US Occupation of Iraq

LeoXiao · Post by **LeoXiao** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:31 am

Today as I was walking home from school I saw that some guys had put about 150,000 little flags on the ground (some grassy areas on a college campus), spread out about 2.5 blocks. A little patch about 3 square meters was covered in red flags, whereas the remaining was covered in white ones. I read one of the signs the guys had around their work and found out that each red flag represented 5 US deaths and each white one at least 5 Iraqi ones.

600,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the chaos, and about 4000 Americans. Although it is bad that we've lost a few thousand troops for a lie that has cost the US 3 trillion bucks, I think we really need to think about the civilian cost here. Nobody has benefited from the war, except maybe the defense industries and terrorists.

Anybody who thinks the Iraq war was "showing balls" or "defending freedom" and that liberals are "a bunch of pussies" really needs to get their facts straight.

Aside from the 600,000 number, the amount of money it's costing the US government is unbelievable. I'm sure the all the oil and defense industries are happy that they didn't have to pay for the war.

What are your opinions on it?

KiLlEr · Post by **KiLlEr** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:52 pm

KiLlEr's ramblings which shouldn't be taken to heart as his argument, but rather a certain point of view often left out. With the exception of this italicized block and the first sentence, his real views and beliefs he knows well to keep to himself. His views are also differ in some of the points than what he wrote here, emblazoned with sarcasm, with hopes that it is an entertaining read. His views also change as he absorbs more information, this is called evolution (while others may call it flip-flopping). I can't help it as I'm Hungarian. There is a saying, listen in on a conversation between 3 Hungarians, and you'll hear 6 different points of view.

While I do not support the concept of War. Remember:

1) Saddam killed millions. Had he not been removed from power, he would have continued.
2) The US lost about 4,500 on D-Day alone. Civilian Casualties in WW2? Millions (220,000 Civilians died when we dropped the Atomic bombs on Japan alone).
3) Then we have Kosovo where "Altogether, more than 11,000 deaths have been reported to Carla Del Ponte by her prosecutors."
4) 2,998 Civilians died in the World Trade Center.

The only thing I can say is that we Humans are really good at killing each other, and we don't need much of a reason to do so.

One other thing, in regards to the 600,000 dead. What are they including in that figure? Are they including the resistance (the insurgents or terrorists)? are they including the Iraqis killed by Sadam? Statistical figures are a problematic thing as you can warp them to support anything you want. Kinda like how a group enraged Pres. Roosevelt to the point that he went on a nationwide rampage on improving education by showing him the "cold hard statistics" that more than half the nation is below average intelligence. It is shocking to see how people can bend numbers to support their views. (*u*)

Be shocked: 2,397,615 people died in the US last year!!!
Imagine if Canada invaded, what kind of response that number would bring. But since we are not in the middle of turmoil at home (which is about as true as the world is flat), no one pays mind to it and evokes a reaction of "meh, so what? More importantly, who was voted off (fill in your favorite not-quite-reality show here) last night?" in the average.

More importantly, should the US be involved with foreign wars? Maybe its is better to go back to the practice of isolationism? That work out well before (sic). At that point we shouldn't get involved with Rowanda, or fight for women's human rights:

"As a direct result of inequalities found in their countries of origin, women from Ukraine, Moldova, Nigeria, the Dominican Republic, Burma, and Thailand are bought and sold, trafficked to work in forced prostitution, with insufficient government attention to protect their rights and punish the traffickers. In Guatemala, South Africa, and Mexico, women's ability to enter and remain in the work force is obstructed by private employers who use women's reproductive status to exclude them from work and by discriminatory employment laws or discriminatory enforcement of the law. In the U.S., students discriminate against and attack girls in school who are lesbian, bi-sexual, or transgendered, or do not conform to male standards of female behavior. Women in Morocco, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia face government-sponsored discrimination that renders them unequal before the law - including discriminatory family codes that take away women's legal authority and place it in the hands of male family members - and restricts women's participation in public life."

Where would you draw the line? Talks? if they don't work, move towards Sanctions that trigger economic destabilization which cause the poor to starve and the rich to laugh? If that doesn't work, then what? Give up? Or do we rampage in like a bulldozer,running over everything and everyone, killing and destroying until we capture the corrupted official, to whom we give a proper and fair trial. I think there is a bit of a problem with that logic... Iraq is not the only example, WWII (aka The World War Act 2, after a brief intermission) ended the same way. After all, we have to show the world how fair we are after a brief round of depopulation.

I find the arguments between "liberals" and "conservatives" amusing. Even if the world becomes Communist, and Islam the accepted religion, it won't solve anything. Neither would making the world Democratic and Atheist. The problem is self-interest. Religion and Government are just tools to control the masses to serve the self-interests of a few by using them, and the media is used to spread propaganda and control the information accessible by the masses. If you think the news is unbiased, or you think you can get all sides by watching different TV channels or reading different sources, you are still missing out on a lot. There is a reason why Brittney Spears is the center of attention, and American Idol gets more people voting than the presidential elections. (-_-) Its a sad thing.

The war in Iraq isn't ^&#@^@ up, we were @^#%@ up looooooong before we walked on two feet.

JelliCelli · Post by **JelliCelli** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 2:53 pm

LeoXiao · Post by **LeoXiao** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:57 am

Dude, that post was awesome.

One other thing, in regards to the 600,000 dead. What are they including in that figure? Are they including the resistance (the insurgents or terrorists)? are they including the Iraqis killed by Sadam? Statistical figures are a problematic thing as you can warp them to support anything you want. Kinda like how a group enraged Pres. Roosevelt to the point that he went on a nationwide rampage on improving education by showing him the "cold hard statistics" that more than half the nation is below average intelligence. It is shocking to see how people can bend numbers to support their views. (*u*)

If Saddam killed millions, then the number would be in the millions. I'm guessing that the 600000 includes those killed as a result of the sudden loss of infrastructure, resistance groups, and US bombings. Remember that the Us military did bomb the Iraq water supply in the early stages of the war; that could lead to significant problems.

1) Saddam killed millions. Had he not been removed from power, he would have continued.

He stopped killing millions when the US stopped supporting him and giving him chemical weapons.

His views also change as he absorbs more information, this is called evolution (while others may call it flip-flopping). I can't help it as I'm Hungarian. There is a saying, listen in on a conversation between 3 Hungarians, and you'll hear 6 different points of view.

Haha, this is funny, and very true.

Anonz · Post by **Anonz** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 9:34 pm

KiLlEr wrote: I find the arguments between "liberals" and "conservatives" amusing. Even if the world becomes Communist, and Islam the accepted religion, it won't solve anything. Neither would making the world Democratic and Atheist. The problem is self-interest. Religion and Government are just tools to control the masses to serve the self-interests of a few by using them, and the media is used to spread propaganda and control the information accessible by the masses. If you think the news is unbiased, or you think you can get all sides by watching different TV channels or reading different sources, you are still missing out on a lot. There is a reason why Brittney Spears is the center of attention, and American Idol gets more people voting than the presidential elections. (-_-) Its a sad thing.

amen to that

well, in my opinion, it doesn't matter how much of a tyrant saddam was before we went in since that didn't factor into our decision to invade. While wars in general are complicated situations which really have no answer, there is tremendous evidence suggesting that the Bush administration misrepresented the truth about a threat posed by Saddam in order to convince America to go to war. I MEAN COME ON!! Bush has changed his story 20,000,000,000 times. First it was the WMDs, then liberating the Iraqi people, and now it's about terrorism and September 11th. I wonder how many people even remember that we're still at war with the people responsible for 9/11 in Afganistan!! Not IRAQ!!!

I'm not gonna say that all republicans are wrong or all democrats are wrong, cuz quite frankly, none of them know how to do anything but blow smoke. Mr. Bush, however, gives me one hell of a headache.

cullenk · Post by **cullenk** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:33 pm

I find the whole "Bush Lied and People Died" a tiresome and simplistic bit of sloganeering. To say that President Bush cooked the whole thing up flies in the face of the facts. Such arch right-wing conservatives as Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and the intelligence agencies of most of the NATO allies were saying that Saddam posed a serious threat years before Bush was ever elected.

Frankly the whole thing could been avoided if Hussein would have come clean about what he had or didn't have. He is a classic example of being too clever by half. If you still have an open mind about things read http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/ ... 9494.shtml

According to the FBI agent who gained his trust during his post-war captitivity, Hussein WANTED the world to think he had WMDs in order to keep Iran off balance. He made the miscalculation that the US and UK would talk tough and do nothing. I also think he thought he had paid off enough of European and UN officials with "Food for Oil" cash to forestall a war. Say what you will about the guy, he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

I do agree with sentiment that regardless of what type of political system dominates the world, there will always be wars. It is, I think, hard-coded in the species at some level.

I disagree with the notion that there is no substantial difference between totalitarian forms of government and democratic/representative republic forms of government. Unfortunately, too many people who live in democracies don't take the time to learn about the underpinning philosophies that are at the core of their own system of government, and are too often, spoon-fed warmed-over concepts from Marxism and Fabian Socialism by lazy high school and college teachers, and, significantly, a leftist-leaning mass media. To be sure, there is a lot of propaganda out there. The trick is develop some critical thinking skills, and diversify who you listen to and what you read.

People tend to get too caught up in the arguments between conservative and liberals, and ignore the greater issues of individual liberty. To say that it would make no difference to most people if the world became Communist, Nazi, or under the rule of radical Islam, ignores the fact that under totalitarian regimes there has been a tendency for large numbers of the population to be subjected to wholesale slaughter. Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot killed millions of their citizens. Millions!

I might not agree with what the Mooks in Washington D.C. are up to at any given time, but as things stand now, I know they don't have the power to load me and mine up in cattle cars and ship us off to the gas chambers. The trick is to keep it that way.

Anonz · Post by **Anonz** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:02 am

every point that anyone makes is going to fly in the face of facts. Issues like these have tremendous complexity. Even if Saddam Hussain bragged about WMDs, his calculation that the US would do nothing should have been correct. Bush was looking for a reason to invade for a number of reasons and all he needed was a simple excuse. Dictators use bully tactics all the time, Iraq wasn't special except that Bush had ulterior motives.
(when i say Bush, i really mean his entire administration and those who he is politically associated with)

I'll be more specific the next time i post, but right now I'm tired and not feeling particularly well.

LeoXiao · Post by **LeoXiao** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:25 am

People tend to get too caught up in the arguments between conservative and liberals, and ignore the greater issues of individual liberty. To say that it would make no difference to most people if the world became Communist, Nazi, or under the rule of radical Islam, ignores the fact that under totalitarian regimes there has been a tendency for large numbers of the population to be subjected to wholesale slaughter. Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot killed millions of their citizens. Millions!

I might not agree with what the Mooks in Washington D.C. are up to at any given time, but as things stand now, I know they don't have the power to load me and mine up in cattle cars and ship us off to the gas chambers. The trick is to keep it that way.

Yeah, I really hate how so many people overlook the evils of communism and fascism while still denouncing the Us as being "the great Satan." Our government is bad, very corrupt, but at least we can say what we want without being killed for it.

On the other hand, it's up to difference to keep the above statements true.

Chief Petty Officer Klerk · Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:41 pm

Oil...nuff said.

KiLlEr · Post by **KiLlEr** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:40 pm

cullenk wrote:To say that it would make no difference to most people if the world became Communist, Nazi, or under the rule of radical Islam, ignores the fact that under totalitarian regimes there has been a tendency for large numbers of the population to be subjected to wholesale slaughter. Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot killed millions of their citizens. Millions!

I didn't ignore the facts, I thought that I was quite clear. My point was that regardless of religion, political or economic systems, self-interest will corrupt them equally. Hitler was ELECTED with full approval of the very citizens they later killed. These individuals then overturned the political system (some in more violent ways than others) either by exploitation of the rules the political system already had in place or by revolution, and by playing upon the suffering of the people to vilify the current ruling party. Once a party is in place, and the party is an evil one, THEN do you have the aftereffect of millions of citizens dying. I hate to look like a total nerd, but Palpatine's rise to power, the dissolving of the republic, and the birth of the empire followed by the wanton destruction of several planets, is a nice Hollywood version of such a progression. ("So this is how democracy dies, with thunderous applause" is an ominous quote indeed.) Identifying that a form of government, an economic system, or a religion is evil because of the outcome and ignore how such a thing came into existence and the individuals involved is just looking at less than half of the problems/issues at hand. Furthermore, NOT identifying the root cause of such progression will insure that it can/will take place here in the US, since there will be no way to avoid it until it is too late.

This can happen here as well, its a thought-provoking read if anyone is curious: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff191.html

Although I don't support it, it was fascinating and raised some interesting points. But I do wonder how much a professor of Finance knows about every detail of political law.

Edit:
I also wonder if people realize that "Separation of Church and State" is being used to stifle the individual's right to publicly practice their religion (i.e. the suspension of students who were using the lunchroom for bible study) which is happening in this country. More and more do I see people pushing for laws making religion a private matter and making public displays of its practice illegal. A township by me is now in a legal battle where a group in the town legislature passed a law which punishes homeowners who display religious artifacts and lighting during the holidays with a $500 fine, under the guise that it is distracting to drivers. The argument is although the displays are on private property, they are publicly viewable, and therefore a hazard to drivers. Apparently this was on the heals of car accidents and homeowner complaints due to people driving around and looking at decorated houses.

Also, I wonder if people realize that the right to freedom of speech is now becoming more restrictive as we ask the government to pass laws to limit the types of speech by adding terms like "hate speech". Its not far a jump from "Hate Speech" being a racial-centric notion to "Hate Speech" being a political-centric notion. I had an interesting conversation with a coworker just before about how the government should pass a law which would make terms like "nappy headed ho" punishable by law. This person did not realize that doing so would set a dangerous precedent in limiting freedom of speech via laws. The offending individuals can be punished by other means, such as boycotts of the station and its affiliates as well as companies using the station and affiliates as advertisement. I do agree that Hate Speech is a bad thing and Mr. Imus is a first class A**hole, but I do not agree with limiting free speech.

I'm rambling. LOL all this from asking about the occupation of Iraq.

I suppose this only shows how deeply rooted a problem we have in this country. Although I don't think making the current regime the target of issues that have plagued this nation for years on end will fix things. And I'm even more afraid that the next president will just make things worse by continuing with it, or making a sudden u-turn.

Unfortunately now that we're there we can't exactly leave anytime soon. Unless we leave the Iraqi people to the wolves with no stable government to defend them.

LeoXiao · Post by **LeoXiao** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 7:24 pm

Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin were ELECTED with full approval of the very citizens they later killed.

Actually only Hitler, but I get the point you're trying to make.

I also wonder if people realize that "Separation of Church and State" is being used to stifle the individual's right to publicly practice their religion

Yes. I can also easily imagine the scenario you presented.

I'm glad that there are smart people out tehre. [/code]

KiLlEr · Post by **KiLlEr** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 7:52 pm

LeoXiao wrote: Actually only Hitler, but I get the point you're trying to make.

Oops, you are correct. Editorial error on my part. LOL

I fixed it.

LeoXiao wrote: I'm glad that there are smart people out tehre.

Let's hope there are enough of us to make the right decisions.

cullenk · Post by **cullenk** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:52 pm

I think KiLlEr makes some very good points. However, I don't think anyone in the Bush administration was looking for a war until 9-11. After that, I think Hussein's "in your face" rhetoric and flaunting of UN Sanctions became too much. If ever anyone called fire down on his own position, it was Hussein.

In any case, let's agree to disagree on that point ( a concept that is becoming rarer and rarer in the current environment of political discourse).

I agree with your assessment of the twisting of the concept of Separation of Church and State. My interpretation of the First Amendment is that the government can't STOP you from practicing your chosen religion and can't set up another state-sponsored church such as the Church of England. But, as KiLIER points out, some people take that to extremes and interpret it to mean the govenment must stamp out all expressions of faith within spitting distance of anything related to the government (public schools, court houses, parks, etc.)

Robert Heinlein wrote a very good novel back in the 50s, "If This Goes On, in which, through democratic means, the United States became a theocracy. It was a good "what-if" exercise in how things could swing too far to the other extreme in this country.

In short, I think the US government was established in a Libertarian model to be more or less "Religion Neutral". Worship how you like and let your neighbor do the same.

I also agree with KiLlEr the other part of the First Amendment is also under siege. Fewer and fewer people seem to understand that if you limit the speech of someone that you personally find obnoxious, it becomes very easy for someone else to limit your own freedom of speech. What is troublesome to me is that most of the people eager to carve away at the First Amendment do it with the best of intentions. "Campaign Finance Reform," for instance was a feel-good term that limits the speech of big nasty rich corporations. Everybody is for that right? But what if that well-intentioned bit of speech control sets the precedent for limiting someone else's liberty in some other context?

Aside from the Freedom of Speech implications, the concept of "Hate Speech" is based, I think, on the rather scary notion that the government should be able to control what someone THINKS. How does the government tell the difference between speech that is merely objectionable and that which is "Hate"? Scary stuff...

Okay, that's all. From now on, I promise to limit my posts to important things, such as whether or not Mithiril should adopt the new digital pattern camoflauge...

Post by **Taurec** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:04 pm

KiLlEr wrote: Let's hope there are enough of us to make the right decisions.

49% didn't seem enough... at the previous election.

LeoXiao · Post by **LeoXiao** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:10 am

Not all democrats are smart people, however.

@ Cullenk= Nice extrapolation on Killer's idea, though I'm not too sure about the war theory. Seems like the whole thing was done for oil companies to profit, not because of Hussein at all.