acceptable" torture, you are well on the way to becoming what you profess to despise.

And the costs have been high, as well as the profits for the connected, but lets not talk about that.

Just because people vote (and most Sunnis didn't), doesn't mean you have Jeffersonian Democracy in Iraq..people can vote for theocracy, or even dictatorship.

Frank

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"you should still acknowledge the good things that are happening. Yes, the deaths are bad, but there are many positive things coming out of the war."

[/ QUOTE ]
If the war in Iraq is part of the "war on terror" (as Bush insists) and that the "war on terror" was instigated by 9/11, then should people refrain from condemning 9/11 on the grounds that "positive things" came out of it?

One could argue that Bush sought liberation and democracy and that the 9/11 terrorists sought murder and destruction, but these things look like apples and oranges. White House platitudes to justify war are a given, and therefore convey no information, while the 9/11 terrorists claim to have had specific political objectives of their action beyond mass murder, such as the removal of U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia and the ending of sanctions against Iraq. Moreover, 9/11 culminated in the removal of U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia and the ending of sanctions against Iraq, so it appears that your complaint is arbitrarily selective: it's bad to complain about U.S. killing, better to complain about the other guy's.

[Cyrus]

The number of Iranians killed (whether mostly through their own incompetence or otherwise is irrelevant!) in the Iraq-Iran war should be entered firmly into the debit of the American sub-account!

Under Saddam Hussein's main account of course.

Saddam's insane war against Iran would have ended much sooner (if it would've started at all!) if it weren't for strong encouragement, support and assistance by the "free world", provided more generoulsy than most by the leader of the "free world", Uncle Sam.

Look it up, folks.

[TransientR]

Why not cut out the BS? Whatever the number killed by Saddam had nothing to do with our pre-emptive invasion. The war was sold as protecting us, not bringing democracy to Iraq, or helping the Iraqi people.

That pillar of the "axis of evil" North Korea has starved hundreds of thousands, has a certifiable maniac as a leader, and nuclear weapons, yet we do nothing. Why?

Ask W and Cheney, but don't expect an honest answer.

Frank

[bholdr]

you're right, of course. where did he get those WMDs again? i, like the rest of this nation, forgot. heh.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
That pillar of the "axis of evil" North Korea has starved hundreds of thousands

[/ QUOTE ]

millions. 2.1 at the last reliable estimate. f u c k i n g sick that we invade iraq, yet refuse to even talk about this one.

[natedogg]

With all this blood on your hands

You know, it's hard to get blood on your hands from your living room watching the news. The world events unfold whether or not we "support" the actions or oppose theactions.

Also, just being right doesn't put blood on someone else's hands either. You were right. Some terrorist groups were fired up by the invasion. That puts no culpability on arm chair pundits. And it reveals a general view of individuals aren't responsible for their own crimes. Do you "blame society" when a punk commits a crime?

We can tell you're angry about the war. But those who believed it would effect some good aren't just a bunch of evil 'Merikans who want to kill Arabs you know.

I'm not for the war but I don't think its supporters are evil. When you start thinking your political opponents are evil just because you don't agree with them ....

natedogg

[tolbiny]

i wsa trying to avoid making any statements of such a nature in that post. i was simply replying to the other posters suggestion that if we ran the numbers that we would be shocked at the number of people that died per day under saddam's regime.

[adios]

Why don't you answer the question. My post is the clear implication of Tobiny and Alger were alluding to.

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever the number killed by Saddam had nothing to do with our pre-emptive invasion. The war was sold as protecting us, not bringing democracy to Iraq, or helping the Iraqi people.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement couldn't be more wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
That pillar of the "axis of evil" North Korea has starved hundreds of thousands, has a certifiable maniac as a leader, and nuclear weapons, yet we do nothing. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

The diplomatic route is being pursued. Different part of the world, different dynamics. Your argument that since the U.S. doesn't remove the government of North Korea then it had no interest in establishing a democratic government in Iraq is fallacious. This line of thinking as been spouted many times on this forum and has been challenged in my mind successfully. Go look in the archives.



[ QUOTE ]
Ask W and Cheney, but don't expect an honest an

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you never lie though.

[jaxmike]

different situation and different scenarios. we cannot tackle north korea without help. i am not talking about our inability to win a war against them, clearly we can, however, the collateral damage, or "fallout" makes the endeavor not worth the risk without the aid of the chinese.

[jaxmike]

the first statement is not at all "ass-backwards", i was simply throwing out a theory that i didnt want to pursue due to the fact that i have a job and a life.

[ QUOTE ]
my reaction was this : fair enough, but i won't believe it till i see the facts that made you have this opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

nor will i, i was just throwing out a theory.

[ QUOTE ]
In the second statment, you insinuate that there is factual data to support your idea that more people died under saddam in terms of #/day than are dying now.

[/ QUOTE ]

i did no such thing. i simply thought that the results might show that the numbers dying/day today is not much different and perhaps smaller than the average under saddams regime.

[ QUOTE ]
then you admit that you're just making an assumption, and admit that you are unaware of the truth, as well as being obviously incapable/unwilling to do the research to back up your argument (propaganda).

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry for being honest, i know ignorant liberals do not like that quality.

[ QUOTE ]
you are a laughingstock in this forum, jaxmike. maybe you should start reading newspapers, maybe take a poli-sci course at your local community college, and come back here when you're ready to hang with the grown-ups, and debate politics the way reasonable, educated people do.

[/ QUOTE ]

i am quite educated. just because you dont like or cannot comprehend what I say is your fault. i cannot believe that you refer to yourself as reasonable and educated, THATS FUNNY. you have yet to give an intelligent and non-"talking point" response to anything. you are simply a tool of the media and liberal education system.

[ QUOTE ]
If all your intrested in is shooting off your mouth (and that's all i've seen so far, prove me wrong) then please stop clogging up our forum with your hateful and uninformed, unproductive garbage. if i wanted to hear shouting conservatives repeating the same non-arguments over and over, i could listen to talk radio.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you dont like what i say, thus its garbage. too bad I am write about most of what I say. you refer to me as a conservative talk radio host. i am flattered. that makes me even more sure of the fact that i am right and you are an idiot.

[ QUOTE ]

I mean, c'mon. really. try a little.

[/ QUOTE ]

i mean, c'mon. really. think for YOURSELF.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
You know, it's hard to get blood on your hands from your living room watching the news.

[/ QUOTE ]
You also don't get blood on your hands by sending your followers on killing sprees in suburban LA, but few people would question the propriety of applying the term to Charles Manson. Not that I think Tom is anything close to Manson, but if you concede that he's a citizen actively participating in a democracy, the implication that he's powerless and without resonsibility is self-contradictory and absurd. All Americans of voting age, including me, bear responsibility for the suffering our government has imposed on Iraq.

I'm not complaining about his "watching the news" but about his outspoken support for an elective war and his assistance in giving power to those who engineered it so that the war and all its cruel and foreseeable consequences would occur.

[ QUOTE ]
Some terrorist groups were fired up by the invasion. That puts no culpability on arm chair pundits.

[/ QUOTE ]
Everyone, even "arm chair pundits," is responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their conduct, including the actions of others that they incite, authorize or support.

[ QUOTE ]
We can tell you're angry about the war. But those who believed it would effect some good aren't just a bunch of evil 'Merikans who want to kill Arabs you know.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm angry that so many Americans casually justify burning thousands of children with phrases like "it would effect some good." If I said the same to justify burning American children it would unleash a torrent of justified condemnation, all sorts of sputtering rage about the species of moral monster who so casually justify that sort of unfathomable cruelty. Who thinks those who helped the 9/11 terrorists should be excused if they believed it "would effect some good?"

If the President proposes burning children, the "conservative" response amounts to dogmatic insistence that any reason he offers must be assumed to be valid. As the the facts and evidence emerge and tend to undermine official claims, conservatives revert to a pathologically stubborn refusal to consider in good faith anything that expose their assumptions as absurd, contradictory or simply false. And when it becomes too obvious to debate, when the officials finally admit that the reality they conjured up never existed, conservatives give them a warm embrace anyway (must have been "bad intelligence" or some other morally neutral failure), ignore the suffering that's resulted and get on with the business of spewing "outrage" over the other guy's absence of moral character, precisely what Tom has done here.

[jaxmike]

such a naieve and unenlightened point of view.

face it, Bush is doing a good job. the war was justified and the situation is starting to come around and getting better.

there was no preemptive about the war, the war was a result of insolence and failure to live up to agreements. the "toture" described was far from torture.

[jaxmike]

at this point i am not sure who has killed more iraqis, US troops or the terrorists there.

[jaxmike]

you really need to get deprogrammed.

[CORed]

Let's just say I have some healthy skepticism about whether this demonstration is real or a media event. If real, it's a very encouraging sign. As much as I disagree with the decision to invade Iraq, I would still much rather see us succeed than fail. As far as what the Iraqi people want. I don't know that, you don't know that, nobody knows that. The elections got a pretty good turnout, all things considered, which is a good sign. However, the necessary condition for a democracy to work is not to have majority support. It is for minorities to be willing to abide by the will of the majority (or for the majority to have sufficient miltary stregnth to force them to abide). That hasn't happened yet, and it may not. I don't have any faith in public opinion polls conducted in Iraq. It think any Iraqi smart enough to have survived Saddaam Hussein's rule is going to tell a pollster what he thinks they want to hear, not what he really thinks.

[tolbiny]

"It is for minorities to be willing to abide by the will of the majority (or for the majority to have sufficient miltary stregnth to force them to abide"


The other side of this is that the majority has to rule in such a way that is acceptable (to some degree) to the minorities. (by this i would mean the minorities as a larger group- ie the shi'ites as a majority of their minority, and not the insurgency)

[jaxmike]

here we go again.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's just say I have some healthy skepticism about whether this demonstration is real or a media event.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you don't want it to be real because that would mean that you and your ignorant idols are wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
If real, it's a very encouraging sign.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's real, listen to the people that are there, not the talking heads on T.V.

[ QUOTE ]
As much as I disagree with the decision to invade Iraq, I would still much rather see us succeed than fail.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate the fact that I doubt you really wish to see us succeed.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as what the Iraqi people want. I don't know that, you don't know that, nobody knows that. The elections got a pretty good turnout, all things considered, which is a good sign. However, the necessary condition for a democracy to work is not to have majority support.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people want freedom, they came out by the millions to tell you that. "Pretty good turnout"? Thats funny, can't you just admit that it was a MASSIVE turnout? The condition for a democracy to work is to have majority support, but still allow minority groups to have a say. That IS present.

[ QUOTE ]
It is for minorities to be willing to abide by the will of the majority (or for the majority to have sufficient miltary stregnth to force them to abide).

[/ QUOTE ]

Democracies should not depend on a military to force obedience.

[ QUOTE ]
That hasn't happened yet, and it may not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think that most of the minority groups are indeed ready to work on a government. In fact, I would say the terrorists are just about the only major group opposed to it.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have any faith in public opinion polls conducted in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they disagree with what you want to believe?

[ QUOTE ]
It think any Iraqi smart enough to have survived Saddaam Hussein's rule is going to tell a pollster what he thinks they want to hear, not what he really thinks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doubt it. They know what freedom means now. It's contagious. The will of the people of Iraq, like all people, is for freedom.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
sorry for being honest, i know ignorant liberals do not like that quality.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you were honest, you would admit that you either A: didn't know what you were talking about, or B: actually learned something when you were corrected.

instead, you backpedal and reinterpret your original statement. it's there for everyone to see, clear as day.

"I'd rather drown than call out for help" -Lichtenstien. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]

if you were honest, you would admit that you either A: didn't know what you were talking about, or B: actually learned something when you were corrected.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? Not one thing that you said "corrected" me or proved me wrong in any way shape or form.

[ QUOTE ]
instead, you backpedal and reinterpret your original statement. it's there for everyone to see, clear as day.

[/ QUOTE ]

re read what I wrote. I, if anything, simply clarified what I meant. I did not backpedal or reinterpret. I reasserted what I believed may be the case, but as originally, didn't gaurantee to be correct. if i am wrong i am wrong, its simply something i was thinking about.

[bholdr]

he he. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[jaxmike]

very insightful post. on the same intellectual level with your others.